[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15121-15127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  GUIDANCE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF EMERGENCIES AS A PART OF THE BUDGET 
                       PROCESS--Motion to Proceed


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour for debate prior to 
cloture vote on the motion to proceed. The time will be equally divided 
between the two leaders.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need to 
make an initial statement. Then we will have speakers on our side and 
work with the Democratic side to work out the remainder of the time.
  Today is the 73rd day since we began the process of trying to move 
forward with a Social Security lockbox. I think, from every indication, 
we finally will begin to make some progress this morning. I hope this 
will be a rapid process from this point forward, that things will not 
be delayed much longer, and we can quickly come to some type of 
agreement for orderly consideration of this proposal.
  It is vitally important we not delay any longer. Since we introduced 
this amendment on April 20, the following has taken place: $22.2 
billion more of the Social Security surplus or almost 20 percent of 
this year's surplus has been put in danger of being raided. The House 
voted 416 to 12 to pass their own version of a lockbox, a version that 
we could not consider in this body. The President himself has endorsed 
the idea of a lockbox and stated that Social Security taxes should be 
saved for Social Security. Yesterday, the Democratic leader indicated 
the Democrats would not block this motion to proceed. So I see this as 
a positive.
  What I have to say is very simple. It is clear that Americans, 
regardless of where they might live, believe their Social Security 
dollars ought to be used for Social Security. I cannot imagine there is 
a Member of the Senate who does not hear that message when talking to 
seniors in their States or, for that matter, when talking to anyone who 
is paying payroll taxes. The American people are frustrated when they 
hear that money they send here for Social Security is being spent on 
other programs. To some extent, this was justified during the period in 
which we were running budget deficits. But today we are not. Today we 
are running surpluses. The latest news is good news. It seems to me it 
even further justifies creating a lockbox to make sure none of these 
Social Security dollars are any longer spent on anything except Social 
Security. The only way to do it, in my view, is to pass legislation 
such as S. 557, such as the proposal that will be before us today.
  So I ask my colleagues to not only give us the chance to move forward 
on this legislation but to work together to craft a proposal as soon as 
we possibly can so we can be sure these Social Security dollars do not 
get spent on other programs. It is a very attractive thing, to talk of 
new programs, of expanding existing programs, and so on, because today 
we are in a period of economic prosperity and we are running surpluses. 
But we should take this opportunity, in my view, to at least fence off 
the Social Security surplus so it cannot be used for other programs. I 
am hopeful today we can take an important step toward that end so I can 
go back to Michigan and tell the people in my State their Social 
Security payroll tax dollars are going to be protected. That is what I 
want to do. I suspect that is what a lot of other Members of the 
Chamber want to do.
  I am hopeful that after today, once we get through the recess period, 
we will move expeditiously to finish the job. Social Security dollars 
ought to be spent on Social Security. We should move as quickly as 
possible to make that the case. So I am very optimistic, if we are 
successful with the cloture vote today, we can move in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
his outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Today the Senate will vote for the fifth time to stop filibusters on 
legislation to protect Social Security trust funds. It is time for us 
to stop, to end the delay. It is time for us to align ourselves with 
the American people who overwhelmingly want us to protect the money 
they put into the Social Security trust fund and to reserve it for 
Social Security payments. We should pass this bill so protecting Social 
Security will be the law of the land. It is time to build a tough law, 
a firewall if you will, between politicians' desires to spend and the 
Social Security trust fund.
  There is no addiction more pervasive in this city than the spending 
of money. It is a tough habit to break, but we are in a position to do 
so. We are in a position to say we can manage our affairs without this 
money; let us make a commitment forever to break this habit of spending 
the Social Security trust funds.
  President Clinton's proposed budget in January would have spent $158 
billion in Social Security surplus over the next 5 years out of the 
trust fund, but, thank goodness, this last week President Clinton 
announced that he does not want to do that. That concept is no longer 
his plan. Instead of spending

[[Page 15122]]

that $158 billion over 5 years in other projects, he said he wants to 
reserve it for Social Security--every penny for Social Security. 
``Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security, period.''
  What a tremendous concept. It is one which we have been working on 
and we have been working to pass. The President has announced his 
support for it. It is a general concept which the House of 
Representatives has supported. In its recent vote a couple weeks ago, 
the House voted 416-12.
  We look for bipartisan things to do in this city, things that unite 
us instead of divide us, things that mobilize the American people, 
things that find common objectives and common ground. Here is an item 
the American people overwhelmingly endorse. Here is an item on which 
the House of Representatives really reflects the American people, 416-
12. That is an overwhelming vote. And the President of the United 
States endorses the lockbox.
  What is interesting is that the President's endorsement is of the 
lockbox. He just did not say we should not spend Social Security as a 
general concept or a general idea or a principle by which we operate 
Government. When we talk about a lockbox, we are talking about 
institutionalizing the prohibition, not just saying this is something 
we hope to do in future years. By saying we want to build a lockbox, we 
have to build a structure for protecting Social Security, and that is 
something the President has said he wants--a structure, a lockbox, 
something that keeps us from making these expenditures.
  For the past 6 months, this Congress has been devoted to protecting 
all the Social Security surplus. In January, congressional Republicans 
began working to ensure that Congress would protect every penny of the 
surplus. In March, Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 502, called the 
Protect Social Security Benefits Act, which would have instituted a 
point of order preventing Congress from spending any Social Security 
dollars for non-Social Security purposes.
  What does a point of order mean? A point of order means that if there 
is a point of order and someone tries to do it, the Chair, the 
Presiding Officer, can say it is out of order. Most Americans have been 
part of some kind of meeting somewhere when someone brought something 
up that was out of order. The gavel goes down, and the person presiding 
over the meeting says: We are not going to discuss that; that is not a 
part of what we do. There is a point of order against it. It is out of 
order, and you move on to something else.
  That is the way we propose to treat proposals that will spend the 
Social Security surplus. We will simply say: We don't do that; it is 
against our rules; it is out of order, we will move on to something 
else. That was S. 502.
  Then in April, together with Senator Domenici, the Senate passed a 
budget resolution that did not spend any of the Social Security 
surpluses for the next decade. Included in the resolution was language 
endorsing the idea of locking away the Social Security surpluses, sort 
of a rules of the Senate lockbox but not a statutory lockbox. A 
statutory lockbox, of course, would bind the House, the Senate, and the 
President. This language passed the Senate with unanimous approval.
  Also in April, Senators Abraham, Domenici, and I offered the Social 
Security lockbox amendment which would have added executive 
responsibilities to the congressional requirement to protect the Social 
Security surpluses. By ``executive responsibilities,'' we were really 
saying the President had to submit a budget that did not invade the 
Social Security surplus as part of the President's plan.
  The Senate has voted on the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft plan three 
times so far, and I believe we will agree to the motion to proceed 
today. But until today, the Senate has filibustered, has said we will 
not go there. Frankly, the President of the United States wants to go 
there, the American people want to go there. The President had the 
courage to reverse his position, first saying, ``I want to spend some 
of that money,'' then saying, ``No, we should reserve every cent for 
Social Security, period.''
  On May 26, the House of Representatives, reflecting, I believe, the 
people of America--and that is really what we are supposed to do in 
many respects; that is why we are sent here--overwhelmingly passed H.R. 
1259, Congressman Herger's measure to protect the surpluses. The vote 
in that case, as I have already mentioned, was 416-12. That means for 
every 100 votes in favor of the measure, there were only 3 votes 
against the measure. Mr. President, 100 to 3 is a pretty strong margin. 
That is a bipartisan consensus. This reflects the will of the people.
  On June 10, Democrats in the Senate blocked the Herger measure. They 
voted against moving even to consider it.
  It is time we stop this kind of parliamentary maneuver. We all know 
what the will of the American people is. We know what the clear 
statement of the President of the United States is. We know what we 
have done on five previous occasions, refusing to discuss it. Today we 
should vote to move forward on this issue.
  The lockbox will accomplish an important goal: Protect Social 
Security taxes. It will reserve those taxes for Social Security, and 
Social Security alone, so that when someday those who need Social 
Security want to call on this Government for the payment of their 
benefit, the Government will be stronger, having less debt, having more 
discipline, having a greater capacity to meet its obligations and to 
honor the commitments made under Social Security.
  Those who say they want to protect Social Security should join us in 
our efforts to save every dime--no, let me correct that--every penny, 
every cent of this money for Social Security's future beneficiaries. 
This lockbox is a way to make this happen.
  Congress has been moving to create a Social Security lockbox this 
entire year. President Clinton has now stated he agrees with us, and I 
welcome the support of the President and Senate Democrats in finishing 
the Nation's business in supporting the toughest possible lockbox 
measure, one that protects not 20 percent, not 40 percent, not 60 
percent, not 80 percent, not 99 percent, but 100 percent of the Social 
Security surpluses, protects them so they are available to meet the 
responsibilities of the Social Security system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the 
time of those in support of the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not oppose the motion to proceed. I 
expect the Senate will perhaps vote unanimously to proceed on this 
issue, but I do want to give some historic perspective to this issue of 
a lockbox.
  I proposed a lockbox amendment in 1983. I offered an amendment the 
day when the Ways and Means Committee passed the Social Security reform 
package in 1983. I said: If we do not put this extra Social Security 
money away, it will be used as part of the operating budget and it will 
not be saved. My amendment lost in the Ways and Means Committee in 
1983. So this is not a new idea.
  One of the interesting things about this debate is, it was not too 
many years ago that we debated a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget in the Senate. I voted against that, and the constitutional 
amendment lost by one vote. I went through some very interesting times 
politically back home and across the country because I cast a vote that 
defeated the constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  One of the points I continued to make in the Senate as we debated 
that--and I was accused of talking about gimmicks and using gimmicks at 
that point--was the constitutional amendment to balance the budget was 
written in a way that said all revenue that comes into the Federal 
Government shall be considered revenue for

[[Page 15123]]

the purposes of the budget. There was no distinction between Social 
Security moneys and other moneys; it is all operating budget revenue. 
To the extent we require a balanced budget, it means we can use the 
Social Security money as ordinary revenue and then we can claim we 
balanced the budget. I said that is writing in the Constitution the 
invitation to continue doing what we have been doing, which is looting 
Social Security.
  What I heard in response was no. There were three stages of denial:
  First, we deny we are looting Social Security. That was the first 
stage of denial.
  The second was: Well, even though we deny it, if, in fact, we are 
doing it, we promise to quit.
  And the third stage of denial was: We insist we are not doing it, but 
if we are doing it, we promise to quit. And if we can't quit it, we 
will at least taper off.
  Those were the three stages of denial in the Senate.
  Because those of us who said, we will not write into the Constitution 
an amendment that permits forever the use of Social Security trust 
funds as part of the operating budget, we were told: Well, would it be 
all right if we said we will keep using the Social Security trust funds 
for the next 12 years? I said: No, that would not be all right. So that 
was the debate back a few years ago.
  Now we come to a debate today, and the folks who then called our 
position on Social Security revenues a gimmick are now proposing a 
lockbox. I say, I think we should have a lockbox. But I do not think 
you ought to do a lockbox in isolation. I think you should have a 
lockbox with respect to the Social Security revenues so they cannot be 
used for ordinary operating revenue. That money is taken from workers' 
paychecks. It is called Social Security dedicated taxes. It goes into a 
dedicated fund and ought not be available under any circumstances for 
any other purposes. That is the point we made on the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  I have some charts here, that I will not use, that describe what was 
told to us during that debate: Gee, you're standing up talking about 
gimmicks. Of course you have to use the Social Security money as part 
of the regular budget in order to balance the budget. You can't balance 
the budget without using Social Security money.
  History, of course, shows that was nonsense. But here we are, and the 
question is the lockbox. We ought to have a lockbox. We ought to do 
several things at the same time, however. Because I worry. I see this 
week Reuters has a press story: ``How Republicans Propose $1 trillion 
in tax cuts.'' If you do a lockbox on Social Security revenues only and 
then say, all right, now we have locked away Social Security revenues 
only, and we propose $1 trillion in tax cuts, the question in two areas 
is: What have you done to extend the life of Social Security? And what 
have you done in this fiscal policy to extend the life of Medicare?
  Unfortunately, the answer in both cases could be, you have done 
nothing to save for Medicare; and while you might have given $1 
trillion in tax cuts, you may have done nothing to extend, even by 1 
year, the Social Security program.
  So let us do a couple of things. Let us do--together--a lockbox. I 
support that. I was ridiculed for it back in the constitutional 
amendment debate, but I have always supported it. I supported it going 
back to 1983 when I offered the amendment to do it in the House Ways 
and Means Committee. But let us not just do the lockbox. Let's do the 
lockbox the right way. Secondly, let us make sure that some of the 
additional revenue that is available extends the life of Medicare and 
extends the life of Social Security. I ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. This would provide a guarantee that the revenue stream 
for Social Security is available only for Social Security; that is, the 
tax money that is available for it goes only into the Social Security 
trust fund and can be used only for that purpose.
  But it would do two other things as well. It would say, let us use 
some additional resources not just for a $1 trillion tax cut but also 
to extend the life of Social Security and the life of Medicare. Doing 
both of these things, I think, will give the American people the 
reassurance that both of these programs, which have been so important 
in the lives of so many Americans in this country, will be available 
for many years to come.
  I do not think, as I said when I started, there will be a debate here 
on whether we should proceed. Let's proceed. I expect the motion to 
proceed will carry, perhaps unanimously. We will have a debate on the 
lockbox issue.
  But my point is, let us not debate that in isolation. Let us debate 
it with the eye on this ball: That we need to extend the life of Social 
Security and extend the life of Medicare, even as we do what we should 
have done long ago; and that is, make certain that no Social Security 
revenues are used for any purpose other than the solvency of the Social 
Security system itself. That is what workers expect. That is the basis 
on which money is taken from their paychecks and put into a dedicated 
tax fund. That is what senior citizens expect from this program, which 
was a solemn promise made to them many decades ago.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey for the time. I look forward to 
the debate following the motion to proceed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself such time as is necessary to make some 
remarks.
  Mr. President, I say thank you to the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota because he kind of hit the nail on the head. Let's get on 
with this debate. That is the question. And whether or not we disguise 
it in terms of votes to the public at large--and cloture votes and 
things of that nature may seem rather arcane to the public--the main 
thing is to get on with the discussion.
  I am supporting the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 557, 
which is the legislation to reform the budget rules governing emergency 
spending. I am going to support cloture on the motion to move ahead 
with this--we call it a motion to proceed--to get on with the debate, 
not only because I support the underlying legislation, which amends the 
rules governing emergency spending but, more importantly, because like 
most, if not all, Democrats, I strongly support the establishment of a 
Social Security and Medicare lockbox. It is time for a real debate to 
occur on a lockbox. And I look forward to that debate.
  Democrats have long argued that protecting Social Security and 
Medicare should be Congress' top priority. We believe that strongly. We 
simply must prepare our country for the impending retirement of the 
baby boomers. We ought to do it now, particularly since we are going 
through this incredible prosperity, a prosperity never before seen in 
this country.
  To help achieve that goal, Senator Conrad and I proposed our own 
version of a Social Security and Medicare lockbox. It is a lockbox that 
reserves the surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare--reserves 
them; you cannot touch them--without creating the threat of what is now 
proposed, which could be a Government-wide default. Our lockbox has 
much stricter enforcement than the weak one that was approved by the 
House of Representatives.
  Early this week, President Clinton also proposed to establish a 
Social Security and Medicare lockbox. His proposal not only would 
prevent Congress from spending Social Security surpluses in any year, 
but it would extend the solvency of the trust fund to the year 2053.
  Although all of the details of the President's plan have not been 
worked out yet, I strongly support his general approach. I am hopeful 
it can win with bipartisan support. We would like to see it that way.
  The distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, and Senator 
Domenici have proposed a different version of a lockbox which has

[[Page 15124]]

been offered as an amendment to the previous bill S. 557. 
Unfortunately, their lockbox is seriously openable. In fact, as 
Treasury Secretary Rubin has written, instead of protecting Social 
Security benefits, their lockbox actually would threaten benefits. That 
is because it could trigger a Government-wide default based on factors 
beyond Congress' control.
  Such a default would make it impossible to pay Social Security 
benefits. They can call it what they will--lockbox, cash drawer, 
whatever--but it will still impair the possibility, at some point, to 
pay the Social Security benefits. The issue before the Senate today 
isn't whether we are for or against the Abraham-Domenici lockbox. It is 
not whether we are for or against the Democratic lockbox. The issue is 
whether we should proceed to a debate about lockbox legislation at all. 
I believe we should. It should be an open debate. Senators should have 
the right to offer amendments, but we should go ahead and get that 
debate underway.
  In the past, the majority has tried to stifle that debate and to push 
through their own version of a lockbox without giving the Democrats and 
the American people an opportunity to present and to consider 
amendments. We Democrats have rightly resisted that. We cannot be 
gagged, and we will not be locked out of the legislative process, 
especially on an issue as important as protecting Social Security.
  Having said that, nobody should doubt the commitment of Senate 
Democrats to support a Social Security and Medicare lockbox. I take a 
moment here to identify what a lockbox is to represent: a place you 
can't invade for any other reason except to make sure that Social 
Security is there for the longest period of time available for those 
who are paying into this system, the money to pay those benefits is 
going to be there.
  Another major concern of the American public, the elderly public 
particularly, is Medicare. Will it run out of funds before the 50-year-
old is there to have his or her health care protected? That is what we 
are debating. We ought not to be talking about process. We ought to be 
talking about what are the promises that we are trying to fulfill.
  One is that Social Security will be there when you get there and you 
want it and you need it. Two is that Medicare is there to help protect 
the health of an aging population.
  I expect there is going to be a very strong vote on this side of the 
aisle in support of moving to proceed to that debate. Unfortunately, 
what we have heard is that the majority will then file cloture on the 
bill itself. Another explanation. Cloture means to shut down the 
debate, not permit the Democrats to add amendments, not to permit the 
American public to hear the full discussion. That is the issue--
continuing to block our ability to offer any open, new ideas to their 
original proposal.
  Well, if that is true, it is outrageous. It is the kind of political 
game that has been played on this floor on this issue from day 1. 
Apparently the majority isn't as anxious to get a Social Security 
lockbox as they pretend to be. They just want to force the Democrats to 
cast votes against cloture, against continuing the debate, against 
permitting the debate.
  Well, Democrats have to oppose cloture, if we are being blocked from 
offering amendments. That doesn't mean we are being obstructive. It 
doesn't mean we are filibustering the bill. We just have to protect our 
rights and the citizens' rights as we see them.
  What the Republicans want to do is force us to cast these cloture 
votes and then claim that we are filibustering the lockbox. It is 
wrong, and they are aware of it. They want to shut us out of the 
debate. We represent a significant part of the American public. Whether 
they voted for us or they didn't, we represent them.
  This isn't just playing politics. It is unfair, and it is especially 
unbecoming of a party that is in the majority and purportedly running 
Government. They should be spending their time getting legislation 
passed, not just forcing Democrats to walk the line, to cast votes that 
they can later misrepresent for political gain.
  President Clinton has reached out his hand with a proposal that 
obviously lays the groundwork for a bipartisan deal. He is known to 
include Republicans in discussions about things. I serve on the Budget 
Committee. I am the senior Democrat. This is the third President with 
whom I have served. I have never seen a President more anxious to 
discuss his ideas on legislation with the other side than President 
Clinton.
  He said he is willing to compromise on tax cuts. He said he wants to 
work with the Congress. What is the response from the majority? 
Partisan politics. You have to ask why. Do they really think it makes 
any difference whether there are five cloture votes instead of four? It 
is a mischaracterization. Who is trying to kid whom? This goes beyond 
petty. It really is unfair and pathetic.
  I hope we are going to stop these political games. Then let us sit 
down on a bipartisan basis and do the work of the people. Let us 
develop a real lockbox that makes sense to both of us, a consensus 
view, and one that really protects Social Security and Medicare.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Michigan for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Pennsylvania would like.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have to comment on the statement of 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  One of the more vexing problems we have in political debate in 
America is who is telling the truth. What I am going to tell you is 180 
degrees from what the Senator from New Jersey just said. What he 
repeatedly said is true is, in fact, not true.
  What the Senator from New Jersey said is that the Democrats would not 
be able to offer amendments on the Social Security lockbox as a result 
of the cloture votes that were taken on April 22, April 30, and June 
15. That is not true.
  Let me state that again, emphatically, to the Senator from New Jersey 
and to the American public: What the Senator from New Jersey just said, 
which is that Democrats were blocked from offering amendments on the 
issue of a Social Security lockbox, is not true. So the entire speech 
we just heard was, in fact, a statement which had no basis in fact. 
That is true.
  The Senator from New Jersey could have opposed cloture and offered 
all the amendments he wanted on the Social Security lockbox. We could 
have had hours, days of debate on a Social Security lockbox. We wanted 
to have those kinds of debates. They refused.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Isn't it so that the tree--I don't want to use arcane 
language; I always try to get away from that so the public understands 
what we are talking about. Weren't we blocked from amendments by virtue 
of the fact that the amendment tree was filled by the Republicans?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The April 22 vote was a vote on cloture on the first-
degree amendment. The tree was not filled. It was a first-degree 
amendment vote on cloture, No. 1. We wanted a vote on that particular 
amendment, yes.
  After that amendment would have passed or failed, you were then 
available to offer all the amendments you wanted on Social Security. 
You could have offered your own Social Security lockbox. You could have 
taken the Abraham bill and changed the wording in it, and we could have 
had a vote on that, but you did not want to do that. You did not want 
to have that debate. You refused us even getting into a vote. All we 
wanted to do with these cloture motions was to say: Give us a clean 
vote on this particular proposal. After that, you are free to amend it. 
You are free to offer your own; you can

[[Page 15125]]

do whatever you want. You can offer a Medicare lockbox. You can do 
whatever you want. Just give us a vote on our proposal and then you are 
welcome to do whatever else you want. You said emphatically, 
unanimously, three times: No.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator, if he will indulge another 
question, was the tree filled with second-degree amendments?
  Mr. SANTORUM. That was not the statement of the Senator from New 
Jersey. He made the statement that he could not offer amendments. The 
answer is, he could have offered amendments.
  What we wanted was a vote on the Abraham-Domenici bill. After that 
vote, he was free to amend that proposal. He was free to offer his own 
proposal. There could have been a full and open debate on Social 
Security lockbox, after he gave us a vote on our amendment.
  I don't think that is an unreasonable thing to ask.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for the 
courtesy. But the fact of the matter is that there was an obstruction 
to us offering amendments until the Republicans were certain that they 
had their amendment considered in its raw form. Frankly, to me, that 
was blocking Democrats from having it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. All I say to the Senator from New Jersey is that all we 
asked for is to give us a clean up-or-down vote on our amendment. After 
that amendment, you could have amended that thing, you could have 
offered your own, done anything you wanted. All we wanted to make sure 
of was that we had a clean vote on our amendment to start this debate, 
and after that, you could have done anything you wanted.
  By the way, if you look at the statement you just read into the 
Record, you said exactly the opposite of what I just said. You said you 
could not have offered amendments when, in fact, you could have. You 
still had the right to, and you chose not to because you didn't want to 
enter into this debate.
  We see a wonderful willingness on the part of the Democrats now, 
after the President joined our side in saying we want a lockbox, to 
open up and debate this and offer amendments, when you had the very 
same opportunity four times to do the same thing.
  I welcome that. I welcome that we are going to have an opportunity to 
focus in on what I think is one of the most important things--not just 
for Social Security but important things for the long-term fiscal 
future of this country, this government; that is, putting in place a 
provision that says if you are going to spend more money on new 
government programs, or even if they are going to spend money on tax 
cuts, you are not going to spend it on Social Security unless you stand 
up before this Senate and before the American public and say: We are 
going to take Social Security dollars. We believe it is more important 
to do tax cuts. We believe it is more important to do funding for 
education or funding for defense than it is to provide money for Social 
Security.
  That is the vote we are looking for. That is the vote of 
accountability that we want every Member of the Senate to have to cast. 
That is the fiscal discipline, when people have to make that choice, 
and it is clear to everybody what the choice is. We have lots of points 
of order and procedural things, but then everybody sort of walks out of 
the room and spins it their way. In this case, with the lockbox vote, 
where it says you have to vote on a motion that says we will spend 
Social Security money for X or Y or Z, you have to tell the American 
people that you believe that is a higher priority than Social Security.
  We have no such vote today. But if we pass a lockbox, then the 
American public will know what your choices are. There may be a 
situation where we need to spend Social Security money. Frankly, I 
can't think of one, but there may be one--an emergency, a true 
emergency, where our national security is at risk. There may be a 
situation where we want to spend Social Security dollars, but it has to 
be voted on. That is the most important thing. That is what the other 
side never wanted to have happen.
  I thank the President for breaking the logjam over there. The House 
Democrats did a pretty good job; they passed a Social Security lockbox 
bill. But it was the folks on the other side who stood as the dam to 
this current that was flowing through the Congress. I thank the 
President for getting the beavers to work, getting them out of the way 
and making sure we can have a full, fair, and open debate--as we could 
have three or four times previous to this. We could have had a full, 
fair, open debate in the Senate about a very important issue, yes, for 
Social Security but just as important to the fiscal discipline of the 
U.S. Government in the future.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Abraham and Mr. Domenici, for their excellent work on this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do the Republicans have 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 18 seconds are remaining on the 
Republican side; 12 minutes 12 seconds are remaining on the Democrat 
side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield the Senator as much time as he needs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, please tell me when I have used 4 
minutes.
  I say to the President of the United States: Thank you very much, Mr. 
President. You have agreed with us on one of the most important issues 
confronting the senior citizens of this Nation. In your budget and your 
recommendations in the past, during this fiscal year, you suggested 
that only 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund be saved and put 
in a trust fund and stay there for senior citizens for their Social 
Security. We suggested in our budget resolution that anything short of 
100 percent was not right. After weeks of debate in this body, without 
an opportunity to get a vote on an amendment that would have said that 
and would have locked it tightly in place, the President of the United 
States announced that there are more resources available because the 
surpluses are bigger and decided that he agreed with the Republicans 
that 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund should be set aside 
for Social Security purposes.
  Now the time has come for the Senate to do that. This is not an issue 
of Medicare. This is an issue of the Social Security trust fund being 
available for no purpose other than Social Security. In the meantime, 
it is used to reduce the national debt. That is the program, that is 
the plan, that is the safest and fairest thing for seniors across this 
land.
  Pretty soon, we are going to find out whether that is really the 
issue or whether there is another issue, and that other issue is, even 
if you have done that and set it aside and locked it away, should there 
be a tax cut? It would appear that for some reason, the President of 
the United States and maybe a majority of the Democrats in the Senate 
don't want to let the American people have a refund of the taxes they 
have overpaid. And now we learn from both auditing or accounting 
entities, the President's and ours, that that surplus is even bigger 
than we thought. That is aside from the Social Security trust fund--in 
addition to it, without touching it.
  The issue, then, is what kind of gimmick are we going to use to eat 
up that surplus so there is no money available to give back to the 
American people? That is the issue. The issue will be couched as if we 
should put $350 billion of this non-Social Security surplus in a 
Medicare trust fund. But the President's own proposals belie the 
necessity for that and just give it a birth--you open it up and you can 
see it for what it is, an effort to deny the American people a tax cut 
because, lo and behold, the President said we can reform Medicare. We 
can actually put in place prescription drugs. And what is the price 
tag? Let's just agree that the President has a good number--how about 
that, I say to Senator Abraham--$46 billion, not $396 billion; $46 
billion is what he says we need during

[[Page 15126]]

the next decade to provide prescription drugs, which he deems to be 
good for the senior citizens of America. He is crossing this land and 
saying: I am for prescription drugs.
  We are for prescription drugs. In fact, we are so pleased that the 
President has acknowledged exactly that situation that we are almost 
prepared to say--as soon as we run some numbers --that we can do better 
than you have done in terms of prescription drugs for senior citizens 
who need prescription drug assistance.
  But let's remember, he says we need $46 billion. We are going to hear 
some arguments about the lockbox, saying let's have another lockbox for 
Medicare and let's take a bunch of the money that the taxpayers ought 
to get and put it over there in a trust fund under the rubric that it 
will help get rid of the deficit, that it will bring down the deficit 
of the United States, the overall debt--even though the three major 
accounting entities that have testified said it will be the same thing 
whether you put it in there or not. It has no impact because at some 
point you have to pay off those IOUs, and that means a tax increase.
  Now, this is rather complicated, but the truth of the matter is--
listen up, seniors--we are going to provide a prescription drug benefit 
as good as the President's or better. Let's focus on that. That is what 
we are going to do. Indeed, we are going to put every nickel--I remind 
everybody it takes $120 billion more for the trust fund to get all it 
is entitled to, according to CBO. We are going to put more than $1.8 
trillion in. We are going to put $1.9 trillion in that trust fund.
  In summary, we are making some headway. It is slow and tedious.
  I assume that today all Members on the other side of the aisle are 
going to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed. I believe that is 
the case. It will be 100 to nothing, as if they have agreed to a 
lockbox. Actually, that is a wasted vote, if there are going to be 100. 
They are just deciding they all want to go home and say: We are for the 
lockbox also.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and 
nays on the lockbox motion to proceed----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We object.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I finish? I wasn't finished.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry. Please continue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I finish my consent request? I would like to make 
sure it makes some sense.
  I ask unanimous consent that we dispense with that vote and that we 
proceed to substitute for that a motion as if cloture was before us on 
the actual lockbox amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  If the Senator has a little time later, I would be glad to use 
another minute.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Republicans control 2 minutes 54 seconds. The Democrats have 12 
minutes 12 seconds.
  The question from the Chair is, Who yields time?
  If neither side yields time, the time will be charged equally to both 
sides.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time not be counted to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. President, we are going through an exercise about what is being 
characterized by the Democrats and what is being characterized by the 
Republicans as an imperfect lockbox situation--a lockbox 
recommendation.
  I want to try to get this debate on this subject itself instead of 
the process. The fact of the matter is that if we try to define what 
constitutes a lockbox--we heard the Senator from North Dakota earlier 
talking about his effort to identify a lockbox going back to 1982 or 
1983, in that period. Lockbox terminology was used way before it was 
discussed on this floor. It is a common expression in terms of banking 
and financial programs.
  What we are talking about, very simply, is whether or not we put 
enough money away to say to the American public, when it is your time 
to retire--talking to those who now are, let's say, in their twenties, 
maybe in their teens--Social Security will be there for you when it is 
your time to use that benefit.
  That is the discussion that goes on.
  The other program--Medicare, which is directly linked to the Social 
Security program--health care for the elderly, for seniors, is the 
biggest worry among our population. People identify it as their concern 
about being locked out of health care--not knowing what conditions 
might arise that will absorb all of their savings, all of their 
resources. With the good science that has been developed over the 
years, we have had far better health than we thought we might have, 
looking back some years.
  I know that when I was in the Army during World War II, I never 
dreamed that at this stage of my life I would be hard at work trying to 
do the things that I do, and feeling pretty good about it. I am glad to 
know there is a program out there for those who aren't physically able 
to deal with life's daily pressures, and when they run into medical 
problems, health care is going to be there. That is the way it ought to 
be.
  With all of that, and all of the criticism of President Clinton, the 
fact is that he is the leader in the country who saw us stop the 
hemorrhaging of incredibly increasing debt that was falling upon not 
just the present generation but future generations.
  I used to hear the cries: We are saddling our children and our 
grandchildren with debt. Now we want to pay it off. They say: Well, 
paying off debt, what does it mean? It means an awful lot. The fact of 
the matter is that it provides the kind of things that families try to 
provide; and that is security for the future--reserves--so that when 
you have something you either need or want, you have some means to do 
it.
  That is what we are talking about here. We want to preserve, and we 
want to increase, the solvency of Medicare to make sure it is there for 
a longer period of time. We want to extend Medicare to 2025 and have 
Social Security retirement benefits available until 2053, with a pledge 
from the White House and from this President to try to reform the 
process to extend it even further. That is what we are discussing.
  Despite the cries and the pleas--``to tell the truth,'' is what I 
heard. I don't usually use that kind of terminology, because not 
telling the truth suggests some kind of a character flaw. The truth in 
many times is as observed by the person speaking. But the real judgment 
comes from the others who hear it. The truth of the matter is that we 
are trying our darndest--each side of the aisle--in this particular 
construction of how they see us, we being able to provide the kind of 
security that our people want. We on this side of the aisle think it 
ought to be done by not only preserving all of the Social Security 
surpluses but by paying down the debt and increasing reserves available 
to put into that Social Security trust fund to extend it slightly even 
further. That is what we want to do.
  All of the gimmicks that are used, all of the ploys that the majority 
has used characteristically to try to stop the Democrats from offering 
amendments, from making this debate available to the public--that is 
the way it goes. We have never seen the kind of a period where so many 
cloture votes are ordered at the same time that a bill is sent up to 
the desk to be considered. Almost immediately, in so many cases, it is 
followed by a cloture vote before there is any debate. The cries of a 
filibuster are hollow cries, because no filibuster has had a chance to 
get underway. There hasn't been any chance to talk at all. Shut it 
down. Use the cloture vote technique.

[[Page 15127]]

  The public shouldn't perhaps be deceived by what they hear about how 
anxious the Republicans are to get on with the work of the people when 
they refuse to allow reasonable debate on the subject. There are ways 
to do it: Fill up the amendment tree, that stops it; invoke cloture, 
that stops it; or put in quorum calls, or have majority votes on things 
that stop the process.
  The question is simply, Do we want to extend Social Security 
solvency? I think that answer has to be yes. Do we want to extend the 
Medicare solvency? I think that answer has to be yes.
  Let the American people decide. When do they decide? They decide in 
November 2000 whether or not they prefer one method or the other. We 
ought to be plain spoken about what it is we are trying to do and not 
shut off the debate and not say that the Democrats could have offered 
amendments. They couldn't have, not at that time. They could have in 
due time--after everything was signed, sealed, and delivered. It is a 
backhanded way of operating.
  I hope we will move on to the debate of the lockbox legislation. Let 
the public hear it. Take the time necessary to have a full airing. Let 
either side amend it and get on with serving the people's needs.
  How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has control of 3 minutes 20 
seconds; the Republicans have 2 minutes 54 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute 30 seconds.
  We are here today to try to put in motion a process that will save 
the Social Security trust fund surpluses for Social Security. The 
Republicans have been trying to simply get a vote on our proposal for 
over 70 days.
  The entire parliamentary effort that has been described has been 
aimed at simply getting us a chance to have a vote on what was our 
original amendment to a different bill. The notion that getting cloture 
on that amendment would somehow stifle opportunities for others to 
bring amendments is not the way this system works. I think everybody 
should understand that. Our goal is to get a vote on the amendment we 
wanted. That is perfectly consistent with what people on all sides 
always try to do. It was a simple effort.
  Let's not get caught up in the parliamentary discussions. The bottom 
line is we are still trying to create a lockbox for the American people 
who send payroll taxes to Washington so they can be assured those 
dollars go to Social Security. That is what we are fighting for. This 
debate is no more complicated than that.
  We have heard claims people want a weaker lockbox, a harder lockbox. 
Let's go forward with it. Let's pass this motion. Let's vote for 
cloture today. Give Members a chance to have a vote on our plan. If 
others want to offer their plans, there will be opportunities for that.
  I don't think there should be any absence of clarity as to what we 
have been trying to achieve for 73 days, and that is simply to get a 
vote on a lockbox, which was brought as an amendment by the 
Republicans. We will still get that vote; we will keep fighting until 
we do.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the remaining time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 1 minute 16 seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield that time to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is not an issue of what kind of 
economic game plan we have had for the last 5 or 6 years. We all 
understand that hard-working Americans are making this economy hum. 
Investors who have become more enlightened and entrepreneurs who are 
taking more risks have caused a great American recovery, sustained in a 
manner we have never expected.
  The issue is, when we collect more taxes, and we exceed 
expectations--in fact, not just by a few hundred million, but actually 
approaching $1 trillion--should we wait for the Government to spend it 
or should we give some of it back to the American taxpayer?
  Actually, the Social Security trust fund can be saved. Medicare with 
prescription drugs can be reformed and fixed so we have prescription 
drugs, and there is still a large amount of money left over. What 
should we do with it? Invent some way to set it aside? If we do that, 
it will be spent. Let's give some of it back to the American people. 
That is why the lockbox is important. It says what is left over does 
not belong to Social Security; it belongs to the American people. Use 
it prudently, Congress, and give back some of it.
  It appears there is a war with that side of the aisle against giving 
anything back to the American people from these kinds of surpluses. I 
believe we will win that war. We relish it. We are ready to go. That 
will be the issue the next couple of months.
  I yield the floor.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the 
pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk 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 motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 89, S. 557, a bill to provide 
     guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part of the 
     budget process:
         Trent Lott, Spencer Abraham, Jim Inhofe, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison, Pete Domenici, Paul Coverdell, Wayne Allard, 
           Jesse Helms, Larry E. Craig, Mike Crapo, Chuck Hagel, 
           Mike DeWine, Michael H. Enzi, Judd Gregg, Tim 
           Hutchinson, and Craig Thomas.


                            Call of the Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call is 
waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 557, a bill to provide 
guidance for the designation of emergencies as part of the budget 
process, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are required 
under the rules. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced-- yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 99, the nays are 1. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

                          ____________________