[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11496-11502]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX ACT OF 2000

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3859) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
protect Social Security and Medicare surpluses through strengthened 
budgetary enforcement mechanisms, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3859

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare 
     Lock-box Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to--
       (1) ensure that social security trust fund surpluses shall 
     be used to pay down the debt held by the public until social 
     security reform legislation is enacted; and
       (2) ensure that the projected surplus of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall be used to pay down the 
     debt held by the public until medicare reform legislation is 
     enacted.

     SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) Points of Order To Protect Social Security Surpluses.--
     Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Points of Order To Protect Social Security 
     Surpluses.--
       ``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not 
     be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     set forth an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year.
       ``(2) Subsequent legislation.--Except as provided by 
     paragraph (3), it shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
       ``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       ``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       ``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report,
     would cause or increase an on-budget deficit for any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to social 
     security reform legislation as defined by section 7(1) of the 
     Social Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.
       ``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `on-budget deficit', when applied to a fiscal year, means the 
     deficit in the budget as set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to 
     section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
       (b) Content of Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--
     Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 
     (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) the receipts, outlays, and surplus or deficit in the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, combined, 
     established by title II of the Social Security Act;''.
       (c) Super Majority Requirement.--(1) Section 904(c)(1) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting 
     ``312(g),'' after ``310(d)(2),''.
       (2) Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by inserting ``312(g),'' after 
     ``310(d)(2),''.

     SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) Points of Order To Protect Medicare Surpluses.--Section 
     312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (as amended by 
     section 3) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(h) Points of Order To Protect Medicare Surpluses.--
       ``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not 
     be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or 
     conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would 
     set forth an on-budget surplus for any fiscal year that is 
     less than the projected surplus of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year (as assumed in that 
     resolution).
       ``(2) Subsequent legislation.--Except as provided by 
     paragraph (3), it shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
       ``(A) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
       ``(B) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       ``(C) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the form 
     recommended in that conference report,
     would cause the on-budget surplus for any fiscal year to be 
     less than the projected surplus of the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund (as assumed in the most recently agreed 
     to concurrent resolution on the budget) for that fiscal year 
     or increase the amount by which the on-budget surplus for any 
     fiscal year would be less than such trust fund surplus for 
     that fiscal year.
       ``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to medicare 
     reform legislation as defined by section 7(2) of the Social 
     Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.
       ``(4) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `on-budget surplus', when applied to a fiscal year, means the 
     surplus in the budget as set forth in the most recently 
     agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to 
     section 301(a)(3) for that fiscal year.''.
       (b) Super Majority Requirement.--
       (1) Point of order.--Section 904(c)(1) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (as amended by section 3) is further 
     amended by inserting ``312(h),'' after ``312(g),''.
       (2) Waiver.--Section 904(d)(2) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (as amended by section 3) is further amended by 
     inserting ``312(h),'' after ``312(g),''.

     SEC. 5. REMOVING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM BUDGET PRONOUNCEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the 
     Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal 
     Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the 
     United States Government as submitted by the President or of 
     the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget, 
     and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any 
     official publication or material issued by either of such 
     Offices or any other such agency or instrumentality, shall 
     exclude the outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, 
     and disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund) and the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (b) Separate Social Security Budget Documents.--The 
     excluded outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act shall be submitted in separate Social Security 
     budget documents.

     SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES.

       (a) Social Security.--(1) Chapter 11 of subtitle II of 
     title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding before 
     section 1101 the following:

     ``Sec. 1100. Protection of social security surpluses

       ``The budget of the United States Government submitted by 
     the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
     budget deficit for any fiscal year covered by that budget 
     unless it includes proposed legislative language for social 
     security reform legislation as defined by section 7(1) of the 
     Social Security and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000.''.

[[Page 11497]]

       (2) The chapter analysis for chapter 11 of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting before the item relating 
     to section 1101 the following:

``1100. Protection of Social Security Surpluses.''.
       (b) Medicare.--(1) Chapter 11 of subtitle II of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1100 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 1100A. Protection of medicare surpluses

       ``The budget of the United States Government submitted by 
     the President under this chapter shall not recommend an on-
     budget surplus for any fiscal year that is less than the 
     projected surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
     Fund for that fiscal year unless it includes proposed 
     legislative language for medicare reform legislation as 
     defined by section 7(2) of the Social Security and Medicare 
     Lock-box Act of 2000 or social security reform legislation as 
     defined by section 7(1) of that Act.''.
       (2) Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 11 
     of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1100 the following:

``1100A. Protection of Medicare Surpluses.''.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Social security reform legislation.--The term ``social 
     security reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint 
     resolution to save social security and includes a provision 
     stating the following: ``For purposes of the Social Security 
     and Medicare Lock-box Act of 2000, this Act constitutes 
     social security reform legislation to save social 
     security.''.
       (2) Medicare reform legislation.--The term ``medicare 
     reform legislation'' means a bill or a joint resolution to 
     save Medicare and includes a provision stating the following: 
     ``For purposes of the Social Security and Medicare Lock-box 
     Act of 2000, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation 
     to save medicare.''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act shall take effect upon the date 
     of its enactment and the amendments made by this Act shall 
     apply to fiscal year 2001 and subsequent fiscal years.
       (b) Expiration.--(1) Sections 301(a)(6) and 312(g) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall expire upon the 
     enactment of social security reform legislation.
       (2) Section 312(h) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     shall expire upon the enactment of medicare reform 
     legislation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3859.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years, surplus dollars in the Social 
Security Trust Fund were raided and spent on unrelated programs. Last 
year, this Congress took the first step towards stopping the raid on 
Social Security bypassing legislation I introduced, the Social Security 
lock box, by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. Our efforts paid off, and 
last year, not one penny of the $124 billion Social Security surplus 
was spent.
  But Social Security is not the only trust fund to be raided over the 
years. Over the next 5 years, taxpayers will pay an estimated $126 
billion more into the Medicare trust fund part A which pays for in-
patient hospital care than will be taken out for Medicare expenses. 
Without a Medicare lock box, those surpluses will be spent.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to raise the bar and protect Medicare. The 40 
million seniors and disabled in this Nation that depend on Medicare 
deserve to know that their Medicare money is not being spent on 
anything else.
  In March, I introduced the Medicare lock Box we are debating today. 
Through a point of order, this Medicare lock box prohibits the 
consideration of any legislation that spends any of the Medicare part A 
surplus. The Medicare lock box also prevents Medicare surpluses from 
being intermingled with the rest of the budget. Additionally, under 
this measure the protected Medicare surpluses will go towards paying 
down public debt, accelerating our efforts to pay off the public debt 
by 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a win-win. It is a win for fiscal 
discipline, it is a win for fairness in budgeting and, most 
importantly, it is a win-win for our seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for our seniors and vote for the 
Medicare lock box.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the Vice President introduced the idea of 
taking the Medicare part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund off budget, 
putting it off budget completely. There was no such plan on the other 
side. Their budget resolution, which they pushed through 2 months ago, 
used all of the projected surpluses, including the Medicare surplus for 
tax cuts and a few program increases. To the extent that anyone 
deserves credit here, I think we should say the Vice President has 
initiated an idea which the Republican majority is today embracing, but 
in a different form. They do not go as far as he proposes.
  The version of this bill that is before us now was not drafted until 
last night. It was not introduced or referred to the Committee on 
Budget, which has jurisdiction. Section 306 of the Budget Act gives us 
jurisdiction specifically over this kind of legislation. We have not 
held hearings, we have not taken testimony, and our debate is limited 
to 40 minutes without any amendments in order.
  For that reason, I would like to put some questions to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger), who is the sponsor of the bill, if he 
would answer them for clarification and for legislative history.
  Why does the gentleman propose not to take the Medicare part A Trust 
Fund off budget as the Vice President proposed? Why has the gentleman 
elected not to take it off budget and have a clean separation between 
it and the rest of the budget?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, my original bill actually did take it off 
budget. That is what I would like to see done eventually. However, as 
the gentleman knows, I did pass legislation last year, which I believe 
the gentleman supported, on taking Social Security off budget which we 
cannot even get out of the Senate, which the Vice President seems to be 
opposing his President on over there. So what we are doing is taking it 
one step at a time.
  I might mention that even though it passed here overwhelmingly, and 
even though the Vice President, who brought this out 2 weeks ago, and I 
congratulated him, I authored it last March, it is better to come late 
than not come at all, and I am glad he is joining us.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman begs the 
question. If this is what we did with Social Security in order to 
protect it, why not do the same with Medicare? Has the gentleman made a 
compromise?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, why do we not pass this first, and then we 
will do it next year.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, section 3(b) of the gentleman's bill adds a 
new requirement to the congressional budget resolution. It requires the 
resolution to show receipts, outlays, and surpluses of deficits in the 
Old Age and Survivors, OASDI Social Security Trust Fund. This is a new 
requirement, for since 1991, budget resolutions have excluded Social 
Security. Why does the gentleman now require budget resolutions to show 
the Social Security surplus when, for a decade, they have been 
prohibited from showing the Social Security surplus?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will again yield, I believe 
we need to do that, because as the gentleman knows, during the years 
that the Democrats controlled this House for over 40 years that these 
surpluses were spent, they were counted as part of the ongoing budget. 
So the intention is to separate them, to actually determine what is 
being spent and what is

[[Page 11498]]

not being spent, so that we can hold each of our Members, 435 here in 
the House and 100 in the Senate, responsible if they vote for spending 
that goes into that. That is why we want it separate.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is not 
separating them. That is just the point. By putting them back in the 
budget, the gentleman is undercutting the whole idea of having Social 
Security off budget. It boggles my mind why the gentleman would want to 
do that, when the idea is to separate these accounts and treat them 
differently from the ordinary accounts of the budget.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was 1985 that we 
passed the law to take Social Security off budget; and as everybody is 
aware, even with that designation, we continued to spend the Social 
Security surplus. So it would seem to me, I would say to the gentleman, 
it is not how the gentleman might construct it where we put these 
numbers, but it is the final decision whether we spend the money or 
not.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the problem we have is 
that section 3(b) requires that the congressional budget resolution 
show receipts, outlays, and surpluses in the OASDI trust fund, while 
section 5 prohibits it. Am I correct? I had to ask staff to make sure I 
am correctly interpreting that. Why the contradiction? Is this a result 
of midnight compromises made on how this bill was to be drafted?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further to me, 
again, looking back since 1935, almost all of those years were 
controlled by the Democrats. These were, number one, being spent and 
were included as part of the budget.
  My ultimate goal is to do as we did last year with Social Security 
and take it completely off budget. My concern is, because of opposition 
on the gentleman's side and the fact that the Vice President evidently, 
and Senator Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, are not allowing us 
to vote on it over there, we thought we would take it one step at a 
time.
  The first step would be that at least we were not going to count it, 
that it would be secluded, that we would see the number and it would 
have to be reported as a separate number, taking that as a half a loaf, 
and then come back next year, which I can assure the gentleman I am 
going to do, and go with the rest of the loaf to make sure it is 
completely off budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just to say in 
conclusion that we will take the whole loaf. If the gentleman wants to 
go with setting it off completely, we will vote for that; and we do not 
understand why the gentleman has not gone that far.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Members are reminded that they 
should not criticize positions of Members of the other body during the 
debate.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What our goal is, since 1935, we have been spending both Social 
Security and the Medicare part of Social Security on ongoing programs. 
I am very grateful that we have a bipartisan bill here, we have Members 
of the other party; and I am very grateful for the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), who has been working with us on our last bill last year 
and this one this year; and the goal is that we not spend it, and that 
is what we are attempting to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith), who has spent many, many hours working on Social Security; and 
I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a good start. We need to 
remind ourselves that simply not spending the money does not fix the 
solvency problem of Social Security or fix the solvency problem of 
Medicare. Mostly because of demographics, the actuaries have determined 
that both of these programs are going broke, the challenge is, where do 
we get that money to keep the commitment we have made to seniors that 
those promised benefits are going to be there.
  I think all Members can support this kind of legislation that 
encourages not spending any of the Social Security or Medicare surplus 
money on other government programs. This commitment is going to help 
some with the huge problem of keeping Social Security and Medicare 
solvent.
  I was hoping in this presidential election that we could come debate 
real specifics in terms of how we are going to save Social Security and 
Medicare. Sadly, it would be demagogued because it is so easy to scare 
the seniors that depend on these programs. This President, I think, had 
a unique opportunity to lead us, in the last three years to keep Social 
Security solvent forever. That did not happen, and now we are hoping 
that the next President will do that. I congratulate the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) for moving us ahead, at least in the effort to 
encourage this Congress to have some fiscal responsibility, fiscal 
discipline, of not using the Social Security surplus or the H I trust 
fund surplus for either tax cuts or for spending on other government 
programs. That is good.
  Mr. Speaker, for the record, I have introduced legislation that 
provides a sequester if we were to use either of these trust fund 
surpluses for either of those purposes. So anybody that would like to 
join me in cosponsoring H.R. 4694, I welcome their cosponsorship. Let 
us pass Mr. Herger's bill. Let us make it unanimous, and let us have 
the courage and fiscal discipline we need to save these two important 
programs.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to come out here on 
press release day and to see what the majority has got in mind for 
press releases for the weekend.
  As I look at this, this is a bill that reminds me of an automobile. I 
remember there was an automobile called the Pinto, and it was out there 
and it kept exploding and burning and people got in a terrible mess, so 
they had a recall.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, this is a recalled bill, because the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) passed the bill last year to protect social security. By 
George, we passed it 414 or whatever it was out of here. Now here we 
are back fixing it.
  What was the matter with the one we did last year? Was it the fact 
that they left out Medicare, and the Vice President said that we ought 
to take Medicare off-budget, too, like the President said in his State 
of the Union message? Was it those issues that finally lead to, well, 
as soon as the Vice President said it, the next thing we know we have 
this bill here? It is the history of this bill.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, and I am really serious about this, the reason 
this is a pretend Congress is because nobody on the gentleman's side 
takes this Congress seriously and its procedures when we have a bill 
introduced and it never has a hearing, never has a hearing, no 
testimony whatsoever, and then suddenly the Committee on Rules meets 
all by itself and they pop a bill out that is not even the one that was 
introduced into the Congress, so it has had no hearings in the 
Committee on the Budget, who is going to have to work with us in the 
future.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I have sat there 
and watched this process, and this is going to make it even worse 
because we are having bills introduced affecting that committee by 
members of the Committee on Rules who apparently, I do not know, they 
must have had some revelation come down from heaven in the dark of the 
night that this was the bill.
  The Congressional Budget Act prohibits that, specifically prohibits 
bills being considered on the floor of the House that have not been 
considered in the committee that handles them, the Committee on the 
Budget. So they broke the rules of their own Congress. It is like, 
well, those are just rules, who cares, right?

[[Page 11499]]

  In doing so, they do things that make no sense at all, because they 
have section 3(b) that says we have to show the social security 
surplus, and we have section 5 that says we cannot show it. Now, we 
cannot have it both ways. We cannot show it and not show it. So they 
did not even take the time last night to even proofread the bill.
  This is a travesty and a joke. The other body will consider it the 
same.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just to quickly respond to the gentleman, again, this legislation was 
authored last March 6. I am pleased that the Vice President came out 2 
weeks ago and does not want to spend social security-Medicare trust 
funds now.
  Really, that is what it is all about, are we going to continue, as 
the last Congresses have for over 30 years, spending social security 
and Medicare trust funds, or are we going to save it just for that?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan), who serves on the Committee on the Budget and has worked on this 
issue very diligently.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for all his hard work. He and I have worked on this issue 
quite a bit in the last Congress, and the gentleman has worked on this 
in prior Congresses. Let us clear this issue up and bring it out of the 
process and the mechanistic talk. What we are talking about here is 
stopping the raid on social security, stopping the raid on Medicare, 
and equipping Congress with the tools to do that.
  Does this bill go all the way and save social security and Medicare? 
No. We are not suggesting it does.
  As a member of the Committee on the Budget, as a new Member of 
Congress, I dedicated my time this year to trying to change the culture 
in Washington. For the last 30 years there has been a culture in 
Washington which has basically said this: If we are going to pay our 
FICA taxes off of our paycheck for social security and Medicare, 
Washington does not care if we pay it for social security and Medicare, 
because Washington is going to take it and spend it on other government 
programs that have nothing to do with social security and Medicare.
  We need to stop those days, Mr. Speaker. We need to stop the days of 
raiding social security, of taking money from Medicare and social 
security and spending it on programs that have nothing to do with it. 
What this bill does is fix the rules in Congress so we do not consider 
that kind of legislation.
  We have a point of order saying we are not going to consider 
legislation if it attempts to raid social security and Medicare. We are 
going to make sure that when we analyze our budgets, when we total up 
the numbers of the Federal Government's budget, we are not counting the 
social security and Medicare trust fund against our deficits or against 
our debts. We are saying, honest accounting, stop the raid on the 
program.
  I have a bill which has some of these provisions in it which stops 
the raid on the social security program indefatigably, stops it by law. 
This bill changes the culture in Congress, a culture that has occurred 
here for 30 years where people would vote for legislation that would 
raid social security.
  The President gave us a budget 2 years ago that took 38 percent of 
social security out of social security and spent it on other government 
programs. We are saying no to that.
  This Congress, this Committee on the Budget, last year stopped the 
raid on social security for the first time in 30 years. We are 
following up on that promise. We are following up on that policy by 
saying that we are changing the culture in Washington. We are changing 
the rules in Congress so when we do legislation here from now on, we 
are not going back to those old days of raiding social security and 
raiding Medicare. If we pay our FICA taxes off of our paycheck, that 
money will go to social security and will go to Medicare, period, end 
of story.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security 
and Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act. I want to commend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) for his work in introducing the 
legislation.
  I was proud to join him in sending out Dear Colleagues twice to our 
colleagues encouraging them to support this legislation. But I must 
say, I am rather disappointed that the gentleman's leadership chose to 
change the legislation significantly last night between the time we 
wrote the letter encouraging them to support it and what we have before 
us today.
  Why they did that only the gentleman and they know. That is not a 
reason for us not to vote for the legislation today. It is still a step 
in the right direction. By creating a firewall around Medicare trust 
fund surpluses to protect these revenues for exclusive use in the 
Medicare program, this bill will take another step forward in 
maintaining fiscal discipline and improving our ability to meet the 
fiscal challenges of the future.
  For the last several years I have joined with my Blue Dog colleagues 
to offer budgets that would truly balance the budget without counting 
either Medicare or social security surpluses. As has already been 
discussed, recently the Vice President put the issue on the national 
agenda by proposing that the newly calculated surpluses be used to take 
Medicare off-budget.
  I want to congratulate those, now the House leadership, for endorsing 
the wisdom of the Blue Dog position and following the Vice President's 
lead on the issue, and following the lead of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), although I must say, I wish the gentleman on 
this side of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, and more on our side 
of the aisle would have seen the wisdom, in voting for our Blue Dog 
budget earlier this year in which we would have already had this done.
  While congratulating my Republican colleagues for bringing this 
legislation to the floor today, I also remind them that this 
legislation applies to both spending increases and tax cuts that would 
dip into the Medicare surplus. Every Member who votes for this 
legislation today and brags about protecting Medicare should keep that 
in mind when talking about either large tax cuts or new spending 
proposals later this year.
  At the moment, the Medicare trust fund is running a surplus. That 
story will change drastically in the next decade when the baby boom 
generation begins retiring and depends on Medicare for their health 
coverage. Rather than consuming current surpluses through large tax 
cuts and new government spending, we should use them to prepare for the 
challenges Medicare faces. That is what we do with this legislation 
today.
  I again repeat, I am disappointed the bill before us was changed last 
night so it no longer excludes the Medicare trust fund from 
calculations of the on-budget surplus, and would allow us to continue 
the practice of using the Medicare surplus to inflate surplus totals. 
It is not as good a bill as the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) 
introduced or that I cosponsored, but it is still a good bill.
  Whether we technically take Medicare off-budget or not, I hope all 
Members will honor the spirit of this legislation and not count the 
Medicare surplus when talking about the amount of surpluses available 
to be divided between tax cuts, increased spending, and debt reduction.
  We are headed in the right direction. We are headed in the right 
direction by agreeing to save the Medicare trust fund surpluses to pay 
down the national debt and protect the long-term solvency of both 
social security and Medicare. However, we should go further by walling 
off some of the on-budget surpluses beyond social security and Medicare 
for debt reduction. Doing so would represent a much stronger commitment 
to paying down our $5.7 trillion national debt.
  Saving a portion of the non-social security and Medicare surpluses 
for debt reduction would start to make up for the years in which we 
borrowed from those surpluses instead of saving them, as we should have 
done. In addition,

[[Page 11500]]

walling off a portion of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction 
provides a cushion if budget projections change for the worse.
  We should not kid ourselves that this legislation alone solves the 
long-term challenges facing Medicare, but until we can reach agreement 
on comprehensive Medicare reforms to put the program on a stronger 
financial footing, the next best thing we can do is pay down the debt 
by saving the entire Medicare surplus.
  I encourage all Members to support this legislation, which is a good 
step forward, and continue to move toward further fiscal 
responsibility. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) for his leadership in this endeavor.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), for his longtime support and work on walling off both social 
security and Medicare.
  Let me just point out again that this does take Medicare off the 
table. It would require a special vote in order to spend anything above 
that. It does not go quite as far as the gentleman from Texas and I 
want to go. Hopefully next year in further Congresses we will do that, 
but I do thank the gentleman for his help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune), and I want to again thank him for his tireless support in 
working in this area.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I thank him for his great leadership on this issue.
  In fact, the gentleman is such a great leader that the Vice President 
has adopted the Herger position for his campaign, which I think speaks 
to the power and potency of this issue.
  Last year, the Republican Congress did the right thing. We said that 
we are going to rope off social security and make sure it does not get 
spent for other purposes, because for far too long in this Congress 
social security and Medicare surpluses and trust funds have been 
Washington's cookie jar to fund all these other programs in government.
  We said last year, categorically, this has to stop. The American 
people deserve better, our seniors deserve better. We made that 
commitment with social security. Unfortunately, the legislation has 
been stalled in the Senate, yet we need to move forward to ensure that 
we have the same level of protection for Medicare, and that is what 
this legislation would do today. Hopefully we can get action on the 
social security lockbox as well as the Medicare lockbox.
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Federal government dipped into Medicare 
by about $21 billion to fund unrelated government spending in other 
areas. We do not need bigger government and we do not need to finance 
bigger government with social security and Medicare payroll taxes, 
taxes that people pay with the expectation that those programs are 
going to be there some day for them.
  What we need is fiscal responsibility, and to provide more security 
for all of Americans' retirement. This bill does just that, and it 
provides the basis and foundation upon which we can build the Medicare 
reform that the gentleman from Texas was talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, my State of South Dakota is a very rural State. It is 
not uncommon in South Dakota to have in a hospital 70 percent of the 
patient load being Medicare-dependent. When Medicare funding is used to 
fund other programs of government, it deprives that important program 
of those funds that are necessary to fund the investment in technology 
to make sure that grandfathers and grandmothers and parents in rural 
areas have access to critical hospitals and to the other health care 
requirements that they have to deal with. So it is important that this 
funding in the Medicare trust fund be protected for just that purpose.
  I signed onto this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because it is the right 
thing to do for America's seniors and it is the right thing to do for 
America's taxpayers. We need to continue to be guardians of these trust 
funds. Before last year, they were raided for some 40 years. It is time 
that we stop the raid on these trust funds and ensure that we are doing 
everything that we can to end the waste, fraud, and abuse in 
government, and to put the additional safeguards in place to ensure 
that social security and Medicare dollars are not stolen to pay the 
other government bills that are wrapped up by this Washington 
government, but that they are locked away and put to the use for which 
they were intended. That is to provide health care for our parents, our 
grandparents, and hopefully some day for our children.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill walls off the surplus in the Medicare Part A 
trust fund. It says in effect that the surplus in the President's 
budget and in the congressional budget resolution should be at least as 
large every year as the Medicare Part A surplus. In addition, of 
course, tax cuts and spending increases could not reach that target.
  The idea of taking the Part A trust fund off the table, not off the 
budget, is a small step forward, because it means that a slightly 
higher share of the projected surpluses over the next 10 years are 
going to be devoted to paying down publicly-held debt. That is good for 
social security, that is good for Medicare, that is good for the 
economy. That is why I voted yes.
  But this is just a small step, a token step, since preserving the 
Medicare surplus does not really extend Medicare solvency for one day. 
Our long-term fiscal situation implies that over the course of the next 
10 years, while we are generating these on-budget surpluses, we should 
be devoting a significant share of them to Medicare solvency, to debt 
reduction, and to social security solvency for the long run.

                              {time}  1445

  That is why I said earlier on the previous bill that we ought to have 
a piece of legislation here which simply says we resolve that now, and 
into the future; we will set aside some fixed percentage of our own 
budget surplus every year for debt reduction or for contribution to 
these trust funds.
  The Clinton administration and our congressional Democratic budget 
resolution devoted more than 40 percent of the projected on-budget 
surplus to debt reduction; and we took $300 billion out of the general 
fund, that is out of the on-budget surplus, and put it in the Medicare 
trust fund in order to extend the solvency of the Medicare program into 
and past 2020. The Blue Dog budget, which was offered as an 
alternative, committed 50 percent of the projected on-budget surplus to 
debt reduction.
  But the Republican plan devoted essentially none of the surplus to 
debt reduction and took none of it, none of it, and put it into 
Medicare where it would ensure, at least extend the solvency of the 
program.
  Unlike the proposal made the other day by Vice-President Gore, as I 
have noted, this bill fails to take the Medicare trust fund off budget. 
It simply takes it off the table or out of the calculation. In 
addition, it has something in it that I would call a trap door. In 
fact, it was in the Social Security legislation, too. Specifically, any 
legislation that identifies itself as Social Security reform or 
Medicare reform, it only has to recite those magic words, ``is 
automatically exempt without further proof from the provisions of this 
lockbox.''
  This is very much like the emergency spending exemption that we have 
got in current law. Any legislation that is designated an emergency by 
somebody, no matter how routine, is exempt from the spending caps. The 
same can happen with Medicare reform and Social Security reform.
  The bill itself says in black letters, all one has got to do is 
recite ``this bill is for Medicare reform, this bill is for Social 
Security reform,'' and, bang, these provisions no longer apply to one.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the majority were really serious about using 
projected surpluses to reduce debt and save and protect Medicare and 
Social Security, then I think they would take this bill, this occasion, 
to repeal section 213 of the budget resolution which

[[Page 11501]]

they passed weeks ago. In just a few weeks, the Congressional Budget 
Office is going to increase its estimate of the projected on-budget 
surpluses by $800 billion, a trillion dollars, maybe $1.2 trillion, 
maybe more.
  Section 213 of their budget resolution will allow the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget to commit, give, devote as much as 100 percent 
of that increase in the projected surplus to the Committee on Ways and 
Means for additional tax cuts instead of debt reduction, instead of 
saving Social Security, instead of protecting Medicare, use 100 percent 
of it for tax reduction.
  If my colleagues were serious about debt reduction, serious about 
protecting Medicare and Social Security, surely, surely we would say 
some of these additional surpluses will be retained, set aside, and 
protected for these essential programs and this essential purpose, and 
that is debt reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just briefly responding to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who mentioned this is at least a small step, I 
really believe this is a major step. It is the first step, because it 
is saying that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we are not 
going to do as previous Congresses have done, the party of the 
gentleman from South Carolina did, for all the years it controlled this 
House, in that they spent it all. They counted it, included it as part 
of the ongoing budget and spent it.
  What we are saying is that this money is being removed from the 
table. We are not going to spend it. We are dedicating it as the first 
step to be used to saving and preserving and improving Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. 
Northup).
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, as a relative newcomer on the block in 
Washington, people ask me all the time in my district if it seems 
different to be in Congress, if Washington is different, if it is 
different than our State legislatures, if it is different than our 
local councils. I always tell them it is astoundingly different; that, 
in fact, there is a culture of spending in Washington that is really 
unmatched anyplace else around this country.
  As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, it is an everyday 
take-your-breath-away experience as I see one amendment after another 
to spend millions, hundreds of millions, billions more dollars.
  In fact, last week, there was an all-day markup that, that day alone, 
Members made proposals to raise spending $10 billion. The culture that 
there is no limit to the dollars, that there is no pain, that there is 
no working family at the other end of those tax dollars that paid that 
money in, in tax dollars and took it out of what they could spend for 
their children has been just an amazing culture for me to behold.
  I am proud to be part of a Congress that is trying to change that 
culture that has been with us for 40 years, that one could spend every 
dollar one could take, and that one could spend it when it is meant for 
future obligations in what feels good today or programs that we have 
today or new ideas that people have, that there is no limit.
  So we are maybe making beginning steps, but they are powerfully 
important. One of them is to take the Medicare dollars off the table 
from what we consider as surplus. For years, we have used Medicare 
dollars to fund new programs and programs that exist that we want to 
put more dollars into.
  What we have done, in essence, is to put an IOU in the cookie jar and 
said, someday, when Medicare needs this money, they can take it out. 
But of course when Medicare opens the cookie jar, there are no assets 
there to pay the bills. We are not going to be able to sell off our 
assets, our airports, our schools, our roads in order to recoup this 
money for Medicare.
  So this bill today, it is for our fathers and our grandparents. It is 
for those who put the money in for so many years when it was not 
respected for the purpose it was expected to be spent for. But it is 
also for our children, our children who want the best for their 
grandparents and for their parents who want to know that they can live 
up to their responsibilities and who we owe them the possibility of a 
program that is solvent enough that they can assume their 
responsibilities.
  I am lucky; I have both of my parents who are 78 who, for years, 
contributed to this country and made their contribution. Let us 
recognize that as we pass this bill today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the colleagues that have come to the 
floor today to support this incredibly important first step toward 
protecting Medicare surpluses. Over the next 5 years, an estimated $126 
billion more will be paid into the Medicare trust fund by taxpayers 
than is currently being taken out for Medicare expenses.
  Our seniors deserve to know that these Medicare surplus dollars are 
not being spent on unrelated programs. The Medicare lock box prohibits 
legislation that spends the Medicare surplus from being considered and 
separates Medicare funds from future budget projections.
  Last year, we locked away the Social Security surplus. Today we have 
the opportunity to take it one step further and protect our seniors' 
Medicare surpluses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill because I think 
basically we should segregate the part A trust fund. But I am going to 
plead the abuse of process before acceding to the bill, because this is 
not the way to make important law.
  As I said earlier, this bill was not drafted, to the best of my 
knowledge, until last night. We did not see it this morning until 10 
o'clock or 11 o'clock. It was not introduced or referred to the 
Committee on the Budget. It did not come through the Committee on 
Rules. The Committee on the Budget has jurisdiction, but we have held 
no hearings on it. We have taken no testimony.
  Now the debate is limited to 40 minutes, and there are no amendments 
in order. That is too bad. The House ought to be able to come out here 
and work its will on a piece of legislation this important. If we were 
allowed to, we could have corrected some of the flaws in the bill. I 
think if we put it to the House as a whole, do we want Medicare taken 
cleanly off budget, it would be an overwhelming yes. We still do not 
know why that compromise was made.
  Secondly, there are glitches in this bill that honest, open debate, 
an amendment, could, number one, ferret out and, number two, correct. 
For example, as I pointed out, section 3(b) adds a new requirement to 
congressional budget resolutions. It requires the resolution to show 
the receipts and outlays and surplus of the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Then section 5 of the same bill flat prohibits any agent or 
instrumentality of the Federal Government from including the Social 
Security surplus in any document that shows the Federal surplus or 
deficit. Any instrumentality. What if we were to do that in a 
newsletter? Are we an instrumentality of the Government? This is a kind 
of drafting error that we could wash out of the bill if we had an 
opportunity to do; but we do not, not on the House floor today.
  This bill requires that Medicare part A be set aside, but it does not 
require the congressional budget resolution specify exactly how much is 
being set aside. That seems to me elementary.

[[Page 11502]]

Why would it not provide that this is the part A trust fund, this is 
the amount we expect, and we are setting it aside, taking it off the 
table, out of calculation.
  So the House has not had an opportunity to do its will, and we are 
passing a bill that is a lot weaker than it could be if we had an 
opportunity to make it better.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a complicated bill. It is very simple. It is 
basically saying that, for the first time in more than 40 years, that 
we are not going to spend the surplus, whatever that surplus is. That 
is, in Medicare and Social Security, we are not going to spend it. Very 
simply, whatever it is, we are not going to spend. It brings about a 
point of order to ensure that we do not.
  Look how far we have come. It was only a few years ago that we were 
looking at deficits of $200 billion and $300 billion, and that did not 
even include the surplus of Social Security or Medicare. Then a few 
years ago, we were reporting $80 billion, $90 billion, $100 billion 
surpluses; but that did include, I am afraid, Medicare and Social 
Security.
  But guess what, those surpluses were only half true. Every penny of 
those surplus dollars were really Social Security dollars. So what did 
we do? We passed a Social Security lock box last year that said that we 
would not spend any of the surplus of Social Security, and that passed. 
Now Congress and the President speak of budget surpluses without Social 
Security being included in it. This amount is estimated to be $40 
billion this year.
  Now we are raising the bar one notch higher. We are saying that we 
are now going to stop raiding Medicare, just as we stopped raiding 
Social Security last year. What we are doing is ensuring that Social 
Security recipients deserve to know that their Medicare dollars are not 
being spent on anything else except Medicare.
  This bill is a win-win. It is a win for fiscal discipline. It is a 
win for Medicare. Most importantly, it is a win for our seniors.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this Medicare and Social Security 
lock box.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that most of 
today's American families can no longer live comfortably on one sole 
income, in fact, most households depend on at least two incomes, and as 
if that wasn't enough, today's American employees average more hours at 
work than employees from other nations.
  It is crystal clear that Americans work hard for their paychecks, 
which is why it is disheartening to know that when a significant 
percentage of their hard earned money is involuntarily removed for a 
Medicare fund, our government will use it as a slush fund to operate 
completely unrelated programs from which our seniors will never 
benefit.
  Our nation's population is rapidly aging and in response to this, 
Congress must make the protection of Medicare dollars a high priority 
in order to deliver healthcare for seniors.
  Our seniors deserve the health care benefits they were promised.
  Our seniors need to know that they will receive adequate healthcare 
when they need it most.
  They need not be terrified, as many are, about whether their doctor 
visits, treatments and even prescriptions will be covered.
  Today, the House of Representatives hopes to put seniors' worries at 
ease as we will vote on H.R. 3859, the Social Security and Medicare 
Safe Deposit Box Act.
  I thank my colleague, Congressman Wally Herger for creating this 
legislation which will reserve Medicare surplus dollars only for 
responsible debt reduction or spending on the Medicare program.
  Soon after today's vote, seniors will no longer need to fear that the 
money set aside for their Medicare and well being will be used as a big 
government slush fund.
  Similarly to the Social Security lock box which passed by a vote of 
417-2 last year, this Medicare lock box is the right thing to do; the 
responsible thing to do.
  Today's vote is the first step in ensuring our nation's seniors that 
they will no longer need to fear about whether they will be taken care 
of in their old age.
  Today, Congress will make history because today we begin the 
guarantee of security in healthcare for our senior citizens.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3859, 
the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 2000, and urge 
my colleagues to join in support of this bill.
  H.R. 3859 amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect the 
net surplus of the Medicare Part A or Social Security trust funds by 
moving them ``off budget.'' Specifically, they may not be counted as 
part of the overall federal surplus by either the President or the 
Congress. The bill further amends the Budget Act of 1974 to allow a 
point of order to protect Social Security surpluses in both the House 
and Senate from legislation whose enactment would either cause or 
increase an on-budget deficit for a fiscal year, with the exception of 
Social Security reform legislation.
  Moreover, H.R. 3859 also makes it out of order for either chamber to 
consider any measure whose enactment would cause the on-budget surplus 
for a fiscal year to be less than the projected surplus of the federal 
hospital insurance trust fund for that fiscal year. This provision 
makes an exception for Medicare reform legislation.
  Finally, H.R. 3859 requires that any statement or official estimate 
issued by the Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management 
and Budget must exclude any surplus in the Social Security trust fund 
when issuing totals of the surplus or deficit of the United States 
Government. The legislation applies to fiscal year 2001 and future 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has made significant strides in the past 
three years with regards to ending the practice of raiding the Social 
Security Trust Fund to mask the true size of the Federal outlays. This 
legislation will ensure that our practice of fiscal restraint will 
continue.
  By approving this bill, the House will demonstrate to the American 
people its commitment to protecting the long term solvency of both the 
Social Security and Medicare systems. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to lend it their strong support.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 3859, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________

                              {time}  1500