[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 61 (Friday, April 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4477-S4482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GUIDANCE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF EMERGENCIES AS A PART OF THE BUDGET
PROCESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will report S. 557.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 557) to provide guidance for the designation of
emergencies as part of the budget process.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Lott (for Abraham) Amendment No. 254, to preserve and
protect the surpluses of the social security trust funds by
reaffirming the exclusion of receipts and disbursement from
the budget, by setting a limit on the debt held by the
public, and by amending the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to provide a process to reduce the limit on the debt held by
the public.
Abraham Amendment No. 255 (to Amendment No. 254), in the
nature of a substitute.
Lott motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, with instructions and report back
forthwith.
Lott Amendment No. 296 (to the instructions of the Lott
motion to recommit), to provide for Social Security surplus
preservation and debt reduction.
Lott Amendment No. 297 (to Amendment No. 296), in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes for debate on the cloture motion on amendment No. 255.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, might I just ask, is the 30 minutes of
debate to be equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. ABRAHAM. In that case, Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5
minutes at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just to remind our colleagues, as well as
those who watch our deliberations, what we are trying to do with this
amendment is to amend the budget process in such a fashion that we
protect the surpluses that will be built up over the next 10 years in
the Social Security trust fund. We have now entered an era in which we
project very substantial surpluses coming into the Federal Government,
not just as a result of
[[Page S4478]]
Social Security trust fund payments but also in the rest of the budget
as well. We do not need to use Social Security trust funds to balance
the budget. We are at the point now where we can accomplish that
without any Social Security money being used.
That, combined with the fact we are facing a huge long-term unfunded
obligation problem in the Social Security trust fund, in my judgment,
absolutely requires us at this time to protect those Social Security
trust fund dollars so they can be used to modernize Social Security.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to accomplish that.
In short, this amendment says that until we come up with a plan to
modernize Social Security, the Social Security trust fund surpluses
should be used to pay down the publicly held debt.
I do not think this is a very complicated proposal. I think it is one
that people on both sides of the aisle were applauding just a few
months ago when it was talked about by the President in the State of
the Union Address, and yet now we hear one after another argument as to
why we should not do this. The arguments range from those of some
colleagues who say, well, let's just take all the Social Security trust
fund surplus and, instead of paying down the national debt, put it in
Fort Knox or some other place where it is secure--I can't quite even
figure out how that one would work--to others who say this is not the
right kind of lockbox; instead of just protecting the Social Security
trust fund surplus, we should also save money for fixing Medicare.
Well, their argument seems to be that if we don't somehow address
Medicare simultaneously, we should spend the Social Security trust fund
surplus. That one I can't figure out, either. Then we have heard, from
the Secretary of Treasury, various concerns raised about the process by
which this amendment would work. We have offered to try to address
those concerns. We attempt to do that. We address that in this
amendment, responding to his initial letter. Then we heard additional
concerns in a second letter. Yet, we have heard no proposal from either
the White House or the Treasury as to how to put together a lockbox
that would satisfy them.
Based on the vote last week, and what I expect to be the vote today,
I think we are hearing an awful lot of protests, but I am increasingly
questioning whether or not people are really sincere about truly trying
to save this trust fund surplus.
So for those reasons we are going to keep pushing this issue. We are
going to keep bringing this back to the floor. We believe the money
people send in for Social Security which creates a surplus ought to be
saved to either modernize Social Security or used to pay down the debt
and not spent on more programs here in Washington. The people pay in
the money. They deserve to have it for their own retirement. We are
going to keep working very hard to make sure they do.
At this point, Mr. President, I will yield back any remaining time I
had in this first 5 minutes, and now for 5 minutes I yield to the
Senator from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the provision to protect
Social Security, to, in effect, put it in a lockbox to make sure it is
not dissipated or misallocated or used to cover deficits in other parts
of Government.
The votes we are about to cast are important votes. They relate to
the future of Social Security, the integrity of Social Security, the
strength of America and its ability to meet its obligations when
individuals call upon Social Security to do what Congress has said
Social Security would be able to do.
This vote is about making sure the Social Security surpluses are not
used to pay for new budget deficit spending in other parts of
Government.
Congress is committed to stopping the raid on Social Security. This
Congress has passed a budget without using Social Security trust funds.
This is historic and it is novel. We have not been passing budgets like
this. We have not done it before.
It is important; we have passed a budget that says we are not going
to raid the Social Security trust fund. In contrast, over the next 5
years, President Clinton's budget would have taken $158 billion from
the Social Security trust fund to pay for non-Social Security programs.
I think Congress is on the right track. Should we have a $158 billion
raid or no raid at all? I think Congress has it right: Don't have any
raid at all on Social Security.
Frankly, this vote should be bipartisan and unanimous. Last month,
the Senate voted 99 to nothing in support of legislation to protect
Social Security. We are calling on every Senator to vote with us to
pass the legislation that implements the unanimous resolution passed by
the Senate 99 to nothing earlier this month.
The Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox will make sure that Social
Security funds do not go for anything other than Social Security.
The bill will achieve these three important results:
No. 1, the President will no longer be able to propose budgets that
use Social Security funds to balance the budget. Write into the law the
President is not to send us proposals for spending which include a
backdoor raid on Social Security. It really establishes a priority. It
says Social Security is more important than these other new programs or
ideas for spending.
No. 2, Congress will no longer routinely pass budgets that use Social
Security trust funds to balance the budget. A congressional budget that
uses Social Security funds to balance the budget will be subject to
what is called a point of order.
All of us have been involved at one point or another in meetings
where someone tries to bring something up and the chairman simply says
with a thump of the gavel, ``That's out of order; we are not going to
discuss it.'' That is how it should be when people propose, for
example, raiding the Social Security trust fund for other Government
programs.
Mr. President, you, as the occupant of the Chair, should say, with a
thump, ``That is out of order, that is off the table, we do not discuss
those things, that is not part of what we do.'' A point of order then
simply allows, provides for the Chair to say, ``That's out of order,
that's not something we do, and if you want to do that, you have to
change the way we do business around here, you have to change the rules
or suspend them.'' I think that is a major step forward.
As a final tool to make sure Social Security trust funds are not used
to finance new deficits, this provision will reduce the amount of debt
held by the public by the amount of the Social Security surplus, so
that when the Social Security surplus is not spent on programs but is
invested to pay down the national debt so that we are stronger when we
need to pay for Social Security, this makes sure the money will not go
into other programs. This will ensure that any and all Social Security
surpluses will be directed toward reducing the debt, which means
strengthening the capacity to pay Social Security when the time comes.
Americans, including the 1 million Missourians who receive Social
Security benefits, want Social Security protected, and they have a
right to have it protected. They paid for it, they have earned it, and
we should protect the integrity of the fund.
This bill does what America wants and what every Senator has
previously said they want to do as well in behalf of their
constituents. It is time for the Senate to vote now to end the debate
on this bill, to pass this bill, to do this month what we said last
month we wanted to do when we passed the budget resolution; that is, to
protect the Social Security trust fund, to reserve it for the benefit
of the recipients of the fund, to strengthen and protect the integrity
of the fund. I call upon other Members of the Senate to join in this
noble cause to which they have already registered their serious
commitment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is left on
our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 6 minutes 20
seconds.
Mr. ABRAHAM. It is my understanding that the chairman of the
[[Page S4479]]
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, wants to be the final speaker on
our side for approximately 5 minutes, and Senator Lautenberg, who is
the ranking member of the committee, wants to have approximately 5
minutes before that. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask, in our
desire to protect the time on our side, that the time be assessed
against Senator Lautenberg's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 10 minutes 20
seconds left, and the Senator from Michigan has 5 minutes 51 seconds
left.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to support walling off all Social Security
surpluses and in strong opposition to the pending Social Security
lockbox.
I stand in opposition to the Social Security lockbox proposal that is
in front of us because I believe this legislation is a lockbox in name
only. In reality, instead of protecting Social Security benefits, I
believe it would actually threaten them, and I think the threat is a
serious one. It could cause a Government default and trigger worldwide
economic instability.
Before I review the problem with the Social Security lockbox, I will
take a minute to talk about saving Social Security and my continuing
hope that we can address this issue in the near future.
I am fairly optimistic, Mr. President, but I have heard a lot of
gloomy comments about the prospects for legislation to protect and
preserve Social Security for the future. I hope we do not give up on
this.
I do not want to be critical in any way of any of my colleagues. I
know many are concerned that this issue is just too hot to handle
politically, but I do not see it that way. In fact, I think we have a
unique opportunity this year to really prepare our country for the
future, and it is an opportunity we should seize.
President Clinton has made Social Security reform a top priority. He
is in his second term and is eager to take on this politically
difficult task and can lend us the leadership it requires. We are now
in pretty good financial shape. We are projecting budget surpluses for
years to come. And with the economy going so strong, our Nation is
ready to accept some of the hard choices that will be necessary to get
the job done.
If we cannot solve the Social Security problem now, I would ask, When
can we? This is the time to act, and we need to do it soon before we
get too close to the next year's Presidential election. And we need to
do it on a bipartisan basis. Frankly, that is the only way it can be
done--through direct negotiations between the congressional leadership
of both parties in both Houses and the White House.
One thing should be clear to everyone, and that is that the Social
Security lockbox amendment before us does not represent Social Security
reform. It does nothing to prepare our country for the financial
pressures which will be created when the baby boomers retire. It does
not extend Social Security solvency by even a single day. I just hope
it will not be used as an excuse to avoid dealing with Social Security
in a real and meaningful way.
I have reviewed this before, but I want to again recount for my
colleagues the three serious problems I see with this legislation.
First, it directly threatens Social Security benefits. Treasury
Secretary Rubin has explained in a letter that under this proposal an
unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social
Security checks, as well as Medicare, veterans', and other benefits.
Additionally, the amendment contains a huge loophole that would allow
Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than
direct Social Security benefits. Anything the Congress labels as
``Social Security reform'' would be exempt from the lockbox. So this
could include privatization plans that might be risky, tax cuts, or who
knows what.
I know some of my colleagues dispute my interpretation of this
provision. But I would simply point to the broad language of the
legislation itself. It effectively exempts from the lockbox any
legislation which includes a provision designating itself as Social
Security reform. So if Congress passes a big tax cut, even if it
provides significant benefit to wealthy retirees, we can just claim
that this represents Social Security reform, and all the costs of the
legislation will be exempt from the lockbox. Some of the bill's
cosponsors may say that is not their intent. But that is what the bill
says.
I would like to be able to offer an amendment to correct this
problem. The majority, however, has prohibited us from offering any
amendments whatsoever. So we have had little opportunity to do anything
but point out the loophole.
Mr. President, the second major problem with the pending bill is that
it does absolutely nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows
Congress to squander funds needed for Medicare on tax breaks which go
largely to the wealthier among us.
Senator Conrad and I have developed a different lockbox to protect
both Social Security and Medicare. Our bill, S. 862, would reserve all
of the Social Security surpluses exclusively for Social Security, and
40 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses for Medicare. We would
like an opportunity to offer that lockbox amendment to this bill, but
again the majority is blocking all of these amendments.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Republicans' so-called
lockbox threatens a potential Government default. In the short term
this could undermine our Nation's credit standing and increase interest
costs. Ultimately, it could block benefit payments and lead to a
worldwide economic crisis. That is why the Treasury Secretary, Robert
Rubin, has said he would recommend that the President veto the bill if
it ever reaches his desk.
Mr. President, the lockbox Senator Conrad and I have developed avoids
the risk of default, while protecting both Social Security and
Medicare. Our lockbox would not establish a new debt limit. It would
use supermajority points of order and across-the-board cuts to
guarantee enforcement. I think it is a far better, more responsible
approach.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on this legislation. Let's
establish a Social Security lockbox. In fact, let's establish a Social
Security and Medicare lockbox. Let's make it a real, responsible
lockbox, not one that actually, in its implementation, could threaten
Social Security benefits, risking a worldwide financial crisis. And
then, Mr. President, let's sit down with the White House and negotiate
a compromise which will truly protect Social Security and Medicare for
the long term.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican ``lockbox'' proposal is
deeply flawed, and does not deserve to be adopted. It does nothing to
extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future
beneficiaries. In fact, it would do just the reverse. This legislation
actually places Social Security at greater risk than it is today. It
would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be
spent instead on risky privatization schemes. And, because of the harsh
debt ceiling limits it would impose, this plan could produce a
governmental shutdown that would jeopardize the timely payment of
Social Security benefits to current recipients.
It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the
``lockbox.'' Their statements convey the impression that they have
taken a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they
have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would
not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future
retirees. Nor would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even
one more day. It merely recommits to Social Security those dollars
which already belong to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that
is all their so-called ``lockbox'' would do.
[[Page S4480]]
By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8
trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next 15
years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the
Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050.
There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do
with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt
reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from
paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have
been required to pay interest on the national debt will become
available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes
those debt savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. Since
it is payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction possible,
those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social Security. I
wholeheartedly agree. It is an eminently reasonable plan. But
Republican Members of Congress oppose it.
Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources
to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even
effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used
to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a
trapdoor in their ``lockbox.'' Their plan would allow Social Security
payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform''
plans. This loophole opens the door to risky schemes to finance private
retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed
benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will
be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future
Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make
Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today,
necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future.
A genuine ``lockbox'' would prevent any such diversion of funds. A
genuine ``lockbox'' would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars
would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future
recipients. The Republican ``lockbox'' does just the opposite. It
actually invites a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.
The Social Security reform proposal put forth by Chairman Archer and
Congressman Shaw earlier this week demonstrates that the real
Republican agenda is to substitute private accounts for traditional
Social Security benefits. That plan would spend the entire Social
Security surplus on tax credits to subsidize private accounts. There
would be no money left for debt reduction, and thus no debt service
savings which could be used to help fund future Social Security
benefits. In fact, their plan will ultimately require either enormous
new borrowing or drastic program cuts to continue funding the private
accounts after the Social Security surplus is exhausted. These costly
tax credits would go to subsidize private accounts disproportionately
benefiting the most affluent workers. Low and middle income workers
would receive little or no net benefit from the Archer plan. Their
retirement security would not be enhanced at all.
Placing Social Security on a firm financial footing should be our
highest budget priority, not further enriching the already wealthy.
Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social Security
retirement benefits for more than fifty percent of their annual income.
Without it, half the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty
line.
To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to
strengthen Social Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert
dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other
purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future
Social Security benefits.''
The proposed ``lockbox'' poses a second, very serious threat to
Social Security. By using the debt ceiling as an enforcement mechanism,
it runs the risk of creating a government shutdown crisis. The
Republicans propose to enforce their ``lockbox'' by mandating
dangerously low debt ceilings. Such a reduced debt ceiling could make
it impossible for the federal government to meet its financial
obligations--including its obligation to pay Social Security benefits
to millions of men and women who depend upon them. The risk is real. It
is fundamentally wrong to put those who depend on Social Security at
risk in this way.
The ``lockbox'' which proponents claim will save Social Security
actually imperils it. As Treasury Secretary Rubin has said, ``This
legislation does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security
Trust Fund, while potentially threatening the ability to make Social
Security payments to millions of Americans.''
While this ``lockbox'' provides no genuine protection for Social
Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The
Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that
they have completely omitted Medicare from their ``lockbox''.
By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 15% of the surplus to
Medicare over the next 15 years. Those new dollars would come entirely
from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The Republicans have
adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for Medicare.
Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus on tax cuts
disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans.
I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to reject this ill-
conceived proposal. It jeopardizes Social Security and ignores
Medicare. It is an assault on America's senior citizens, and it does
not deserve to pass.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are taking a critical step
toward saving Social Security. However, in considering this measure we
are seeking to reaffirm provisions in the current law stating that
money earmarked for Social Security should not be considered for
purposes of the Federal budget. Furthermore, this measure would make it
very difficult for this Congress and Administration, or future
Congresses and Administrations, to use Social Security surpluses to
achieve a balanced budget.
In his 1998 State of the Union address, the President pledged to save
every penny of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Many of
us supported his pledge and worked not to spend Social Security surplus
money. However, his fiscal year 2000 budget request would require the
use of $158 billion in Social Security surplus money over the next five
years.
The ``lockbox'' measure we are considering today would prohibit
Congress or the President from spending Social Security trust fund
money but would still allow Congress the flexibility needed in case
unforeseen emergencies, such as a war or a recession, develop. It is
vital that we take steps to exercise fiscal restraint so that we don't
squander the surpluses necessary to enact improvements to the Social
Security program which would enhance the retirement security of our
children and grandchildren.
I believe that this is of critical importance in the path toward
saving Social Security, so much so that I am missing a field hearing by
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation back home
in Iowa that Senator McCain was gracious enough to hold on the
difficulties Iowa faces with competition in the airline industry.
Unfortunately, I can't be there right now, but I hope my being here to
cast this vote supporting this proposal is a testament to the
importance of taking steps to bring us closer to saving Social
Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes 51
seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself such time as I use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me suggest that this idea
that we are locking out any amendments with our Social Security
Protection Act is nice to say, but it isn't true. If the Democrats let
us vote on this, we will see whether it passes or not, but once it
passes, it is subject to amendments.
The good Senator from New Jersey, my dear friend, can offer his
substitute or his amendment, but first we have to have an opportunity
to vote on this amendment, which for some strange reason, while the
other side of the aisle and the President keep saying, ``Let's
[[Page S4481]]
not spend any of the Social Security trust fund,'' they somehow do not
want to vote for a proposition that will really lock it up so it cannot
be spent, it cannot be embezzled, as some Democrats called it a few
years ago, when you use it. They said you were embezzling the trust
fund. I would think if that is true--I never used that word--you ought
to lock it up tough, you ought to put a whopping key on it that can't
hardly be moved. So that is what we have done.
For those who say, ``If you can't spend the Social Security trust
fund, you are going to destroy the economy of America,'' that is just
absolutely untrue. Would anyone believe that taking a trust fund which
belongs to Social Security, using it to pay down the debt until we need
it for Social Security reform, would anybody submit that that is going
to harm America? That is going to help us. We are going to be reducing
the debt right at the right time by a huge amount, which is going to
keep inflation down, which is going to keep interest rates down, all of
which helps Social Security.
All of these arguments about cash management, and you can't pay
Social Security--just read the bill. The bill says, under all
circumstances the Social Security checks are forthcoming, just by
specific item. The management problems that the Treasury Secretary has
have been fixed.
The truth of the matter is, those on the other side of the aisle
think it might be easy to spend this money if you do not have this
lockbox. And they are right, it will be easy to spend it. In fact, the
President of the United States, in his budget, spent $158 billion of it
in the first 5 years. No wonder he does not want this lockbox. It
wrecks his budget, because he is already going to spend it. We say,
``No. No, you can't spend it. You challenged us not to spend it. We are
for real.'' That is what this is all about.
Last but not least, let me suggest that it is really amazing for some
on the other side of the aisle to talk about saving both Medicare and
Social Security in some kind of a lockbox when you see what it really
is. It is sort of a Democratic position that we should not cut taxes
for the American people or, if we do, we ought to do it their way--even
though we are in the majority and the President has a veto pen, we
ought to do it their way.
We say there is plenty of money outside of Social Security to give
the American taxpayers back a real tax reduction over the next decade.
Whenever you say, let's take more of that surplus that does not belong
to Social Security, and say let's spend it on something else, you are
really choosing not to give the American people a tax reduction that
they deserve.
Frankly, I do not believe today we are going to get cloture. But I
think sooner or later--and hopefully it will not be too much later--we
will make this filibuster a real one. We will stay down here until we
wear out, around the clock. And let's stay here a couple nights so
everybody will understand this is serious business, and who is keeping
us from voting on it, to protect our seniors and their money for the
next decade when it is most in jeopardy. It will be those on that side
of the aisle who will not vote today. They will probably not vote for
it the next time. But sooner or later, a lot of Americans are going to
be asking, who is holding up the real lockbox that will protect our
money? It is going to dawn on a few people on the other side of the
aisle that they are and that the American people are cognizant and
aware of it, and maybe some people will change their minds.
With that, if I have any remaining time, I yield it back. I
understand we have agreed to start voting at this time, in any event.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Mexico have
some time remaining, may I ask?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with all due respect and friendship
for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, we both
would like to get to the same place. I am sure he has never heard me
use terms like ``embezzlement.'' I don't do that kind of stuff.
Frankly, I do not like that terminology. I don't care from where it
comes.
But what we see here is what I would call a couple of escape hatches
in the legislation that worry the devil out of us. That is, perhaps in
the interest of Social Security reform or retirement security, we are
locking ourselves into a position where we would be unable to respond
to changes in the economy. That is not where we ought to be.
This economy is too important in the whole world scheme of things. It
is too important in terms of those who are very dependent, totally
dependent, in some cases, on the benefits derived from Social Security,
veterans' benefits, Medicare. That is all they have in many cases. With
the threat of creating a debt limit, and I think artificially creating
a new debt limit, I think we could immediately be damaging the
possibility that these benefits might be offered.
That is where we differ. I always enjoy my work with the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, except when he wins, which we
does so often. But other than that, we ought to be able to sit down and
reason out some of these things.
I hope this vote, by discouraging cloture, will give us some impetus
to sit down and try to work the problems out.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to use it at this point to make a
couple of points.
Senior citizens, what some like to do is to say, to protect your
Social Security trust fund, we are going to hurt other people who are
entitled to Federal money because we may have a recession one of these
days and things may change.
We are aware of that. Read the bill. It says the lockbox is held in
abeyance in the event we have two quarters of economic downturn, which
normally is called a recession. You hold it steady there and see where
we come out. Anybody who would be looking at this kind of proposition
would think that is a prudent thing to do. We did that.
Likewise, in case of a national emergency like a war, we have said,
you cannot not spend money on that, and so there is an emergency that
takes place then and you can temporarily use it. Remember, we are
holding $1.8 trillion for the seniors and these emergencies of which we
are speaking. If they occur, they will be very small in proportion to
the good we are doing under this proposal.
I, too, hope we can get a true lockbox put together. If bipartisan,
fine; if not, I am very comfortable with this one.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment to Calendar No. 89. S. 577, a bill to provide
guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part of the
budget process.
Trent Lott, Pete Domenici, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jeff
Sessions, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Craig Thomas, Slade
Gorton, Chuck Hagel, Spencer Abraham, Pat Roberts, Thad
Cochran, Conrad Burns, Christopher Bond, John Ashcroft,
Jon Kyl, and Mike DeWine.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on amendment No. 255 to S. 557, a bill to provide for
designation of emergencies as a part of the budget process, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll:
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning),
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is
absent on official business.
[[Page S4482]]
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), is
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), is
absent due to surgery.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``no.''
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Bunning
Gramm
Harkin
Hatch
McCain
Moynihan
Stevens
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). On this vote, the yeas are 49,
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
____________________