[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1817-1826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX ACT OF 2001

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

                                 H.R. 2

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security and Medicare 
     Lock-Box Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

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

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

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


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

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

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

       ``(ii) adjusted for changes in the surplus levels set forth 
     in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to procedures in such resolution that 
     authorize adjustments in budgetary aggregates for updated 
     economic and technical assumptions in the mid-session report 
     of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
     Such revisions shall be included in the first current level 
     report on the congressional budget submitted for publication 
     in the Congressional Record after the release of such mid-
     session report.
       ``(B) Budgetary treatment.--Outlays (or receipts) for any 
     fiscal year resulting from social security or medicare reform 
     legislation in excess of the amount of outlays (or less than 
     the amount of receipts) for that fiscal year set forth in the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the section 302(a) allocation for such legislation, as 
     applicable, shall not be taken into account for purposes of 
     enforcing any point of order under subsection (a)(2).
       ``(3) Disclosure of hi surplus.--For purposes of enforcing 
     any point of order under subsection (a), the surplus of the 
     Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for a fiscal year shall 
     be the levels set forth in the later of the report 
     accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget (or, in 
     the absence of such a report, placed in the Congressional 
     Record prior to the consideration of such resolution) or in 
     the joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying such 
     resolution.
       ``(c) Additional Content of Reports Accompanying Budget 
     Resolutions and of Joint Explanatory Statements.--The report 
     accompanying any concurrent resolution on the budget and the 
     joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference 
     report on each such resolution shall include the levels of 
     the surplus in the budget for each fiscal year set forth in 
     such resolution and of the surplus or deficit in the Federal

[[Page 1818]]

     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, calculated using the 
     assumptions set forth in subsection (b)(2)(A).
       ``(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `medicare reform legislation' means a bill 
     or a joint resolution to save Medicare that includes a 
     provision stating the following: `For purposes of section 
     316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act 
     constitutes medicare reform legislation.'
       ``(2) The term `social security reform legislation' means a 
     bill or a joint resolution to save social security that 
     includes a provision stating the following: `For purposes of 
     section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
     Act constitutes social security reform legislation.'
       ``(e) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.
       ``(f)  Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have 
     any force or effect upon the enactment of social security 
     reform legislation and medicare reform legislation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 316 
     in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended to read as follows:

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

     SEC. 4. PRESIDENTS' BUDGET.

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

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


                             General Leave

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

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent after speaking to 
yield 15 minutes of the 20 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) will control 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in opposition to this bill. I recognize that I rise in opposition 
to almost every other Member of this House in both parties. But I think 
it is time to speak out against this bill and against the nonsense of 
the lockbox concept which for political reasons has been embraced by 
Members of both parties at all levels.
  It is not true that for the last 30 years we have raided the Social 
Security system. The fact is the Social Security system when it has a 
surplus must invest the money in something. The law has always said 
that it can invest it only in the safest possible investment, namely, 
government securities. When you invest money in government securities, 
you are lending money to the government. You float bonds, you buy 
securities, you lend money to the government.
  When you lend money to the government, what the government does with 
that money has no bearing on the security of the Social Security trust 
fund. If the government spends that money on housing or education or 
prescription drugs for Medicare or bombers or submarines, what is in 
the Social Security trust fund is an IOU for that amount of money.
  If the government spends that money to pay down the national debt, 
what is in the trust fund of the Social Security system? The same IOU 
for that amount of money. Whether it is wisest and most prudent to 
spend a given amount of money borrowed by the government from the 
Social Security system on bombers or missiles or education or housing 
or paying down the debt is a budget question and a policy question. But 
it has nothing to do with Social Security.
  To say that if you use the proceeds that you have borrowed from the 
Social Security system for anything other than paying down debt, you 
are stealing that money from the Social

[[Page 1819]]

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

[[Page 1820]]

up in the next month or so. That is the real rub. That is what will 
endanger Social Security and Medicare in the long run.
  The fact of the matter is the President is now talking about 
retroactively applying it. That will make the $1.6 trillion debt $2 
trillion. Plus the loss of interest, we are probably talking about $2.5 
trillion that will be reducing taxes over the next decade. The surplus 
will not sustain that. The fact of the matter is as we pay down the 
debt with the Social Security surplus, in the next 10 years we are 
going to have to increase the debt in order to pay the Social Security 
benefits that will not be available because of reductions, because the 
payroll tax will not match it. And as a result of that, the debt 
reduction in all of this is just temporary. If you are 65 years and 
younger, your Social Security benefits will be in jeopardy if in fact 
this tax bill is passed. Because anybody 65 and younger will probably 
be facing a situation in the next 10 years in which we are going to 
have to make a decision to increase payroll taxes, reduce Social 
Security benefits, or increase the national debt.
  The reality is that this tax cut will be the key. It is not this 
resolution that has no weight, no force, and is somewhat irrelevant.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a brand new Member of this 
body.
  Mr. SCHROCK. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a lead sponsor of this 
legislation. Today Congress has the ability to state our clear and 
unmistakable commitment to protect 100 percent of the Social Security 
and Medicare trust fund surpluses. Social Security and Medicare 
represents a sacred compact between the people and their government.
  During my campaign for Congress, I listened carefully to constituents 
throughout my district. They told me that they wanted to make sure that 
when they retired, their Social Security would be there. They also 
wanted Congress to ensure that Medicare was solvent and would be there 
to help cover their medical expenses. By placing surplus trust fund 
moneys in a budgetary lockbox, we can pledge to all of our constituents 
that these funds will be available for current and future generations 
and pay down the national debt.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Social Security 
surplus will be $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years and the Medicare 
hospital insurance surplus will total $392 billion. We must lock away 
this money from congressional appropriators and special interest groups 
and keep our promise to our seniors and all Americans. We have a duty 
to protect the money our constituents have paid into Social Security 
and Medicare.
  If you oppose raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust fund and 
support securing these funds for current and future generations, then 
please support H.R. 2.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).
  Mr. McNULTY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned. In the year 1980, the national debt was 
less than $1 trillion. Today it is $5.7 trillion, six times as much. I 
do not want to go back to the days of deficit spending. Let us look at 
the figures we are talking about in the budget proposal this year. We 
are estimating we will have a $5.6 trillion surplus in the next 10 
years. I do not trust 1-year projections, let alone 10-year 
projections, but let us assume that that is correct. Today we are going 
to vote to subtract from that the Social Security and Medicare trust 
fund moneys of $2.9 trillion. In other words, we are going to say to 
the American people, ``We are going to stop stealing the money'' which 
we did for many, many years.

                              {time}  1500

  I think that bill will get almost unanimous support. So we are making 
a pledge there. That gets us down to $2.7 trillion. Then we start 
talking about this tax cut. I have only heard one person say that we 
will be able to stick to the $1.6 trillion. Almost everyone says it is 
going to cost a lot more than that. Just take the President's figure, 
and only subtracting $1.6 trillion, no interest, no implementation 
costs, nothing else, no retroactivity, and we get down to $1.1 trillion 
for the next 10 years to do everything.
  There are people running around this town saying we are going to 
eliminate the national debt in 10 years. We are not even going to 
eliminate one-fifth of the national debt in the next 10 years. If you 
took the entire balance, and these are the administration figures, if 
you took the entire balance and applied it to the national debt, you 
would only be able to pay off one-fifth of the national debt, and there 
would be nothing left for any spending, for the President's programs or 
ours.
  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let us reduce the 
size of this tax cut and stay away from the days of deficit spending.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is always wonderful when the opposition 
agrees with you. I appreciate that support today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure and 
urge my colleagues to join supporting it. I commend the gentleman from 
Texas for bringing the measure to the floor at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure amends the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by 
establishing a lockbox mechanism to make certain that the surpluses in 
Social Security and Medicare part A, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust 
Fund, from being spent on additional government programs and tax cuts.
  One of the key components of this legislation is to provide for a 
point of order to protect Social Security and Medicare part A surpluses 
in the House and in the Senate against any resolution, bill, motion, 
joint resolution, conference report or amendment whose enactment would 
cause an on-budget surplus to be less than the surplus of the Medicare 
part A surplus for the same given year.
  The legislation makes it out of order in both the House and Senate to 
consider any budget resolution, bill, joint resolution, conference 
report or amendment whose enactment would cause an on-budget surplus 
for any fiscal year to be less than the project surplus of the Federal 
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Congress has proclaimed its desire to 
protect Social Security for future generations, without following 
through with any actions to match the proclamations of support. This 
legislation will provide new budget procedures and parliamentary 
requirements to make certain that the promises to safeguard Social 
Security and Medicare will be kept.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2 is a good start, but I also 
do not believe that it goes far enough. I believe we all agree on the 
need for a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare. This bill has too 
many loopholes, too many keys, if you will, that can open the lockbox.
  There is a lot of talk these days about surpluses, a lot of talk 
these days about the need for tax cuts. I support a tax cut for working 
families. There is not much talk, unfortunately, these days, about the 
debt, some $5 trillion.
  When we talk about the surplus, let us not take Social Security and 
Medicare into account. Let us take it off the table.
  Yesterday I was in southeast Arkansas, the Delta region, one of the 
poorest regions in the country. People young and old were telling me 
that they want the politicians to keep their hands off of Social 
Security and Medicare.
  This is a personal issue with me. You see, my grandfather died when I 
was a year old. My grandmother first learned how to drive a car, she 
got her GED, and then she went to nursing school. She is 89 now. She is 
blind, and she lives from Social Security check to Social Security 
check.

[[Page 1821]]

  That is why I, along with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), have 
offered an alternative, a meaningful lockbox initiative that protects 
both the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. It is H.R. 560. It has 
no loopholes; it has no keys to unlock the box. That is why it is 
supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, the Nation's second largest senior advocacy group.
  If you truly want to protect Social Security and Medicare, then take 
the time to compare H.R. 2 with H.R. 560. If you do that, then I am 
convinced we will join together, like we are here today, and do the 
right thing by my grandmother and by seniors all across America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support, 
unconditional support, for H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare 
Lock-Box Act of 2001.
  Today Social Security protects 45 million Americans and provides one 
out of three seniors with their primary source of retirement income. 
According to the Social Security Administration, 39 percent of all 
seniors are lifted out of poverty because of their Social Security 
benefits. Clearly Social Security is one of the most successful and 
most important Federal programs ever created that we have today.
  But Social Security is in trouble. In less than 15 years Social 
Security will spend more than it receives in taxes. By the year 2037, 
the trust funds will be absolutely empty; and the program will only pay 
less than three-fourths of its promised benefits. One of our most 
important priorities this year is to put Social Security on sound 
financial footing so it can continue to pay full benefits far into the 
future and full benefits without increasing taxes to American workers.
  H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act, is the first 
critical step towards saving Social Security for all time. This 
legislation prevents Congress from using the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses to cut taxes or increase spending. The lockbox 
ensures that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus and 100 percent 
of the Medicare surplus are used to reduce the debt, until we enact 
legislation to save Social Security and Medicare.
  Let me repeat: the full amount will go to pay down the debt until 
such time as a portion of that is used to save Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The lockbox is important for three reasons: first, it ensures that we 
have the money to pay for Social Security and Medicare reform once 
reform plans are enacted; second, it promotes fiscal discipline by 
forcing the Congress to balance the budget, without relying on Social 
Security or Medicare surpluses; finally, the lockbox reduces our 
national debt, resulting in higher national savings, faster economic 
growth, and lower interest costs for our government.
  I encourage all Members to show their commitment to Social Security 
and Medicare by supporting this most important act and then continue to 
work with us on the majority side to save Social Security for all time.
  There have been a number of speeches that I have heard, mainly coming 
from the other side, one from my ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Social Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), likening 
this somehow to Girl Scout cookies.
  This is very important legislation. Does this save Social Security 
for all time? Absolutely not. It is just a first step. It keeps us from 
spending the surplus, so it will be there for us to work together on, 
whenever we can move the minority side to come aboard with us and work 
to save Social Security for all time.
  Is it irrelevant? Of course, it is not irrelevant. It is very 
relevant, because how are we going to save Social Security if we are 
giving the surplus away in tax cuts or in new spending programs? It 
locks it away.
  This is the right thing to do. This is the right time to do it. This 
is important legislation, but it is only a first step. I would 
encourage all Members to come aboard with us and to vote this most 
important first step towards Social Security reform. It would be a 
tragedy not to pass this bill, and not to pass it by an overwhelming 
vote of well over two-thirds, the amount necessary in order to pass 
this under suspension.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I would commend the majority's proposal, but 
for one reservation that I have. I am concerned that H.R. 2 contains a 
giant loophole that would allow the Medicare and Social Security 
surpluses to be spent for any purpose, so long as it is labeled 
``reform.'' For the record, I want to be clear the term ``reform'' does 
not and should not include new programs, such as providing a 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare or changing Social Security to 
provide for private accounts.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and I have introduced 
legislation that would correct this problem by entirely preventing the 
use of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, without exception, 
except for their intended purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove from the Speaker's 
desk H.R. 560, legislation that would correct the problems of the bill 
and the loophole in the bill before us today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kansas?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask is if we have a copy of this 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's guidelines, the Chair is 
not able to entertain the gentleman's request to consider the bill 
without appropriate clearance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, retirement security is one of the most 
important challenges that we in Congress are going to face in the years 
to come. The amount of benefits provided to seniors in the not-too-
distant future is going to exceed the amount of payroll taxes taken in. 
One of the reasons for that is because Americans are having smaller and 
smaller families, Americans are living longer and longer, and, under 
that scenario, protecting Social Security becomes absolutely essential. 
That is why I cosponsored H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare 
Lock-Box Act of 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is establish a firewall to protect 
100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Under this 
bill, the trust funds will not be spent on other government programs.
  I think all of us know that for some 30 years or so money was 
borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund. Basically over the last 
few years, if you will recall, President Clinton said, ``Let's protect 
60 percent of the funds in the trust fund.'' The Republicans in the 
House said, ``No, let's protect 100 percent.''
  For the last few years, that is what we have done. We have set aside 
100 percent of those excess FICA taxes that have gone into Social 
Security. But setting it aside for the here and now is not enough. We 
need legislation for the long-term, like this bill, to ensure that we 
put up that firewall so that it is not borrowed again in the future.
  Now, in my view, Americans deserve to know that every penny taken out 
of their paychecks for Social Security and for Medicare will be used to 
pay for benefits. This legislation will help ensure that.
  Furthermore, under this bill the Social Security and Medicare 
surpluses will be used to pay down the public debt until Social 
Security and Medicare reform is enacted. This will help lower the 
burden of debt placed on our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.

[[Page 1822]]

  Mr. Speaker, those who introduced H.R. 2 indeed had a good intent. I 
think all of us want to find a way to lock in the security for both 
Social Security as well as for Medicare. However, that bill is more 
illusionary than real, particularly when you compare it with H.R. 560, 
which the Democrats put in. It does not allow for the loophole.
  This bill, therefore, is illusionary. Although well-intended, it does 
allow for you to spend the money on other things called ``reform.'' 
But, more pressing, is to consider that if you took that off of 
lockbox, took it off the budget, you are assuming you can still spend 
that, so you say, to the contrary, that you do not want to spend it for 
tax cuts.

                              {time}  1515

  Take $1.6 trillion away from that, that suggestion, and we could not 
meet the needs of the American people and keep our commitment to lock 
those security funds aside.
  So I urge Members to consider that this is well-intended but it will 
not achieve it. It is more illusory than for real.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lexington, Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, as we look back over the history of this 
body for 40 years, since the mid sixties we have been spending the 
money that individuals have paid in their payroll for Social Security 
and for Medicare. We have been spending it on other government 
programs.
  I remember 2 years ago, my first year here in Congress, the gentleman 
from California proposed this and we began the first lockbox to set 
aside Social Security. I can remember some Members were making light of 
it and saying it was not a real lockbox, and it had a hole in the 
bottom of it.
  That first year I was here 2 years ago we did not spend one penny of 
Social Security money. The lockbox worked. It kept us disciplined so we 
did not spend that Social Security. We did it last year with Medicare, 
and we are repeating it again this year.
  Some folks are concerned that we have allowed the use of this Social 
Security money and Medicare money to be used for reform. We have to 
face the fact that if we do not make some changes in improving and 
modernizing these programs to meet the needs of an aging population, we 
are going to run into serious problems. Sticking our head in the sand 
does not work. Using rhetoric for political reasons does not solve the 
problems we are going to be facing in the future.
  I am proud we can support and hope we have bipartisan support for 
this bill to lock up both the Social Security trust fund and the 
Medicare trust fund for our future generations, and allow us to begin 
to look at improvements that will preserve these great programs for 
future generations.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue is so important to me that on the first day 
of the new Congress I reintroduced my legislation that the body 
considered last term. The legislation would prohibit the spending of 
any projected budget surpluses until Social Security and Medicare are 
made solid for today's workers and today's children.
  The legislation would ensure that the projected surplus associated 
would be off limits to Congress and used only for retiring the 
publicly-held debt; no new spending, no new tax cuts until we have 
dealt with this matter.
  I am concerned that H.R. 2 is being brought up to the floor without 
possibility of amendment to deal with its gaping loophole. What this 
legislation's loophole is is to allow a tax cut or other bill if it is 
presented as Social Security reform.
  Mr. Speaker, most young workers do not believe that they will get a 
dime from Social Security or Medicare. That is why we must assign the 
highest priority to shoring up these programs and restoring confidence.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation. Mr. Speaker, 45,351,200 persons received Social Security 
benefits just this past year. About 63 percent of those people were 
seniors.
  One must ask, has Social Security had an impact in particular to our 
seniors? When we take a look at the reason why Social Security was put 
in place, it was to help those seniors not be below the poverty line 
when they finished their work years.
  In fact, if we look even just in California, my home State, we can 
see that this past year 30 percent of seniors were lifted out of 
poverty because of their Social Security benefits. Moreover, Social 
Security is important for women because, as we know, women make less, 
and women are out of the work force more often; they change jobs, they 
stay home to take care of families, so they really need this in their 
lean years at the back end of their lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this important piece 
of legislation.
  45,351,200 persons received Social Security benefits last year. 
Sixty-three percent of these people are retired workers.
  We must ask ourselves, ``What impact has Social Security had on our 
Nation's Seniors?'' A study issued by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities in Washington, DC shows that in 1997, 47.6% of the U.S. 
population age 65 and older would have been living below the poverty 
line in 1997 without Social Security benefits.
  With Social Security, the poverty rate drops to 11.9%. This is a 
staggering statistic that demonstrates the impact of this program on 
our seniors nationwide.
  In my home state of California, the same study showed that 43.2% of 
people age 65 and older would have been living below the poverty line 
without Social Security. Social Security reduces the number to 12.5%. 
Thus, 30.7% of all elders in California were lifted from poverty by 
Social Security.
  Moreover, Social Security is particularly beneficial to women who 
receive 54% of Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. In 
1997, Social Security benefits lowered the number of women living below 
the poverty line from 9.8 to 2.7 million.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and establish a Social 
Security and Medicare lockbox. We need to pass this bill to ensure that 
our current and future seniors are provided the benefits they worked so 
hard to earn. We must continue to move forward to ensure that both 
programs are ready to meet the demands of the aging Baby Boom 
generation and beyond.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding time to me.
  Over 45 million seniors and over 30 million American citizens use 
Medicare and Social Security. At a time when we have record surpluses, 
we must make sure that we sustain those people and that we do what is 
right with the surplus. It is going to be impossible to put in a 
lockbox for Social Security and Medicare, and we should, and at the 
same time take care of health care, housing, and other needs, 
education, that the people of America want.
  We need a lockbox, we need a tax cut, but they both must be 
responsible. We must save Social Security, we must protect Medicare. 
Let this House act accordingly and take care of the citizens of this 
country.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this lockbox is leaking because the money 
can be used for other reform purposes. But I want to stress something 
else today, an inescapable big truth about the President's economic 
plan. The big truth is that the President has proposed a Mother Hubbard 
economic plan, a plan that leaves the cupboard bare.
  Here is what I mean. We have an alleged surplus of $5.6 trillion. 
Today the House will vote to take $2.9 trillion off the table. So that 
leaves just $2.7 trillion for all the spending and tax relief for the 
next 10 years.
  The President has two priorities for that money: a tax cut that will 
consist

[[Page 1823]]

of $2.6 trillion, skewed largely to the wealthy, by the way; and a 
missile defense system that will cost at least $100 billion.
  So that is it. It is all gone before we reach anything else. We have 
zero surplus for anything else; for prescription drugs, education, 
health insurance, zero.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a Mother Hubbard plan. The wealthy get to take a 
tax cut picnic while the rest of this country faces an empty cupboard.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today has been, once again, an exceptional job on behalf 
of my colleagues in the Democrat party, as well as my colleagues in the 
Republican party, who have once again approached a very difficult issue 
with the decision that rather than sticking our heads in the sand, we 
are going to talk about Social Security, we are going to talk about the 
things that not only Social Security does for America today and the 
people who are on Social Security, but also a belief, an abiding 
belief, that we can do something to make sure it is there for the 
future of this country.
  I would remind my colleagues that the one part about this legislation 
that is fabulous is that there is an exception in the legislation that 
any bill that saves Social Security contains this phrase, that if a 
Member believes that a bill does not save Social Security or Medicare, 
he or she can always raise a point of order against any part of that 
legislation.
  That is one of the wonderful parts about this bill that is good for 
all of us. It is a matter of whether we are going to spend the Social 
Security, or whether we are going to save it.


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

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, 
H.R. 2, be re-referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition, 
to the Committee on Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2, 
The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001. This legislation 
protects the $2.9 trillion Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund 
surplus from being used for any other government spending. More 
importantly, this legislation reaffirms our commitment to ensuring a 
safe and secure retirement for current and future generations of Older 
Americans.
  This legislation in effect creates a security ``lockbox'' to ensure 
that the FICA or payroll taxes we pay over the course of many years of 
hard work are used exactly as they are intended to be used--for Social 
Security and Medicare. This ``lockbox'' ensures our money is protected.
  When I came to Congress in 1994, taxes were at an all time high, the 
budget was out of balance, deficit spending was soaring out of control 
and the Social Security and Medicare trust fund was being raided to pay 
for other government programs. To put it bluntly, our fiscal house was 
in shambles.
  But what a difference a few years has made. Today, I am proud that we 
have balanced the federal budget, paid down over $363 billion of the 
national debt and cut taxes, all the while protecting and preserving 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, as we begin our work in the 107th Congress, the Federal 
Government's projected cumulative surplus--some $5.7 trillion dollars 
over the next ten years--presents us with a historic and unprecedented 
opportunity to continue on a bipartisan course of fiscal discipline. 
Let's not look back at this moment as an era of missed opportunity.
  In the coming days and months, there will be plenty of time to debate 
what to do with the remainder of the surplus. But before we engage in 
that debate, we must continue paying down the debt and make clear our 
commitment to ensuring that Social Security and Medicare will be 
available to current retirees as well as for our children and 
grandchildren. That's three generations of Americans that we will 
ensure have basic retirement security by preserving and protecting 
Social Security and Medicare. For the past two years, Congress has put 
aside Social Security and Medicare taxes so these monies aren't spent 
on other federal programs. With this ``lockbox'' legislation, Congress 
will be making these actions a permanent part of the budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2. Let us, 
today, give future generations of Americans the security of knowing 
that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they most 
need it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the 
Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act.
  In this fortunate time of budget surpluses, it is imperative that we 
use the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to ensure the long-
term viability of these critical programs. If we want to be truthful in 
our budgeting, then these funds should not and cannot be used to pay 
for other priorities.
  I am nonetheless concerned about some of the provisions in the bill. 
It is my belief that these provisions make this lockbox legislation 
less than iron-clad. The bill stops the raid on Social Security and 
Medicare Trust Fund receipts ``until such time as medicare and social 
security reform legislation is enacted.
  What this really means is that once we pass any legislation that 
constitutes Social Security or Medicare reform, even if the bill does 
not ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security or Medicare, we 
are free to use Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund money for 
whatever we choose.
  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in the year 
2012, there will be a major demographic shift in the United States. The 
Baby Boom generation will begin to retire and collect benefits under 
Social Security and Medicare. And, at the same time, the labor force 
will contract significantly, reducing the amount of money available to 
pay those benefits. As a result, the CBO projects that instead of the 
surpluses we now enjoy, we will suffer large budget deficits as we 
struggle to pay for these programs.
  I support this legislation and I support the idea of Social Security 
and Medicare reform. But all the reform measures we pass won't mean 
anything unless we begin to devote resources now to ensure that there 
will be money available when Baby Boomers begin to retire. This bill is 
a good start. We need to do much more.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Social 
Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001, the latest in a string of 
measures that the House has passed, with my support, to dedicate the 
Social Security and Medicare surpluses to public debt reduction until 
such time as the Social Security or Medicare reform legislation is 
enacted. Like H.R. 5173, which we passed overwhelmingly in September 
2000, H.R. 2 would remove the Social Security surplus from the budget 
totals for the purposes of developing both the Congressional budget and 
the President's budget. H.R. 2 would also require the President's 
budget submission to include a detailed proposal for Social Security or 
Medicare reform legislation if it recommends an on-budget surplus for 
any fiscal year that is less than the surplus projected for the 
Medicare HI trust fund.
  My support for H.R. 2 is not without reservations. I am disappointed 
that the Republican Leadership rushed this bill to the floor, it was 
introduced last Thursday (February 8, 2001), bypassing consideration in 
the committees of jurisdiction, including the House Budget Committee. 
Had H.R. 2 been properly considered in the House Budget Committee, I 
would have asked what protections are in place, under the bill, to 
prevent tax cut bills from gaining access to lockbox funds, simply by 
holding themselves out as Social Security or Medicare reform bills.
  Additionally, as a longtime advocate for protecting Medicare, as well 
as Social Security, I am pleased to see the Republican Majority has 
joined me in recognizing the need to protect the Medicare surpluses 
from being used to finance tax cuts. While H.R. 2 would create points 
of order against spending and tax legislation that would cause a 
reduction in the portion of projected budget surpluses equal to 
Medicare trust fund surplus, I am, however, troubled that it stops 
short of taking Medicare ``off-budget.'' H.R. 2 only requires on-budget 
surpluses to be at least as large as any surplus in Part A of Medicare. 
At this time, with Congress abuzz with talk of tax cuts and 
incomprehensible surpluses, it is more important than ever that 
Medicare by taken off-budget.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not only join me in 
taking this step to secure Medicare but to also go further and take 
Medicare off-budget.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. speaker, I will vote for this bill, in the 
hope that its other supporters are as serious as I am about protecting 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Of course, that is what this bill is supposed to be about. But I 
think anyone who gives it a careful look will understand why I have my 
doubts.
  On the one hand, the bill would establish the principle that Social 
Security and Medicare

[[Page 1824]]

are to be off-limits when Congress makes decisions about federal 
revenues. It would do that by making it against the rules to consider 
measures that would invade the Social Security or Medicare surplus. Its 
sponsors say that this will put both Social Security and Medicare into 
a ``lockbox'' to keep them safe.
  However, on the other hand there is some fine print in this bill 
suggesting that this ``lockbox'' is not all that secure.
  In fact, when you read the bill carefully, it looks like this 
`'lockbox'' is more like the treasure cave in the story of Ali Baba and 
the Forty Thieves. Remember, the secret to opening that treasure cave 
was to know the passwords--``open, sesame.'' Well, it's exactly the 
same story here except that for this ``lockbox'' the passwords are 
``Social Security reform legislation or Medicare reform legislation.''
  Those are the passwords because under this bill the new rules to 
protect Social Security and Medicare will not apply to any bill that 
includes them.
  If you doubt that it is that simple, just read the bill.
  First it says that we will have these new rules--but then it says 
they ``shall not apply to social security reform legislation or 
medicare reform legislation.'' And it defines ``medicare reform 
legislation'' as a bill that ``includes a provision stating the 
following: For purposes of section 316(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, this Act constitutes medicare reform legislation'' and 
also defines ``social security reform legislation'' as a bill that 
``includes a provision stating the following: For purposes of section 
316(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this Act constitutes 
social security reform legislation.''
  So, regardless of what else may be in a tax bill or a spending bill, 
if it includes those magic words the new rules won't apply--because 
those are the passwords that will open the ``lockbox.''
  Is it any wonder that some of us have our doubts about whether the 
``lockbox'' is real? Is it any wonder that we have some fears about the 
reliability of this promise to protect Social Security and Medicare?
  Still, Mr. Speaker, today I will be guided by my hopes, not my fears.
  I will vote for this bill, and I will hope that the promise of its 
title--``The Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act'' is not a false 
one.
  But, to rephrase Ronald Reagan, I think that the best policy is to 
hope now--by voting for this bill--but when the tax and spending bills 
come, to verify by making sure that we fulfill the promise of 
protecting Social Security and Medicare for the future.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, The Social Security and Medicare Lock 
Box Act locks away the entire $2.9 trillion Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses, protecting it from increased government spending 
and tax cuts. I am proud to be part of the first Congress in thirty 
years which paid all the government's bills without raiding the Social 
Security Trust fund. This legislation guarantees that we continue to 
protect the surplus by creating a ``lock box'' which ensures that the 
surplus can be used only to pay beneficiaries.
  Though the prognosis for the Social Security trust fund has improved 
with the strong economy, Social Security is still scheduled to begin 
drawing on the surplus by 2015 and the trust fund will be exhausted by 
2037. It is Congress's duty to ensure that the surplus is there for 
senior citizens while we work to reform the program for future 
generations. I am proud to support the Social Security and Medicare 
Lockbox. Senior citizens, as well as all Americans deserve to know that 
their benefits will be there for them when they retire. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, 
the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act. This legislation aims to 
protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by establishing 
points of order against bills that would produce a deficit in the non-
Social Security portion of the budget.
  While this legislation won't do any harm, it certainly won't do any 
good. There are gaping loopholes in this legislation which would allow 
for raiding the trust funds if it is done under the cloak of 
``reform.'' But this bill is not serious about either reforming or 
protecting the Social Security and Medicare trusts funds.
  In a few short years the baby boom generation will start to retire. 
The addition of these 75 million Americans is a looming threat to the 
Social Security and Medicare programs. Congress must act now to ensure 
the long-term solvency of these valuable programs. This bill is not a 
serious, long-term solution for our problems. Congress must make some 
very careful choices in the coming months about our budget surpluses, 
and how best to use them.
  Anyone reading the papers in the last couple of days knows where the 
president stands on tax-cuts. Now, I support broad tax cuts. I think 
that we in Congress can work together to relieve the tax burdens of 
Americans. But I cannot support a tax-cut plan that endangers our 
economic stability, or the futures of the Social Security and Medicare 
programs.
  According to some estimates, the president's plan could cost as much 
as $2.3 trillion over ten years. That's almost eighty-five percent the 
projected on-budget surplus. This plan leaves almost nothing behind to 
pay down the national debt, strengthen our national defense, improve 
our children's education, or, as we're aiming to do today, ensure the 
solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I assure you that this legislation will pass almost 
unanimously. All Members of Congress can agree that Social Security and 
Medicare funds should be spent only for those purposes, or for the 
purposes of paying off the national debt. But it's time to make some 
tough choices about the on-budget surplus, and whether or not Congress 
is serious about protecting Social Security and Medicare. We must do 
more than pay lip-service to these programs. Its time to put the on-
budget surplus money where our mouth is.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Social 
Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act of 2001. In the midst of tax cut 
fever, when the federal government seems to be awash in black ink, this 
legislation serves as a sobering reminder that we are, in fact, facing 
a fiscal time bomb within the next twenty years. With the retirement of 
the baby boomer generation, we will face an unprecedented fiscal 
challenge, created largely by the demands on social Security and 
Medicare.
  The Social Security and Medicare Lock Boxes draw a line in the sand, 
saying that, if we are to fund a large tax cut this year, then we must 
do so without raiding the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. 
Establishing this imperative for the current tax cut debate is 
absolutely critical. In recent weeks, some Republicans have been 
inching away from the commitment to protect the Medicare Trust Fund, 
led by statements from the Administration. But it is clear that 
Medicare faces the same long-term funding problems that face Social 
Security. In fact, Medicare will face them sooner than Social Security. 
Raiding the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts, then, should be 
absolutely unacceptable to this Congress.
  Some might argue that it is unreasonable to allow concerns of 20 
years hence to have too much influence over today's policies. But this 
kind of thinking is akin to a family facing a balloon mortgage payment 
who nonetheless budgets nothing for it, and worse yet, goes on a 
spending spree in the years lending up to the balloon payment. Lest 
anyone doubt that we are facing a long-term fiscal crisis, consider 
this: today, the United States has 5 workers supporting each of its 
retirees; by 2030, we will have just 2 workers for every retiree. The 
fiscal implications of this demographic shift are enormous, and easily 
overwhelm the surplus numbers we have been debating the past few weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, today's legislation is a good first step in 
acknowledging the true fiscal outlook. I hope we will also recognize 
the true costs associated with meeting the full obligations of Social 
Security and Medicare to all of tomorrow's retirees--costs that are 
daunting no matter what versions of Social Security and Medicare reform 
you favor. In recognizing these costs, it should be clear to everyone 
that the President's tax plan is simply not affordable.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to join my colleagues in 
strong support of the Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act.
  We have a surplus of $5.6 trillion. And, $2.9 trillion of that 
surplus is money that people expect to be there for them when they 
apply for their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
  For the past several years, Congress has locked these trust fund 
surpluses away through sound fiscal management, despite the absence of 
a passed lockbox bill. But the American public understands that passage 
of actual lockbox legislation is a solemn pledge between the Congress 
and the people that we will not touch those surpluses. And, we should 
make that pledge to our constituents.
  Given the strength of the non-trust fund surplus--$2.7 trillion--we 
can well afford to do this and still meet the other needs of our 
constituents--providing them with much needed tax relief, paying down 
the debt, and reinvesting in important priorities like defense and 
education.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2 with a strong bipartisan vote.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Social Security and Medicare ``Lockbox'' Act. This bill

[[Page 1825]]

locks up the $2.9 trillion surplus from the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds by prohibiting their use for non-Social Security 
purposes. As a result, it ensures that Congress will always devote 100 
percent of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to only those 
retirement programs.
  Today, millions of elderly and disabled Americans rely on Social 
Security and Medicare to provide them with income, basic health 
insurance coverage, and retirement security. In fact, Medicare provides 
significant health insurance coverage for 39 million aged and disabled 
beneficiaries. Therefore, we need to make sure that our seniors receive 
these much needed services and benefits in the most efficient manner 
possible.
  Because I believe that every working American should know 
unequivocally that Social Security and Medicare will be there for them 
when they retire, I am committed to making seniors a top priority by 
taking the necessary steps to improve their quality of life. Beginning 
with the Lockbox initiative, Congress can help protect our nations 
elderly from fraud and abuse, inadequate and poor health care services, 
and a false sense of retirement security.
  After all, our seniors are a national resource that must be preserved 
to the best of our abilities. therefore, I urge you to join me in 
securing a future for our seniors by voting in favor of the Lockbox.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from 
Texas as a cosponsor of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare 
Lockbox Act of 2001.
  Although today, the Social Security program is able to meet its 
requirements, we face the problem of fewer workers who pay into the 
Social Security system, while at the same time, the number of retirees 
eligible for Social Security benefits continues to increase.
  I believe Congress and the new Administration can work together to 
safeguard and strengthen the integrity of the Social Security program. 
Our Nation's seniors rely on Social Security for approximately 40 
percent of their income. Many depend on it for more.
  Without a lockbox, approximately $2.9 trillion in projected Social 
Security and Medicare Part A surpluses over the next ten years could be 
spent on programs and initiatives which may do little, if any, to 
protect our Nation's seniors. H.R. 2 will ensure that these surpluses 
will be used only to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. 
Furthermore, protecting Social Security and Medicare makes it easier 
for the Treasury Department to reduce the public debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 2.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Social Security and Medicare Lockbox Act of 2001.
  For too many years, the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds have 
been raided to pay for other government programs. This long-standing 
practice has jeopardized the solvency of two programs that millions of 
Americans depend on.
  Today this practice will end.
  Today, Republicans and Democrats will come together to stop the raid 
and commit to protecting 100 percent of the Social Security and 
Medicare Trust Fund surpluses, providing retirement and health security 
for our parents, our grandparents, and hopefully some day for our 
children.
  All Americans deserve a Medicare and Social Security system that 
rewards their hard work, increases their independence and secures their 
future. H.R. 2 is a step toward this important goal.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Social Security and 
Medicare Lockbox Act and ask that my colleagues join me in supporting 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the purported 
purpose of this legislation before us today. We can and should 
``lockbox'' our Social Security and Medicare surpluses so that monies 
put into them by the working people of America are used as they were 
intended--to provide financial and health security for them in their 
senior years or if they become disabled--not to provide a tax break 
aimed mostly at those with upper incomes.
  Unfortuantely, the bill before us today talks the talk, but fails to 
walk the walk.
  This bill will not guarantee that either the Social Security or 
Medicare surpluses are protected from being used to finance tax breaks 
or any other government spending.
  While the bill states that it protects Medicare and Social Security 
trust funds, it creates a giant exception that if a bill is brought up 
on the House floor that contains the words ``Social Security reform 
legislation'' or ``Medicare reform legislation,'' then the protections 
for either trust fund no longer exist. It doesn't define what would 
constitute ``reform'' of either program. It would be very simple for 
anyone to circumvent the stated intent of this bill by simply referring 
to legislation as either Medicare or Social Security reform and then 
the protections against using the trust funds would be overridden. I 
could see the argument that a ``Star Wars'' missile defense system will 
protect seniors--therefore it is a Medicare reform.
  The legislation contains a further loophole that allows the President 
to dip into the Social Security and/or Medicare surpluses in any budget 
he presents to Congress as long as the budget claims to reform each of 
the programs.
  The public should not be fooled one moment. President Bush is pushing 
a tax cut proposal in Congress that he admits costs $1.6 trillion. The 
unstated reality is that the proposal costs $2.5 trillion by the time 
you count all of the pieces that he's left out of his early version, 
but that will be included in the end. The entire surplus over the next 
ten years--if you really protect Medicare and Social Security 
surpluses--is $2.7 trillion (and even that figure is highly 
speculative).
  What am I leading up to? There is no way that this tax cut package 
can pass Congress and get signed into law in a way that leaves money 
for other government priorities like education, Medicare prescription 
drug coverage, improved Medicare solvency, or Social Security reform 
without putting the Medicare and Social Security trust funds on the 
chopping block.
  Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves and passage of 
this legislation today does nothing to change that fact.
  Larry Lindsey, President Bush's chief economic advisor has already 
been asked whether government should dip into the Social Security 
surplus to make room for tax cuts and he responded: ``It's a question 
that needs to be asked.''
  President Bush's Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
Mitch Daniels has already stated with regard to protecting the Medicare 
trust fund from any other use that he would be: ``very hesitant to 
treat those funds in the same way as we do in Social Security where I 
think it is in order.''
  A February 5 Wall Street Journal article states that, ``The Bush 
Administration also won't wall off Medicare's current surpluses in a 
`lockbox' . . . In fact, Mr. Daniels has said he's told his staff not 
to talk about a Medicare surplus.
  Finally, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has yet to make a 
commitment on a Medicare lockbox. A recent BNA Daily Report for 
Executives, asked him about whether he'd decided to lockbox Medicare 
and he responded, ``We're going to think that through.''
  I will vote for this legislation today. But, I do so with the firm 
knowledge that my vote--and that of every other member of the House of 
Representatives--really means nothing about whether we stand for 
protecting the Medicare and Social Security surpluses for their 
intended purposes. I hope that the weaknesses of the legislation are 
not intended and that this vote is a good faith commitment by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to protect both the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses from use for tax cuts or any other new 
spending. If that commitment is real, we've got a tough job in front of 
us to ensure that the upcoming tax cut debate doesn't absorb all 
available government monies--in addition to the Medicare and Social 
Security trust funds.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act of 
2001. I would also like to thank my colleague, Congressman Wally 
Herger, for taking the lead yet again in ensuring that common-sense 
measures are taken to preserve the Social Security and Medicare Part A 
programs for our senior citizens.
  Currently, both the Social Security and Medicare Part A programs take 
in more revenue through taxes and premiums than they pay out in 
benefits. This has resulted in large surpluses in both Trust Funds, 
estimated to be $157 billion for Social Security and $29 billion for 
Medicare. However, as the Baby Boom generation reaches retirement age, 
the situation changes significantly. Over the coming years we will see 
a decrease in the ratio of workers to beneficiaries from 5-to-1 to 2-
to-1, causing a precipitous decline in the amounts held in both Trust 
Funds. By the year 2037, it is estimated that the combined Social 
Security Trust Funds will be depleted, with revenues only sufficient to 
pay about 72 percent of benefits. The situation for Medicare is even 
more dire, with the Part A Trust Fund projected to be depleted by 2025.
  We cannot simply put off the difficult decisions for a later day. It 
is clear that we can enact significant reforms now that are necessary 
to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent for the future. It is also 
evident that while this is a challenging task in and of itself,

[[Page 1826]]

it will be even more difficult, if not impossible, if we allow the 
surpluses that we currently have to be raided for other government 
spending. To this end, H.R. 2 creates a lockbox by creating a point of 
order against any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
conference report that would raid either the Social Security or 
Medicare Trust Fund. This lockbox ensures that the Trust Fund surpluses 
will only be used to further pay down our national debt or to 
strengthen these vital programs for our children and grandchildren. 
This is a modest, common-sense step to help preserve social security 
benefits for future retirees.
  We have an obligation to keep our promises to our senior citizens. 
They have paid into Social Security and Medicare over the course of 
their working lives in the expectation that these benefits would be 
there to help support them in their later years. We do them a severe 
injustice if financial mismanagement on our part robs them of the 
security they deserve. By approving H.R. 2, we will show the American 
people that we remain committed to saving these invaluable programs. It 
is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to lend it their full 
support.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act.
  Passage of this legislation will make certain that the Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses are protected in a ``lock-box'' and are 
not affected by spending increases and tax cuts. However, the Medicare 
surplus is not taken off-budget by this bill and therefore is not 
ensured the same protection as the Social Security surplus under 
current budget rules. This is a critical flaw in this bill and I do not 
believe that H.R. 2 alone will solve the long-term challenges facing 
Medicare. Nevertheless, I support passage of the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Lockbox Act of 2001 and will remain committed to 
protecting these surpluses.
  I believe it is absolutely essential that we maintain our fiscal 
discipline and continue paying down our debt. We must provide resources 
to deal with long term problems facing Social Security and Medicare, 
while making room for targeted tax cuts and investments in priority 
programs.
  I am also proud to have joined my colleagues, Mike Ross and Dennis 
Moore, in introducing H.R. 560, a bill that would take Medicare off-
budget, giving it the same protected status as Social Security, and 
would lock away Medicare surpluses unless they are to be used for 
current Medicare programs. While I support the bill before us, our bill 
has a much stronger enforcement mechanism and would be even more 
difficult, if not impossible, to violate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________