[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16347-16355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  GUIDANCE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF EMERGENCIES AS A PART OF THE BUDGET 
                            PROCESS--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour of debate evenly divided between the two leaders prior to the 
cloture vote on amendment No. 297 to the instructions to the motion to 
recommit the bill S. 557.
  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 (Social Security Lockbox).

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need.
  We find ourselves once again on the Senate floor. As I said to the 
Senator from New Jersey, some years back there was a movie called 
``Groundhog Day'' in which the main character in the movie kept waking 
up each day in the same exact setting in which he found himself the 
previous day. Somehow that movie's theme seems to be playing itself out 
in this debate about the lockbox. We are once again to have a cloture 
vote to simply try to obtain the opportunity to have a vote on the 
amendment which was offered by myself, along with Senator Domenici and 
Senator Ashcroft, to the underlying legislation.
  We have previously tried to accomplish this without success. It is 
very frustrating because if we obtain cloture today, we would get this 
vote, but this legislation would then be open to further amendment by 
any Senator who wished to change its composition.
  So I start the debate by pointing out to all my colleagues that all 
we are asking for is a chance to have a vote on one amendment.
  Now, this past 4 days we have been debating the Patients' Bill of 
Rights. I remember back a few weeks ago the entire Senate was virtually 
shut down so a group of Senators who wanted to have that issue 
considered could have the entire issue considered and a full range of 
amendments brought up and voted on, and we did that. Here all we are 
asking for is a chance to have a vote on one amendment to a broader 
bill. I hope we will get the chance to do so.

[[Page 16348]]

  The reason for that is very simple. Across my State, and I think 
across this country, Americans continue to want to see their Social 
Security dollars protected. They want to make sure every single dollar 
they send to Washington in their payroll taxes for Social Security is 
preserved and not spent on other programs or used for tax cuts or for 
any other purpose but for their Social Security protection. They want 
to make sure today's beneficiaries are protected. They want to make 
sure future beneficiaries are protected. So do the advocates of this 
amendment. It is not just one side that advocates this, as far as I can 
tell, because just in the last few weeks we have heard from the White 
House that the President, too, shares our view that we ought to have a 
Social Security lockbox.
  It does not seem to me very clear why, as a result of that, we cannot 
have a vote on this proposal. If others have additions or deletions or 
counterproposals, they will have their chance because the underlying 
bill will still be subject to further amendment. But those of us who 
think this is the right approach want to have a chance to have this 
approach ultimately debated and be voted on. We have been trying and 
trying without success. I hope today we can continue down the path we 
started just a few days ago when we ultimately obtained cloture on the 
motion to proceed.
  As I open this debate, I implore Members on both sides of the aisle 
to give those of us who are advocating this amendment a chance to have 
a vote on it. If you have your own ideas, bring those, too, and once we 
have voted on this amendment, we will vote on yours. But let us at 
least get the ball rolling. If everybody is as strongly for a lockbox 
as they profess, then let us have a chance to start the debate, and let 
us start with this amendment which was the first one offered.
  Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Who yields time? The Senator 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  As stated by our colleague and friend from the State of Michigan, we 
are kind of looking at the same thing again. He likened it to 
``Groundhog Day.'' I would say it is ``deja vu all over again.'' That 
was said by a great philosopher in New Jersey, Yogi Berra.
  What are we talking about? What we are discussing is whether or not 
the people on this side of the aisle and the people up there and the 
people out there will have a right to have their views included in this 
debate.
  It is pretty simple. We are talking about a lockbox. A lockbox is a 
place where you can preserve treasure, where you can preserve family 
records, jewelry, et cetera. But I never heard of a lockbox where they 
put in one article of value and leave out the rest.
  What we are hearing is that we are going to protect Social Security's 
surpluses, but we are not going to do anything, according to the 
majority, to extend the solvency of Social Security. We are not going 
to do anything to include Medicare's solvency. People do not get into 
these programs until they are 65 years old. At that time, do you want 
to have to worry about whether or not health insurance is going to be 
available? Do you want to worry whether that retirement fund is going 
to be there for your children who are now hard at work trying to take 
care of their needs while they also prepare for their retirement? The 
Republicans are saying: Leave it to us; we will figure out a way to 
take care of it some day off in Wonderland.
  The fact of the matter is, yes, we want to engage in an honest debate 
about this. It is not just let us have our vote. Let them have their 
vote means that under the proposal they have offered, this side gets no 
votes and the people we represent across this country get no opinion 
expressed. Look at the polls and see what they think about who is going 
to do the best job to protect Social Security and Medicare. They are 
going to say the Democrats are the people who worry most about it.
  We are beginning to look at an examination of process, a process that 
a lot of people do not understand, even some in this body, but 
certainly across the country people do not understand it: Cloture 
motions.
  Amendments, allow us to discuss them. Pure and simple, that is the 
way the American people want us to talk to them. Will they allow us, 
the Democrats, to register our view of how this Social Security so-
called lockbox is going to look? Does it do the job the American people 
want? Or are we using terminology that has a certain ring to it that 
has no value?
  That is the question. I say to my friend from Michigan, let us have 
some amendments so that we do not have to, up or down, just take what 
the Republicans have offered. Let us debate it. It is a big enough 
proposal, I think.
  Yes, it has reared its ugly head several times. The fact of the 
matter is, we have not yet gotten to see the whole body there. We do 
not understand all the ramifications. At least the public does not 
understand them.
  Give us a chance to have some amendments. They are saying: No, the 
first thing we are going to do is move on to the Abraham-Domenici-
Ashcroft proposal.
  We do not want to do it that way. We are going to do our darndest to 
protect the American people. We are going to insist we have a lockbox 
that includes solvency for Medicare extended by 20 years, extend Social 
Security by 30 years or 40 years, and try during that period of time to 
work it out so it is extended for 75 years.
  That is what our mission ought to be--look ahead and not simply try 
to shut things down and offer as a juicy incentive a tax cut that is 
best for the wealthiest in this country.
  It is $1 trillion for the cost of the House Republican tax cut. Out 
of that, they take $55 billion away from Social Security to help it 
along. They take $964 billion of the surplus to help that tax cut 
along. The American people are more interested in putting food on the 
table, providing for their education, and protecting their parents' 
health care in the future than they are about that kind of tax cut.
  We want to give a tax cut, too. Everybody loves tax cuts. The 
difference is, we love them for the majority of the people where it 
counts. We love them because we want people to receive adequate child 
care, and we want to know they can take care of the elderly when 
medical services are necessary. It is not just tax cuts for tax cuts. 
No, tax cuts for political purposes is what we are looking at--tax cuts 
for the wealthy.
  This economy is boiling. You cannot get help to do this. You cannot 
get help to do that. You want to buy a house. The housing market is 
exploding. If you want to go into fancy items such as boats and 
airplanes, you have to wait 3 years to get delivery on them. I do not 
feel sorry for a guy who has to wait 3 years for a new airplane. The 
fact of the matter is, that is where that money will go with a tax cut, 
and not into the homes of people who worked all their lives to save a 
few bucks and provide for their retirement, as well as for their 
medical care needs.
  That is what this debate is about, and I hope that our colleagues 
will stick together on this side and insist that we have a chance to 
offer people's amendments. That is what we are discussing. We are not 
discussing anything else. There is no trickery. Let us express a view 
that maybe, if people listen to it, they will consider it and, if not, 
then we have the votes. They are the majority. They are going to get 
their way; we know that, but I do not think that is a good way to serve 
the public.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, shall 
we switch sides?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. That will be fine, back and forth.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I, once again, 
for all Senators, make the following point: We are not seeking cloture 
on the underlying bill. It will still be subject to amendments that I 
believe the Senator from New Jersey is referencing. I do not know what 
those amendment are. They can be brought up if we obtain

[[Page 16349]]

cloture. All we get is a chance to vote on our amendment. I cannot 
figure out why we are not being allowed a chance to vote on our 
amendment. I will continue to make that point today.
  I yield such time as he may need to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. The Senator from 
New Jersey said, ``This side gets no votes.'' I wrote it down word for 
word. The Senator from New Jersey said, ``This side,'' meaning the 
Democratic side, ``gets no votes.'' Does the Senator from New Jersey 
realize that this is a cloture motion on the amendment? This is not a 
cloture motion on the bill. The cloture motion on the amendment simply 
says that we get a vote on our amendment. After the amendment is 
adopted or rejected, the bill is still there, and it is open for 
amendment. The amendment which we adopt, if we adopt it, will be open 
to amendment. The Senator can amend it. He can substitute it. He can 
eliminate it. He can do whatever he wants. He will get all the votes he 
wants.
  The Senator from New Jersey said, ``Let us have some amendments.'' 
How many amendments does the Senator want? I will be happy to listen. 
How many amendments would the Senator from New Jersey like?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I cannot speak for our leadership, but he has been 
waiting for a response from the majority leader as to whether or not 
amendments are going to be permitted. The Senator from Pennsylvania 
knows only too well that when we talk about this amendment, we are 
talking about the bill; we are talking about the issue. We are not 
talking about some abstract condition.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, the Senator knows, 
once we put the amendment in the underlying bill, it is then open and 
subject to amendment which the Senator can offer. In fact, he has an 
unlimited right in the Senate to offer amendments to the underlying 
amendment. All we are doing is asking to put in this budget bill an 
underlying amendment for the membership to then amend to its heart's 
content, vote as many times as the Senator from New Jersey wants to 
vote.
  As we have seen in the last 4 days, we had multiple amendments. We 
had, what? We had an underlying bill. We had an underlying bill that 
was a Democratic bill and an underlying bill that was a Republican 
bill. All I am saying is let us put our underlying bill in place, and 
then my colleagues can have all the fun they want in trying to craft 
different amendments to that or substituting their own version of it.
  The Senator from New Jersey said: All we want is an honest debate. We 
are trying to get an honest debate.
  Let's put the measure in the underlying bill and have at it. Let's 
have a full and open debate. Maybe we can get a unanimous consent 
agreement to be on this for a couple of days and allow amendments on 
both sides. That is the way we do things in this body. All of us are 
willing to do that. I am certainly willing to do that. I am certainly 
willing to give the Democrats the opportunity to put forward their 
lockbox proposal and willing to put forward amendments to our lockbox 
proposal.
  I welcome an open, honest, and fair debate, but we cannot get there, 
as the Senator from New Jersey knows, unless we have a bill with which 
to start. We cannot start amending nothing. We have to amend something. 
What we are trying to do is put something in place to start the ball 
rolling.
  I understand the Senator would like to have a Democratic bill start 
the process. I understand that. As he knows, we have to start 
somewhere, and putting our bill up first, as the majority, is not an 
irrational thing to suggest as a starting point, as long as we give you 
the right to amend, which we do.
  This vote does not limit your rights at all. It limits no rights on 
your side. You have all the full rights that a Senator has and that the 
minority has under the current set of rules. So this idea that this 
side has no votes or this side has no amendments is not factual. You 
have unlimited amendments and unlimited rights to amend this proposal.
  This proposal simply says: Every dollar coming into Social Security 
should be used for Social Security. The Senator from New Jersey said: 
Well, the House tax cut uses Social Security money. If it does, guess 
what. We will have a vote right here on the Senate floor in which 60 
Senators will have to say: We want to spend Social Security for that 
tax cut.
  I do not think you will get 60 votes. I know you will not get 60 
votes. This Senator will not vote for it. I know a lot of Senators over 
here who will not vote for using Social Security surplus funds for any 
tax relief.
  I am perfectly willing--in fact, advocating--to use the onbudget 
surplus to give relief to the taxpayers of America. In fact, giving 
them that relief will help to buy the food and the medicines and other 
things the Senator just talked about. It is important to do that. We do 
not have to do everything for everybody. We can actually let people 
keep their own money and do it themselves. I think people would have 
the preference of doing it that way.
  As to the idea that we have the power right now to stop raids on 
Social Security, we do not. We do not. We saw that last October. What 
happened last October was that the President got together with the 
leaders over there, and they raided the surplus, the Social Security 
surplus. We did not have the courage or the opportunity with a vote to 
stop it.
  If we pass this lockbox proposal, any Senator has the right to ask 
for a vote, and 60 Senators would have to get up and say: I would 
rather spend that money on whatever program or spend that money, in a 
sense, on tax relief. And you need 60 votes. That is a real protection 
for Social Security.
  I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the Senate Democrats are 
now the only group of people in Washington, DC--and I daresay the 
country--who are opposing this. You have the President of the United 
States, a Democrat, who wants this. You have 99 percent of the 
Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for it. You have 
every Republican who is supporting it.
  The only group of people in the country, that I can see, who are 
against having Social Security money for just Social Security are 45 
Members on the other side of the aisle. I am not too sure they 
understand what the American public wants and what everybody else has 
figured out is the right policy for America.
  So I encourage the Senator--maybe his staff did not give him the 
correct information--to look at what this cloture motion does. It 
limits no rights for the minorities--none. You have unlimited right of 
amendment after this cloture motion is agreed to and we vote on this 
amendment. Then we can have the full and fair debate.
  I am sure our majority leader, who cares very deeply about this 
bill--Social Security is very important to him--would devote as much 
time as necessary on the Senate floor to have that kind of debate, to 
get the kind of measure that can pass and be signed by the President, 
and we can begin the process of protecting Social Security.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Before recognizing the Senator from South Carolina, I 
will tell you, the Senator from Pennsylvania has been here long enough 
that he has knowledge of the process. I have been here longer. I, too, 
have a knowledge of the process.
  No matter what you say, if you are going to shut down the amendment 
process--which the majority has successfully done--you are not going to 
get amendments. You can say, we will take all the amendments.
  I just heard the Senator from Pennsylvania make a commitment, I 
assume for the Republican majority, when he said: I have no objection 
to any amendments you want to offer.
  Did I mischaracterize the Senator from Mr. Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would have no objection to any amendments you have

[[Page 16350]]

with respect to the Social Security lockbox, absolutely. Let's have a 
debate on Social Security. Let's have a debate on the Social Security 
lockbox.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be 
vitiated, that the motion to recommit and the amendments be withdrawn, 
and that the bill be considered under the following time limitations:
  That there be up to a dozen amendments for each leader, or his 
designee; that the amendments deal with the subject of lockbox 
protections for Social Security and Medicare, budget reform, and the 
availability of prescription drugs for seniors; and that the amendments 
be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right the object. That unanimous-consent 
request does not focus on the Social Security lockbox; it focuses on 
everything in the world; thereby, I would have to object because it is 
not about the Social Security lockbox. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. With all respect, then with the subject of lockbox 
protections for Social Security and Medicare reform--and we can leave 
it at that--that the amendments be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from New 
Jersey knows Medicare is not funded out of the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is exactly the problem.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So to expand the debate----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. That is exactly the problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. So I would have to object.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. You heard it. Medicare is not included.
  Finally, we have a frank admission on the floor of the Senate. 
Medicare is left out. So all of you who are like Senator Hollings and 
I, with blonde hair up top, may not be concerned at all about where we 
go with our Medicare solvency--it may be too late for us--but there are 
other people in the line who may want to use it.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you heard the objection. We asked for 12 
amendments--just a dozen, not unlimited--and there was objection.
  I have three amendments. One is a true lockbox. I made the motion 
back in 1990, as a member of the Budget Committee, for the lockbox. We 
reported it out 19 to 1. I then went on the other side of the aisle and 
got the late Senator John Heinz from Pennsylvania, and he and I joined 
together, and by 98 votes--when the present distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania said everybody, that was everybody then; all except 2--98 
Senators voted for the lockbox, passed it, it passed the House, and it 
was signed on November 5, 1990, by President George Bush.
  But they do not obey it; they do just as the Abraham amendment 
presently before the body. When you use that expression, ``paying down 
the debt,'' what they do is take the Social Security money and use it 
for any and every thing but Social Security. That is what is occurring.
  We presently owe Social Security $857 billion. That is why I have 
three amendments.
  The true lockbox is to keep a reserve, as we require under the 1994 
Pension Reform Act for corporate America; I say we are going to do the 
same thing for Government America.
  I have a second amendment with respect to actually getting a return 
since we are using Social Security money. We only get a 5-percent 
return on these special Treasury securities. Standard & Poor's shows 
from 1990 to 1998 the real return on private securities is 14 percent 
and the nominal return is 18 percent.
  Since we passed this in 1926, over the 72-year period, including the 
Depression, we have a 10.9-percent return on average.
  So I think if you are going to use our money, do not use it on the 
cheap, do not get a free ride. Pay in the 10.9 percent rather than the 
5.6 percent, and we begin to rejuvenate Social Security rather than 
drain it. Otherwise, I want to cut out the monkeyshines of the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, calling over to the Congressional Budget 
Office and saying: Give me $10 billion more. How does he do it? He uses 
different economic assumptions.
  Under the law, under section 301(g) of the Budget Act, they are 
required to use the same economic assumptions as contained in the 
budget resolution. But rather than maintaining those particular 
assumptions, they just make new assumptions. We had nothing to do with 
it. I am on the Budget Committee. We were never called or notified or 
anything else of the kind. All of a sudden we find out there is $10 
billion left for defense. There is another $3 billion for 
transportation, another $1 billion. Already we have busted the caps, 
just by a telephone call, $14 billion.
  I have three amendments. I am ready to offer them, but they won't let 
us offer them. That is why I am not voting for cloture. Everybody ought 
to understand what is going on. They won't let it be treated as an 
unlimited measure, as we always have had discourse in the Senate in my 
almost 33 years, until this kind of control. We had to fight to get up 
the Patients' Bill of Rights. We had to hold up all the appropriations 
bills. Now we can't even get an objective discussion of Social Security 
because they know how to gear it. They have it geared where they are 
going to pay down the debt, always talking lockbox, lockbox, lockbox.
  They are in violation right now of the 13301 lockbox, and they will 
continue to do so. It is all politics, election 2000.
  I thank my distinguished colleague. I yield the floor and reserve the 
remainder of our time.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from 
Missouri, one of the sponsors of this legislation, I remind the Senator 
from New Jersey and the Senator from South Carolina, the President 
spoke in favor of the Social Security lockbox. He said he wanted a 
Social Security lockbox, period. He didn't talk about Medicare.
  Nobody is talking about Medicare. No one in this town has talked 
about commingling two separate trust funds. I don't know what kind of 
great admission the Senator from Pennsylvania supposedly made. It is 
something that is obvious to every taxpayer. There are two separate 
trust funds, one for Medicare and one for Social Security.
  To suggest that we should commingle those funds is a very dangerous 
suggestion. I think that is what the Senator from New Jersey is 
intimating. That is not what the President wants. That is not what the 
House wants, Democrats and Republicans. It is certainly not what we 
want.
  If the Senator from New Jersey is suggesting that, I think he is 
alone on a very dangerous suggestion and one that is not healthy for 
either fund. That is certainly something we will not allow to have 
happen in the Senate.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania 
for his insightful comments. There are two distinct funds. To commingle 
those funds would be irresponsible--not only irresponsible, but it 
would go against the intentions of the American people in developing 
those two separate funds for separate purposes. I believe we should 
proceed to do what we responsibly should do with the money we have 
taken from the American people for Social Security, and that is to make 
sure that we spend the money for Social Security, for which we taxed 
the American people saying we would use it for Social Security.

[[Page 16351]]

  We have spent a little time this morning in the Senate jargon of 
exchanges on procedure. It is enough to make the head of a Philadelphia 
lawyer swim, with all deference to the Senator from Pennsylvania. The 
American people are not interested in convoluted explanations of Senate 
procedure. They want to know why is it that this body alone stands 
between them and the integrity of protecting Social Security resources 
for the exclusive use of Social Security.
  They have heard the President of the United States come forward--
belatedly come forward, but he has come forward--and say: I want a 
lockbox for Social Security. Those are his words. Not a lockbox for 
Social Security that starts doing other things for other trust 
accounts, a lockbox for Social Security.
  They have watched as the House of Representatives voted 416 to 12. 
Talk about bipartisan support; talk about a near unanimous vote. You 
have it in the House of Representatives. They see on the Republican 
side of the Senate a very strong desire, reflected now in our sixth 
effort to get the Democrats to break the filibuster against reserving 
Social Security taxes for the use of Social Security. We are determined 
to keep voting to break this logjam. The American people have seen that 
everyone wants this: The President, the overwhelming majority of House 
Democrats, and Republicans, all but 12 of a 435-Member body want a 
lockbox, and we need it in the Senate.
  President Clinton's budget this year, prior to his endorsement of the 
lockbox, would have spent $158 billion out of the Social Security trust 
fund over the next 5 years. That is the kind of thing we need to guard 
against. The President has now said we need to guard against that.
  In March, Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 502, 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. In April, the Senate budget resolution 
included language endorsing the idea of locking away the Social 
Security surplus. The language in the Budget Act passed unanimously. 
Those on the other side of the aisle have passed this language already, 
including the point of order process. Also in April, Senators Abraham, 
Domenici, and I introduced the Social Security lockbox amendment, about 
which we have been talking today.
  In May, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed 
Congressman Herger's measure to protect the Social Security surplus, 
and the vote there was 416 to 12. That is an amazing vote for the House 
of Representatives.
  In late June, after Senate Democrats had blocked four efforts to 
proceed to the lockbox, after Senate Democrats had said, we won't let 
you move to this, President Clinton announced that he had changed his 
position and that he finally supported a lockbox that would protect 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus. His quote is this: ``Social 
Security taxes should be saved for Social Security, period.'' Not 
Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security and tax cuts, 
no, and Medicare, no, and anything else; it is Social Security, period. 
That happens to be what Senator Abraham, along with Senator Domenici 
and I, has brought to the floor as an amendment. That happens to be 
what we are asking Senate Democrats to allow us to move forward on.
  A few days after the President's announcement, we obtained a motion 
to proceed on the lockbox. But now we are faced, again, with the 
prospect of Senate Democrats blocking a forward motion on this lockbox 
concept. The House has voted for it. The President has come out in 
favor of it. Senate Republicans support it. The American people are 
demanding it. Senate Democrats still stand in the way.
  Over the next 5 years, Social Security taxes will bring in an 
estimated $776 billion in surpluses--not just in revenue, $776 billion 
in surpluses. The lockbox would protect every dollar of those current 
Social Security surpluses for future obligations to America's retirees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Would the Senator from Missouri like additional time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. The Senator from Missouri is yielded whatever time he 
needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we have five times previously been 
denied this, in spite of the House vote, in spite of the President's 
endorsement, in spite of the overwhelming support of the American 
people. I ask Members of this body to vote to give us the opportunity 
to make the progress necessary to protect 100 percent of the Social 
Security surpluses so they can be used to strengthen, and provide 
integrity to, the Social Security system.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for this opportunity to speak, and 
I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, under a quorum call, how is the time 
charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be charged to the side that requests 
the quorum call.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I gather the Senator from New Jersey does 
not choose to yield time at this point.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Then I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I won't even take 5 minutes. I want to 
share some of the frustration I have about where we are, trying to move 
forward with what I think is one of the most important issues before us 
and, of course, that is Social Security. Everybody is talking about it, 
of course, and they say, oh, yes, we want to do something. When the 
time comes, how many times have we been frustrated in trying to get to 
what is essentially the first step to do something about Social 
Security? That, of course, is to have a lockbox, take the money coming 
in for Social Security and put it there so that we can do something 
with Social Security.
  So this is clearly the first step that we have to take. I think this 
is the fifth time we have been trying to move forward with this. Each 
time all the people on the other side of the aisle say they are for 
Social Security, and the President says he is for Social Security, but 
they never want to do anything. I guess maybe this is part of the 
frustration that has been building up over the last month or so, and 
this week there has been frustration.
  I think it is time to invoke cloture and move forward on the lockbox 
issue to make sure the American people who are paying into Social 
Security, particularly young people who are starting to work and 
putting their money aside, will have some hope that there will be 
benefits for them. And we do that only by moving forward with our 
lockbox. I suggest that we do that. I thank the Senator for the time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Who yields time? If no 
one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time remains on 
each side. We want to reserve some time for the Senator from New Mexico 
to close on our side, and I wanted to know how much that would be 
because we do want to make a closing argument.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 10 minutes remaining, and the 
Democrats have almost 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask

[[Page 16352]]

that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
Republicans have 10 minutes and the minority has 16 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 9 minutes 30 seconds; the 
minority has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to use 3\1/2\ minutes, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very simple proposition. The 
American people, by overwhelming odds, would like us to take every 
single penny of the Social Security that belongs to the Social Security 
trust fund and lock it up so it can't be spent. The issue is not only a 
Republican issue; the President of the United States has said we should 
lock it up. He didn't say lock up something for Medicare; he said lock 
up the trust funds for Social Security, period.
  Senator Daschle, leader of the minority, said very recently that 
there ought to be some common ground. We ought to lock up the Social 
Security trust fund. What are we doing on the floor? We have six times 
tried to get an amendment up--not a bill, not a final action but an 
amendment, after which you can have amendments to your heart's desire.
  We can't get the other side to agree that we will do that. We will 
have limited debate on that amendment, after which they can have all 
the debate and all the amendments they wish. It is only the amendment 
that we would like to get voted on. Why? Because it is time that, 
rather than talking about making sure we don't spend under the pressure 
of emergencies and all kinds of other things, we don't spend the Social 
Security trust fund money.
  Now, the President of the United States came our way already. He said 
lock up 100 percent. At one time in his budget, he said lock up 62 
percent. He came with us and said lock up every single penny.
  That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get a vote on 
doing that, after which time, if the Democrats see fit, they can muddy 
the water and bring up amendments on other issues, and if we had time 
today, we could debate the foolhardy issue that even Democrats think 
makes no sense--that we should take the surplus that belongs to the 
people of the United States and put it into the Medicare trust fund 
with IOUs to be paid for by increased taxes on our children later on. 
We can debate that if you would like. But that is not the issue.
  The issue is Social Security money, the senior citizens' pension 
money. Time is wasting. The pressures to use it are growing. The 
opportunities to come to the floor and say let's spend it, with the 
passage of each day, are getting closer and closer. Somebody will say 
we need this for something. Who knows what. It could be agricultural 
policy for America or any kind of thing you can dream up.
  I say to my friends on the other side, let's get on with it and let's 
close the debate on the amendment. Then we can open the debate after 
that vote occurs on anything you wish.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from New 
Mexico on what he has said. Social Security money is for Social 
Security. It should not be used for anything else. Now is the time to 
nail this thing down so no question will arise in the future. There are 
demands now for everything, but this is a particular trust fund. It 
belongs to the Social Security fund, and we should keep it there and 
not let it get away. I again commend the able Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are debating a proposition that I 
think probably lends some confusion to the recognition of what it is we 
are attempting to do. One can call it a lockbox, a safe deposit box; 
call it what you will. I say we want a lockbox, too, but we want a 
lockbox that is without holes, without rust, without a broken lock on 
it. We want a lockbox that is secure, that holds our valuables, and 
that no one can get their hands on, and that is the Social Security 
lockbox that cannot be used.
  Our friends over there say they want to keep it from being a pot for 
people to reach into when they want to spend money. The fact of the 
matter is that they create a condition as a result of the structure of 
their bill, their proposal, that says that if the economy turns sour, 
in fact, perhaps this country could be put into default, unless Social 
Security is used, because of overarching criteria, then that is what is 
going to happen. Social Security will be that safe deposit box that is 
now open for other purposes in Government.
  I hear the plea for letting the debate get started. But we have been 
waiting to hear from the majority leader--our leader and the majority 
leader; that is where these discussions take place--that he has a 
commitment that we can offer amendments.
  We have a commitment from the Senator from Pennsylvania. He said he 
had no objection to our having amendments. But we haven't heard that 
from the top.
  That is what we are asking for; that is what I tried to do with a 
unanimous consent agreement.
  I said: OK. Let's talk about a dozen amendments that our two leaders 
can agree upon. Let's talk about that. Let's put that aside, and then 
we can end the debate. But they do not want to do that.
  The majority has the upper hand. That is life in the Senate. They are 
not going to let us get our amendments up because--even though they 
say, yes, you will have all the amendments you want--the fact is there 
is a system here. Everybody in this Chamber knows there is a system. It 
is called the amendment tree. Once you fill it up with first-degree 
amendments followed by second-degree amendments, the majority leader 
always has the privilege of initial recognition, and you shut down the 
amendment possibilities.
  Let's stop fooling each other. Let's stop trying to fool the people 
out there in the countryside. Do they want Medicare included as a 
security measure, as a safe deposit measure, as a lockbox measure? Ask 
them. Let's have a vote on that. Let's have it straight up or down. Do 
you want Medicare?
  I heard a statement made today that, no, the Republicans don't want 
Medicare included. Let the public hear that. Let the public hear that 
the one measure for protecting health may not be of concern to them. It 
is fine with me. I just want to make sure the record is clear that 
people understand what we are saying.
  Look at this. The Republican House committee proposes a tax cut of 
$1.19 trillion. In order to accomplish that, they are going to have to 
take $55 billion from the Social Security surplus and $964 billion from 
the onbudget surplus.
  We are using arcane language to try to pull the wool over the 
people's eyes.
  Say it straight. They on that side of the line don't want Medicare 
included. We want Medicare included on this side of the line. We want 
to lock up Social Security, and we all agree a lockbox is a desirable 
thing, a place where those funds are going to be protected. We are 
saying you can't touch the Social Security surplus.
  Remember this: In 10 years, forecasts being as they are, we expect to 
have almost a $1 trillion surplus in non-Social Security funds. That is 
pretty astounding. Imagine, we could be out of public debt in 2015, 
barely 15 years from now--not only the public debt but anything. It 
would be an unheard of condition in terms of a major government around 
the world. The fact of the matter is it

[[Page 16353]]

would be certainly a benchmark that people never thought would arrive.
  We are trying to do it. We are saying we support a modest tax cut for 
those who really need it--a targeted tax cut for child care, savings 
accounts, and health care for the elderly. But friends over here want 
to use it to spread the tax cut around for all of the benefit. It would 
go largely to the wealthiest in the country.
  I once again ask if we can get an agreement. It can be done away from 
the microphones or it can be done in front of the microphones. Give us 
the assurance that we can have amendments and not be barred by second-
degree amendments and not barred by other parliamentary procedures. We 
would be happy to consider a different position, but we are not going 
to do it knowing full well that once we step over the line we are in a 
trap that is going to silence our voices in terms of any modifications. 
We are talking about just the motion to proceed. Just let us get 
started.
  The fact of the matter is this amendment would be a substitute for an 
underlying bill. It would be the bill itself. We have to be on guard 
for the public interest. That is where we are going to stand.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture until we understand 
fully what this debate is about for the benefit of the public.
  It has been suggested that we are filibustering it. We just had a 
major bill go through this Chamber yesterday, and we were allowed a 
limited number of amendments. In 3 days, we had 11 amendments that were 
considered. That was it. That was the most we could negotiate, instead 
of as it used to be with an open process. If it took a long time, it 
took a long time.
  I remember working through the night until 6 in the morning. We don't 
do that anymore. We shut down nice and early so we are not too tired at 
the end of the day.
  But I say the time is the property of the public. They let us use it. 
We ought to use it fully instead of shutting down the debate and 
shutting down the opportunity for the American people to understand 
what is really taking place.
  It is tough. It is tough because the route that is being used is kind 
of inside-the-beltway stuff.
  How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes on his side, and the 
majority side has 6 minutes as well.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the unanimous consent that we are 
operating under had a call for a vote at 10:30. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey said we should have 
Medicare included in this lockbox proposal. The President of the United 
States said: I can't believe the Republicans don't want to include it. 
He just finds that incredulous.
  The Senator should talk to his own President. His own President 
doesn't want Medicare included in this lockbox proposal. The President 
has been clear.
  Social Security money should be used for Social Security, and once 
you say it can be used for Medicare, it can be used for Medicare, it 
can be used for education, or for whatever.
  I can tell you that Social Security recipients want Social Security 
to be used for Social Security. They do not want to expand the program 
to include other things. In fact, one of the biggest complaints I hear 
from seniors is that if you would quit taking money out of Social 
Security for every program that comes down the line, Social Security 
would be OK.
  I think if we took a poll it would be overwhelming not to include any 
program--any program--other than Social Security in Social Security.
  I also find it incredulous that he said there is a hole in the Social 
Security lockbox.
  We wrote a provision in this bill; if we were in a recession, because 
we hold the debt limit, there could be a default on the credit of the 
United States. Is the Senator suggesting we should allow the United 
States to default? Isn't that what the provision says? I ask the 
Senator from New Mexico if he can explain that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely. The Secretary of the Treasury made some 
objections to the original bill because it was too rigidly drawn in 
case of emergencies. We took care of that.
  We also took care of the problem we had with reference to the end of 
the year and the way the surpluses come and go because of the way you 
collect taxes in large quantities in other parts of the year a little 
bit.
  We fix that, too.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So the Senator from New Jersey, when he objected to our 
``hold'' on the lockbox, his objection is counter to what the 
administration demanded of us to fix in our lockbox?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't know why it is not clear, but 
we have said and we mean that Social Security funds, surpluses, are 
sacrosanct. They are untouchable.
  The Medicare solvency we want to create comes out of the non-Social 
Security budget surplus. We have talked about this 60 times. Apparently 
the message has not gotten through. We want to do it. We want to deal 
with it.
  By the admission of some on that side, Medicare isn't part of the 
thinking in this. If it is not part of the thinking now, I wonder when 
it will be.
  There is also an opportunity, if I may suggest with a degree of 
temerity, that Social Security funds can be used in the name of Social 
Security reform. That is kind of a catch-all. It says if we can't get 
it one way, we will get it another way. We face the specter of a huge 
tax cut that is being proposed. It is not much different here from on 
the House side. We are talking about something close to $800 billion.
  We understand each other very clearly. The question is, Does the 
public understand why we are? We want to save Social Security, and we 
want to save Medicare. We want to increase the solvency of Medicare, 
and we are committed to a reform of both programs. During that period, 
it is said by the President that we will extend the life of both of 
these programs even longer than the 50-some years for Social Security 
and the 20 years for Medicare.
  That is where we are, my friends.
  If we are ready to conclude the debate, I am prepared to yield back 
our time--if we are prepared.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. We are not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time does the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 3 minutes 53 seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico such time as he 
consumes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to clarify this from the 
standpoint of what a Democrat on the other side who is well versed in 
this had to say about this issue. On March 22, 1999, Senator Breaux, on 
a CBS newscast, avoided criticism of Clinton. Senator Breaux said: Some 
people want an issue of Medicare rather than solving the problem. They 
talk about wedge issues.
  Senator Breaux added that one of the problems is that some people 
want an issue out of Medicare rather than solving the problem. They 
talk about wedge issues.
  Are you going to have a tax cut or are you going to save Medicare?
  That is old politics, he said. I think the American people are tired 
of it. They want us to solve the problem, not give them political 
slogans.
  Now, to stand on the floor of the Senate and even imply that the 
proposed tax cuts in the budget resolution of $782 billion over a 
decade would in any way infringe upon the Social Security trust funds 
is to confuse the public of America, and it is exactly what the 
distinguished Senator from Louisiana is saying--sloganizing, making an 
issue by slogans.
  Secondly, if there is any implication that there are not sufficient 
reserves in

[[Page 16354]]

our budget to take care of Medicare, that is an absolute error and an 
untruth. There are huge amounts of money left over after the tax cut. 
In fact, it approaches $450 billion that is not allocated to anything 
during the next decade other than what we choose to use it for in the 
Congress.
  I remind everyone, the President said we can fix Medicare with how 
much? Forty-eight billion dollars will give us prescription drugs, he 
said. We had $90 billion left over in our budget resolution that was 
unspent, and now, with the new estimates, there is more money there. We 
can fix Medicare, put this money in a lockbox, have the tax cut, do 
that by the end of this year, and fix things for American seniors on 
both fronts: Lock up the money that is theirs and fix Medicare.
  To talk about this trust fund as if it has something to do with 
fixing Medicare is an absolutely erroneous stating of the situation in 
the Senate and in the fiscal policy of America.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will wrap up by using leader time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I can use the rest of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the overwhelming recommendation by the 
House Republicans says use Social Security funds if necessary.
  But there is an issue beyond that. It is quite apparent, if you use 
$792 billion for tax cuts, it reduces the possibility that you can pay 
down the debt. That is where we would like to go. We want to get rid of 
this constant threat of higher interest rates. We want to be able to be 
free to take care of the needs we have to operate our society, our 
country.
  There is no confusion about where we are. We want to protect Social 
Security. We want to protect Medicare out of non-Social Security 
surpluses. That is where we are. One ought not confuse it with 
discussions about other things: A, Do you want to protect Medicare? B, 
How? That is the question. That is what we would like to have answered.
  I hope my colleagues will stick together and say we want to have an 
open debate, we want to continue to discuss the issues, and not to be 
shut down on this pretense that this cloture vote will take care of the 
problems.
  The majority leader is on the floor. We all have great respect for 
him. We would love to be able to be assured of amendments. I know our 
leader has been interested in a discussion of that and is awaiting the 
majority leader's response. If we knew that, perhaps we could be 
reacting differently.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need for 
leader time. I know Members expect to vote at 10:30. I will try to be 
brief.
  I am compelled to make a couple of points. First of all, our 
Republican budget plan reduced the national debt by $1.9 trillion. That 
is the most significant and the only real contribution of reducing the 
debt in our lifetime. The point I want to make is, the American people 
overwhelmingly support the idea of the Social Security lockbox.
  After resistance, the President even adopted that exact word, that he 
supported a Social Security lockbox. I don't know what the numbers are 
but in the high seventies, 80 percent of the American people think this 
is something we should do: Take all of the Social Security taxes, the 
FICA tax, and set them aside for what they were intended--Social 
Security, and only Social Security, a lockbox.
  OK, so we advocated that--Senators Domenici, Abraham, Santorum, and 
others. And finally the President apparently checked the polls and 
said: Oh, yeah, me, too; I want a lockbox.
  Then the House voted for a lockbox--not as tight as this one, not as 
good as this one--with a vote of 415-12. Even the Democrats in the 
House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly without a lot of 
shenanigans, playing around, distractions, and a dozen amendments. They 
voted for the lockbox. Apparently they got serious.
  Now, here comes the point: We go down in our bipartisan meeting to 
the White House on Monday to meet with the President. I am hopeful. I 
am optimistic. In fact, I come out and say: Yes, maybe we can have a 
lockbox; work together on Medicare reform; we can get some tax relief.
  Let me tell Members what happened. We go in there. The first subject 
I brought up was the Social Security lockbox. The President said: We 
need to do that. I'm with you. We can do that.
  Senator Daschle said: Yeah, we ought to do that.
  What happened?
  I go out and say: We are going to get this done.
  The President hasn't lifted a pinkie since--nothing. All he has done 
is run around and whine and threaten that he is going to veto a 
legitimate Patients' Bill of Rights bill, the health care needs of the 
people of this country. That is all he has done all week--maybe a 
fundraiser or two, but he has done nothing to help us get a Social 
Security lockbox.
  So I invite, in fact I challenge, the President: Talk to the 
Democrats in the Senate, Mr. President. They are the only obstacle to 
setting aside Social Security in a lockbox for Social Security.
  That is what I have to deal with all the time. I get a lot of soft 
soap: Oh, yes, we will work together; we will get it done. And then 
nothing. If the President wants a Social Security lockbox, make one 
call, Mr. President, one call. Call Senator Daschle and say: Get it 
done. And we will get it done next Monday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back our time.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). All time is yielded back. Under 
the previous order, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion to 
invoke cloture.
  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 pending 
     amendment No. 297 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, Pete Domenici, Rod Grams, Michael Crapo, Bill 
           Frist, Michael Enzi, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Judd 
           Gregg, Strom Thurmond, Chuck Hagel, Thad Cochran, Rick 
           Santorum, Paul Coverdell, James Inhofe, Bob Smith, 
           Wayne Allard.


                            Call Of The Roll

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


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 297 to Calendar No. 89, 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 rule.
  The clerk will now call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) 
and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Burns) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm

[[Page 16355]]


     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Boxer
     Burns
     Dodd
     Kerry
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________