[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 86 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7169-S7170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SOCIAL SECURITY LOCKBOX

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't know how much time is left in 
morning business, but I will use whatever leader time is required. I 
want to have the opportunity to respond to my good friend, the Senator 
from Wyoming, about some of the comments he made with regard to the 
Social Security lockbox and a couple of other issues he has mentioned. 
He mentioned Democrats' unwillingness to support the efforts to bring 
up the Social Security lockbox. Let me make sure that everyone 
understands we are very desirous of having the opportunity to have a 
good debate about the lockbox.
  It is particularly propitious that probably the master of Senate 
procedure is on the Senate floor, because I want to talk just a moment 
about the difference, which is more than just a semantical difference, 
between a cloture vote that is designed to stop amendments and a 
cloture vote that is designed to stop a debate, a filibuster. There is 
no filibuster going on here. A filibuster is actually designed to bring 
debate to a close. When 60 Senators have voted accordingly, we have 
time remaining and then, ultimately, there is a final vote. There is a 
big difference between bringing the debate to a close and offering 
cloture motions and proposing that the Senate preclude the opportunity 
for Senators to offer relevant amendments.
  That has been the case on the Social Security lockbox from the very 
beginning. For whatever reason, our Republican colleagues continue to 
believe that what the Senate needs is a rules committee. Every day in 
the House Rules Committee, decisions are made based upon the content of 
amendments, which amendments are appropriate and which amendments are 
not. The Rules Committee makes that decision, and then the rule is 
presented to the House Membership. They vote on whether they accept the 
rule or not. Based upon the content of those amendments, they make 
decisions as to whether or not there will be amendments to a certain 
bill. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose not to allow the 
Senate to be bound by such constraints, that a Senator, with all of his 
power and authority and responsibility, ought to have the right to come 
to the floor and offer an amendment. But what our Republican colleagues 
continue to insist upon is that they act as an ad hoc rules committee. 
They want to see our amendments first. They want to approve our 
amendments first. And only then will they allow our amendments to be 
considered once they have been given their approval.

  I ran for the Senate in 1996 because I wanted to be able to be a 
Senator, not a House Member. I want to be a Senator, and I want all the 
responsibilities and privileges and rights accorded to me as a Senator 
from South Dakota. That means the ability to offer an amendment.
  On the lockbox, it is very simple. Whether you agree or not, we think 
the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund ought both 
to be locked up; we ought to treat them the same. We are dealing daily 
with the viability of the trust fund on Medicare, and if we can't 
ensure that viability of that trust fund, then I must say we haven't 
done our job.
  We are saying, as Democrats, give us the right to offer an amendment 
on Medicare. Let's lock up that lockbox as well, and let's have a good 
debate about whether that makes good public policy or not. That is the 
issue.
  The Republicans come to the floor; they file cloture to deny us the 
right to offer an amendment on Medicare--I must say also, to deny us 
the right to offer amendments that really mean lockbox when we say that 
is what we want.
  They have a provision in their bill. I must say, it is amusing to me, 
but it says it is a lockbox unless we say we are for reform, and in the 
name of reform we can unlock the box, including privatizing Social 
Security. They have that in their bill. They want to be able to 
privatize Social Security, and they want to be able to ensure that, 
even if they have now voted for a lockbox, in the name of reform they 
can unlock it

[[Page S7170]]

just by saying: We want to offer a reform amendment, and we will so 
unlock the box.
  I am puzzled by the admonitions of our colleagues. I am sorry the 
Senator from Wyoming is no longer on the floor, because I really hope 
we can set the Record clear. Democrats want to vote on a lockbox. But 
we want that lockbox to mean something. We want it to include Medicare, 
and we want the right to offer amendments to do just that.
  That is what this debate is about. There is a difference on a cloture 
vote between ending a filibuster and denying Senators the right to 
offer amendments.
  We will continue to fight for our rights, regardless of the issue and 
regardless of how much concern it may bring to some of those on the 
other side who seem to be determined to lock us out.
  I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is here. He is 
anxious to begin the debate on a very important bill.
  I am hopeful we can pass this legislation today.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________