John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. What I want to do is protect the right of my colleague, Senator Abraham from Michigan, to make remarks. I don't want to have consumed all the time. That is what I am interested in doing. So if we can work something out with that in mind, I am willing.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Let's say we would take 20 additional minutes?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I object and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I will be happy to yield with the understanding that at the conclusion of this interruption I continue to have the floor for my remarks.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to address the amendment which I sent to the desk because for decades, in a business-as-usual context, Washington has constantly invaded various trust funds to spend for a variety of purposes and programs. One of those trust funds was the Social Security trust fund. We spent a lot of time and energy finding a way to protect the Social Security trust fund. Having developed at least a budget rule to protect the Social Security trust fund, I think it is important for us to look to the protection of other trust funds that are important to the well-being of the people of this country and to protect them as well. One of the other trust funds which remarkably has been invaded over and over and over again as a source for spending money for a variety of Government programs has been the Medicare trust fund. For over 30 years, working people have been contributing to the country's welfare by paying the taxes they owe, paying their debts, saving for the future. Those values were rejected inside the beltway when we went into the trust funds in order to meet our spending desires. Washington tried to impose its own rules and values on the rest of the country. These misdirected rules--spending beyond our means, making promises we did not keep, misleading the American people about how their money is being spent--for too long these rules were allowed to continue. We have taken some very strong steps in the right direction. Last year, this Congress took the first step toward stopping this raid on the Social Security trust fund by enacting the Social Security lockbox rule on the budget resolution. That creates a point of order against any budget for spending money out of what would be called the Social Security surplus. The Social Security surplus is pretty easy to understand. It is defined in our accounting as the amount of money that comes into Social Security because of Social Security taxes that aren't required in that year to meet the obligations in that year of Social Security. Obviously, because we have a lot of young people working now, we have far more money coming in than we have going out with the relatively small group of older Americans consuming. In the years ahead, though, when this bulge of young people now contributing to the fund become consumers of the fund, we will need a lot of the money they are sending in. That money they are sending in is called the Social Security surplus. For years we spent that. I worked very hard to stop that spending. I worked to get included in the budget resolution a measure that would make it out of order for the Congress to spend money on other things that was sent in by taxpayers for Social Security purposes. That is the protection of the Social Security surplus. In addition, last year Senator Domenici, Senator Abraham, and I tried several times to enact a law, not just a budget rule which we did get put in place, but a law which would protect Social Security proceeds as a statutory measure. Obviously, the President would have to sign it for it to become a law. The President said he wanted a Social Security lockbox, but, unfortunately, despite all the words of support for saving the Social Security surplus and locking away the surplus, the Senate was unable to end the filibuster by Members of the Senate who opposed us and their President on the issue. Despite that opposition, Congress was able to change how business in Washington was done on the Social Security surplus. We are far better off as a result. Last year, for the first time since 1957, not one penny of the Social Security surplus was spent. Again this year, we passed a budget resolution that will not touch the off-budget or Social Security surplus, the Social Security trust fund. It will also provide tax relief for married couples and dedicate over $40 billion over the next 5 years to provide prescription drug coverage for needy, older Americans who receive Medicare. When I saw what we accomplished last year, I knew we could, as well, protect Part A of the Medicare surplus. Part A of Medicare is the only Medicare provision of which there is a trust fund. It is not funded out of the general revenue. It is something people pay specifically their taxes for, with an anticipation that those resources will be available. On November 18 of last year, I introduced S. 1962, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. I did this because Social Security is not the only trust fund that has been raised over the recent years, over decades. Over the next 5 years, taxpayers will pay in an estimated $179 billion more into the Medicare Part A trust fund than will be required to sustain the purpose of that trust fund, which is patient hospital care in Medicare. The amendment I offer today will add the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act to this pending bill. The Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act takes the Medicare Part A trust fund off budget and creates a permanent 60-vote point of order in the Senate and a majority point of order in the House against any budget resolution or subsequent bill that uses Medicare Part A or Social Security surpluses to finance on-budget deficits. This amendment protects the Medicare Part A surplus in the same way we protect the Social Security surplus. It says that Congress and the President cannot consider the Medicare surplus as part of the on-budget surplus. They can't look to this fund for ordinary spending. Therefore, Congress and the President should be unable to spend the Medicare surplus for additional spending or for additional tax cuts. This lockbox protects the Medicare trust fund from the raids of the past. This is a historic time. I hope this will be a historic day. In this, an election year, we have an unusual bipartisan opportunity to support this measure. It is not surprising that this is the right policy. It is the right thing to do. The House of Representatives has already taken this step to protect the Medicare trust fund from invasion of spending for other Government programs. Last week, the House passed their version, a little different version, of the Medicare lockbox legislation, by a vote of 420-2. The House bill was offered by Representative Wally Herger and opposed by only two House Members. Now, there are a lot of Members of this body who will want to protect, I believe, the Medicare trust fund sustaining the capacity of our Government to provide the hospitalization we have promised to individuals who are eligible for Medicare. I am pleased there are Members of this body who join me in cosponsoring this amendment, one of whom is Senator Abraham from Michigan. He has been active in the lockbox movement to protect Social Security, to make sure that Social Security is not invaded for other spending, and much of the success we have had in protecting every dime of Social Security in the trust fund this year should flow to Senator Abraham of Michigan. I am pleased he has endorsed this and is a cosponsor of this measure with me in the Senate. It is just not several Senators who endorse this. Both the Vice President and the President of the United States have endorsed enactment of a Medicare lockbox such as the one I introduced last November. Earlier this month Vice President Gore announced his support for this kind of proposal. On June 13, Gore announced he would ``place Medicare in a lockbox so its surpluses could only be used to pay down the national debt and to strengthen Medicare, not for pork barrel spending or tax cuts.'' I am pleased that the Vice President has endorsed this Medicare lockbox. I welcome that support. Obviously, when he says ``so its surpluses,'' he is referring to the kind of thing we are talking about--dedicated tax resources designed to support the program that are in excess of the needs of the program in any current year. As we have already recounted this morning, there are 175 billion of anticipated such surplus that would be directed toward the Medicare trust fund for Medicare Part A, which is the only Medicare trust fund we have. I am pleased he would endorse this concept. I think it is a concept that is bipartisan that deserves our support. Two days ago, the President of the United States called for protecting Medicare Part A surpluses through a lockbox. Allow me to quote from the President's announcement. This is from a text provided by the administration: President Clinton is proposing to take Medicare off budget. This would mean that, like the Social Security surplus, the projected $403 billion Medicare surplus would not count toward on-budget surplus and therefore could no longer be diverted for other purposes. Taking the Medicare surplus off- budget would ensure that Medicare is protected for paying down the debt to help strengthen the life of the Medicare Program. So the President has recognized there are funds specifically paid in, and that they are in surplus of what is needed immediately to be paid out. He has indicated that for those surpluses, we should be safeguarding them with a Medicare lockbox. Let me quote further from the White House release, because I believe the President has described the Medicare lockbox proposal in my amendment, which I proposed last November, in a very simple, understandable manner: What taking Medicare off budget means, the administration, speaking of itself says, is: The Administration projects that if current policies are continued, Medicare Part A, which covers hospital expenses, will run a surplus of $403 billion from [the year] 2001 through [the year] 2010. This surplus is the excess of Medicare income, principally from the 2.9 percent payroll tax, combined employer and employee, over benefit payments and administrative costs. The Medicare surplus has grown from $4 billion in 1993 to $24 billion in the year 2000. I am still quoting the President and the statement of the White House here: Under previous budget accounting conventions, this Medicare surplus was treated as part of the total on-budget surplus and was thus available for new spending on other programs or tax cuts. By taking Medicare Part A off budget, the President proposes to make it unavailable for other spending or tax cuts. That is exactly what I proposed last November. I quote again from the White House: Instead, the projected baseline Medicare surplus would be used to pay down the debt.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield such time to the Senator from Michigan as he may consume.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I previously spent some substantial time in talking about the need for a Medicare lockbox. I spent time indicating that as Social Security is off budget, I think it would be good to protect Medicare with a lockbox. In addition to talking about the common sense of not taking trust funds and spending them for things other than that for which they were paid into the trust fund, I indicated there were a broad group of people who supported this concept, including the Vice President, who has endorsed the concept of a Medicare lockbox, and the President of the United States, who very recently has endorsed the concept of a Medicare lockbox. I was in the midst of reading an extensive set of points that had been made available by the White House supporting the concept. I believe the concept is worthy of our support. I think it is important that we do it with integrity, that we don't leave any gaping holes or opportunities for the lockbox to be invaded or otherwise dispersed. It is important we not have a lockbox that appears to be a lockbox that doesn't satisfy the idea of a lockbox. I hope Senators will join with me and with an almost unanimous House of Representatives and join the President and the Vice President of the United States, who have all voiced support for this concept of a Medicare lockbox. When I came to Washington 5 years ago, people said it would be impossible to balance the budget, but we did it. They said we could not and would not balance the budget without using the Social Security trust fund. We have done it. And there are those who say we cannot and will not balance the budget and protect Medicare Part A surpluses. But we can and we will. We are more than halfway to this point. The House has voted. The President has expressed himself in support of a lockbox, as has the Vice President. Now it is the Senate's turn. I believe the Senate will sign a Medicare lockbox measure. That would send a powerful message. A lockbox amendment also requires the President to protect Medicare and Social Security by submitting a budget that does not spend either surplus. We make these changes. They are beneficial changes for the people. I call upon the Members of this body to enact a Medicare lockbox that is durable and strong and real-- not one with loopholes but one that will protect Part A Medicare surpluses for expenditure for their intended purpose. It is with that in mind I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment I proposed. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be included as a cosponsors.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 3690

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Mexico 4 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan so much time as he may consume up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor for 5 minutes of leader time for the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield to the Senator from Michigan as much time as he may consume up to 5 minutes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his kind remarks and for his commitment to maintaining the integrity of our Social Security and Medicare trust fund. Frankly, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for coming to the floor to engage in the debate about a very important issue, as well as the other Senators who have come forward to indicate their support for discontinuing--or stopping--what has become a rather traditional exercise of this Congress: spending money out of the Medicare trust fund for other purposes. It is time for us to cease that kind of expenditure. It is time for us to say the trust fund, which is made up of taxes specifically paid by working people--you have to work to pay the Medicare tax; it is a specific tax paid by working people--should be off limits to other expenditures. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I am grateful for the others--the Senator from New Jersey and others--who have talked about this issue. It is a major step forward. There are a lot of folks who have come to the floor talking about how they wanted this for a long time. Frankly, we have not had this kind of debate on protecting the Medicare trust fund in my memory. When I filed this legislation last November, I was not aware of any, and I still do not know that there is, any other legislation similar to this that had been filed at that time. I am delighted we are making this progress. I commend people on both sides of the aisle for this progress. My amendment protects the Social Security surplus as well. Social Security is off budget already. My amendment prohibits on-budget deficits. The Senator from North Dakota is talking about how durably he protects the Medicare trust fund with a point of order that takes 60 votes in the Senate. I am pleased for him to embrace that and to talk about it and say how good it is, in part because that is the budget rule which I proposed.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my remarks on this measure without further interruption.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I begin----

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I tried to accommodate the Senators on the other side. When the leader from the other side asked for 5 additional minutes, I interrupted my own remarks, and I thought it would be fair for me to have an opportunity to spend my time without being interrupted. I will start over. I commend the Senator from North Dakota for his concern and for coming to the floor to debate this issue. I am delighted we have now come to a place where we are debating ``hows'' instead of if we are going to do it--how we are going to do it. Both of these measures provide a 60-vote point of order, which is a pretty high hurdle to climb over, as a way of protecting Medicare. As a matter of fact, that is the mechanism that is used in the protection for Social Security. The Senator from North Dakota has commended that as durable, strong, vigorous, robust protection. It happens to be the protection which I placed in the law as a result of an amendment I offered in the budget process in previous budget years so that we would find ourselves incapable of infringing the Social Security surplus. When we adopted that amendment and embraced it, we had tremendously good results. This year, it looks as if there may be as many as $175 billion we will save, not spend; that we will respect instead of invade in terms of the Social Security surplus. That is a big positive. Really, what both sides of the aisle are talking about is getting the kind of robust, strong protection for Medicare that we have for Social Security. I have to say how much I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who talked about the fact we need protection in the statute, not just in the budget rules. It is lamentable that each time we have sought to upgrade that protection from the budget rules to a statute, there has been a filibuster on the other side. They now say the reason they were filibustering--one time they said it is because of Medicare; another time they waved an opinion that came from the Secretary of the Treasury. One of the reasons the Secretary of the Treasury indicated he would not want to support what we were offering was they might need to do additional spending in certain times in our economy. I understand there are those who believe wanting to spend more is a reason not to do this, but the real reason for wanting to do this is to spend less, especially to spend less of the money that is in the lockbox. The Senator from North Dakota has raised issues regarding the security of the lockbox which I have proposed. A good debate on these issues is important and appropriate. As a matter of fact, we want to have the strongest lockbox we can. I would not come to this Chamber and offer lockbox legislation that is not durable and not strong. I do not think the Senator from North Dakota would either. There are problems with the proposal of the Senator from North Dakota. This particular phrase on the fifth page of his amendment beginning with the words: This paragraph shall not apply to amounts to be expended from the hospital insurance trust fund-- That is, Medicare trust fund---- for purposes relating to programs within part A of the Medicare as provided in law on date of enactment of this paragraph. Frankly, they may have a durable lock on that box; they may have reinforced corners on the box; they may have a stout handle on the box; but if there is a hole in the side of the box, we have problems. I appreciate the Senator from New Mexico raising this issue about potential leakage from the box. What we should be about, though, is not trying to find ways in which our proposals are inadequate or whether there is a hole in his box or whether my supermajority point of order is as durable as his supermajority point of order. We should be about the business of protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus and doing it in a durable way and a way which means this Congress will not relapse into habits that Congress engaged in for decade after decade. It is time for us to respect the need for a lockbox. I filed the measure last November. Last month, Vice President Gore endorsed the concept of a lockbox. This week, 2 days ago, the President of the United States said we ought to have a lockbox to secure the Medicare box so that it would not be available for spending. I do not know what the Treasury said last year, but I know what the President said last week. And I agree with that. So it is possible to quibble here or there about one aspect of this or the other. It is instructive for me to know that these amendments were not proposed until I came to the floor to propose this. I am delighted that for the first time in my memory we are debating a Medicare lockbox, in conjunction with a Social Security lockbox, that is durable. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. ASHCROFT. So with that in mind, I commend to the Members of the Senate, generally, the concept of a lockbox: a durable, secure, mechanism that keeps this Congress from reengaging in activities it has engaged in over time. As this measure moves forward, let's do what we can to improve it in every way possible. Let's talk about a lockbox for Social Security that is statutory. I was delighted to be able to put it in the budget rules of the Senate so that it is out of order for someone to propose spending Social Security income trust funds for non-Social Security purposes. But I would like to see it enshrined into law. We have talked about waiving budget points of order. Obviously, I would like to have this be beyond a point of order. I would be very pleased to have a law enshrined for the way in which we would enforce these rules. It is with that in mind that I express my appreciation to the Members of the Senate and say that our objective here is relatively uniform. From what I can tell from arguments made on the other side, to arguments made on this side, we both want a lockbox. We both want a lockbox that is durable. We want one that does not leak. We want one that is enforceable. The lockbox--I think we are agreeing today--should be one that protects not only Social Security but Medicare. When we get this close to this kind of agreement on an issue that is this important, I think it is time for us to work together. I do not want to fight with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I want to work with them. If we are close to having a durable Social Security lockbox and if we are close to having one that protects Medicare, I want to do it. I have been working on this for over 2 years. Early in 1999, S. 502, the Social Security Safe Deposit Act, was incorporated in the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution, and again in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, with those kinds of rules. That is why we have the durability of at least the rules. Finally, the Conrad amendment does not offer stronger protection for Social Security than the Ashcroft budget rule. It is the same thing. It is codified. I think we can even do better than that. I would like to do better than that with a statute. While both offer the same point of order protection for Medicare, my amendment does not have the hole in the side of the box and, as a result, I think it is stronger. But, very frankly, I want to work with folks on the other side of the aisle who agree with me on this issue. I am not opposed to the idea of our working together to get it done. So I announce to my colleagues in the Senate, I do not think it is a difficult thing to vote for my amendment. I think it is a very good amendment. I do not think it is a difficult thing to vote for the amendment on the other side of the aisle. I hope if we vote for these amendments, and they are enacted, that we will be able to work together toward a solution that really helps the American people, that protects senior citizens from having the Medicare trust fund violated, and from having the trust fund for Social Security violated as well. I would like to see that done in statute as well as in the rules of the Senate. It is with that in mind that I thank the Members of the opposition and those who have spoken on behalf of this amendment. I think we can work together for a really important purpose. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the Senate today will pass the foreign operations appropriations bill and I rise to speak in support of the additional funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that is contained in this legislation. The bill makes additional FY2000 funds available for the DEA to step up efforts against the burgeoning epidemic of methamphetamine--commonly called ``meth''. This funding is needed for the DEA to combat the explosive meth problem which is emerging as one of the fastest growing threats in our country, especially in Missouri. With its roots on the west coast, the meth epidemic has now exploded in middle America. Meth is today what cocaine was to the 1980s and heroin was to the 1970s--the hot, ``in'' drug with a catastrophic potential to destroy all those it comes in contact with--financially, spiritually, and physically. It is currently the largest drug threat we face in Missouri. Unfortunately, it is most likely coming soon to a city or town near you. If one wanted to design a drug to have the worst possible effect on the community, one would make methamphetamine. It is highly addictive, highly destructive, cheap, and easy to manufacture. To give my colleagues an idea on the scope of the problem in Missouri alone, let me share with you these frightening statistics: during the whole year of 1992, law enforcement seized two clandestine Meth labs in Missouri and in 1994, the number of Meth labs seized increased to 14. By 1998, the number of seized labs mushroomed to 679. Based on reports of the figures collected in 1999, that number jumped again last year to over 900 labs in Missouri alone. According to the latest national statistics from the DEA, reported meth lab seizures in 1999 for the entire United States totaled 6,438, up from 5,786 in 1998 and 3,327 in 1997. This is nearly a 100% increase in only two years. The rapid increase and spread of meth across the country has brought with it the problems that we too often see with illegal drug use. As the ``popularity'' of meth has increased, we have seen the proportional increases in domestic abuse, child abuse, burglaries and drug related murders. In addition, from 1992 to 1998 meth-related emergency room incidents increased by 63 percent. What is most unacceptable to me is that meth is ensnaring our children. In 1998, the percentage of 12th graders who used meth had doubled from the 1992 level. In recent conversations I have had with local law enforcement officers in Missouri, they estimated that as many as 10% of high school students know the recipe for meth. In fact, one need only log-on the Internet to find numerous web sites giving detailed instructions for setting up a meth lab. This is troublesome. We in Congress have taken these indicators seriously. Despite yearly appropriations to combat meth abuse and trafficking, the meth problem continues to grow. I believe it is time to dedicate more resources to stopping this scourge once and for all. To that end, earlier this year I joined a number of my colleagues in the Senate in sending letters to President Clinton and Attorney General Reno requesting that at least $10,000,000 in additional funds be made available for the DEA to assist state and local law enforcement in the proper removal and disposal of hazardous materials recovered from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. This funding would provide the necessary resources for the DEA and state and local law enforcement officials to combat this growing meth problem. Meth presents us with a formidable challenge. We have faced other challenges in the past and we can face this one as well. In fact, the history of America is one of meeting challenges and surpassing people's highest expectations. Meth is no exception. All it takes is that we marshal our will and channel the great indomitable American spirit. In order to successfully combat this growing meth problem, we must provide law enforcement officials with adequate resources to stifle this growing epidemic. To this end, I support the increased level of funding in this foreign operation bill, and I encourage the conferees to maintain adequate funding in the Supplemental appropriations measure for fighting the scourge of methamphetamine. Through legislative efforts like this to assist law enforcement efforts to combat meth, we will meet this new meth challenge and defeat it.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am concerned about the need for prescription drug assistance to needy seniors. I have traveled all across my State and, frankly, I think there are many seniors in need of some stop-loss protection. Those without coverage want to be able to buy drugs at discounted prices like those with coverage can because they are part of a group. This measure brought before us today literally takes longer to read than we have allowed for debate in the Senate on it. My staff hasn't been able to get a copy of it, which doesn't provide us with an intelligent and responsible way of making decisions here. I think there are some good concepts here. I like the concept of stop-loss protection. In talking to people in my State, they want that. They want some sort of copay for people, but they want this to be available for people at all income levels. We spend a lot of time here in the Senate trying to make it possible for people to make good decisions by mandating that there be plain language, or that there be time for people to read things, or time for people to consider things in making contracts or otherwise entering into agreements. Yet we are being asked today, without any strong, valid, and reliable estimation as to cost, without an opportunity to actually see what is being proposed, to make a commitment, or instruct the Congress to commit to the expenditure of funds that might invade the Social Security surplus, which might well impair the capacity of this Government to meet its other obligations. It is not responsible. It is not the way we ought to do business. So while I very much appreciate the effort, and I believe that we ought to find ways to help needy seniors to get access to prescription drugs, which can frequently keep them out of the hospital and help them remain independent and can save what would be hospital costs under Medicare, I think it is reasonable that we would have an opportunity to read the legislation, an opportunity to know something about an accurate estimate of its cost. So I have to say that I don't think we should pass that which we haven't read, or that which is not available for our inspection. For that reason, regrettably, I announce that I will have to vote against this legislation. I think its intention is good, and I think many of its proposals appear to be in line with what the people would want and expect but without having an opportunity to read it and inspect it, to understand it and understand its cost, I think it is unwise for us to vote in its favor.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak for a few moments to call attention and applaud the actions of the House of Representatives this week in taking a fundamentally important step toward protecting both the Medicare and Social Security programs. I want all Americans to know that the full House passed Medicare Lockbox legislation--H.R. 3859, sponsored by Representative Wally Herger--by an overwhelming 420-2 margin. What months ago some inside the Beltway said was impossible has happened--one chamber of Congress has spoken in an almost unanimous voice to protect the Medicare and Social Security surpluses. For decades, Congress and the President have used Social Security and Medicare surpluses to finance additional government deficits. Last year, for the first time since 1957, Congress balanced the budget without spending a penny of the Social Security surplus. When Congress accomplished this important goal, I immediately set my sights on a higher goal--that is, to protect the Medicare Part A surplus in the same manner. So on November 18, 1999, I introduced S. 1962, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act. The bill the House passed yesterday is very similar to my legislation, and I am encouraged about the prospects of passing the Medicare Lockbox in the Senate and seeing it signed into law. We need to ensure that the payroll taxes Americans contribute to pay for Social Security and Medicare are used solely to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits. Any surpluses in these accounts should be used to reduce publicly-held debt. It is wrong for Washington to spend this money on additional government programs or to finance additional government deficits. The Medicare lockbox will wall off the surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare Part A Trust Funds, barring Congress from even considering a budget that used Social Security or Medicare surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the government; only a three-fifth vote in the Senate and a majority in the House could override the new rule. It will impose discipline and clarity on the spending practices in Washington. If Congress or the President wants to spend Medicare Part A or Social Security surpluses, Congress will need to have a separate vote to suspend the Lockbox protections in order to do so. Not only have nearly all Republicans and Democrats in the House endorsed the Lockbox concept; Vice President Al Gore announced several weeks ago that he, too, supports erecting a wall of protection around the Medicare surplus. His support is welcome, and his assistance in helping to pass this measure is eagerly anticipated. I urge the leadership on both sides of the aisle to agree to call up and pass the Medicare Lockbox. By doing this, we will send the powerful message that protecting both Medicare and Social Security is our highest priority. It is essential that we make this change. Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt by 2037. Medicare is projected to become insolvent even sooner, in 2023. It is vitally important that we ensure that the government not spend monies dedicated for the trust funds that sustain these essential programs. While protecting the Medicare surplus seemed to be an unattainable goal just a few short years ago, this goal is now within our reach. In addition to funding the government for fiscal year 2000 without spending a penny out of the Social Security trust fund, CBO's new projections will demonstrate that we will have enough revenue available to protect the $22 billion Part A Medicare surplus as well. It is imperative that we limit spending this year so that we do not dip into the Medicare surplus in FY 2001 and in years to come. Both Medicare and Social Security are funded out of payroll taxes specifically delineated for their respective purposes, and are supposed to be reserved for those purposes. If there are surpluses in these accounts, if these accounts take in more money than is necessary for their stated purposes in a specific year, then that money should not suddenly be available for general government spending. Any and all surpluses in those two accounts should be reserved for their stated purpose, or be used to help shore up those accounts. The Medicare Lockbox promotes honest accounting, and requires the government to use funds for their advertised purposes. Lockboxing Social Security and Medicare surpluses is an essential first step in securing the long term financial solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The Medicare Lockbox will change the way business is done in Washington. I commend the House and Congressman Herger for taking the first step in protecting the Medicare Part A trust fund. The House bill is not perfect, but it will protect all of the Medicare Part A and Social Security trust funds. It also has the support of 420 members of the House of Representatives. The overwhelming support for the Medicare lockbox in the House should send a powerful signal to the Senate to take up and pass this bill. Passing this law will be the next step on our journey to secure the long term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to announce my unqualified support for the recent signing of the Multi-Year Procurement contract on Boeing's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. This is a good day for U.S. national defense, the Navy, the American taxpayers, and the city of St. Louis. This announcement secures the production of the Super Hornet, which is in St. Louis, for the next 5 years. Valued at $8.9 billion for a total of 222 aircraft over 5 years, this contract will ensure that the Navy will have these planes and, in addition, U.S. taxpayers will save over $700 million. It is definitely a ``win-win'' situation. The U.S. Navy's award winning Super Hornet Program continues to be recognized throughout the Department of Defense and industry as the standard by which all other tactical aviation programs should be evaluated. Since the program's inception, the Super Hornet has met or exceeded all cost, weight and schedule goals and requirements. The Boeing Corporation, which is the prime contractor, in partnership with the Navy has introduced a 21st Century strike fighter that will ensure the Navy's carrier airwing is more than able to defeat today's threat and the projected threats of the first 30 years of this century. A balanced approach to survivability, revolutionary methods of design and manufacture, and a very cost-conscious approach to achieving and maintaining multi-mission superiority over the threat has given the Navy a new tactical aircraft that supports Navy budget realities. Mr. President, in addition to affordability, comparable performance, enhanced range, carrier bring back, more weapons stations, future growth and better survivability were major consideration for the next generation of carrier-based strike fighters. The Super Hornet has met the muster in every category. The Navy has not been shy about its support for this project, and I whole-heartedly agree with my good friend Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, who recently stated: ``The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is the cornerstone of the future of Naval aviation. . . . It will provide twice the sorties, a third the combat losses and forty percent greater range. We can't wait to get it to the fleet!'' This contract is also a testimony to the excellent job the workers of St. Louis do every day. Without their dedication and commitment to quality, the Super Hornet would not be able to win such an important contract. In conclusion, I thank the people who made this contract a reality-- namely the people of St. Louis, the Boeing Corporation, the U.S. Navy, and my fellow Senators who joined me in my support of this wonderful project.