[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 629-637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 342 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 342

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Wednesday, February 6, 2002, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to the following measures:
       (1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 312) expressing 
     the sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled 
     tax relief provided for by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed by a bipartisan majority in 
     Congress should not be suspended or repealed.
       (2) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) recognizing the 
     91st birthday of Ronald Reagan.
       (3) The resolution (H. Res. 340) recognizing and honoring 
     Jack Shea, Olympic gold medalist in speed skating, for his 
     many contributions to the Nation and to his community 
     throughout his life.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides that it shall be in order at 
any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, February 6, 2002, for the 
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating 
to the following measures: the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 312, 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the scheduled 
tax relief provided for by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, passed by a bipartisan majority in 
Congress, should not be suspended or repealed;
  Second, the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 82, recognizing the 91st 
birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan; and,
  Three, the resolution, H. Res. 340, recognizing and honoring Jack 
Shea, Olympic gold medalist in speed skating, for his many 
contributions to the Nation and to his community throughout his life.
  Mr. Speaker, following the adoption of this rule, the House will take 
up H. Con. Res. 312, expressing our collective will that the bipartisan 
tax relief plan passed by the Congress and signed into law by President 
Bush should take effect as scheduled.
  Recently, several Members of Congress have proposed that key 
provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
should be repealed, delayed, or postponed. H. Con. Res. 312 reiterates 
our full commitment to all tax relief provisions in this act, including 
the across-the-board tax cuts, the marriage penalty relief, the 
elimination of the death tax, doubling of the per-child tax credit and 
IRA expansion.
  Further, H. Con. Res. 312 states that repealing or delaying 
provisions of President Bush's tax relief plan would in fact constitute 
a tax increase; that increasing taxes during a recession would hurt the 
economy and American workers; and that Congress should work with the 
President to promote long-term economic growth through a fair Tax Code 
that puts the least possible burden on taxpayers.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, last June when the President signed into law the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, it provided 
millions of American taxpayers with the first meaningful tax relief 
they had had since 1981.
  All Americans who pay Federal income taxes have benefited from the 
act and will benefit from our vote today, making it clear that we have 
no intention of weakening or softening in any way our commitment to 
provide the relief that they were promised, especially not now, when to 
do so would weaken the economy and further endanger the well-being of 
millions of lower- and middle-income American workers and their 
families.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
rule so that we may proceed with H. Con. Res. 312, as well as 
additional measures honoring former President Ronald Reagan and the 
late Olympian Jack Shea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the reporter is not confused with these two 
Hastings this year. This is a first for the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings), my good friend and colleague, and I thank him for 
yielding the time. Let me assure the gentleman that we will try to make 
this debate more friendly than the last Battle of Hastings in 1066.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) has 
already explained, under rule XV of the House rules, bills may be 
considered on the House floor under suspension of the

[[Page 630]]

rules only on Mondays and Tuesdays. Therefore, this resolution is 
required in order to consider the bills on today's schedule.
  The gentleman has done an adequate job of explaining why, in the 
leadership's opinion, these bills must come to the floor today and in 
this manner. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree and oppose adoption 
of this rule.
  There is no need to rush to judgment on these bills. There is simply 
no good reason to handle these bills outside the normal parameters of 
the way the House should conduct its business. Moreover, when the House 
does operate this way, it effectively curtails our rights, and I am 
talking about the Members, and responsibilities as serious legislators. 
Members should be very wary of allowing this leadership or any 
leadership to usurp our rights.
  There are Members of this body who have serious concerns with at 
least one of the resolutions we may consider today, and I think that we 
may hear quite a bit in due time from several distinguished members of 
the House Committee on Ways and Means regarding their concerns, in 
addition to other fiscally responsible Members.
  Mr. Speaker, it was shocking to me today to read on the front page of 
today's Washington Post about the deaths of six people in this city 
yesterday because of the cold weather. It strains credulity that we 
still have people freezing to death in this great country. So what is 
Congress going to do to help these people? Well, unfortunately, the 
answer from the administration is nothing more. Sorry, they say. No 
money for additional heating is available.
  In my home of Broward County in the State of Florida, we are facing 
millions of dollars of shortfalls to deal with serious human needs, 
from sheltering the homeless to feeding the hungry to administering 
medical care, and I spent a lot of time studying that particular 
problem during the last month in my area. To the infirm persons who are 
not to receive assistance, to paving roads and, most importantly, in 
leaving no child behind, we are getting ready to leave some behind in 
my home county because we do not have the funds to modernize the 
schools; we have already dropped the summer school program that is 
proposed, and cuts are everywhere, which means that there are serious 
problems. The people of south Florida and throughout this country have 
serious human needs which the President's budget neglects.
  As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am 
keenly aware of what our domestic and national security needs are. I do 
not quibble with the President's request for this funding. What I do 
take umbrage with is the insistence that the administration does not 
have enough cash or proposed same for the other serious needs in our 
country.
  At the same time I remain committed to homeland security, I also 
remain committed to security in folks' homes and in their families. We 
need to realize that September 11 was not just an attack on the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon; rather, it was an attack against 
America's economy, America's values, and all of the American people.
  As we fund the war on terrorism abroad and within our own borders, we 
cannot and will not forget our casualties here at home. And, Mr. 
Speaker, I am not just talking about the significant number of 
Americans, nearly 3,000 or more, who died on September 11 or in the 
subsequent anthrax attacks. I am also talking about the more than 1.8 
million hard-working Americans who are jobless as a result of our 
recession. Every day we pick up the paper and another company is firing 
or laying off thousands of workers.
  I am glad to see that the President includes a 13-week extension of 
unemployment benefits for those who lost their job as a result of the 
attacks on our Nation. This extension is a move that I, for one, along 
with several of my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion have been 
pushing for since I first introduced my plan to extend unemployment and 
job training benefits, as well as health care benefits, to the 
unemployed, when I offered an amendment to the Airline Stabilization 
Act on September 21. My plan currently has more than 150 bipartisan 
cosponsors, the most of any plan in the House at this time.
  But while the budget extends unemployment, it cuts 20 out of 48 job 
training programs the Federal Government currently offers to those who 
wish to improve their on the job skills. In addition, the budget does 
nothing to extend the health care benefits to displaced workers.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that in less than 1 year, the health 
care benefits for the 1.3 million already displaced workers and their 
families is going to expire. Although the recession may be slowing, we 
nonetheless remain in a recession. Just because unemployment levels may 
only be increasing by .1 percent every month and not the 1.5 percent as 
we saw a few months ago, we are in no way re-creating the jobs that we 
have already lost. It is going to be a long time until the economy will 
recover enough to the point that we can actually re-create jobs instead 
of losing them. Until then, we need to protect the unemployed because 
times are not getting any easier for them.
  As I mentioned at the outset, and for the reasons just explained, I 
oppose adoption of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my good friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I very much oppose this resolution and H. 
Con. Res. 312 that would be brought up under it. Mr. Speaker, H. Cons. 
Res. 312 is nothing but a smoke screen. It is to try to hide the fact 
that the Social Security and Medicare surplus is going up in smoke, 
going up in smoke, because of the way this administration and this 
House have handled the economy and the budget. It is an effort to hide 
the fact that the lockbox of Social Security and Medicare is not only 
being unlocked, but it is being thrown into the scrap heap.
  On five occasions this House voted on lockboxes for Social Security 
and Medicare: On May 26, 1999; June 20, 2000; September 18, 2000; 
September 19, 2000; and February 13, 2000. But what has happened? The 
lockbox is essentially gone.
  President Bush just a year ago said this: ``To make sure the 
retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted to any other 
program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security 
surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone.''
  But look at this chart, what has happened. A surplus of $5.6 trillion 
will be down this year to less than $1 trillion, and probably less than 
that; a loss of $5 trillion in 1 year, much of it Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The L.A. Times yesterday in the headlines said, ``Budget Sells Social 
Security Down Red Ink River,'' critics say. How true. How true that is.
  Let me just read the implications of that from the Director of the 
budget office, and I quote: ``Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the 
extremes of what will be required to address our retirement are these: 
We will have to increase borrowing by very large, likely unsustainable 
amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously unprecedented in 
our history; or eliminate most of the rest of the government as we know 
it. That is the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. Chairman, 
and these next 10 years will only be the beginning.''
  Here we face a resolution trying to hide these facts. The President's 
budget diverts all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Medicare surplus 
and $1.5 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, and 
instead of paying down the debt, which is essential to meeting our 
Social Security needs and Medicare, what we are doing is increasing the 
debt.
  One other chart. Mr. Speaker, one result of this irresponsibility is 
not only to divert Social Security and Medicare funds, but to increase 
interest costs over this 10-year period by $1 trillion. What a waste. 
Baby boomers are going to turn 62 in 2008. This resolution is an

[[Page 631]]

effort to hide the fact that this administration has turned their back 
on the Social Security and Medicare needs of baby boomers. I oppose 
this resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today our House has an opportunity, an 
opportunity to go on the Record and speak clearly of whether or not we 
should continue lowering taxes for American workers. Today we are at 
war. The war on terrorism, our efforts to strengthen our homeland 
security, and the current recession have caused a fiscal deficit in our 
budget. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, they 
point out that the recession, combined with the war on terrorism and 
our efforts to protect our homeland security, account for 72 percent of 
our current deficit.

                              {time}  1045

  So almost three-quarters of our deficit has been caused by the 
economy as well as the war. Some on the other side are saying we need 
to raise taxes in order to eliminate that deficit. And the way they 
want to raise taxes is they are calling for the repeal of the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, something we commonly know as 
the Bush tax cut which will give them more money to spend here in 
Washington.
  Well, today we have a choice, a choice of higher taxes or getting 
this economy growing again. Let us remember that when President Bush 
became President he inherited a weakening economy. At that time the 
President proposed taking one-fifth, 20 percent of the budget surplus 
that resulted from the fiscal responsibilities of this good Congress, 
and giving it back to the American worker so the American worker can 
spend it at home for their families and get the economy moving again. 
And we succeeded with bipartisan support in passing the Bush tax cut, 
helping our economy.
  We lowered rates for small business and entrepreneurs. And we have to 
remember it is small business and entrepreneurs that are the engines of 
economic growths. In fact, 80 percent of those who filed taxes under 
the top two tax brackets are small business people and entrepreneurs 
who have shops and businesses on Liberty Street, the downtown in my 
home town of Morris, Illinois, as well as on Main Street all over 
America. We also passed efforts to wipe out the marriage tax penalty, 
to wipe out the death tax which helps small business and family 
farmers, to increase contributions and incentives for retirement 
savings and to double the child tax credit.
  If we repeal the Bush tax cut, that is all gone. It is a tax increase 
on the American worker. And there is no real-world economist today who 
says that in a time of war and recession that you should increase 
taxes. But if you repeal or stall the Bush tax cut, we know it is a tax 
increase.
  Well, the Bush tax cut was working. Economists were telling us that 
late August around Labor Day that the economy was beginning to grow 
again. Then the terrible tragedy of September 11 occurred, costing 
thousands of Americans their lives, terrible tragedy, put us into a 
war; and unfortunately the psychological blow of that terrorist attack 
also impacted the confidence of American consumers as well as American 
investors. And over a million Americans have since lost their jobs 
since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Pennsylvania, and 
here in Washington at the Pentagon.
  Today we are at work. We are strengthening our homeland security. And 
unfortunately we are also in an economic recession. Again, no real-
world economists says that we should increase taxes during a recession. 
Tax increases hurt our economy, they hurt the confidence of our 
investors, and they take money out of the pocketbooks of American 
workers who can better spend that at home taking care of their 
families' needs.
  We must keep spending under control. True fiscal responsibility is 
keeping spending under control. Fiscal responsibility is not increasing 
taxes, as my friends on the other side of the aisle today will be 
advocating. Repealing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. Simple.
  Today we will have the opportunity for the House to go on the record 
for every Member of this House, Republican and Democrat, to say they 
want to increase taxes or we protect the tax cut for the American 
worker and get this economy moving again. Let us remember, repealing 
the Bush tax cut is a tax increase. I ask this House to vote aye on 
this rule, and I urge Members of both parties to vote against a tax 
increase and vote aye in favor of maintaining the full implementation 
of the Bush tax cut, helping the American worker and let us get this 
economy moving again.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, could I please be advised as to 
the amount of time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller), I would like to advise the gentleman that I know of no 
Democrat that has signified that he or she is in favor of tax 
increases. The gentleman's analogy is a false analogy. Repealing these 
tax cuts would not be a tax increase.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, repealing the Bush tax cut will increase tax revenue by about 
$360 billion. Now, when we increase tax revenue when people are already 
making plans based upon that tax cut, real-world economists call that a 
tax increase.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I would like the 
gentleman to understand that last year's tax cut, if made permanent as 
proposed in the President's budget, would cost approximately over $2 
trillion over the next 10 years when debt service costs are taken into 
account. That cost is almost exactly the same as the total raids on 
Social Security and Medicare that will occur over the next 10 years. 
There is a future and that is what I do not think anybody is saying, 
and there are human needs and they need to be addressed in a meaningful 
way. If we had no tax cut, we would be able to address them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to 
suspend reality. The only purpose of this resolution is to allow the 
House to debate a resolution that really does suspend reality.
  It was just a few short months ago that the same people who are here 
today urging adoption of this proposal were telling us that we could 
have it all: We could save Social Security; We could preserve Medicare 
and extend a prescription drug benefit to seniors; We could balance the 
budget; We could have more spending; We could pay down the debt. 
Indeed, we could do all of that with huge tax breaks for the richest 
people in our society. We could do all of that, they told us; and they 
even had the audacity to come to the House and say we need more tax 
breaks because if we do not get them, we will be paying down the debt 
too far and that might jeopardize the economic future of our country.
  Well, these same folks today are bringing up what is really a 
resolution to have a straw man about a tax increase. There is no one on 
the floor today that has a bill or proposal to raise taxes or even to 
repeal any of the taxes that were changed last year, many of which were 
outrageously skewed to those at the top of the economic ladder, rather 
than reaching those hardworking Americans, who needed tax relief the 
most.

[[Page 632]]

  No, what we have is a resolution that is designed to disguise all of 
the red ink that is in this budget that has been proposed this week and 
to distract attention from what is really occurring here--a raid on 
Social Security and Medicare.
  How does all of this work? Well, in order to finance these tax 
breaks, our colleagues on the Republican side are not only picking the 
padlock on the Social Security and Medicare lock box that they voted 
for five times; rather, within months of having approved this phony 
lock box, they are throwing the whole box away. They are saying to the 
people of America that when you work hard and you contribute your wages 
and you get taxed at work and your employer gets taxed to forward those 
monies up to Washington to protect and preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, that they are not going to use them for that purpose. They 
are going to give Social Security and Medicare an IOU, and they will 
redirect those same dollars and apply them to finance these tax breaks 
way into the future.
  It is not just the tax breaks that have already been proposed. 
Yesterday we have heard Republicans are already seeking about a 
trillion dollars more to extend these tax breaks and add to them. As if 
that was not enough damage to the fiscal strength and sanity of this 
country, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paul O'Neill, indicated 
that his ultimate objective which he had shared with the President, and 
with which the President indicated he was intrigued, is to eliminate 
all taxation on corporations and businesses in this country. So we will 
face, one year after another, more reaching into our pockets to take 
those payroll taxes and use them to advance the Republican Party's 
agenda.
  The reality that they want to suspend is that under their proposed 
budget, they are going to take $1.5 trillion of Social Security payroll 
taxes and use them elsewhere. They will take $500 billion, in excess of 
$500 billion of Medicare payroll taxes and use them elsewhere. In 
addition to all that, they propose piling on almost a trillion dollars 
of additional tax breaks. That makes no fiscal sense. It means shifting 
more and more of the responsibility for what we are doing today to our 
children and our grandchildren, and it also means we will not be able 
to fulfill our Social Security and Medicare obligations. It means 
direct benefit cuts as a result of this kind of phony resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Members in the 
minority do not have any problem debating this issue. They do not mind 
talking about postponing or delaying the tax cuts. They do not mind 
speaking out and blaming the tax cuts for all sorts of evil, but they 
do not want to vote. They do not want to take a position. That is all 
we are going to do, just take a vote and let everybody be counted.
  Now, last night in a kind of bomb blast against this resolution, 
there was a Member of the minority that said this country ran a surplus 
for 200 years and now we are in a deficit and it is no time to reduce 
taxes. Well, let me remind all of the Members that this country, while 
it was running a surplus, had a tax rate of half of what it is today. 
We have actually increased taxes by a greater extent than when we had a 
surplus. And all those tax increases have only resulted in more 
spending, that is what they have resulted in. They did not get us to a 
surplus until we cut spending; and we went into a surplus not by 
raising taxes but by cutting the rate of spending. And if Members are 
opposed to, if Members want to delay these tax cuts, if Members want to 
postpone these tax cuts, then vote no on this resolution. But as far as 
I am concerned, when Congress makes a commitment to give American 
people tax relief, they ought to honor that commitment. To put it 
plainly, the American people should get the tax cuts they were 
promised. Americans should have the relief they need now.
  Passage of President Bush's tax cuts, and the ink is barely dry on 
them. It has just been a few months. And that was a historic bipartisan 
effort, a historic bipartisan effort. Only three times since World War 
II has this Congress passed across-the-board tax cuts. The first time 
was President Kennedy in the 60's. The second time was President Reagan 
in the '80's, and now George W. Bush's tax cut that we just passed. And 
already, already we are saying we are blaming those tax cuts on the 
disappearance of the surplus. We are blaming them for that. And as the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, spending accounts for 16 
percent of it; 72 percent of it was caused by economic conditions.
  We need to stimulate the economy. We need tax cuts to stimulate the 
economy, to cause growth, to increase tax revenues. We do not need to 
be increasing taxes.
  Now, someone said we are just postponing and delaying the tax cuts. 
That does not result in a tax increase to anyone. Why, obviously, it 
does. The American people know that it does. When we postpone marriage 
penalty relief, people continue to pay a marriage penalty. Their taxes 
are more because the marriage penalty continues to be paid.
  Now, most of us in this body think that the marriage penalty is 
unfair, that we ought to repeal it. We voted to do just that. Yet, now 
Members are saying, well, we ought to delay the marriage penalty 
relief. Across-the-board income tax reduction. People got $300 and they 
got $600 back, and they said, this is great. The government trusts us 
to spend our own money. Instead of them spending it, we are getting to 
spend it.
  Now there are some in this body that said we should not do that. We 
should not continue that. They are saying we can spend this money. We 
can make better decisions than the American people.

                              {time}  1100

  I say put that money in the pockets of hardworking Americans; let 
them spend that money, whether it is $300 or $600. Actually it is 
$1,700 when these tax cuts take effect.
  How about doubling of the per child tax credit? If we delay that, 
then people do not get that, and their taxes go back up where they 
would have gone down. We are talking about hundreds of dollars per 
American family. I call that a tax increase.
  If we want to vote to postpone, if we want to delay these tax cuts, 
get out here and vote for it. The American people deserve to know how 
every Member of the House and every Senator feels on this issue. Let us 
quit obstructing this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Would the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) stay at the stand for 
he and I to have an exchange?
  Am I correct that the surplus in the Social Security, and that we 
voted five times in the House of Representatives to have a lockbox so 
that Social Security surplus would not be utilized; can you answer both 
those questions yes or no?
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we can curtail spending. We do not have to 
rob Social Security.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
response.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui), my good friend.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time.
  Here we go again. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the 
gentleman who just spoke said that 70 plus percent of the surplus has 
been eliminated because of the war effort and because of the recession. 
If you only take it in a snapshot of the last 12 months, that may be 
true, but over the next 10 years, we have to look at it over the next 
10 years because the tax cut phases in over 10 years. What really 
happens is because the CBO made bad projections and because of the 
recession, the surplus is eliminated by 42

[[Page 633]]

percent by the change in economic conditions.
  Secondly, the tax cut once 10 years have passed is 41 percent of the 
loss of the surplus, 41 percent of the loss of the surplus. The defense 
spending, the defense spending and the war effort, the total over the 
next 10 years only comes to 9 percent of the loss of the surplus. It is 
the tax cut, 400 times the cost of the defense bill, that is the reason 
that we are losing the surplus and running deficits and the reason we 
are going to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund.
  What is ironic is the fact that the Social Security Trust Fund under 
the President's budget over the next 10 years will be tapped into in 
the sum of $1.4 trillion. Some might smirk at that. The problem is that 
what we have is a unique situation. The elevator operator, the waitress 
in the House dining room that feeds us and makes sure we have our 
meals, their payroll tax is going to pay for this tax cut that was 
passed last May.
  The tax cut that was passed last May, it comes to $1.7 trillion once 
we add it all up with the interest lost, $1.7 trillion, and that comes 
from the Social Security surplus that is now being taken out to pay for 
the tax cut.
  The payroll tax is the most regressive tax in America. So we are 
asking people that make $20,000 a year, $2,000 they pay into the Social 
Security Trust Fund every year, and we are going to ask them to pay for 
tax cuts for people who make $1.1 million because the top 1 percent get 
40 percent of this tax cut.
  Somebody is going to have to tell me about the equities in this. We 
are not like the Greeks, we are not like Aristotle so we do not talk 
about ethics, but there is something immoral about this, something 
immoral about asking the waitress on her payroll taxes to pay for 
people that make $1 million a year.
  What we have is a little resolution that we would like to add on to 
the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Hastings) resolution. It would 
basically say that we want to preserve the Social Security and Medicare 
Trust Fund. We want to put that in a separate account. My colleagues 
voted on it five times in the last 24 months. In fact, only one 
Republican Member in the entire body, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), voted against it, and he only did that once or twice. So 
they all support taking the Social Security and Medicare money, putting 
it aside so that we do not spend it on anything, including tax cuts and 
other government programs. All we want to do is add that on as an 
amendment so we can put a little equity in this so we can make sure the 
American public understand what the priorities are.
  I have to the say this: If my colleagues vote for this rule and deny 
us the opportunity to offer an amendment to create a lockbox that 
protects Social Security and Medicare, we are jeopardizing the senior 
citizens of America. We are putting them at risk. We are putting them 
in a situation where they are putting their payroll taxes into a trust 
fund thinking it is for their retirement, and instead, it goes to 
people like Ken Lay of Enron Corporation. That is the most outrageous 
thing I can imagine on the floor of the House.
  Let me just conclude by making one other observation about this, if I 
may. If this resolution fails, and I really hope it fails, it means 
nothing. The tax cut still goes into effect. So we are wondering, the 
American public is saying, well, if it fails, it still goes into 
effect, why is that? Well, that is because we are playing games. 
Instead of doing the public's business, instead of trying to make sure 
the economy is working, instead of making sure that we have a balanced 
budget, instead we are playing games.
  This is absolutely a meaningless day. We are going to spend 3 hours 
on this, debate it, vote on it, and it is going to be totally 
meaningless because no matter what we do, that tax cut is still going 
to occur. So we have to ask ourselves what is really the intention of 
the authors of this amendment? Why are they doing this? Well, because 
they want to play politics. They talk about partisanship. That is 
exactly what they are into.
  Vote for a motion upon the previous question. Vote against the rule 
and vote against this resolution which is a very bad resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
are not evil. Matter of fact, I spoke to the gentleman from New York's 
(Mr. Rangel) staffer just yesterday. He informed me that only about 9 
percent of the population that he represents own their own home, and it 
is difficult to think that people with tax relief in that district 
could help themselves more than government, but neither my district nor 
the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) district I think represents 
mid-America, and tax relief does help those individuals with money in 
their own pockets.
  I would say to my colleagues, the issue of the Social Security Trust 
Fund is not on this floor because in 1993, when the Democrats 
controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, they claimed that 
they wanted tax relief for the middle class. What did they do? They 
could not help themselves. They raised the tax on the middle class. 
They took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund for domestic 
spending. They increased taxes, and they increased spending, and what 
we are saying is that we believe that for all America that tax relief, 
marriage penalty, death tax, more money in education IRAs benefits most 
of the people in America.
  I understand why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wants more 
government support. He is not evil. It helps his district, but in my 
district and I think the majority of districts, it does not, and that 
is what we are fighting for is across the board middle America.
  I would say that when we increased taxes on Social Security in 1993, 
when we take increased gas taxes, that hurts Americans. Look at the 
truckers that we had demonstrating on the lawn because it increased 
just in gas tax and the high cost of fuel. That is wrong, and it hurts 
jobs. Why are people laying off people today, over 700,000 people since 
September 11, and before that, we had started into a recession? Because 
they are not making margins.
  Remember in Los Angeles when we had the riots, all those businesses 
that were burned out, how much revenue was coming to the United States 
Government? Zero. But yet Jack Kemp's type law for an enterprise zone 
gave low-interest loans. We put money in there. We started those 
businesses. People started working, and the more people that worked, 
the more revenue we had in government. That is what we believe in, and 
then we can help these domestic programs.
  This country is at war, both domestically and overseas. Most 
Americans do not mind reducing the amount of growth. We will set a 
number, my colleagues will set a higher number. Because we do not reach 
their higher number, they will say we are cutting when we are actually 
increasing domestic programs. I understand my colleagues on the other 
side, but government does not do it better than people themselves.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker give an 
account of the amount of time remaining for both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 7\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) has 14 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from California was exactly 
right when he said a moment ago that Social Security is not on the 
floor today, but it should be.
  The reason I rise to strongly oppose this rule and strongly oppose 
the previous question is that I believe that we ought to have an 
amendment allowed that would preserve the lockbox for Social Security. 
What our friends on this

[[Page 634]]

side of the aisle are saying clearly to the American people today, it 
is much more important to preserve the tax cuts in 2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 than it is to protect Social Security and 
the ability of our young people and the baby boomers to draw it in 
2007.
  That is the choice today, and do I mind voting on this? Not at all. 
To those that continue to say we are talking about raising taxes on 
this side of the aisle, no one on this side of the aisle has said one 
word about raising taxes on anybody in the past several days or in the 
days ahead.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will point out the primary 
reason we face a deficit this year is because of the war on terrorism 
and the economic downturn, and they are right, this year, but we are 
talking about a 10-year proposal. We are talking about setting into 
concrete a budget resolution that was passed before the war, before 
September 11, and saying we cannot touch any of that. We are going to 
borrow all of the Social Security Trust Fund moneys for the next 10 
years. That is what my colleagues are saying. When they vote for this 
rule and for the previous question, they are saying absolutely 
unequivocally we are going to go back into Social Security, and we are 
going to justify it.
  What I would ask my friends, those who have said, as the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said a moment ago, we are going to cut 
spending, bring your budget out, give us a chance to work with you. You 
will find there will be considerable support on this side of the aisle 
for cutting spending. Bring it out. You will have a chance to do that.
  Last year the Blue Dogs warned it was dangerous to make long-term 
budgetary commitments based on 10-year surplus projections when 70 
percent of the projected surplus was in year 2006 to 2010. We suggested 
it would be much more responsible to make budget decisions based on 5-
year projections. Now I read that the Office of Management and Budget 
has proposed using 5-year budget projections because they have decided 
that 10-year projections are not reliable, yet here we are arguing on 
the 10-year projection. The OMB says, no, we should not do that. If it 
was a mistake to make budget decisions based on 10-year projections, as 
the administration is telling us now, then why are we blindly making 
decisions based on a 10-year budget forecast that turned out to be $5 
trillion wrong?
  What bothers me about the game plan we are now in is what it means to 
the future of Social Security and Medicare. We should be saving the 
Social Security and Medicare surpluses to prepare for the retirement of 
the baby boom generation and working on reforms to strengthen Social 
Security and Medicare for our children and grandchildren. That is what 
we should be debating on this floor today, tomorrow and the days ahead.
  I would say to my colleagues that if they are looking forward to 
voting to increase the limit on our national debt to $6.7 trillion to 
borrow the money that they are insisting in their economic game plan, 
that they voted on, that they are insisting on, if they are looking 
forward to that, then vote for this previous question and rule, because 
they are going to get a chance to vote to borrow, and the American 
people are soon to begin to understand that we are talking about 
borrowing the money to spend.

                              {time}  1115

  We are fighting a war, and we are borrowing on our children and 
grandchildren's future in order to satisfy a theoretic game plan that 
is already shown to be off by $5 trillion within 12 months. If we look 
at the massive increases in the national debt and the budget that was 
submitted this week, and the tremendous unfunded liabilities facing the 
Social Security system and the Medicare system, and worry about the 
legacy we are leaving for our grandchildren, then perhaps this 
resolution does not feel so good.
  I hope there is a few of my colleagues on that side that share that 
commitment because I certainly do. It is time to set aside these pure 
partisan comments and start working on the real problem, and that is 
solving the Social Security problem before it is too late.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to bring up one point that people continue to forget. 
It certainly is not emphasized in the media. And that is that as we 
estimated what our budget surplus would be over the last few years, we 
predicted that over 10 years it would be $5.6 trillion. We are still 
looking at a budget surplus over 10 years. It has dropped because of 
recession and the war on terrorism and spending that we continue to do 
to $1.6 trillion, but, in fact, at the end of 10 years, we will have a 
surplus, according to today's number, of $1.6 trillion.
  So let us not imply we are going to have years and years of deficits; 
that we are going to do as the other party did for 40 years and spend 
our government into a huger and huger national debt. It is simply not 
true.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for sponsoring this resolution. I 
rise today on the 91st birthday of Ronald Reagan, our Nation's 40th 
President, to call upon Congress to make our historic tax bill 
permanent. Under President Reagan's leadership, we experienced economic 
expansion and peace and prosperity in the midst of a Cold War. He 
believed that cutting taxes would increase, not shrink the Federal tax 
revenues, and he was right. We also know that spending did not decrease 
during those years because Congress did not keep its commitment.
  I believe as far as this permanency resolution is concerned, Mr. 
Speaker, that workers should not face financial uncertainty just 
because we fail to make their tax cut permanent. It is very important 
to tell the American public about the consequences of inaction.
  If we do not make the tax bill permanent, working Americans, 
teachers, small-business people, small-business owners, truck drivers 
will all see a tremendous tax increase. No matter what anybody says 
about it, if we do not make this permanent, and this tax situation 
comes back after 10 years to be exactly the way it was before the 
President signed the bill last June, that is a tax increase.
  Specifically, in 2011, a middle-income couple making $50,000 a year 
would see their tax burden rise by over $1,200 a year just because of 
the phaseout of the provision that now relieves married couples from 
the marriage penalty.
  I also want to point out the two central myths that are promoted by 
our opponents. First of all, tax relief made the recession worse. 
False. In fact, the tax cut had the opposite effect by putting more 
money in people's pockets and by creating incentives to encourage 
companies to invest and create jobs. The economic data indicate that 
consumer spending kept us from falling into an even deeper recession.
  Secondly, the myth that suspending the tax relief is not a tax 
increase. False. Make no mistake about it, rescinding tax relief would 
be raising taxes. That very strange item in the Senate that requires 
that any kind of tax decrease sunset after 10 years has already had 
some perverse effects. Under current law, people will have to die 
during 9 particular months, from January 1 to October 1 in 2010, to 
avoid the death tax. For anybody who passes away in 2011, however, 
their estate would face the punishing 55 percent rate again that we had 
in 2001. The resurrection of the death tax ensures that family 
businesses will continue to pay estate planners and buy expensive 
insurance policies. It is just as if repeal never existed.
  The lack of permanency, the lack of predictability has real 
consequences. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is especially 
symbolic that we offer this resolution today on President Reagan's 
birthday. We all know what a champion he was for tax relief, and we 
honor his legacy by supporting this resolution.

[[Page 635]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to advise my colleague that the Governor of the State of 
Florida, the President's brother, just scaled back his own tax cut in 
Florida. And I ask, did Governor Bush just raise the taxes of all 
Floridians? He is not calling it a tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means and my good friend.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join with the gentlewoman from 
Washington in wishing President Reagan a happy birthday and in saying 
that, as most people should know, that this is a tax policy bill, but 
because it deals with more politics than policy, it did not go through 
the Committee on Ways and Means. True, we have a lot of Members here 
trying to protect our jurisdiction, but it went through the Committee 
on Rules. That means it is supposed to be noncontroversial. It means 
that what some of the people are projecting here is not only do we 
accelerate the tax cuts, which the Committee on Ways and Means has seen 
with their majority to enact and to pass into law, but they even are 
talking about making it permanent, which not only costs trillions of 
dollars, but at a time where we find that 40 or 50 million people will 
become eligible for Social Security.
  I think this is not noncontroversial. I think it is something that 
should go through the Committee on Ways and Means. And I kind of think 
that since all of this was enacted at a time when we did not have a 
recession and we did not have war, that we really are tying up the 
hands of the Congress to project what is going to happen in the future.
  There was a time before the State of the Union message that I thought 
Osama bin Laden was what was the threat to the United States. The 
President says there are 10,000 terrorists walking the streets 
throughout the United States of America. The President says it is not 
Osama bin Laden, because he never mentioned his name, but we have the 
three-country axis, where we have Iran, Iraq, even North Korea. But, 
who knows, Somalia; who knows, Libya; who knows, Cuba.
  So we do not know, really, the true extent of where this war may take 
us. And since we have the responsibility, I think, if we retained it, 
to declare the war, we should have the responsibility in determining 
how we pay for it. This is the only time, during a time of war, where 
we are saying let us accelerate tax cuts and make them permanent; when 
during a time of war, our great Republic always said, let there be 
sacrifices, let us protect the poor, let us protect our men and women, 
giving them what they need, let us protect Medicare, let us protect 
Social Security, and let us protect our country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we are having the traditional debate today, 
and that is, when spending is a little tight, do we raise taxes, or do 
we bring spending under control? Our friends on the other side of the 
aisle are using their traditional argument to raise taxes, and we are 
saying that we should keep spending under control.
  We are in a recession; world war. Clearly, we do have a deficit. We 
all admit to that. And every time we have been in a recession, we have 
had a deficit. Every time we have been at war, we have had a deficit. 
As the Congressional Budget Office has stated, 72 percent of the 
deficit is a result of the economy and the war against terrorism.
  Clearly, if we want to get this economy moving again, we need to 
bring spending under control and continue to lower taxes for American 
workers. And not one real-world economist has said that we should 
increase taxes during a recession. They all say, including Alan 
Greenspan, that we should lower taxes.
  I would note that if our friends are successful in stalling or 
repealing the Bush tax cut, this is what they will do: They will 
increase taxes on married couples. Our friends would increase taxes on 
the death tax for small-business people and family farmers. They would 
increase taxes on small-business people and entrepreneurs. They would 
also increase taxes on parents who have children, because they would 
stop the implementation of doubling the child tax credit.
  As Secretary O'Neill has said, ``Any delay or repeal of the Bush tax 
cut is clearly a tax increase.'' And he also said, and I can quote him 
from his testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 
``Raising taxes would stifle the process of getting Americans back to 
work. This is a bad idea as our recovery is struggling to take hold.''
  My colleagues, over a million Americans are out of work. We do not 
need a tax increase. We need to get this economy moving again. Vote aye 
on the previous question, aye on the rule, and aye for the resolution 
to maintain the tax cut.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side, what part of $1\1/2\ trillion 
raid on Social Security do you not understand about the next 10 years? 
What we are going to do is unlock the lockbox and box up the economy of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I am going to offer an amendment to the 
rule to remove from the suspension calendar H. Con. Res. 312, the sense 
of the House that the tax cuts enacted last year should go forward. I 
will replace it with legislation that will provide for a Social 
Security and Medicare lockbox for the sixth time in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of how Members feel about last year's tax 
cuts, it is critical that we first work to protect and preserve Social 
Security and Medicare. Under the new budget resolution presented by the 
President this week, there will be, over the next 10 years, a nearly 
$1.5 trillion raid on the Social Security Trust Fund and over $.5 
trillion from the Medicare Trust Fund. It is absolutely critical that 
we keep promises we have made to our Nation's senior citizens and 
protect their future. This bill is virtually identical to H.R. 2, which 
was passed nearly unanimously by the House last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
previous question immediately prior to the vote, and urge my colleagues 
once again to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the issue the gentleman just 
raised about Social Security.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. They are talking about 
Social Security and throwing out all these things, throwing out 
numbers. The bottom line is this: If my colleagues want a tax increase, 
then submit a bill, submit legislation, and tell the American people 
where they stand.
  What I have done, what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 
done, we have submitted legislation to let the American people know 
where we stand, where everyone in this House and the Senate stands. Be 
honest. Submit legislation and increase taxes. We will have a vote on 
that.
  The best way to ensure that we protect Social Security, which is what 
we all want, is to stimulate the economy. OMB Director Mitch Daniels 
testified yesterday before the House Committee on the Budget, and that 
is what he said. The sooner we return to economic growth, the better we 
can protect Social Security. That was his message. A few hours later, 
the Senate killed the stimulus package.
  The way to get economic growth is to stick with President Bush's tax 
relief. Raising taxes or postponing or delaying the President's tax 
relief is a sure way to destroy this economy, that and obstructing an 
economic stimulus bill. That is how we will destroy Social Security, by 
driving up taxes and keeping spending high.
  We have made a commitment to the American people to give them tax 
relief they need. We must keep that commitment. Cutting taxes is the 
right

[[Page 636]]

thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate thing 
to do for families who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck.
  We need to get this economy going. We need to create jobs. They do 
not want unemployment checks. They would much rather have a payroll 
check. Let us give them tax relief, let us resurrect that economic 
stimulus package. We lost 300,000 jobs last month through inactivity 
and 800,000 jobs since this House passed an economic stimulus package.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people relief. Let us stimulate 
this economy.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

                    Previous Question for H. Res. __

      Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules

       At the appropriate place in the resolution strike ``(1)'' 
     and all that follows through ``repealed.'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``(1) A bill to establish a procedure to safeguard the 
     surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare hospital 
     insurance trust funds printed in section 2 of this 
     resolution.''
       At the end of the resolution insert the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. The text of the bill is as follows:

       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 2002''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) fiscal pressures will mount as an aging population 
     increases the Government's obligations to provide retirement 
     income and health services;
       (2) 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;
       (3) preserving the social security and medicare hospital 
     insurance surpluses would restore confidence in the long-term 
     financial integrity of social security and medicare; and
       (4) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through 
     debt reduction would increase national savings, promote 
     economic growth, and reduce its interest payments.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to--
       (1) prevent the surpluses of the social security and 
     medicare hospital insurance trust funds from being used for 
     any purpose other than providing retirement and health 
     security; and
       (2) use such surpluses to pay down the national debt until 
     such time as medicare and social security reform legislation 
     is enacted.

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

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


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

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Lock-Box for Social Security and Hospital 
     Insurance Surpluses--
       ``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget--
       ``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, that would set forth a surplus for 
     any fiscal year that is less than the surplus of the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Exception.--(i) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
     the extent that a violation of such subparagraph would result 
     from an assumption in the resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report, as applicable, of an increase in outlays 
     or a decrease in revenue relative to the baseline underlying 
     that resolution for social security reform legislation or 
     medicare reform legislation for any such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) If a concurrent resolution on the budget, or an 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, would be in 
     violation of subparagraph (A) because of an assumption of an 
     increase in outlays or a decrease in revenue relative to the 
     baseline underlying that resolution for social security 
     reform legislation or medicare reform legislation for any 
     such fiscal year, then that resolution shall include a 
     statement identifying any such increase in outlays or 
     decrease in revenue.
       ``(2) Spending and tax legislation.--
       ``(A) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
       ``(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution, as 
     reported;
       ``(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
       ``(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the 
     form recommended in that conference report,

     would cause the surplus for any fiscal year covered by the 
     most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget 
     to be less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund for that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
     social security reform legislation or medicare reform 
     legislation.
       ``(b) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Budgetary levels with respect to concurrent 
     resolutions on the budget.--For purposes of enforcing any 
     point of order under subsection (a)(1), the surplus for any 
     fiscal year shall be--
       ``(A) the levels set forth in the later of the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, as reported, or in the conference 
     report on the concurrent resolution on the budget; and
       ``(B) adjusted to the maximum extent allowable under all 
     procedures that allow budgetary aggregates to be adjusted for 
     legislation that would cause a decrease in the surplus for 
     any fiscal year covered by the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget (other than procedures described in paragraph 
     (2)(A)(ii)).
       ``(2) Current levels with respect to spending and tax 
     legislation.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of enforcing subsection 
     (a)(2), the current levels of the surplus for any fiscal year 
     shall be--
       ``(i) calculated using the following assumptions--
       ``(I) direct spending and revenue levels at the baseline 
     levels underlying the most recently agreed to concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; and
       ``(II) for the budget year, discretionary spending levels 
     at current law levels and, for outyears, discretionary 
     spending levels at the baseline levels underlying the most 
     recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget; and
       ``(ii) adjusted for changes in the surplus levels set forth 
     in the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the 
     budget pursuant to procedures in such resolution that 
     authorize adjustments in budgetary aggregates for updated 
     economic and technical assumptions in the mid-session report 
     of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

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

[[Page 637]]

     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.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I encourage Members to vote 
``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution, and then on the motion to suspend the rules 
on S. 1888 postponed from yesterday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 204, not voting 18, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Blagojevich
     Bono
     Cooksey
     Cubin
     Frelinghuysen
     Hoyer
     Luther
     McDermott
     Oxley
     Riley
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Shaw
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Traficant
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1157

  Ms. SANCHEZ, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and Messrs. 
MEEHAN, McINTYRE, REYES, OWENS, GORDON and LIPINSKI changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated no:
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House Record reflect that I 
was unavoidably delayed on rollcall No. 8. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________