[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7222-7244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 hours of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 254 to 
S. 557, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 557) to provide guidance for the designation of 
     emergencies as part of the budget process.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Lott (for Abraham) amendment No. 254, to preserve and 
     protect the surpluses of the social security trust funds by 
     reaffirming the exclusion of receipts and disbursement from 
     the budget, by setting a limit on the debt held by the 
     public, and by amending the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     to provide a process to reduce the limit on the debt held by 
     the public.
       Abraham amendment No. 255 (to amendment No. 254), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Social Security 
lockbox amendment as offered by the distinguished majority leader, 
Senator Lott, and the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici.
  You can't spend IOUs. Right now, Social Security is a marked trust 
fund, but it is a box of IOUs. This amendment represents an 
unparalleled commitment by the Senate to pay off some IOUs, truly lock 
the Social Security money up and thereby assure present seniors and 
following generations of seniors that their Social Security benefits 
will be there when they need them most. When Social Security first 
started, there were 45 people working to take care of one person who is 
retired. It has been a huge pyramid, but it is now becoming inverted. 
We are fast approaching a time when only two or three people will be 
funding the one who is retired. If you have kids, think about how you 
would feel about making your children pay your Social Security by 
themselves out of their paychecks. That is what the future looks like. 
You can see what a bite out of a paycheck that is going to be for two 
or three people to be able to pay the monthly benefit of one retiree.
  Being fiscally responsible is one way to remedy this problem. Passing 
this lockbox amendment is a means to avoiding a last-minute Draconian 
event. As an accountant, I have an appreciation and respect for 
numbers. They can be just as misleading as they are truthful. But there 
should be no misconception about what our Nation's budget projections 
tell us. The surplus we expect to get over the next 15 years is Social 
Security revenue.
  This is an important point to understand. Budget surplus revenue, 
during the next 15 years, comes from mandatory Federal payroll taxes 
paid by working Americans. What is paid into the Federal Government as 
FICA taxes goes towards keeping the Social Security program running. 
What is paid in by the people working gets paid out to the people who 
are on retirement, and there is a slight excess at the moment. It just 
happens to match up with what we called the surplus last year.

[[Page 7223]]

  I have never seen an administration squeeze so much political mileage 
as there has been on the budget surplus. That is not hard to do when 
folks are promised funding for every popular Federal program, including 
a few that don't even exist at the moment. Unfortunately, I am unable 
to look people in the eye and tell them that the budget surplus is 
America's ``golden calf.'' Not only is it unconscionable, it is simply 
not true.
  These empty promises are how folks get the impression that the budget 
surplus is based on general revenue. It could be in just a few years, 
if we only respect and act on what the numbers really tell us, that the 
current surplus isn't general revenue but actually Social Security 
receipts. There can be some surplus if we have some discipline. If the 
Senate adopts the Social Security lockbox amendment, Congress could be 
debating what to do with true general revenue surplus shortly.
  For now, we have a duty to do what is right, preserve Social Security 
by retiring part of the $5.5 trillion debt and locking out the spending 
of Social Security money. Even though the economy is strong, I am 
surprised that so few people are aware that we, as a Nation, are in 
danger of passing on to our kids and our grandkids a $5.5 trillion debt 
and a potentially bankrupt Social Security system. Our society has 
become so tied to the immediate gratification received from spending 
money that we fail to recognize the danger that looms from this Federal 
credit card spending.
  Congress has no room to talk. Our massive Federal debt and ever-
changing demographics will place a tremendous amount of pressure on our 
young workforce. Future generations deserve the same opportunities we 
demand for ourselves. Neglecting our responsibility to ensure Social 
Security solvency for future retirees begs distrust from our kids. We 
must not leave a financial burden we created for them to repay and no 
Social Security. If this amendment fails, we will continue to pay 13\1/
2\ percent of total budget outlays in interest on the Federal debt. 
That alone amounts to $231 billion that could be used to help preserve 
Social Security each year.
  If this amendment does not pass, over $10 trillion of interest 
payments over the next 30 years will continue to be paid by taxpayers. 
Preserving the Social Security program by retiring our debt is the only 
way to avoid such senseless spending without a major reform. It isn't 
just Members of the Senate that believe in fiscal responsibility. I 
encourage the administration to read the testimony of Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan before the Senate Budget Committee earlier this 
year. He advises caution in our spending because Federal revenues are 
not guaranteed and they may fall short of expectations. Rather, we 
should be aiming for budget surpluses, true budget surpluses, and using 
the proceeds to retire outstanding Federal debt. That, he said, will 
help the economy and protect Social Security for a long time to come. 
That is Alan Greenspan.
  This amendment does just what Alan Greenspan said and recognizes 
real-life economic situations. We are in one of those real-life 
economic situations now with the war. Senators Domenici and Abraham 
have gone to great lengths to ensure that the pending Social Security 
lockbox amendment is sound and fair, providing flexible administration. 
If passed, it would authorize adjustments to the debt limits 
established for any Social Security modernization legislation that 
Congress and the administration enacts in the coming years.
  I continue to hope that the administration is serious about sensible 
structural changes to the program itself. In addition, the requirements 
of this amendment would be suspended during a period of economic 
recession, as well as for emergency spending and a declaration of war. 
Most would agree that such situations should not be subjected to 
statutory debt limitations.
  No tricks or gimmicks here. This is upfront fiscal responsibility. By 
retiring our debt, this amendment would protect the Social Security 
budget surplus from being spent on non-Social Security programs. It 
begins an overdue process of paying back the Government creditors and 
helping the taxpaying workers. Why should the Federal Government be 
allowed to incur a debt it currently has no intention of paying back? 
Repayment is the responsible thing to do. It makes sound economic 
sense.
  I strongly support the passage of the Social Security lockbox 
amendment. I commend the authors for this legislation. Their dedication 
to preserving Social Security through fiscal responsibility is 
admirable. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to vote in favor of 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENZI. If it is off your time, yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. The distinguished Senator said, as I was coming 
in, that there was a box of IOUs. How do you think in the Social 
Security trust fund you got the IOUs?
  Mr. ENZI. The Social Security trust fund is lent to the Federal 
Government and we spend every dime that is lent to us. It is a loan.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. While spending every dime of the trust 
fund, we reduce the public debt, so that what we have is the unified 
debt. I have heard the Senator and everybody else say, this time, leave 
it out of the unified deficit. That is how you bring out the unified 
deficit, and rather than the regular deficit, and the unified budget; 
isn't that correct?
  Mr. ENZI. No. If you paid the Social Security portion of the debt, 
you are really taking money out of the bank and putting it right back 
into the piggy bank. It has to be reloaned. There is no other 
alternative. Until there is reform on it, there is no other alternative 
except to loan it out. When it gets loaned out, we spend every penny.
  We are not supposed to spend the Social Security money. We are not 
supposed to be robbing the piggy bank. But that is what happens. That 
piggy bank, that trust fund, is IOUs. It is money lent to the Federal 
Government again, and spent again.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right. It is a Social Security piggy 
bank. That is the whole point I am trying to make--the same point the 
Senator from Wyoming is making--that we have been robbing the Social 
Security piggy bank, as I show you here, and other banks, incidentally, 
whereby this year we owe Social Security $857 billion.
  Isn't that correct?
  Mr. ENZI. That is correct.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then we apply it using these trust funds to pay down 
the debt. That is what we have been doing, by any and every other 
program, whether it is a tax cut, whether it is defense spending, 
whether it is disaster in the farm areas, whatever it is. That runs up 
the debt. When you pay down the debt, you get to the unified deficit.
  That is what they have all been bragging about--how the unified 
deficit has been coming down and we have a surplus. We don't have an 
actual surplus. We spend $100 billion more than we take in this year--
$100 billion more than we take in this year. But yet we say we have a 
surplus, because it is unified, because we have used Social Security to 
pay down the public debt.
  Mr. ENZI. Absolutely. We have used Social Security, and then we put 
the money back into Social Security again, and then we spend it again. 
There has to be some major reform if we are going to have some Social 
Security money that is actually a trust fund that people will be able 
to use on their own.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 
is exactly right. We have to do something. That is what we did. We say 
this charade has to stop. We are really looting Social Security while 
we say we are trying to save it. As a result, we have gotten Social 
Security into a tremendous debt. We have savaged the fund. Now 
everybody comes to say they want to save Social Security.

[[Page 7224]]

  That's why I put in the bill S. 605. We will introduce it. I ask 
unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record as if delivered 
right now.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 605

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Fiscal 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
     outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.

     SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS 
                   AND DEFICIT TOTALS.

       The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, 
     and disability insurance program established under title II 
     of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 
     86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     related to such program shall not be included in any surplus 
     or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Any official statement issued by the Office of Management 
     and Budget or by the Congressional Budget office of surplus 
     or deficit totals of the budget of the United States 
     Government as submitted by the President or of the surplus or 
     deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any 
     description of, or reference to, such totals in any official 
     publication or material issued by either of such Offices, 
     shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-
     age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title 
     II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund).

     SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each 
     month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or 
     repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total 
     redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of 
     the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day 
     of such month.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, that is drawn up with the counsel of the 
Social Security Administration whereby we do exactly what the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming would like to do. We get the 
interest. We allow the Government to buy our Social Security moneys and 
give us the Treasury bills. Then each month, at the first of the month, 
we transfer that same amount of money back into a trust fund to be 
spent on Social Security, and only Social Security.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today the Senate is debating the so-called 
Social Security lockbox. This is legislation that was intended to 
protect the Social Security surpluses. Unfortunately, it failed.
  Throughout my tenure in the Senate, as a member of the Senate Budget 
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, I have done my level best 
to support balancing the budget without counting Social Security 
surpluses and to protect those surpluses.
  That is why I was looking forward to this debate. I was hoping we 
were going to have a chance to really engage in a discussion about how 
to protect Social Security--to go through the normal legislative 
process, to offer amendments, to have votes and to let Senators decide 
the outcome.
  Unfortunately, the advocates of this particular approach apparently 
are so insecure about their approach that they won't permit any 
amendments. They don't want a debate. They do not want votes to decide 
the outcome. That is unfortunate.
  But I think it speaks volumes about the weakness of their position. 
It seems incredibly ironic to this Senator that a bill whose sponsors 
say is designed to protect Social Security actually puts Social 
Security benefit payments at risk.
  Let me repeat that.
  This bill which is advertised to protect Social Security actually 
puts Social Security benefit payments at risk.
  That is not just the view of this Senator. That is the view of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, who has the responsibility for making Social 
Security payments. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, in a 
letter dated yesterday, wrote in part:

       Our analysis indicates that this provision could preclude 
     the United States from meeting its financial obligations to 
     repay maturing debt and to make benefit payments--including 
     Social Security checks--and could also worsen a future 
     economic downturn.

  The Secretary of the Treasury says this bill is the wrong way to 
protect Social Security.
  Interestingly enough, it is not just the Secretary of the Treasury 
who says that and has reached that conclusion. We also have a letter 
from the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of 
Representatives, Chairman Archer. Chairman Archer in a letter to the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives, dated 
April 9, says:

       One has only to read the arguments presented in the March 
     17, 1999, letter from Secretary Rubin to appreciate the dire 
     consequences always presented during a debt limit crisis--
     disruption of Treasury bond management and worldwide 
     financial markets, doubts about making government payments 
     including Social Security benefits, and raising borrowing 
     costs to the taxpayers--and why Congress always votes to 
     raise the limit.

  Chairman Archer, the Republican Chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee in the House of Representatives that has jurisdiction over 
this issue, says in conclusion in his letter:

       I see no need to enact limits, even if merely advisory, 
     that do not directly protect the Social Security surplus and 
     re-ignite the debt limit controversy that proved so bitter 
     and futile for everyone four years ago.

  That is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of 
Representatives warning that this legislation is not the way to protect 
Social Security.
  Instead, he says:

       In my view, strict budget enforcement measures are the most 
     effective way to control spending. To reduce debt, the 
     President and the Congress, like every American household, 
     must commit themselves to spending constraint.

  The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is exactly right. The 
Secretary of the Treasury is exactly right. We are pursuing an illusion 
here. It is an attractive illusion. It is an illusion that suggests if 
we just will adopt it, that it is going to save Social Security. 
Unfortunately, it will not.
  I would really like to know what the sponsors of this legislation are 
so afraid of. Why have they, through a contorted plan, blocked anybody 
from offering an amendment? Why do they want to prevent Senators from 
voting on alternatives? Why? Because they are afraid of the results. 
They are afraid they would lose in the cold, hard light of day. They 
fear that if we have a real debate out here about options and 
alternatives that their alternative wouldn't hold up.
  What is there to fear by having votes right here on the floor of the 
Senate, and deciding this issue the way we decide all others? Why have 
they gone through their contorted legislative process, this legislative 
scheme, to prevent people from voting their conscience? I think it is 
because they know they have a plan that does not hold up.
  I think you really have to wonder. Are they really interested in 
protecting Social Security, including its trust funds and benefit 
payments? Or do they just want a quick vote on a bill whose provisions 
can't withstand scrutiny?
  Mr. President, I think we should subject this legislation to scrutiny 
just as we do other legislation. If we do, we will see that instead of 
protecting Social Security, this legislation endangers Social Security, 
while risking

[[Page 7225]]

more Government shutdowns and default on our obligations.
  Mr. President, the lockbox that has been offered here today creates 
limits on publicly-held debt that are supposedly enforceable with 60-
vote points of order.
  I strongly support the goal of paying down publicly-held debt. But 
creating supermajority points of order against raising the debt limit 
won't accomplish that goal. The ability of the Federal Government to 
pay down publicly-held debt is created through tough fiscal decisions, 
decisions to control spending, decisions not to squander the surpluses 
that are projected to occur over the next 10 years.
  If Congress fails to make those tough decisions and spends the 
surpluses, debt will rise. Creating a debt crisis at that point in time 
is too late. At that point, the Federal Government has obligations it 
simply must meet.
  Interestingly enough, Chairman Archer agrees with me on this point as 
well. He says:

       . . . debt limits have a long history of failure in 
     preventing spending and deficits. Hitting a debt limit, like 
     a credit card limit, merely represents the consequences of 
     government spending already approved by the President and 
     Congress.

  So these new limits on debt could preclude the United States from 
meeting its future financial obligations to repay debt and to honor its 
commitments. They would produce permanent damage to our credit 
standing. The debt obligations of the United States are currently 
recognized as the most creditworthy of any investment in the world. It 
is in our interest to maintain that standard. Even the appearance of 
risk would impose significant additional costs on American taxpayers.
  I think we all remember November of 1995. A debt crisis was 
precipitated when Government borrowing reached the debt limit; two 
months later, in January, Moody's, the credit-rating firm, placed 
Treasury securities on review for possible downgrade. It is absurd to 
put us back in that position--endangering the credit rating of the 
United States to supposedly protect us against rising debt, when this 
legislation doesn't do that.
  In addition to the damage that can be done to the U.S. credit rating, 
this lockbox also puts Social Security benefit payments at risk, as I 
have indicated before. Again, that is not just my opinion, it is the 
opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury who has the responsibility to 
make those payments. It is the opinion of the Chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee in the House of Representatives who has jurisdiction 
over these issues.
  The point is simple: during a debt crisis, the Treasury Department 
has no ability to prioritize the payment of Government benefits that 
are coming due. If Congress cannot raise the debt limit, Social 
Security benefits cannot be made.
  The sponsors of this lockbox claim they have addressed this problem 
in their legislation. They say they have directed Treasury to give 
priority to Social Security payments. Unfortunately, the Treasury 
Department has no ability to do that now. If the Treasury Department 
runs out of borrowing authority and has no cash coming in, 
prioritization of payments won't help anyway. The Treasury would have 
no ability to pay Social Security benefits that are due. Using the debt 
limit as a fiscal policy tool is bad policy. It directly places at risk 
the benefit payments to Social Security recipients.
  These are not the only shortcomings of this legislation. Another of 
the serious problems with the legislation before the Senate is that it 
risks creating longer and deeper recessions than our economy might 
otherwise experience.
  I am concerned about the economic and fiscal impact these debt limit 
targets could have on the economy during a time of recession. I believe 
these limits would require the Federal Government to take the wrong 
actions during recessionary periods, making recessions more severe and 
negating the stabilizing counter-cyclical tools the Federal Government 
can use during times of recession.
  Sometimes I wonder if we learn from the past. Sometimes I wonder if 
we are not condemned to repeat the unfortunate experiences of the past 
because we don't learn those lessons. We suffered depression after 
depression in this country before we finally figured out how to counter 
the cycle of recession and depression. What this legislation could do 
is take away those tools at the very time they are most needed.
  This lockbox legislation requires the Federal Government to hit a 
debt limit target on May 1 of each year. Throughout the year, the debt 
target could not be exceeded. During years when we are heading towards 
the trough of the business cycle, revenues grow more slowly because 
more people are unemployed and expenditures for programs like 
unemployment insurance and food stamps rise. When those two things 
happen, the deficit gets larger and the Treasury has to issue more 
debt. Under this proposal, the Treasury couldn't issue more debt. At 
that point, the lockbox would become a noose on this economy, making 
the recession worse, requiring the Congress to either raise taxes or 
cut spending at precisely the wrong time.
  That is economic folly. It is at that very time that the counter-
cyclical tools ought to be used to lessen the recession, to prevent 
depression. That is what our economic history teaches. We should not 
forget the lessons so bitterly learned.
  Our friends advocating this legislation say they have included an 
exception for recession in their lockbox. The problem is, it won't 
work. The exception allows the debt limit targets in the lockbox to 
turn off if the U.S. economy experiences two quarters of real GDP 
growth that is less than 1 percent.
  This chart shows a few examples of recessions over the last 20 years 
to see what would have happened had this legislation been in place. For 
example, the recession of 1981-1982 lasted from July of 1981 to 
November of 1982. The chart shows what was happening with economic 
growth during that period. The recession began back in July of 1981. 
But the trigger under this lockbox legislation would come nine months 
after the recession had already begun. It chokes off the counter-
cyclical tools needed for the first nine months, guaranteeing a deeper 
recession and perhaps even plunging this economy into depression.
  This is truly dangerous legislation. It should not be passed. We have 
the Secretary of the Treasury warning, ``Do not pass this 
legislation;'' we have the Republican chairman of the House Ways and 
Means Committee warning, ``Do not pass this legislation.'' What is 
wrong with those who continue to advocate, in the face of those 
warnings, legislation that will not protect Social Security, that will 
endanger it, that further endangers plunging this economy into a worse 
recession or perhaps even a depression in a time of economic downturn--
especially when we have alternatives that we know will work.
  Those alternatives can't be considered because the advocates of this 
legislation have engaged in a legislative scheme to prevent amendments, 
to prevent the consideration of alternatives. What a way to legislate.
  If we look at another example, the recession of 1973-1975, we see the 
quarterly economic growth fluctuated greatly. That recession lasted 
from November of 1973 to March of 1975. The lockbox provided for in 
this legislation would not have kicked in until January of 1975, when 
the recession had been going on for more than a year. We can see on the 
chart why that is the case. The recession started back in 1973. We can 
see economic growth fluctuated back and forth--growing, falling; 
growing, falling. It would have only been late in the recession that 
this lockbox legislation would have allowed the counter-cyclical 
policies of the Government to come into play. This legislation simply 
does not work. This data shows that a recession in the U.S. economy 
will very likely precipitate a debt crisis, despite the exemption 
provided in the lockbox.
  These are not the only defects of this legislation. There is another 
major problem with the lockbox that is before us, because there is 
something not included in the lockbox. Medicare is not included in this 
lockbox. Not one penny of non-Social Security surpluses

[[Page 7226]]

is included in this lockbox, not one penny. Medicare is under more 
severe fiscal pressure than Social Security, but Medicare has been left 
out. Why? Because our friends who are the advocates of this proposal 
prefer to use the surplus for a tax break scheme. They prefer a tax 
break scheme, so they do not guarantee one penny of the non-Social 
Security surplus for Medicare.
  We have an important decision to make. Do we use the non-Social 
Security surplus in a tax cut scheme that will provide the greatest 
relief for the wealthiest among us? Or do we save the Social Security 
surpluses for Social Security, extend the solvency of Medicare, and 
still provide room for targeted tax relief and high-priority domestic 
needs like education, agriculture, health care, and defense? To me, the 
choice is absolutely clear; we must honor our commitments to the 
seniors of America.
  That does not mean we do not need to reform Medicare; obviously we 
do. I think everybody understands we need to take action to put 
Medicare on a more sound financial footing, and I have voted 
consistently in the Finance Committee to do that. But we must also 
ensure that whatever we do to put Medicare on a more sound financial 
footing also preserves affordable access to high-quality health care 
for our senior citizens.
  Responsible Medicare reform will be much more difficult if we do not 
provide additional resources to Medicare during this time of severe 
pressure, because of the demographic changes in this country. The very 
real pain the balanced budget act of 1997 is already causing suggests 
to me that making additional cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars 
over the next 10 years in Medicare, without providing additional 
resources, would be irresponsible. That is why the lockbox I have 
supported protects Social Security and Medicare.
  Senator Lautenberg and I have an alternative lockbox that really does 
protect Social Security, that does protect Medicare, that does pay down 
the Federal debt even more aggressively than what our friends on the 
other side of the aisle are proposing, that does provide room for 
targeted tax relief and for high-priority domestic needs like 
education, agriculture, health care, and defense.
  Our Social Security and Medicare lockbox creates supermajority points 
of order against any legislation that does not save the entire Social 
Security surplus in each year and does not save at least 40 percent of 
the non-Social Security surplus for Medicare. Our lockbox is enforced 
with points of order and sequestration. It is not enforced through the 
debt limit. It follows the advice of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
Rubin. It follows the advice of the Chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee in the House of Representatives.
  Our amendment provides a remedy if Social Security surpluses are 
spent--across-the-board cuts in other programs. That is a real defense 
of Social Security. That is something we know works. Our amendment also 
adds a new supermajority point of order against a budget resolution 
that violates the off-budget treatment of Social Security. Our 
amendment reserves $65 billion for Medicare over the next 5 years, and 
$376 billion over the next 10 years. After passage of comprehensive 
Social Security and Medicare reform, our alternative provides $385 
billion over the next 10 years for targeted tax relief and for high-
priority needs like education, agriculture, health care, and defense. 
And our amendment reduces publicly-held debt by $300 billion more than 
the Republican lockbox. It protects Social Security, the surpluses and 
the benefit payments, and it provides additional resources for 
Medicare.
  That is the type of lockbox the Senate should approve. I hope we have 
an opportunity to consider this alternative. But under the current 
legislative structure we will not, because the advocates of the 
legislation before us do not want an alternative considered. They do 
not want any amendments. They do not want any alternatives. They do not 
want to give Senators a chance to choose. They want it their way or no 
way.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I have ended my presentation. I will be happy to respond 
to a question.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator will yield, perhaps I will seek time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will in a moment yield to the Senator 
from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just a quick response. The cloture vote 
which we will be having is cloture on the amendment. It is not cloture 
on the bill. If we were able to invoke cloture, then we would go to a 
vote ultimately on this amendment. But assuming that amendment was then 
dispensed with, either by passage or failure in a final vote, the bill 
itself would remain on the floor subject to other amendments which 
could include, of course, the ones that have been alluded to by the 
Senator from North Dakota and a variety of other people; the Senator 
from South Carolina has talked about his approach; and so on.
  Our goal is simply to get a vote on this amendment, and then we can 
consider other options after that. So I want to clarify this for all 
Senators. This is a vote on cloture on this amendment. It is not 
cloture on the bill, so the bill would still be subject to other 
amendments if and when we dispense with this.
  At this time I yield such time as he may need to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for clarifying that.
  When our colleague says he doesn't get a chance to present his 
proposal--obviously, being in the majority, we have the opportunity to 
present bills and the majority leader has the right to offer amendments 
first. We have offered our proposal and we are trying to move toward 
the passage of a bill. But the amendment of the Senator would be in 
order if it was relevant to the underlying bill--actually, even if it 
were not relevant it would be in order--after we had completed action 
on the amendment by the majority leader. So that part of the argument 
simply will not hold water. But that makes it parallel to every other 
part of the argument, since none of it will hold water.
  What our colleague has said and what we are hearing here is basically 
this: That a lockbox is a bad, terrible, destructive, dangerous idea 
that could cause a recession or a depression and be catastrophic for 
America. That is argument No. 1. But argument No. 2 is: If you want to 
do it, we have a better way of doing it and ours will do all these 
things better.
  If logic could speak for itself on the floor of the Senate, it would 
scream at the torture that it is being put to here. What we are seeing 
here is very simply the President being called on a commitment he has 
made, and the President was not telling the truth when he made the 
commitment, and he desperately does not want to have to live up to it. 
Those are strong words and I would not say them if I could not back 
them up.
  Here is the reality of where we are. In 1993 Social Security took in 
$45 billion more than it spent in benefits, and under the Clinton 
administration and the Congress every penny of that $45 billion was 
spent on something other than Social Security.
  In 1994, Social Security took in $56 billion more than it paid out in 
benefits, and under the Clinton administration and the Congress every 
penny of that $56 billion was plundered and spent on something else.
  In 1995, $62 billion was taken in in Social Security taxes above the 
amount we needed to pay benefits, and every penny of that $62 billion 
was plundered and spent funding other Government programs.
  In 1996, it was $67 billion that was plundered.
  In 1997, it was $81 billion that was plundered.
  In 1998, the President said, ``Save Social Security first; don't 
spend a penny of this surplus on Government programs; don't give a 
penny of it back in

[[Page 7227]]

tax relief.'' Everybody remembers the President saying that. But in 
1998, we spent $30 billion of the $99 billion that Social Security took 
in above the amount it needed to pay benefits.
  The plain truth, despite all this talk about saving the Social 
Security trust fund, is we have consistently spent the money that came 
into the trust fund on other Government programs.
  Let's get one thing clear from the language. Nobody is talking about 
saving Social Security here. To save Social Security, you have to have 
a program to replace all these IOUs with wealth. You have to have a 
program to replace all this debt with investment.
  As you will remember, when the President said, ``Save Social Security 
first,'' he was going to study the problem for a year. He studied it 
for a year. Then he had a big meeting down at the White House, which I 
and many others here attended. We were waiting for some proposal from 
the President. What we got was a political copout which, for all 
practical purposes, did nothing and it continued plundering the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Senator Domenici has come up with a very simple program. It has not 
saved Social Security. It does not deal with the huge financial 
liability in Social Security in the future. What it does is it tries to 
prevent us from taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on 
something else, something that many of our colleagues desperately want 
to do, but they do not want people to know they want to do it.
  How does the Domenici proposal work and the proposal that has been 
refined by Senator Abraham? What the Abraham-Domenici proposal does is 
this: It sets the amount of money that the Government can borrow each 
year so that the Social Security surplus has to be used to buy down the 
Government debt, so that the Social Security surplus cannot be spent, 
and so that it cannot be used for tax cuts.
  The proposal before us is not very complicated, despite all the cloud 
of rhetoric and doublespeak. The proposal before us is very, very 
simple. It says that next year, we are going to be taking in $138 
billion of surplus in Social Security, so that we want to set the 
amount of money the Government can borrow without having to vote on 
borrowing again, such that none of that $138 billion can be spent.
  That is pretty simple. If it is spent, what we will have to do is 
have a vote in the Senate where someone will have to get 60 votes in 
order to plunder that money from Social Security.
  This is not unlike what families do when they sit around the kitchen 
table and get out their pencil and on the back of an envelope and set 
out a budget and say: I want to save this much money, and we are 
setting this limit on the amount of money that we can spend because we 
want to use this money to pay off some of the debt we have, or we want 
to use this money to send our children to college or buy a new 
refrigerator, go on vacation, or whatever they want to do.
  In response to our proposal to prevent the Social Security surplus 
from being spent or used for tax cuts, for that matter, since our 
colleague launched off on that program, what do our Democrat colleagues 
say, and what does the administration say? They say, if you do not 
leave the law as it is so we can plunder the Social Security surplus, 
we could have a recession. They say: If you don't allow us to plunder 
the Social Security surplus, the creditworthiness of the Government 
could be lowered because we could have trouble borrowing money. In 
essence, they are saying that the financial world, the prosperity of 
America, the creditworthiness of the Federal Government will all come 
to an end if we do not let the Federal Government steal money from the 
Social Security surplus.
  It seems to me if we are talking about the creditworthiness of the 
Government, in terms of its credibility with working Americans, that 
the way we get real credibility in the Government is to stop stealing 
the Social Security surplus.
  In terms of the Secretary of the Treasury saying we are doing it the 
wrong way, the reality is, they do not want to do it any way. If they 
have a better proposal, let's see it. If it is enforceable, let's 
consider it. If they are willing to set out a procedure which 
strengthens our ability to stop stealing money from the Social Security 
trust fund, I would like to get a chance to look at it.
  Let me tell you, the reality is that the opposition to the proposal 
by Senator Abraham and Senator Domenici is, they do not want to stop 
stealing from the Social Security trust fund, so they create this giant 
ruse that somehow the Treasury will not be able to operate if it cannot 
take money out of the Social Security trust fund; that we are going to 
have a recession if we cannot take money out of the Social Security 
trust fund. Any legitimate concern about the flexibility of the 
Treasury in borrowing, we have said from the beginning we are willing 
to work on. Any flexibility they need in dealing with short-term cash 
problems, we are willing to work on. But what we are not willing to 
negotiate away is a commitment to stop this plundering of the Social 
Security trust fund. That is what this issue is about.
  The President's budget this year, and I have the budget right here, 
if we do everything the President proposes to do, most of which we are 
not going to do, it says he will take $42 billion out of the Social 
Security trust fund this year and spend it on other things. We believe 
that is wrong. We do not believe the Social Security trust fund should 
be spent on other Government programs.
  What we are trying to do with this lockbox is to guarantee that none 
of this Social Security money is spent and none of this Social Security 
money is used for tax cuts; that the money is used, until we decide how 
we are going to fix Social Security, to simply buy down the Government 
debt.
  The amazing thing to me is that this is exactly what the President 
says he wants to do. It is exactly what our Democrat colleagues say 
they want to do. But when we try to put teeth in it and make it 
enforceable with a supermajority vote, suddenly they do not want to do 
it. Suddenly, when we try to make it enforceable, they say, ``Well, we 
could have a recession; the Federal Government could lose its 
creditworthiness and its ability to borrow.''
  What does it tell you when the President says, ``Save Social Security 
first, don't spend the surplus, don't give it back in taxes''; when our 
Democrat colleagues say, ``Save Social Security, don't spend the 
surplus, don't give it back in taxes''; and then we have two of our 
Members, Senator Abraham and Senator Domenici, come forward with a 
proposal that actually does what they say they want to do, and not only 
does it, but would require 60 votes in the Senate, rather than 51, in 
order to actually violate the commitment. In other words, the 
difference here is, we are not talking about words, we are not talking 
about rhetoric, we are talking about a real lockbox program.
  A real lockbox program is put forward that would require a 
supermajority vote in order to plunder the Social Security trust fund. 
Then, all of a sudden, the President does not want to do what he told 
us he wanted to do.
  All of a sudden, our Democrat colleagues have all kinds of concerns: 
We are going to have a recession; we are going to destroy the 
creditworthiness of the Federal Government; prosperity as we know it is 
going to come to an end--if we stop the Federal Government from 
plundering the Social Security trust fund. It would lead one to believe 
that they did not mean it when they said it.
  We are all in agreement if we say do not plunder the Social Security 
trust fund. If we held up our hands here, 100 Members would say do not 
plunder the Social Security trust fund. But when two Members come 
forward with a program to really prevent it from being plundered, then 
all of a sudden we do not agree anymore. I know these issues get 
confusing, but I think people are going to have to make a judgment here 
as to who is serious about protecting the Social Security surplus and 
who is not.
  We have a proposal to stop the plundering of Social Security by 
simply requiring that the debt be bought down by the amount of the 
surplus and that

[[Page 7228]]

if you do not do that, you have to get 60 votes in the Senate; in other 
words, you have to prove that something extraordinary happened to 
convince 60 Members of the Senate to go back on their word. That is all 
this bill does. It is not complicated.
  If you do not want to do that, it suggests to me that you were not 
serious to begin with, that you did not mean it when you said, ``Save 
Social Security first,'' that you did not mean it when you said, 
``Don't plunder the Social Security trust fund.''
  We know the President did not mean it because in his budget he 
plunders $42 billion right here in black and white. The question is 
not, Was the President being straight with the American people? We know 
he was not. The question is, Is Congress being straight with the 
American people when we say we are not going to do it?
  If our Democrat colleagues have a better way to do this, I would like 
to see it. I do not believe we have any monopoly on wisdom. But the 
plain truth is, I do not believe everybody wants to stop plundering the 
Social Security trust fund. I believe there are people who want to 
continue to plunder it. And I think that is what this debate is about.
  Let me run over some of these issues.
  ``It is risky to stop stealing from the Social Security trust fund.'' 
That is what our colleagues say. I think it is risky to continue to 
steal from the Social Security trust fund because when the baby boomers 
start to retire, unless we begin to invest this money, there is no way 
we can pay benefits, and we are going to have to raise the payroll tax 
or cut benefits. So our colleagues say it is risky not to steal the 
trust fund. I say it is risky to continue to steal it.
  They say using the debt limit as a policy tool is dangerous. Well, 
what other tool do we have? They act as if we are just simply robots--
that every time the President goes out and spends money, that when the 
bill collector is knocking on the door, all we do is just pay out the 
money and go on about our business. That is not the way America works.
  When the bill collector comes and knocks on the door of the modest 
dwellings of working men and women in America, they do have to pay the 
bill collector. But they do not just keep merrily going along their 
way. They sit down, get out their credit cards, get out the butcher 
knives, cut up the credit cards, they write out a budget, they have a 
``come to Jesus'' meeting at the kitchen table, and then they start 
again.
  What we are trying to do in Government with this amendment is nothing 
less than what Joe and Sarah Brown do on the first day of the month 
every month that comes along; and that is, set out priorities and set 
some kind of limit on our spending. If we cannot use the debt collector 
being at the door to do something about spending and plundering the 
Social Security trust fund, what can we use? If you do not get alarmed 
when the bill collector is knocking on your door, you are going to end 
up going bankrupt. Now is the time, when the bill collector is at the 
door, to try to change the way we are doing business. That is all this 
bill does.
  As far as the suggestion that if we try to prevent stealing from the 
Social Security trust fund, we are going to have a recession, I mean, 
please, it is one thing to try to confuse people, it is another thing 
to insult their intelligence. How can reducing Government debt cause a 
recession? How can stopping stealing from the trust fund send the 
economy into a tailspin? Exactly the opposite is true.
  Now then, the final bromide, unimaginable suggestion is, ``Well, what 
about Medicare? They are solving the Social Security problem, but 
they're not solving the Medicare problem.'' There are a lot of problems 
we are not solving here. This bill does not bring peace in Kosovo 
either. This bill does not stop violence in our schools either. This 
bill does not make people love their families and pay their bills 
either. This bill does not make people feel good about themselves in 
all cases either. But the bill does not claim to do all those things.
  Why don't we solve the Social Security problem today, and then start 
working on Medicare? But to suggest that there is something wrong with 
this bill because it only stops plundering from Social Security and 
that we have not fixed the Medicare problem--we can always find 
something we have not done, but what we ought to be concerned about is 
what we are doing.
  There is no surplus in the Medicare trust fund. Medicare is a very 
different program from Social Security. But I would like to say that on 
a bipartisan basis, led by Senator Breaux, we had a bipartisan majority 
on a commission that wanted to fix Medicare; and this President, Bill 
Clinton, killed that effort--killed that effort. So to stand up here 
and suggest that when Senator Abraham is trying to stop the stealing 
from Social Security, that there is something wrong because he had not 
solved the problems of Medicare is absolutely outrageous--outrageous.
  Let's solve the problem with Social Security today, and start working 
on Medicare tomorrow. And, by the way, it seems to me that Senator 
Breaux and Senator Bob Kerrey and most Members who sit on this side of 
the aisle are ready to deal with Medicare and the President and most 
Members who sit on the other side of the aisle do not seem to care.
  The next thing is, somehow this has to do with tax breaks for the 
rich. Our colleagues can never debate an issue without engaging in 
class warfare. They can never debate an issue without saying somehow 
this is helping the rich: ``If you stop stealing from the Social 
Security trust fund, you are helping the rich. If you let people keep 
more of what they earn, you are helping the rich.'' Of course, whenever 
they are raising taxes, they are taxing only the rich, even if the rich 
make $25,000 a year.
  The point is, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts 
for the rich, the poor, or the people in between. In fact, this bill 
says that the Social Security surplus cannot be used for tax cuts. And 
to suggest that somehow, by locking away the Social Security trust 
fund, and not letting it be plundered either to spend, which is the 
real danger, or to be used for tax cuts, that somehow to suggest that 
helps rich people, what it does is it helps the creditworthiness of the 
Government and it puts us in a position to fix Social Security.
  But the idea that this somehow helps the wealthiest among us--anytime 
the Democrats do not want to do something, always their excuse is, the 
wealthiest among us are going to benefit. ``If we do not keep 
plundering the Social Security trust fund, the wealthiest among us are 
going to benefit. If we can't steal that money and spend it on all 
these programs, the wealthiest among us are going to benefit. Let us 
keep stealing the Social Security trust fund because, if you don't keep 
stealing it, the wealthiest among us will benefit.''
  I do not know who these people are talking about. The wealthiest 
among us do not depend on Social Security as much as middle-income 
Americans depend on Social Security. What does this wealthiest among us 
business have to do with stealing from Social Security?
  Finally, they say they have another way. It reminds me when we were 
debating a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and we were 
one vote short of sending it to the States. We know the States would 
have ratified it. Our colleagues who were against it and who voted 
against it and who killed it, they weren't really against it. They just 
didn't like the way we were doing it. They had other ways of doing it. 
They had a better program, which by the way contained a limit on debt 
held by the public, the very mechanism contained in this amendment. 
They would have done it better than we would have done it. They killed 
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It failed by one 
vote. It could have changed American history.
  They didn't say they were against it. They are not against the 
lockbox. They are not against what Senator Abraham is trying to do. 
They just want to do it

[[Page 7229]]

differently. They think it is a bad idea and it could cause a recession 
and it could help the wealthiest among us and it could do all those 
things, but they want to do it. If you decide you want to do it after 
they tell you what a terrible idea it is to quit stealing from Social 
Security, after you have crossed that threshold, then they say, well, 
actually we are not against it, but we want to do it a different way. 
If we took their way, they would be for doing it another way.
  The problem is, they are not for it. The problem is, they want to 
keep stealing this money out of the Social Security trust fund. That is 
what this debate is about.
  The sadness of this whole deal is that instead of debating a 
legitimate issue, we are engaged in this gigantic ruse to confuse and 
befuddle the American people. We have a proposal before us that is very 
simple. It says we are going to collect $138 billion more than we are 
spending in Social Security, and we do not want any of that money 
spent. So we are going to adjust the amount of money Government can 
borrow and force that $138 billion to be used to reduce the 
indebtedness of the Federal Government. That is what this amendment 
does.
  But rather than our colleagues standing up and saying, no, we do not 
want to do that because we want to spend part of that money on other 
things, instead of standing up and saying, here is what we want to 
spend it on, we want to spend it on A, B, C, D, and E, and these are 
all vitally important and it is worth stealing the money from the 
Social Security trust fund to fund it, rather than standing up and 
saying that, they say you are going to cause a recession. You are going 
to destroy the creditworthiness of the Federal Government. You are 
going to help the richest among us. The richest among us are going to 
benefit if you don't steal from the Social Security trust fund.
  Maybe the American people are confused or maybe with all the terrible 
things that are happening in the world today, maybe they do not care. 
But it seems to me that we can't have a meaningful political dialogue 
when we do not debate the issues that are before us. If you are not for 
preventing the Social Security trust fund from being spent for other 
things, stand up and say it. But this tortured logic that if you really 
force the money to be used to buy down the debt of the Federal 
Government, you are risking a recession or you are helping the richest 
among us or that if you decide to get through all that, well, but there 
is a better way to do it, they could do it in a better way if we just 
let them do it, I wish for once we could have a straightforward debate. 
Do you want to stop taking this money out of the Social Security trust 
fund and spend it on other things or not? Yea or nay. Yes or no. Black 
or white. But you know why we are not having that debate--because our 
colleagues have already said they want to do this. The President has 
already said he wants to do this. He has urged us to do it.
  What is the difference between what they are saying and what Senator 
Abraham is doing? The difference is simple. They are saying it, and he 
is doing it. The difference is, they are getting the rhetoric right; he 
is getting the program right. The difference is, they are saying don't 
spend it, don't use it for tax cuts, use it to pay off debt. The 
problem they have is that the Abraham amendment actually pays the debt 
off, and it would force the Federal Government to get a supermajority 
vote in order to violate that principle.
  If you say you are for something and then somebody has a way of doing 
it and you vote no, what does it mean? Well, to finish and yield the 
floor, what it means is, you weren't serious when you said it to begin 
with.
  The debate here is between people who do want to pillage the trust 
fund and those who do not. It is that simple.
  Using this to buy down debt does not solve the Social Security 
problem, but we have in this amendment the vehicle that would let us 
use this money we are saving to solve the Social Security problem, if 
we could reach a bipartisan agreement. But we can't solve it if we 
don't have the money, and if we don't do something very much like the 
Abraham amendment has proposed, we are going to end up spending this 
money.
  Do you want to spend the money or do you want to see it buy down 
debt? If you want to buy down debt, support the Abraham amendment. If 
you don't, vote no but say so. I think that is really what the debate 
is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas 
said we ought to have a good political debate, and he allows me to make 
a good political debate in that he made it political talking about 
Democrats and taxes and the wealthy.
  The truth of the matter is, that is how the economy got this way, 
outstandingly good, in that we taxed the wealthy back in 1993 on Social 
Security. It was that gentleman, the Senator from Texas, who said they 
are going to be hunting us down in the street and shooting us like 
dogs.
  He raises these strawmen. Another strawman--I am going to use his 
text; I wouldn't say these things if I couldn't back them up--he says, 
the trouble here is that we feel that a lockbox is a dangerous thing.
  That is exactly what he said back in July 1990. I made the motion on 
the Budget Committee and we voted 19 to 1 for a lockbox, bipartisan 
except for one. It was the distinguished Senator from Texas who said it 
was a dangerous thing. But we went ahead, passed it in the House and 
Senate, and President George Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed that 
lockbox into law. That lockbox is part of the amendment of the majority 
leader and the Senator from Michigan. Look on page 3. You see they 
reiterate 13301, but on page 10 they take it away.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer heard me tell about that 
insurance company slogan that ``Capital Life will surely pay, if the 
small print on the back don't take it away.''
  My Republican colleague talked about how we always get into a wealth 
argument. They get into any and every effort to get rid of Social 
Security. They don't like it. In 1964, I remember, in the Goldwater 
campaign, they were going to abolish Social Security. In 1990, I 
finally got the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Heinz, to agree with me, 
and he changed around the mindset. I wish we had him here now and in 
the caucus to straighten out this nonsense, because what they are doing 
is exactly what they are not doing. They guarantee that every dime that 
is spent is going to be spent on either tax cuts or other spending 
rather than Social Security, when you pay down the debt. That is what 
they are saying.
  How is the debt caused? The debt is caused by spending too much. 
Spending too much on what? Any and every program. It could be defense. 
It could be Kosovo. It could be food stamps. It could be foreign aid. 
It could be law enforcement. But when you spend too much, you have a 
debt.
  We haven't spent too much on Social Security. That is one particular 
point on which I agree with the distinguished Senator from Texas. When 
he says, plundering, plundering--I use the word ``loot''--we can just 
say: Trust funds plundered in order to give that balanced budget, that 
unified budget, that unified debt--you don't hear that word--that is 
the same thing as paying down the public debt.
  So, yes, we plundered Social Security for $857 billion, and we 
plundered military retirement, civil retirement, unemployment, highway, 
airport, and even Medicare, and we have been violating our very 
doctrine, making it a criminal penalty to use trust funds, pension 
funds, to pay the company debt. That is the Pension Act of 1994. I know 
the distinguished Presiding Officer--he and I ended up talking about 
Denny McLain. I won't have to say that again. I can tell you now what 
we say in the private economy is, if you use the company pension fund 
to pay down the company debt, it is a felony. But it is good Government 
up here.
  But back to my poor Republican friends. Not only '64 and '90, but in 
'93

[[Page 7230]]

we got to the balanced budget amendment and we said, gentlemen, on the 
other side of the aisle, I will vote for you on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution if you do not plunder Social Security. It 
is section 7, on page 5--I remember it well--where they said, no, we 
have to still plunder it. They could have gotten a group of us Senators 
on this side of the aisle, but they demanded to plunder Social 
Security. Then, Mr. President, right on up to the present date, read 
what they say. They say that the surplus shall not be used for non-
Social Security spending or tax cuts, but then when they say it uses 
the Social Security surplus to reduce the debt, that is exactly what it 
does.
  The distinguished Senator from Texas says there is no plan here to 
save Social Security or make up for its debt. Why don't we say, use the 
Social Security surplus for only Social Security purposes, namely, pay 
down the $857 billion we owe it? They don't come and say that, Mr. 
President, no siree. They just demand, at every particular turn, that 
we get rid of it and now they want to privatize it. I refer, of course, 
to the particular language in section 202 of the budget resolution that 
they just brought in here as a group. This says that when the Committee 
on Ways and Means of the House and the Finance Committee in the Senate 
gets a conference report submitted that enhances retirement security--
that is nebulous; they think it is enhanced when they savage it, 
plunder it--through structural programmatic reform, the appropriate 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget--that means Mr. Kasich on the 
House side and Mr. Domenici on the Senate side--they can do anything: 
increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of the budget 
authority; they can adjust the levels to determine compliance with pay-
as-you-go, which in essence repeals the pay-as-you-go provision; and 
they can reduce the revenue aggregates.
  What does it mean? You have to call New Mexico and find out from the 
Senator from New Mexico what it means. That is what is going to happen. 
Monkeyshines here is going into the particular amendment.
  I can tell you here and now, Mr. President, that this is really a 
disaster. What we are doing is formalizing spending, spending all the 
Social Security surplus. At least the President of the United States 
says he wants to save 62 percent and he is going to spend 38 percent on 
something else. That is what the President said in his budget. We are 
going to save 62 percent, but we are going to spend 38 percent on 
something else.
  Do you know what this Republican amendment says? It says we want to 
make sure we spend 100 percent on something else because it is not for 
Social Security, it is for the debt. When they use that euphemism 
``public debt,'' as I have explained many times, you have an American 
Express and a Visa card. The Senator from Texas has abandoned Dickie 
Flats; he has gone to Joe and Sarah Brown. He says when Joe and Sarah 
Brown sit around the kitchen table and pay their bills--but I can tell 
you what Joe and Sarah Brown never do: They don't take their Visa card 
and pay off their American Express. But that's what this amendment 
does. It says take your Social Security card, the surplus, and pay off 
the debt of any and every other program or tax cut--100 percent. They 
formalize what we tried to stop having been done in the law, when we 
passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1990. This amendment repeals that 
particular discipline, the pay-as-you-go program. It goes right on down 
there plundering. That is all it can be used for. It can't be used for 
Social Security. There, Mr. President, is the fiscal cancer. This 
Senator has been working on it for years.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed this chart in the Record.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                  TRUST FUNDS LOOTED TO BALANCE BUDGET
                      [By fiscal year, in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1999     2000     2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security..............................      857      994    1,624
Medicare:
    HI.......................................      129      140      184
    SMI......................................       39       44       64
Military Retirement..........................      141      148      181
Civilian Retirement..........................      490      520      634
Unemployment.................................       79       88      113
Highway......................................       25       26       32
Airport......................................       11       14       25
Railroad Retirement..........................       23       24       28
Other........................................       57       59       69
                                              --------------------------
  Total......................................    1,851    2,057    2,954
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
this budget realities chart.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows.

                                           HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
                                            [In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Actual                      Annual
                               U.S. budget    Borrowed       Unified       deficit      National    increases in
     President and year         (outlays)    trust funds  deficit with     without        debt      spending for
                                                           trust funds   trust funds                  interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
  1945......................          92.7           5.4          47.6                       260.1
  1946......................          55.2          -5.0         -15.9         -10.9         271.0
  1947......................          34.5          -9.9           4.0          13.9         257.1
  1948......................          29.8           6.7          11.8           5.1         252.0
  1949......................          38.8           1.2           0.6          -0.6         252.6
  1950......................          42.6           1.2          -3.1          -4.3         256.9
  1951......................          45.5           4.5           6.1           1.6         255.3
  1952......................          67.7           2.3          -1.5          -3.8         259.1
  1953......................          76.1           0.4          -6.5          -6.9         266.0
Eisenhower:
  1954......................          70.9           3.6          -1.2          -4.8         270.8
  1955......................          68.4           0.6          -3.0          -3.6         274.4
  1956......................          70.6           2.2           3.9           1.7         272.7
  1957......................          76.6           3.0           3.4           0.4         272.3
  1958......................          82.4           4.6          -2.8          -7.4         279.7
  1959......................          92.1          -5.0         -12.8          -7.8         287.5
  1960......................          92.2           3.3           0.3          -3.0         290.5
  1961......................          97.7          -1.2          -3.3          -2.1         292.6
Kennedy:
  1962......................         106.8           3.2          -7.1         -10.3         302.9           9.1
  1963......................         111.3           2.6          -4.8          -7.4         310.3           9.9
Johnson:
  1964......................         118.5          -0.1          -5.9          -5.8         316.1          10.7
  1965......................         118.2           4.8          -1.4          -6.2         322.3          11.3
  1966......................         134.5           2.5          -3.7          -6.2         328.5          12.0
  1967......................         157.5           3.3          -8.6         -11.9         340.4          13.4
  1968......................         178.1           3.1         -25.2         -28.3         368.7          14.6
  1969......................         183.6           0.3           3.2           2.9         365.8          16.6
Nixon:
  1970......................         195.6          12.3          -2.8         -15.1         380.9          19.3
  1971......................         210.2           4.3         -23.0         -27.3         408.2          21.0
  1972......................         230.7           4.3         -23.4         -27.7         435.9          21.8
  1973......................         245.7          15.5         -14.9         -30.4         466.3          24.2
  1974......................         269.4          11.5          -6.1         -17.6         483.9          29.3
Ford:
  1975......................         332.3           4.8         -53.2         -58.0         541.9          32.7
  1976......................         371.8          13.4         -73.7         -87.1         629.0          37.1

[[Page 7231]]

 
Carter:
  1977......................         409.2          23.7         -53.7         -77.4         706.4          41.9
  1978......................         458.7          11.0         -59.2         -70.2         776.6          48.7
  1979......................         503.5          12.2         -40.7         -52.9         829.5          59.9
  1980......................         590.9           5.8         -73.8         -79.6         909.1          74.8
Reagan:
  1981......................         678.2           6.7         -79.0         -85.7         994.8          95.5
  1982......................         745.8          14.5        -128.0        -142.5       1,137.3         117.2
  1983......................         808.4          26.6        -207.8        -234.4       1,371.7         128.7
  1984......................         851.8           7.6        -185.4        -193.0       1,564.7         153.9
  1985......................         946.4          40.5        -212.3        -252.8       1,817.5         178.9
  1986......................         990.3          81.9        -221.2        -303.1       2,120.6         190.3
  1987......................       1,003.9          75.7        -149.8        -225.5       2,346.1         195.3
  1988......................       1,064.1         100.0        -155.2        -255.2       2,601.3         214.1
Bush:
  1989......................       1,143.2         114.2        -152.5        -266.7       2,868.3         240.9
  1990......................       1,252.7         117.4        -221.2        -338.6       3,206.6         264.7
  1991......................       1,323.8         122.5        -269.4        -391.9       3,598.5         285.5
  1992......................       1,380.9         113.2        -290.4        -403.6       4,002.1         292.3
Clinton:
  1993......................       1,408.2          94.3        -255.0        -349.3       4,351.4         292.5
  1994......................       1,460.6          89.2        -203.1        -292.3       4,643.7         296.3
  1995......................       1,514.6         113.4        -163.9        -277.3       4,921.0         332.4
  1996......................       1,453.1         153.5        -107.4        -260.9       5,181.9         344.0
  1997......................       1,601.2         165.9         -21.9        -187.8       5,369.7         355.8
  1998......................       1,651.4         179.0          70.0        -109.0       5,478.7         363.8
  1999......................       1,704.1         215.7         110.5        -105.2       5,583.9         356.3
  2000......................       1,737.0         224.8         133.0         -91.8       5,675.7        349.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hsitorical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1998, beginning in 1962 CBO's 2000 Economic and Budget
  Outlook.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as you pay down the debt--that was the 
unified--that is how it was going down. That is where they got here 
this year to talk about a surplus for the first time. But we got 
together with the Concord Coalition and we got together with Barrons 
and several other responsible groups and they said there isn't any 
surplus. This Barrons headline says, ``Hey, Guys, There is No Budget 
Surplus.''
  The only reason they can call it a surplus is because of what they 
recommend in this amendment, paying down the public debt. That is the 
unified budget. But in the regular overall budget, the debt continues 
to increase and increase, and the interest costs continue to increase 
and increase, and you can't give a tax cut without raising taxes. You 
can't just cut your revenues without increasing your debt.
  We have had all the spending cuts for 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of 
Bush, 6 years of Clinton. Nobody is recommending around here any cut in 
spending. The first order of business was $18 billion more for the 
military pay. The next order of business we are going to vote on is 
another $6 billion to $10 billion for Kosovo. Everybody is going to 
support that. So the spending goes up, up and away. We are down to bare 
bones. Yes, instead of abolishing the Department of Education, now they 
want to increase spending for education. So we can save, and the 
Presiding Officer can save, $10 billion or $20 billion; any individual 
can. But, collectively, as a Congress, we are not going to do it. What 
happens is that we need revenues in here, and we need to quit playing 
the game of paying down the public debt.
  Our problem is that the White House doesn't know how to run a war and 
our Republican Congress doesn't know how to run a peace. They come up 
here with this Mickey Mouse amendment, saying exactly the opposite of 
what it really provides. They say you can't use it or any spending. You 
have to use it on all spending but Social Security, because you are 
using Social Security money. You can't use it on tax cuts, you have to 
use it for tax cuts. Certainly, you can't use it for Social Security.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from North Dakota for 
a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding for a 
question. I wanted to note that for, I guess, the seventh year now that 
I have been here in the Senate, the one consistent voice on this issue 
has been the Senator from South Carolina. I find it interesting, and I 
wonder if he sees the same irony as I do, that the very people that now 
bring us the notion of a lockbox, because they are worried about the 
Social Security trust fund, were just a few years ago on the floor of 
the Senate ridiculing the Senator from South Carolina, myself, my 
colleague from North Dakota, and others, because we said what you want 
to do with a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is 
to put a provision in the Constitution that says Social Security 
revenues must be counted not as part of a trust fund, but as part of 
the ordinary operating revenues of the Federal budget.
  In other words, they wanted to put in the Constitution the misuse of 
the Social Security trust funds and decide that you have a budget 
surplus only when you have used the Social Security trust funds to get 
there. So we said no; if you are going to do something in the 
Constitution about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, 
let's at least be honest with the trust funds and say the budget is 
only balanced when you have not misused Social Security trust funds.
  I should have brought the charts. I was thinking about bringing the 
charts over to read all of the comments that were made on the floor of 
the Senate about our position at that point.
  They have three stages of denial:
  First, we are not misusing the Social Security trust funds.
  Second, they said but if we are misusing them, we promise to stop.
  If we promise to stop, we can't do it for the first 8 years. We will 
promise to stop 12 years from now.
  Those were the three stages of denial when we debated the issue of a 
constitutional amendment.
  But I just find it interesting that those who now say they are the 
protectors are the ones who are building a lockbox and are the very, 
very same interests who are on the floor of the Senate saying we should 
amend the Constitution in a manner that provides that Social Security 
revenues will be treated like all other revenues of government. It is 
no protection at all, and they would cement that in the Constitution of 
the United States. When we objected, they said: You are wrong; this is 
exactly what we want to do. Now we have this little pirouette on this 
floor when they come back and say we are the ones who want to protect 
Social Security.
  I just wanted to ask the question if the Senator from South Carolina 
sees the same irony here, although this amendment doesn't do what it is 
advertised to do. The Senator from South Carolina is absolutely 
correct; the rhetoric in support of this amendment is directly in 
contradiction to the kind of things we heard from that side of the 
aisle just 3 to 4 years ago.

[[Page 7232]]


  Mr. HOLLINGS. This the same trickery. It is one grand farce. It is 
one grand fraud.
  So to the lockbox everyone is given the keys, whether you want a tax 
cut, or spending for a particular program on policy, or otherwise. They 
are given the key, except Social Security. That is the only crowd that 
can't spend it. You can spend it for any and everything but Social 
Security.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican lockbox proposal is deeply 
flawed, and does not deserve to be adopted. It does nothing to extend 
the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. In 
fact, it would do just the reverse. This legislation actually places 
Social Security at greater risk than it is today. It would allow 
payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be spent instead 
on risky privatization schemes. And, because of the harsh debt ceiling 
limits it would impose, this plan could produce a governmental shutdown 
that would jeopardize the timely payment of Social Security benefits to 
current recipients.
  It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the 
lockbox. Their statements convey the impression that they have taken a 
major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they have done 
nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would not provide 
even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees. Nor 
would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even one more day. It 
merely recommits to Social Security those dollars which already belong 
to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that is all their so-
called lockbox would do.
  By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 
trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next 15 
years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the 
Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050.
  There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do 
with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt 
reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from 
paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have 
been required to pay interest on the national debt will become 
available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes 
those debt savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. I 
wholeheartedly agree. But the Republicans refuse to commit those 
dollars to Social Security. They are short-changing Social Security, 
while pretending to save it.
  Currently, the Federal Government spends more than 11 cents of every 
budget dollar to pay the cost of interest on the national debt. By 
using the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt over the next 15 
years, we can reduce the debt service cost to just 2 cents of every 
budget dollar by 2014; and to zero by 2018. Sensible fiscal management 
now will produce enormous savings to the Government in future years. 
Since it was payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction 
possible, those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social 
Security.
  That is what President Clinton rightly proposed in his budget. His 
plan would provide an additional $2.8 trillion to Social Security, most 
of it debt service savings, between 2030 and 2055. As a result, the 
current level of Social Security benefits would be fully financed for 
all future recipients for more than half a century. It is an eminently 
reasonable plan. But Republican Members of Congress oppose it.
  Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources 
to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even 
effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used 
to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a 
trapdoor in their lockbox. Their plan would allow Social Security 
payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified reform plans. 
This loophole opens the door to risky schemes to finance private 
retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed 
benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will 
be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future 
Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make 
Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today, 
necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future.
  A genuine lockbox would prevent any such diversion of funds. A 
genuine lockbox would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars would be 
in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future recipients. The 
Republican lockbox does just the opposite. It actually invites a raid 
on the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Republican retirement security reform could be nothing more than tax 
cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefiting their 
wealthy friends. Placing Social Security on a firm financial footing 
should be our highest budget priority, not further enriching the 
already wealthy. Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social 
Security retirement benefits for more than 50 percent of their annual 
income. Without it, half the Nation's elderly would fall below the 
poverty line.
  To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to 
strengthen Social Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert 
dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other 
purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future 
Social Security benefits.''
  The proposed lockbox poses a second, very serious threat to Social 
Security. By using the debt ceiling as an enforcement mechanism, it 
runs the risk of creating a government shutdown crisis. The Republicans 
propose to enforce their lockbox by mandating dangerously low debt 
ceilings. Such a reduced debt ceiling could make it impossible for the 
Federal Government to meet its financial obligations--including its 
obligation to pay Social Security benefits to millions of men and women 
who depend upon them. The risk is real.
  The misguided debt ceiling proposal would create a Sword of Damocles 
which could fall at any time with the slightest miscalculation. If the 
Congressional Budget Office's economic projections are slightly off, if 
there is an economic downturn and unemployment rises, if the on-budget 
surplus is not quite as large as anticipated--any of these events could 
cause the sword to fall. The proposal is so extreme that it could 
trigger a shutdown crisis even if the level of debt was declining, 
merely because it was not declining as quickly as projected. The 
Government shutdown provoked by irresponsible Republican tactics in 
1995 taught us the danger inherent in taking such risks. Yet, the 
current debt ceiling scheme seems to suggest that the Republican 
elephant's memory is failing.
  There would be many innocent casualties of a new government shutdown. 
It is ironic that many of those who would be harmed most by a shutdown 
are the elderly and disabled citizens dependent on Social Security. If 
the debt ceiling is reached, the government would be unable to issue 
their benefit checks. The law is very clear. The President would have 
no discretion. Social Security benefits could not be paid.
  The sponsors of the lockbox claim that the legislation protects 
Social Security benefits by making them a ``priority'' for payment. 
However, that will not solve the problem. Once the debt limit has been 
reached, payment priorities will be irrelevant. The debt ceiling will 
prevent all payments from being made. There will be no money to pay any 
obligation of the federal government--including Social Security 
benefits.
  Those advocating this harsh bill will also claim that Congress would 
never allow Social Security recipients to go without their checks for 
long. However, this bill would require a super-majority to raise the 
debt ceiling so that the checks could be issued. Getting the necessary 
votes would take time. I believe even a few days would be too long for 
us to ask the elderly and disabled to wait. For many Social Security 
recipients, that monthly check is a financial lifeline. They need

[[Page 7233]]

it to buy food and prescription drugs, to pay the rent, and for other 
necessities of life. They can't afford to wait while Congress debates. 
This legislation, if enacted, would make Social Security recipients 
potential pawns in a future debt ceiling crisis. That may not be the 
sponsor's intent, but it could very well be the result. It is 
fundamentally wrong to put those who depend on Social Security at risk 
in this way.
  The lockbox which proponents claim will save Social Security actually 
imperils it. As Treasury Secretary Rubin has said, ``This legislation 
does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, 
while potentially threatening the ability to make Social Security 
payments to millions of Americans.''
  While this lockbox provides no genuine protection for Social 
Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The 
Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that 
they have completely omitted Medicare from their lockbox.
  By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 15 percent of the 
surplus to Medicare over the next 15 years. Those new dollars would 
come entirely from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The 
Republicans have adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for 
Medicare. Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus 
on tax cuts disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest Americans.
  According to the most recent projections of the Medicare Trustees, if 
we do not provide additional resources, keeping Medicare solvent for 
the next 25 years will require benefit cuts of almost 11 percent--
massive cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keeping it solvent for 
50 years will require cuts of 25 percent.
  The conference agreement passed by House and Senate Republicans 
earmarks the money that should be used for Medicare for tax cuts. 
Eight-hundred billion dollars are earmarked for tax cuts--and not a 
penny for Medicare. The top priority for the American people is to 
protect both Social Security and Medicare. But this misguided budget 
puts Medicare and Social Security last, not first.
  Democrats oppose this ``lockbox'' because we want real protection for 
Social Security and Medicare. Our proposal says: save Social Security 
and Medicare first, before the surpluses earned by American workers are 
squandered on new tax breaks or new spending. It says: extend the 
solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, by assuring that some of the 
bounty of our booming economy is used to preserve, protect, and improve 
Medicare.
  Our proposal does not say no to tax cuts. Substantial amounts would 
still be available for tax relief. It does not say no to new spending 
on important national priorities. But it does say that protecting 
Medicare should be as high a national priority for the Congress as it 
is for the American people.
  Every senior citizen knows--and their children and grandchildren 
know, too--that the elderly cannot afford cuts in Medicare. They are 
already stretched to the limit--and often beyond the limit--to purchase 
the health care they need. Because of gaps in Medicare and rising 
health costs, Medicare now covers only about 50 percent of the health 
bills of senior citizens. On average, senior citizens spend 19 percent 
of their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need--almost 
as large a proportion as they had to pay before Medicare was enacted a 
generation ago. By 2025, if we do nothing, that proportion will have 
risen to 29 percent. Too often, even with today's Medicare benefits, 
senior citizens have to choose between putting food on the table, 
paying the rent, or purchasing the health care they need. This problem 
demands our attention.
  Those on the other side of the aisle have tried to conceal their own 
indifference to Medicare behind a cloud of obfuscation. They say that 
their plan does not cut Medicare. That may be true in a narrow, 
legalistic sense--but it is fundamentally false and misleading. Between 
now and 2025, Medicare has a shortfall of almost $1 trillion. If we do 
nothing to address that shortfall, we are imposing almost $1 trillion 
in Medicare cuts, just as surely as if we directly legislated those 
cuts. No amount of rhetoric can conceal this fundamental fact. The 
authors of the Republican budget resolution had a choice to make 
between tax breaks for the wealthy and saving Medicare--and they chose 
to slash Medicare.
  I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to reject this ill-
conceived proposal. It jeopardizes Social Security and ignores 
Medicare. It is an assault on America's senior citizens, and it does 
not deserve to pass.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I support this effort to wall off the 
surplus Social Security revenues.
  By establishing a lockbox we ensure that all savings in the program 
are used to build the trust fund and extend the solvency of Social 
Security.
  We learned last year that to leave unobligated money lying around 
Washington is a bad idea because it gets spent!
  This is one of several budget reforms that I have been actively 
supporting.
  First, the budget process is too complicated and frequently abused. I 
feel it needs to be simplified. This is a step in that direction.
  With this provision we can remove the temptation that the Social 
Security surplus presents to those who tend to spend our money 
carelessly.
  As we search for ways to modernize Social Security, it makes sense to 
dedicate the Social Security surplus to repaying debt owed to the trust 
fund. Paying down the debt and modernizing Social Security need to 
happen together.
  It is important to take this issue up now, especially since we have 
already considered three requests for supplemental spending for this 
year, totaling $1.36 billion.
  These proposals spend the surplus without regard to major budgetary 
commitments such as Social Security.
  I have long been a supporter of debt repayment.
  I believe that Federal debt retirement should be a priority when 
decisions must be made regarding a Federal budgetary surplus. That is 
why I sponsored the American Debt Repayment Act, which requires 
repayment of the federal debt.
  Likewise, I support the legislation before us today that sets a 
statutory limit on federal debt held by the public.
  We must obligate ourselves to a plan in order to make any progress 
toward paying down the debt; otherwise, the surplus will most likely 
invite increased spending.
  Consider the impact that debt reduction would have on the fate of 
Social Security.
  We would be making positive changes to ensure the solvency of Social 
Security for future generations.
  We would be making payments on the national debt which is the best 
way to provide flexibility and a source of funds for changes in Social 
Security that will modernize it for the generations of the next 
century.
  So long as the federal government carries a $5.6 trillion debt, we 
cannot tell our children and grandchildren that we have provided for 
their future.
  By enacting this plan we will be helping to preserve Social Security 
for future generations.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Social Security 
lock box to keep the Social Security surplus safe from raids that 
further threaten the financial condition of the fund.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to announce my position on the 
cloture petition on the so-called Social Security lockbox legislation 
before the Senate.
  First, let me say that I am disappointed with our Republican 
colleagues for making this a political issue. The fact of the matter is 
that both Democrats and Republicans in this body believe that Social 
Security surpluses should be protected and, absent extraordinary 
circumstances, should be used to reduce the public debt. Budget 
resolutions sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans abided by that 
rule. In essence, then, the legislation presented to us today is 
designed as little more than a political show vote that will give a 
basis for claiming that Republicans alone are

[[Page 7234]]

committed to protecting Social Security while Democrats are not. 
Nothing could be more disingenuous.
  Let me also say that we could use some truth-in-advertising around 
here. This is not even a true lockbox. There are significant exceptions 
included in this legislation. No. 1, the so-called lockbox allows for 
adjustment of its scriptures for emergency spending, with the 
likelihood that significant defense-related emergency spending will be 
enacted. As one individual commented, ``if we don't have an on-budget 
surplus to fund emergencies, then we adjust the debt limits to borrow 
from the Trust Fund.'' No. 2, it should also be pointed out that the 
debt limits can also be adjusted for whatever is deemed Social Security 
reform. That is so open-ended in my view it gives Congress a loophole 
through which it could easily evade the so-called lockbox altogether.
  What concerns me most in this proposal, however, is that it gives the 
American people the false impression that this is the answer to our 
fiscal problems. Instead of just resisting the temptation to go on a 
tax-cutting or spending spree, dealing honestly with solving the long-
term funding challenges in Social Security and Medicare, and paying 
down our enormous debt with the entire surplus, we claim that the 
lockbox, an artificial mechanism which only commits part of the total 
surplus to reduce the debt, is the most fiscally responsible thing we 
can do. What makes this proposal all the more disingenuous from our 
Republican colleagues is that the large tax cut that they hope to enact 
threatens most our ability to meet the scriptures of the so-called 
lockbox.
  In the final analysis, this political stunt isn't worth risking the 
credit worthiness of the United States.
  Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of this 
legislation that the Social Security surplus should be used to pay down 
the publicly held debt, although I would commit the entire surplus to 
that purpose. My concern is that the proposal before us is nothing more 
than an attempt to politicize an issue on which we all agree, and that 
it has the potential to do more harm than good by risking the credit 
worthiness of the United States.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President. I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to Senator Domenici's amendment ``The Social Security 
Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act''. I supported the original 
legislation, S. 557, which was reported out of the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, and would have provided guidance for the 
designation of emergencies. But this amendment uses S. 557 as a vehicle 
to introduce a highly controversial and partisan proposal on Social 
Security. It also changes an important provision in the original bill 
regarding emergency designations, in a way that undermines the 
bipartisan compromise which we had reached in Committee. As Ranking 
Democrat of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I will limit my 
comments to the bill we reported out of committee, and to the reasons I 
object to the changes made to those emergency designation provisions.
  First, I would like to provide some background about why I support 
the unamended version of S. 557, and how it came to be reported out of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee. Passed in 1990, the Budget 
Enforcement Act requires that the cost of appropriations legislation 
stay within spending caps and that the cost of all other legislation 
satisfies the ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements. At the time the bill was 
passed, however, there was a legitimate concern that these new limits 
on spending could impede Congress' ability to provide additional funds 
for emergencies. As a result, Congress provided that if the President 
designates a provision as an emergency requirement and the Congress 
agrees in legislation, then the spending caps and ``pay-go'' 
limitations do not apply to that provision. Congress did not provide 
any guidance regarding what constitutes an emergency.
  Not counting 1991, when emergency spending spiked because of the 
Persian Gulf War, the annual emergency expenditure had ranged from $16 
billion to $5 billion before last year's Omnibus spending legislation 
set a new record, at $21.5 billion. The emergency spending designation 
has been used appropriately in many cases. Every year money is provided 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to respond to natural 
disasters such as hurricanes and floods. Emergency spending has 
included military funding for Operation Desert Storm and for 
peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. The emergency designation has also been 
used to provide funds after other cataclysmic domestic events, such as 
the riots in Los Angeles in 1992 and the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma 
City in 1995. The 1999 emergency funds addressed a wider variety of 
needs than in prior years. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, last year emergency funds were used for the first time for 
increased security at U.S. embassies, for price supports for U.S. 
farmers, to respond to the Year 2000 Computer problem, for counter-drug 
and drug interdiction efforts, for ballistic missile defense 
enhancements, and to address funding shortfalls in the defense health 
program, among other things.
  While these expenses may all be legitimate uses of tax dollars, 
Senators on both sides of the aisle feel that some of the past 
designations of emergency spending were inappropriate, and have been 
looking for a statutory solution. The problem is the complete absence 
of guidelines on what constitutes an emergency, as well as insufficient 
procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of the subjective emergency 
designation.
  The provision on emergency spending originally contained in Senator 
Domenici's ``Budget Enforcement Act of 1999'' addressed this problem by 
establishing a 60-vote point of order against any emergency spending 
provision contained in a bill, amendment, or conference report. A 
number of Senators in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, myself 
included, felt that the super-majority point of order was neither 
necessary nor appropriate. It would have trampled on the rights of the 
Minority, and might have led to scenarios where aid is held up in cases 
of regional emergencies, particularly if a determined bloc of senators 
hoped to extract some unrelated legislative concession in return for 
the release of funds. We have seen cases where floods have ravaged the 
river valleys of the Dakotas, or tornadoes have decimated swaths of 
countryside in just one or two rural states. Severe droughts are 
emergencies to the farmers suffering their long-term effects, but may 
not seem quite so urgent to Senators representing other states. 
Allowing a reticent voting bloc to hold up funding for emergencies that 
are recognized by both the President and a majority of Senators seems 
to be an extreme measure to take, before having attempted a more 
measured response.
  Accordingly, I was quite pleased when we were able to work out an 
agreement with Senator Domenici and Chairman Thompson regarding 
emergency spending. Our compromise preserved the point of order against 
all emergency spending, but converted it from a super-majority point of 
order to a simple majority point of order. The agreement retained 
criteria defining what constitutes an emergency.
  The bill we reported out frames the debate whenever an emergency 
expenditure is challenged. The bill requires the President and 
congressional committees to analyze whether a proposed emergency 
funding requirement is necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and not 
permanent. If a proposed requirement does not meet one of these five 
criteria, the President or committee must justify in writing why the 
requirement still constitutes an emergency. Although the five criteria 
are not binding, the existence of this new statutory guidance, along 
with the explanations that may be contained in any accompanying report, 
will provide an essential framework for emergency spending designation 
decisions that has heretofore been lacking. A Senator raising a point 
of order against an emergency spending designation would have codified 
criteria to point to, and the process contained in this legislation 
encourages more challenges of abuses of the emergency spending 
designation.

[[Page 7235]]

  After our bipartisan bill was reported to the full Senate, Senator 
Domenici included in his budget resolution a 60-vote point of order 
against any emergency designation. During the ensuing consideration of 
the resolution, Senators Durbin, Byrd and I co-sponsored an amendment 
bringing back the simple-majority point of order. Senator Domenici 
accepted this amendment rather than hold a roll-call vote; 
nevertheless, our measure was subsequently stripped out in Conference. 
Accordingly, for the next year we will be governed by a Senate rule 
which requires a super-majority to designate emergencies, a rule which 
has not won the approval of even a simple majority of any Senate body.
  Now we have before us an amendment that goes even further than the 
provision contained in the budget resolution. The amendment would re-
establish the 60-vote point of order against emergency designations 
which had been removed by consensus in the committee. This point of 
order would last for ten years, and it would be codified rather than be 
a Senate rule. For reasons that are not clear, there would be an 
exception for Defense emergencies, but not for any other type of 
emergency, including natural disasters.
  Importantly, the amended point of order applies to the emergency 
designation and not the spending itself. If it is raised and sustained, 
the bill's spending for scoring purposes would be increased, thereby 
potentially causing it to exceed its allocation. That would leave the 
entire bill vulnerable to a second point of order. This potential for 
procedural logjams would only complicate Congress' efforts to provide 
adequate funding to cope with real and pressing emergencies.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment to S. 557, 
and to accept instead the bill originally reported out of Committee, 
which addresses the issue of emergency designations in a sensible way, 
and which has won the support of members of both parties in the 
Committee.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the measure now before the 
Senate. This bill would create new budget procedures to prevent the 
spending of any surpluses attributed to Social Security, other than for 
reducing the public debt or for Social Security reform. Although this 
bill is well intended, in my view the bill is unlikely to accomplish 
its objectives and, worse, may have negative, unintended consequences.
  Before describing specific objections, let me first commend Senator 
Domenici for his leadership on the budget resolution and his commitment 
to Social Security. The FY 2000 budget resolution that passed Congress 
last week sets aside every penny of every dollar of the $1.8 trillion 
in Social Security surpluses expected over the next 10 years. This 
measure demonstrates unequivocally our commitment to protecting Social 
Security and to restoring confidence and accountability in Social 
Security's financing.
  On the other hand, the President's budget would spend $158 billion of 
the Social Security surpluses over the next 5 years, and even more 
thereafter. The differences between the President's budget plan and 
Congress's could not be more clear.
  Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate intends to provide 
additional protections against spending so-called ``off budget'' 
surpluses, by, among other things, creating a new public debt limit.
  In my view, the bill has serious substantive problems. The simple 
fact is that if Congress does not authorize spending, money cannot be 
spent. Debt is issued solely to pay for spending Congress authorizes. 
Indeed, Congress delegated its exclusive constitutional authority to 
borrow money on the credit of the United States in 1917 to the Treasury 
Department. Prior to 1917, Congress individually authorized each debt 
issue, specifying interest rates and maturity
  Over the years, debt ceilings have made little difference in 
preventing spending or deficits. But, as those of us who have been 
involved with debt ceiling legislation know too well, the need to raise 
the debt ceiling can and has often created a sense of crisis. Indeed, 
this bill could hamper the Federal government from paying its bills in 
a timely manner; injure the Federal government's credit standing; and 
limit the Treasury's flexibility to manage the debt in the most 
efficient manner.
  Having said that, the legislation before us does attempt to address 
some of these problems. For example, the bill contains exceptions for 
emergency spending, recession, and war. However, these exceptions seem 
to undo the very purposes of the bill, without providing the 
flexibility needed to properly manage the debt. Moreover, the language 
of the bill ensuring the timely payment of Social Security benefits 
should be strengthened.
  The best solution is to prevent spending, not to undo spending with a 
new type of debt limit. Indeed, the whole point of the 1974 
Congressional Budget Act, and subsequent budget process legislation, 
has been to provide an organized, disciplined framework for 
consideration of the nation's budget and of public spending. If the 
current budget procedures are not adequate to prevent spending 
authorizations, new remedies should be devised without creating a new 
type of debt limit.
  I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Rubin which addresses the 
pending amendment. In this letter Secretary Rubin raises concern that 
the amendment, if enacted, could actually jeopardize the payment of 
Social Security benefits. This concerns me as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the letter from the 
Treasury Secretary in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me turn now to one other issue before 
closing--the importance of prompt action on Social Security reform. The 
bill before us is at best intended to be a stopgap measure until Social 
Security reform is accomplished. Social Security has long-term 
financial problems, which the President and Congress must address. 
Indeed, there is broad agreement--in Congress and by the President--
that Social Security reform is better done sooner than later. I 
strongly agree, although any action will require Presidential 
leadership and a bipartisan consensus in Congress.

                               Exhibit 1


                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 1999.
     Hon. William Roth,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: This letter transmits an analysis of the Social 
     Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reducation Act, the 
     amendment offered by Chairman Domenici and Senators Abraham 
     and Ashcroft to S. 557, which is currently being debated on 
     the Senate floor. This Act would create new statutory limits 
     on debt held by the public in addition to the existing 
     ceiling on the total debt held by the public and the Federal 
     trust funds. Our analysis indicates that this provision could 
     preclude the United States from meeting its financial 
     obligations to repay maturing debt and to make benefit 
     payments--including Social Security checks--and could also 
     worsen a future economic downturn. Let me refer you to my 
     earlier letter as I will not repeat here all of the concerns 
     I have with this proposal. For all of the reasons I mention 
     there, I would recommend to the President that he veto this 
     Act if it were presented to him for his signature.
       It is still my view and the view of the Administration that 
     fiscal restraint is best exercised through the tools of the 
     budget process. Debt limits should not be used as an 
     additional means of imposing restraint. By the time a debt 
     limit is reached the Government is already obligated to make 
     payments and must have enough money to meet its obligations. 
     These proposed new debt limits, despite the changes made, 
     could run the risk of precipitating a debt crisis in the 
     future.
       The proposal makes only limited exceptions for 
     unanticipated developments on the non-Social Security side of 
     the budget. However, the potential for forecast error is 
     great even for estimates made for one year in the future, let 
     alone for ten years. Projections of future budget surpluses 
     are made using hundreds of assumptions, any of which is 
     subject to error. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO) studied the errors in its own five-year estimates and 
     concluded that, based on their average deviation, the annual 
     surplus estimate for 2004 could vary by $250 billion. Much 
     smaller forecast errors could cause these new debt limits to 
     be reached.
       The amendment's shift of the effective date from October 1 
     to May 1 may provide some degree of cushion but it does not 
     eliminate the risk that the debt limit could be reached in 
     the normal course of business. It

[[Page 7236]]

     reduces the debt limit just after the large revenue bulge in 
     April. However, the size of the cushion and the impact of the 
     timing shift can be far smaller than the deviations from 
     surplus projections described above.
       The amendment could run the risk of worsening an economic 
     downturn. The debt limit would be suspended following two 
     consecutive quarters of real GDP growth below one percent. 
     However, an economic slowdown of any duration that did not 
     result in real growth of less than one percent for two 
     consecutive quarters could increase spending and reduce 
     receipts--and both CBO and OMB estimates indicate that such a 
     moderate slowdown could require the borrowing of hundreds of 
     billions of dollars over a period of just a few years. Absent 
     a super-majority vote to raise the debt limit, Congress would 
     need to reduce other spending or raise taxes. Either cutting 
     spending or raising taxes in a slowing economy could 
     aggravate the economic slowdown and substantially raise the 
     risk of a significant recession. In addition, there would be 
     a lag of at least seven months from the onset of a recession 
     to the time that the statistics were available to demonstrate 
     two consecutive quarters of real growth of less than one 
     percent. During these seven or more months, as in the first 
     case, revenues would likely decline and outlays increase 
     necessitating that Congress either reduce other spending or 
     raise taxes. In both cases, the tax increases and spending 
     cuts could turn out to be inadequate to satisfy all existing 
     payment obligations and to keep the debt under the limit, and 
     the debt-limit crisis could worsen.
       In addition, the Act does not guarantee that Social 
     Security benefits will be paid as scheduled in the event that 
     the debt ceiling were reached. The Act requires the Treasury 
     Secretary to give priority to the payment of Social Security 
     benefits but, if the Treasury could no longer borrow any 
     money, there might not be enough cash to pay all Social 
     Security benefits due on a given day. We believe that all 
     obligations of the Federal government should be honored. We 
     do not believe that prioritizing payments by program is a 
     sound way to approach the government's affairs (e.g., giving 
     Social Security payments precedence over tax refunds or other 
     benefits, such as those for veterans). In addition, this Act 
     does not indicate how this complex prioritization process 
     should be implemented, no system currently exists to do so, 
     and any such system would be impractical.
       Clearly, there could be very serious risks to Social 
     Security and other benefits and to the credit worthiness of 
     the United States if this Act were enacted into law. To 
     ensure fiscal discipline, the Administration recommends 
     instead that the pay-go rules and the discretionary spending 
     caps in current law be extended beyond FY 2002. These tools 
     of fiscal discipline--which do not rely on debt limits--have 
     been highly effective since they were adopted in 1990 on a 
     bipartisan basis. I urge the Congress to consider these 
     provisions--rather than new debt ceilings--as the best choice 
     for maintaining our hard-won fiscal discipline.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert E. Rubin.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks concerning 
the Social Security lockbox legislation. Last year, as chairman of the 
Social Security Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I 
introduced legislation which would have reserved 100 percent of the 
anticipated budget surpluses for Social Security.
  When that bill was marked up in committee, it was changed to 90 
percent. Subsequently, that bill was passed by the full House of 
Representatives but it was attacked viciously by the President and our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle because it did not protect 
100 percent of the Social Security surplus.
  The bill we are considering now in the Senate would do exactly what I 
originally set out to do in 1998. It would do exactly what the 
President promised to do in 1998. It locks up the Social Security 
surpluses to protect them and to insure those surpluses are not used 
for other programs, tax cuts, or additional spending. It locks up 100 
percent of the Social Security surpluses--not 62 percent--not 90 
percent--but 100 percent. It requires that those surpluses--and we are 
talking about a lot of money, as much as $1.8 trillion over the next 10 
years--are not recycled out as debt and spent on other Government 
programs as we have done in the past.
  This is a good bill. It is a good concept. It pays down the debt and 
it protects Social Security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill 
and to vote for the motion to invoke cloture.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound concern 
with several provisions in the Abraham ``lock box'' amendment pending 
before us here today. I share many of the objectives the sponsors of 
this amendment portend to support, such as preserving the Social 
Security Trust Fund, promoting fiscal responsibility and paying down 
the debt. However, I fear this amendment could potentially have 
dangerous and disastrous effects on our nation's economy and Social 
Security.
  The Abraham ``lock box'' proposal establishes statutory annual, 
declining limits for debt held by the public over the next ten years, 
based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 
Proponents of the amendment contend that these statutory limits will 
force a greater degree of fiscal responsibility upon the federal 
government. In order to raise the debt limit, a 60-vote point of order 
in the Senate would be required.
  On the surface, this legislation may appear to provide potential 
benefits to the American economy and government spending. However, 
there are several fundamental flaws to this approach, which is why I am 
unable to support the proposal.
  First, the Abraham proposal relies upon CBO budget projections to 
derive the statutory public debt limits. While CBO budget projections 
are an insightful and beneficial tool for policymakers, they are in no 
way an exact measure of future budget levels. As any economist would 
tell you, there are too many uncontrolled factors that can come into 
play. By CBO's own admission, unanticipated developments in the 
economy, demographics, or other factors may alter the nations' budget 
landscape.
  For instance, an assessment of CBO budget projections between fiscal 
years 1988 and 1998 found that projections were off by an average of 13 
percent per year. Looking ahead to 2004, this margin of error would 
mean that CBO's current budget projections could be off by as much as 
$250 billion. Yet, under this proposal, these inaccurate projections 
would become the standard.
  Second, the statutory debt limits proposed by the Abraham amendment 
could make the federal government's responsibility to meet daily 
financial obligations extremely difficult. Treasury Secretary Robert 
Rubin has stated that debt limits may drastically hinder the Treasury's 
ability to cover near-term shortfalls in the government balance sheet. 
The government receives revenues and makes payments on a daily basis. 
Daily, weekly, or monthly swings in cash flows can exceed balances, and 
under the ``lock box'' scenario, debt limits as well. If the government 
has reached the debt limit, it would likely become necessary to 
temporarily suspend unemployment benefits, or other payments, until 
budget cuts or tax increases are implemented to make up the difference.
  Third, arbitrary debt limits could exasperate economic downturns. The 
amendment includes a provision that its supporters claim would lift the 
debt limit during a recession, which is defined as two consecutive 
quarters where real economic growth is less than one percent. However, 
lags in economic reporting mean that data on GDP growth are generally 
not available until several months after an economic downturn has 
actually begun.
  For example, the recession that started in July 1990 was not revealed 
through economic data until April 1991. When the economy slows, 
unemployment compensation and other outlays rise, while tax revenues 
slow or decline. As a result, debt limits could be breached more 
quickly. However, unless Congress musters 60 votes to breach the debt 
limit, cutting government expenditures or raising taxes would be 
required. These delays could push an already weak economy into a 
recession.
  Fourth, effective measures are already in place to ensure fiscal 
restraint. Over the last ten years, pay-as-you go and discretionary 
spending caps have been highly successful in producing fiscal 
discipline without threatening budget cuts or tax increases. These 
enforcement mechanisms, which were enacted as part of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990, have been key elements in maintaining fiscal 
discipline over the past decade. Supplementing these successful laws is 
unnecessary and may create greater volatility in our budget process.

[[Page 7237]]

  Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the ``lock 
box'' proposal does nothing to stimulate meaningful Social Security 
reform, nor does it extend the solvency of the program. In fact, the 
amendment contains a clause that would allow money dedicated to the 
payment of Social Security benefits to be siphoned off for other 
purposes, like the creation of private accounts. It also completely 
ignores the solvency problems facing Medicare.
  Mr. President, although the ``lock box'' amendment is seemingly well 
intended, if enacted, it could dramatically impact the federal 
government's ability to meet its financial obligations and react to 
economic downturns. Furthermore, it could exacerbate times of economic 
hardship and tie the hands of the federal government in meeting its 
financial commitments to the American people. Most importantly, the 
amendment does nothing to secure the solvency of Social Security and 
Medicare. I urge my colleagues to reject this potentially harmful 
amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Lott, 
Domenici, and others in cosponsoring this amendment to S. 577, The 
Budget Reform Act. I was an original cosponsor along with Senator 
Abraham and others of the legislation upon which the Lott-Domenici 
amendment is based.
  This amendment expresses clearly our commitment to protect the Social 
Security Trust Fund for current and future beneficiaries. This 
legislation reiterates the importance of adhering to the provisions of 
the 1990 law that prevented Congress and the President from using 
Social Security surpluses to mask the size of annual budget deficits. 
It also urges the establishment of a budgetary ``lock box'' for Social 
Security funds, with effective enforcement mechanism, to prevent 
Congress and the President from using Social Security receipts to pay 
for other government spending or to offset tax cuts.
  We all have seen the predictions that the Social Security system will 
be bankrupt in 2032, short-changing the millions of Americans who 
included Social Security benefit payments in their retirement planning. 
Simply walling off the Trust Fund from depletion for other purposes 
will not solve this long-term problem. Clearly, we must continue to 
work to find a viable long-term solution to the financial problems of 
the Social Security system that restructures the system in a manner 
which provides working Americans with the opportunity, choices, and 
flexibility necessary to ensure their future retirement needs are fully 
met. At the same time, we must guarantee that everyone who has worked 
and invested in the Social Security system receives the benefits they 
were promised, without placing an unfair burden on today's workers.
  Saving Social Security should not be a partisan issue. For our 
parents today and our grandchildren tomorrow, saving Social Security is 
too important for politics to guide us rather than principle. With 
predictions of sustained budget surpluses for at least the next ten 
years, saving Social Security should be our first priority.
  I endorse the President's proposal to set aside two-thirds of the 
estimated $2.8 trillion non-Social Security surplus to shore up the 
Social Security system. However, I question whether the President is 
truly wedded to saving Social Security. His own budget shows that he 
does not set aside a single extra dollar for Social Security for at 
least ten years. Instead, he spends the surplus on new government 
programs.
  It is also alarming that the President feels that the government 
should become an institutional investor in the stock market, using 
Social Security funds. The government has no business going into 
business. How could the government bring action against a company for 
violating anti-trust laws if it has a large equity investment in that 
same company? And can anyone fathom how the forces of political 
correctness might distort the market? Would the government eventually 
become the majority stockholder in Ben and Jerry's?
  Saving Social Security has one simple objective: to guarantee that 
everyone who has worked and invested in Social Security receives the 
benefits they were promised. We must establish an effective ``lock 
box'' to ensure that 100 percent of Social Security receipts go to the 
Social Security trust fund and stay there earning interest. We must 
stop the federal government from stealing money from the Social 
Security trust fund to pay for its excessive spending habits. Social 
Security is a sacred promise which must not be broken. Fiscally 
responsible members of Congress must stand up and not allow the Federal 
Government to take the hard-earned money of taxpayers and threaten the 
financial security of our nation's retirement system.
  Let me just point out that walling off the Social Security Trust Fund 
and reserving future surpluses to ensure the solvency of our nation's 
retirement system does not mean we can not also have a tax cut. 
Americans need and deserve a tax cut. Federal taxes consume nearly 21 
percent of America's gross domestic product, the highest level since 
World War II. A recent Congressional Research Study found that over the 
next ten years an average American family will pay $5,307 more in taxes 
than the government needs to operate. Congress did not balance the 
budget so Washington spending could grow unnecessarily at the 
taxpayer's expense. Letting the American people keep more of their own 
money to spend on their priorities will continue to fuel the economy 
and help create more small business jobs and other employment 
opportunities.
  We can provide meaningful tax relief to American families and still 
save Social Security. The Federal Government wastes billions of dollars 
every year on pork-barrel spending projects, much of which is earmarked 
by powerful Members of Congress for their home states and districts. 
Just this past year, Congress directed over $9 billion to special-
interest projects. We also continue to allow businesses to use tax 
loopholes and other subsidies that do not make economic sense. 
According to the Progressive Policy Institute, we could easily save 
$200 billion over the next five years by eliminating inequitable 
corporate subsidies, including phasing out operating subsidies for 
Amtrak and eliminating the ethanol tax credit.
  We can and should pay for tax relief for middle-class Americans and 
families with the money we throw away on pork-barrel projects and 
inequitable corporate subsidies, not money raided from Social Security 
surpluses.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the millions of Americans who have paid 
into the Social Security system for decades and those who are working 
and paying into the system today, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and demonstrate their continued commitment to truly saving 
Social Security for future generations.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is an old saying heard quite often 
in the midwest and perhaps other parts of the country as well. The 
saying is ``what you see is what you get.'' The adage is as simple as 
it is straightforward. It's a way of letting another person know there 
will be no surprises--good or bad--associated with the person or object 
in question. Things are pretty much as they appear.
  Unfortunately, the proponents of this legislation, the so-called 
``Social Security Surplus Preservation And Debt Reduction Act,'' do not 
subscribe to this plainspoken logic. In fact, quite the contrary. What 
you see when you examine their language is quite different from what 
you get when you listen to their rhetoric. They argue they are 
preserving Social Security. Their own bill language says otherwise. 
They argue they are reducing the public debt. Again, their bill 
language betrays them. And finally, they argue they have created a 
sound mechanism to lock away Social Security. The Treasury Department 
tells us differently. Mr. President, if votes on this bill are based on 
what people see and not on what they would actually get, I am confident 
this measure will be defeated. I strongly recommend that course of 
action.
  Let me state at this time that I and every member of the Democratic 
caucus totally support the objectives expressed by this bill's authors. 
We must

[[Page 7238]]

ensure that every dollar of Social Security taxes is dedicated solely 
and exclusively to Social Security benefits. I have joined with 
Democrats to fight for this principle earlier this year on the budget 
resolution. Furthermore, Democrats advocate taking an additional step. 
We feel Medicare also faces grave challenges and will need additional 
resources to ensure that radical reform is not necessary. The 
Democratic alternative to the bill before us today locks away every 
dollar of Social Security and helps Medicare. It does so in a secure 
manner that will not threaten the fiscal stability of this country.
  Unless there is a change in the current procedural situation, 
Democrats will be precluded from getting a vote on our proposal at this 
time. If the proponents of this legislation were truly interested in a 
serious, substantive debate on how to protect Social Security and 
Medicare, they would not, as a first step, seek to limit Senators' 
rights to offer amendments. There is only one reason you would stack 
the deck in this manner on such an important bill before the Senate 
could even begin debating the merits of the legislation. That reason is 
partisan politics. The proponents of this bill have decided they would 
rather play politics with this issue than work together to produce good 
policy. Only by voting against cloture will Senators be allowed to work 
their will and offer improvements or substitutes to the Republican 
bill.
  I would like to spend a few moments discussing my concerns about the 
specifics of the Republican bill. To do that, I must take a brief look 
back. Earlier this year, we witnessed an event that many members of 
Congress, indeed many Americans, never thought we would see in our 
lifetimes. After decades of deficits and trillions of debt, the 
Congressional Budget Office issued its fiscal report projecting budget 
surpluses as far as the eye could see. According to CBO, surpluses 
would total $2.6 trillion, including $787 billion in non-Social 
Security surpluses. Over 15 years, these totals would reach $4.6 
trillion and $1.8 trillion, respectively. Democrats proposed on the 
budget resolution last month that we lock away every penny of the $2.8 
trillion Social Security surplus and set aside close to $700 billion of 
the remaining surplus to keep our commitments to Medicare. Republicans 
opposed this approach then, and their actions today indicate they have 
not changed their minds. A $4.6 trillion surplus and the Republicans 
continue to say nothing for Medicare. Not a dollar. Not a dime.
  This attitude might be somewhat easier to explain if the Republican 
bill truly set aside the $2.8 trillion in surplus Social Security taxes 
for Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the title 
of the bill notwithstanding, the Republican proposal fails to preserve 
Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits. What is the basis 
for my assertion? Take a look at page 16 of the Republican bill. This 
page contains language that all Social Security taxes will be set aside 
unless Congress enacts ``Social Security Reform Legislation.'' And what 
is ``Social Security Reform Legislation''? Reading from the Republican 
bill, ``[it] means a bill or joint resolution that is enacted into law 
and includes a provision stating the following: Social Security Reform 
Legislation. For the purposes of the Social Security Surplus 
Preservation and Debt Reduction Act, this act constitutes Social 
Security reform legislation.''
  In other words, Social Security Reform is anything a majority of 
Congress says it is. And, once declared, this same majority can spend 
Social Security taxes on anything they choose. Far from setting aside 
Social Security taxes for Social Security and paying off the national 
debt, this language allows its supporters to use these proceeds to 
bankroll tax cuts or other spending programs--hardly a sound means for 
preserving Social Security or reducing the federal debt. If you are 
serious about protecting Social Security taxes for Social Security 
benefits, this is not the bill for you. If you think we should lock in 
debt reduction, this bill falls short. In light of this huge loophole, 
it is Orwellian for Republicans to entitle their bill the Social 
Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act.
  My third criticism of this bill centers on the impact its enactment 
would have on the full faith and credit of the United States government 
and our economy. This bill creates new statutory limits on debt held by 
the public. By linking enforcement of its provisions to the publicly 
held debt ceiling, the Secretary of the Treasury has concluded, ``this 
provision could preclude the United States from meeting its financial 
obligations to repay maturing debt and to make benefit payments--
including Social Security checks--and could also worsen a future 
economic downturn.'' In spite of the alterations made to the original 
version of this bill, the Treasury Secretary has wisely concluded the 
bill still puts at risk the creditworthiness of the federal government, 
the U.S. economy, and indeed, Social Security itself. Not surprisingly, 
Secretary Rubin recommends that the President veto this bill.
  Now the proponents of this bill have challenged the statement that 
enactment of their bill could threaten Social Security payments. They 
point to section 203 of their bill. This section purports to protect 
Social Security benefits by asking the Secretary of the Treasury to 
give priority to the payment of Social Security benefits if Treasury 
funds are running low. Secretary Rubin has looked at this provision 
very carefully. His conclusion? ``The act does not guarantee that 
Social Security benefits will be paid as scheduled in the event that 
the debt ceiling were reached. . ..We do not believe that prioritizing 
payments by program is a sound way to approach the government's 
affairs. In addition, this act does not indicate how this complex 
prioritization process should be implemented, no system currently 
exists to do so, and any such system would be impractical.''
  Mr. President, clearly the bill before us is fatally flawed. In spite 
of the desires and remarks of its supporters, the Social Surplus 
Preservation And Debt Reduction Act actually accomplishes neither. 
Social Security is not truly preserved, and debt reduction is by no 
means guaranteed. Ideally, Senators would be able to offer amendments 
to improve this bill and accomplish the stated objectives of its 
supporters. Unfortunately, that choice is not currently before the 
Senate. Instead, we are being asked to cut off debate before it has 
even begun. This is an option we can afford to pass up. I ask that my 
colleagues oppose cloture.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side of 
the aisle be allotted 1 hour each for debate on the pending amendment, 
and that all time consumed to this point count against the time 
limitation, and the scheduled vote occur at the expiration of that 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how much 
time is that?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me explain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes to a side, in answer to the 
question.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. In effect, we started late, and the original plan was to 
have a 2-hour discussion, equally divided, from 9:30 until 11:30. We 
started 10 minutes late. So the purpose of this unanimous consent 
agreement would be to add in the additional 5 minutes to each side 
because of our late initiation. That isn't how much time is left. That 
is how much time will be added to each side because of the loss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for 
5 minutes to speak to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

[[Page 7239]]

  Mr. President, I wanted to be here this morning to strongly support 
safe deposit box legislation that would lock in any future Social 
Security surpluses, again only to be used for Social Security.
  That doesn't sound like rhetoric to me, although that is what others 
are charging. But this is an effort to make sure the surpluses for 
Social Security go forward to making sure that Social Security is going 
to be solvent in the future.
  I commend the Senate majority leader and Senator Domenici for making 
this legislation a top priority. I am pleased to join Senators Abraham, 
Ashcroft, and Domenici to offer this important substitute amendment.
  The recently released 1999 Social Security Trustee's Report shows the 
financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds has slightly 
improved due to our strong economy.
  The Trustee's report that Social Security will begin operating in the 
red in 2014, a year longer than last year's report, and it will go 
broke in 2034, two years later than projected last year.
  This does not mean we don't need to worry about Social Security any 
more, and that future economic growth will wipe out all of our problems 
with Social Security as some suggest.
  On the contrary, it reveals that Social Security unfunded liability 
has increased by $752 billion, which means Social Security is falling 
deeper into debt. It makes reform of Social Security more urgent than 
ever.
  Although the increased surplus has slightly pushed back the date of 
insolvency, the significant increase of unfunded liability makes it 
harder to fix Social Security. Clearly, nearly $20 trillion in unfunded 
liability makes Social Security reform more imperative, not less--$20 
trillion in unfunded liability. That means $20 trillion worth of 
benefits that the Government has promised that is not available in the 
Social Security Trust Funds.
  That's why we are introducing this legislation today as an essential 
first step to save and strengthen Social Security.
  Mr. President, this legislation is an enforceable mechanism to 
preserve the surplus generated by Social Security. It is designed to 
lock in every penny of the $1.8 trillion Social Security surplus in the 
next 10 years to be exclusively used for Social Security.
  Pending reforms, these surpluses would retire debt held by the public 
to increase cash reserves in the Social Security trust funds. This 
mechanism ensures the surplus will be used in the future to pay for 
promised Social Security benefits once retired baby boomers threaten 
the solvency of the trust funds.
  Although I prefer an immediate reform to move Social Security to a 
fully-funded retirement system, I believe this is the only way to 
actually save Social Security at this time, and to provide the dollars 
needed of any reform package in the offing.
  President Clinton unveiled his Social Security proposal under his FY 
2000 budget. The bottom line of his plan is that it allows the 
Government to control the retirement dollars of the American people by 
investing for them. It does nothing, however, to save Social Security 
from bankruptcy.
  Worse still, despite his rhetoric about saving every penny for Social 
Security, President Clinton has proposed to take $158 billion in Social 
Security dollars to finance Government programs unrelated to Social 
Security.
  The only positive aspect of his proposal is that the President has 
admitted the insolvency of Social Security and has recognized the power 
of the markets to generate a better rate of return, and therefore 
improved benefits.
  The fundamental problem with our Social Security system is that it's 
basically a Ponzi scheme--a pay-as-you-go pyramid that takes the 
retirement dollars of today's workers to pay benefits for today's 
retirees.
  It has no real assets and makes no real investment. With changing 
demographics that translate into fewer and fewer workers supporting 
each retiree, the system has begun to collapse.
  There is a lot of double-counting and double talk in President 
Clinton's Social Security framework. The truth of the matter is the 
President spends the same money twice and claims that he has saved 
Social Security.
  All the President has done is create a second set of the IOUs in the 
trust fund. It is like taking the money he owes Paul out of one pocket 
and applying it to the money he owes Peter in the other pocket, and 
then pretending that he has doubled his money and is now able to pay 
them both.
  In addition, the President has proposed to spend $58 billion of 
Social Security money in FY 2000 for new Government spending. Over the 
next five years, he will spend $158 billion of our Social Security 
money.
  President Clinton's plan does not live up to his claim of saving 
Social Security. He has not pushed back the date when the Social 
Security Trust Fund will begin real deficit spending. That date is 
still the same--2014. Social Security will have a shortfall that year 
and the shortfall will continue to grow larger year after year.
  There are no longer surpluses building up in the Social Security 
account. There will actually be a deficit, and the shortfall will be 
$200 billion a year by the year 2021. By the year 2048, that deficit 
would run $1.5 trillion a year.
  Since the government has spent the surplus and has not set aside 
money to make up for this shortfall, it will have to raise taxes to 
cover the gap--something that economists estimate will require a 
doubling of the payroll tax.
  The proposal by the President to have the government invest a portion 
of the Social Security Trust Funds is no solution. It would give the 
government unwarranted new powers over our economy, and it will not 
provide retirees the rate of return they deserve.
  Mr. President, it's going to take real reform, not Washington 
schemes, to help provide security in retirement for all Americans. The 
first essential step is to stop raiding from the Social Security Trust 
Funds, and truly preserve and protect the Social Security surplus to be 
used exclusively for Social Security.
  This is exactly what this safe-deposit box legislation will achieve.
  Mr. President, the best part of this legislation is that it will 
prevent Congress and the Administration from spending the Social 
Security surplus.
  As I mentioned earlier, Social Security operates on a cash-in and 
cash-out basis. In 1998, American workers paid $489 billion into the 
system, but most of the money, $382 billion, was immediately paid out 
to 44 million beneficiaries the same year.
  That left a $106 billion surplus. The total accumulated surplus in 
the trust fund is $763 billion.
  Unfortunately, this surplus exists only on paper. The government has 
consumed all the $763 billion for non-Social Security related programs. 
All it has are the Treasury IOUs that ``fit in four ordinary brown 
accordian-style folders that one can easily hold in both hands.''
  Despite the President's rhetoric of using every penny of Social 
Security surplus to save Social Security, last year's Omnibus 
Appropriations bill alone spent over $21 billion of the Social Security 
surplus.
  Without the enforceable lockbox created by this legislation, future 
surpluses are likely to be spent to fund other government programs, 
leaving nothing for baby boomers and future generations.
  Another important component is that this legislation would use the 
Social Security surplus to reduce the amount of federal debt held by 
the public.
  Clearly, there is a valid economic reason to pay down the federal 
debt. Although I join most economists who agree that paying off the 
federal debt with a budget surplus would not stimulate growth in the 
same way that a tax cut would, it is still far preferable to having the 
government spend all the surplus.
  Mr. President, many of us in Congress agree with the President that 
we should, and indeed must, devote the entire Social Security surplus 
to saving Social Security. However, his plan does not do what he says 
while our legislation does.
  Mr. President, this legislation will be an essential first step to 
save and

[[Page 7240]]

strengthen Social Security. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this Republican 
lockbox for two very basic reasons: No. 1, it does nothing to extend 
the solvency of Social Security which we all, as Americans, ought to be 
concerned about; No. 2, the so-called lockbox is really no lockbox at 
all; it does not provide the protection we need.
  First, let me speak to this issue of the extension of the financial 
viability of Social Security. We know from projections that Social 
Security's financial viability is expected to last through the year 
2034. This proposal does nothing to extend that time. It adds no funds 
to the Social Security fund at all. We have a very fundamental problem. 
This is not pocket money we are talking about; this is money that 
elderly Americans all over this country and in North Carolina depend on 
for their livelihood.
  For example, over 90 percent of Americans over the age of 65 depend 
on Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. Nine out of 
ten elderly Americans who have escaped poverty as a result of 
Government or Federal help have done so as a result of Social Security. 
In my home State of North Carolina, over half of the elderly would be 
in poverty--54 percent--in the absence of Social Security.
  I have a simple question and I think it is a question the American 
people ask: What will happen when the year 2034 arrives and these folks 
can no longer receive their Social Security payments? We made a promise 
to these people. They spent their lives working, doing exactly what 
they were obligated to do, paying their payroll taxes. Now the question 
is whether we, as a government, are going to meet our promise and our 
responsibilities to them.
  There is a second fundamental problem with this proposal. The lockbox 
is really no lockbox at all. It is a lockbox with lots of keys. The 
problem is, those keys are in the hands of folks who in the past have 
shown a willingness to let Social Security go to the side and instead 
use the money for tax cuts and other such things. What we need is a 
real lockbox, a lockbox that cannot be opened, a lockbox that does not 
have a provision, as this bill does, that provides for Social Security 
reform. This lockbox can be opened.
  The elderly Americans need to know this Social Security money is, in 
fact, locked. We need to do what is necessary to accomplish that. We 
have an obligation to our elderly Americans. We made them a promise. 
They fulfilled their part of that obligation.
  There is a fundamental question. If we are going to lock up this 
Social Security money, we need to lock it up in the correct way, in a 
way that it can't be reached. We need to do what is necessary to extend 
the life of Social Security. We have an obligation to do that. We have 
an obligation not to undermine the integrity of the Social Security 
system. We need to meet our promise and our obligation to elderly 
Americans who spent their whole lives working, expecting they would 
receive these benefits when they retired.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment before the Senate, which I 
do not favor, saddens me. It is not being straight with the American 
people. It is packaged in a way to look as if it is protecting Social 
Security. It is like a lot of products: They are packaged, with a 
promise on the label which may or may not describe what is inside the 
package.
  The package here is called a lockbox to save Social Security. That is 
the package. That is the wrapping around the product. It is not 
indicative of the product inside. What is the product inside? Inside 
the package, the so-called lockbox package, not one penny is added to 
Social Security. The Social Security trust fund is due to expire in 
roughly the year 2034. The passage of this amendment does not extend 
that by one day. There is no difference, no change.
  What is the product inside this so-called package? What is inside is 
essentially a provision which will be in the law which says public debt 
has to decline by the amount that the Congressional Budget Office 
projects. If at any date it does not, then the debt ceiling is in 
effect. That means that Government cannot make its payments and meet 
its obligations as we bump up against the debt ceiling.
  The amendment before the Senate, the public debt ceiling limit, 
declines right along with reductions in public debt as projected by the 
CBO. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because the debt limit is 
not the way we force fiscal discipline. It is a charade. I have been in 
the Senate for almost 20 years. I have been part of many debt limit 
extension debates. They are very embarrassing, very embarrassing. The 
Government has, through the Congress, through authorization programs, 
obligations. Of course we have to increase the debt limit or we don't 
meet our obligations and the creditworthiness is in jeopardy, as in 
1975 when Moody put us on a list for possible downgrade. At that point, 
we were flirting with whether or not to raise the debt limit.
  Some Senators wanted to add different provisions. It was a political 
nonargument because we all knew we had to pass the debt. It is a game 
that is being played here. That is why I stood at the outset to say I 
am saddened by this amendment. It is not being straight with the 
American people.
  Enforce fiscal discipline by spending less, pay-go, or through 
spending caps we enact and adhere to. That is the main reason the 
budget deficit declined and now we are reaching surpluses. It is not 
because of any debt limits. We already have a total debt limit in 
existence--the public debt plus the debt the Government owes to itself. 
We have that. This is inside the package, a new debt limit, which is 
meaningless, totally meaningless, because, obviously, if we meet the 
debt limit, we have to either raise the debt limit or we do not meet 
our obligations, which means we cannot spend money we are obligated to 
spend.
  Social Security is supposed to be protected, but it is only a 
priority. If the debt limit is exceeded by such a great amount, it is 
possible that Social Security beneficiaries will not be receiving their 
payments. It is a priority above veterans. Veteran benefits could be 
cut if we pass the debt limit.
  In addition, the usual debates in the past of whether to extend or 
raise debt limit ceilings are only majority votes. They are very, very 
difficult to get even though we all know it has to happen. The 
amendment before the Senate says it has to be a supermajority, 60 
votes. We all know that is practically impossible.
  The honest approach to saving Social Security and the honest approach 
to fiscal discipline is to continue the pay-go provisions, extend the 
caps on discretionary spending. We do our job here because this so-
called lockbox, public debt limit provision, is not what it is cracked 
up to be. The other side is trying to make it look like they are 
protecting Social Security when, in fact, that is not what they are 
doing.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we don't have a lockbox for Social 
Security before the Senate. We should be clear; this lockbox as it 
pertains to Social Security has no lock; it has no box. The fact is, 
there is a huge, giant crack in the box that says, ``Exception: Social 
Security reform.''
  We have heard it before from the other side of the aisle: 
Privatization of Social Security. That is another way to say end Social 
Security as we know it.
  My mother used to say, just because someone says he is your friend 
does not

[[Page 7241]]

mean he is your friend. Listen to who is speaking. Know who the true 
friends of Social Security are.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Like all the Democrats, I strongly support the 
purported goal of this amendment to secure the future funding of Social 
Security. I, like some of the other speakers on our side, believe this 
legislation is seriously flawed. We cannot rely on this plan to protect 
Social Security.
  This lockbox, by any other name, could be called a leaky sieve. 
First, the amendment poses a direct threat to Social Security 
beneficiaries. Treasury Secretary Rubin has explained that under the 
proposal, an unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of 
Social Security checks, as well as Medicare, veterans, and other 
benefits.
  Additionally, the amendment changes a huge loophole, a minefield that 
would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes 
other than Social Security benefits. It is described as Social Security 
``reform'' that would be exempt from the lockbox. That tells us beware, 
be on your guard, because it says something along the way might permit 
us, in the interest of reform, to divert funds that should be directed 
exclusively to Social Security. Things suggested could be risky 
privatization plans, tax cuts--who knows what?
  The second problem with the amendment is that it does absolutely 
nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows Congress to use what 
might be necessary funds for Medicare on tax breaks for wealthy 
individuals. I had hoped to be able to offer an amendment to establish 
a lockbox, one that is truly locked, one that is truly secure, to 
protect both Social Security and Medicare. That lockbox proposal would 
reserve all of Social Security surpluses exclusively for Social 
Security, and 40 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses for 
Medicare. Unfortunately, the majority is unwilling to even give us an 
opportunity to offer an amendment. They are not willing to subject it 
to the wishes of the Senate. Why? Is there something they are afraid 
of?
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this amendment could present 
us with a Government default in the long term. In the short term, it 
could undermine our Nation's credit standing and increase interest 
costs. Ultimately, blocked benefit payments could lead to a world 
economic crisis. Our Nation has never defaulted on an obligation that 
is backed by the full faith and credit of our country. Yet, according 
to the Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, who is very respected, the 
creditworthiness of the United States could be subject to very serious 
risks if this legislation were enacted, and that is why he would 
recommend the President veto the bill if it ever reached his desk.
  We Democrats have a proposal, a lockbox that protects both Social 
Security and Medicare, and our lockbox would not require a new debt 
limit, and it would not risk a default. It would use supermajority 
points of order and across-the-board cuts to guarantee enforcement. 
That is a better, more responsible approach. Unfortunately, the 
majority is not going to give us an opportunity to present our plan to 
the Senate. I do not think it is right. I wish we could have a reversal 
of the majority opinion or the majority view on that.
  Social Security lockbox legislation is a new proposal. It has not 
gone through a committee. It has not been subjected to hearings. In 
fact, it was not even introduced until a couple of days ago, and it 
resulted from a conference in the privacy of a single room. Yet the 
majority is using parliamentary tricks to prevent us from offering any 
amendments to improve the bill. It is not the right way to do business, 
especially given the high stakes involved both for Social Security and 
for our entire country. So I am going to ask my colleagues to oppose 
cloture on this legislation. Let us continue this debate. Let us find 
out what really is in this proposal. Let us make it a real lockbox, not 
one that could be threatening Social Security benefits and does not do 
anything for Medicare and risks our national credit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself an initial 5 minutes, and 
if the Chair will let me know when that time is reached, we will see 
how much time is remaining to speak.
  I have had the pleasure of listening now for about 3 days to a 
variety of criticisms raised by the other side of the aisle on this 
amendment, almost all of which are baseless in every conceivable way. 
Some of them, I think, are caused by failure to read it, some because 
of a reliance on letters received from the Department of Treasury 
before it had even been drafted, and some for reasons that are frankly, 
to me, still confusing--the most recent being the comments of the 
distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee that they have had 
no opportunity to address the issue. What we have before us is cloture 
on this amendment, not cloture on this bill. If cloture is invoked, 
then we will go ultimately to a vote on this amendment, and once it is 
dispensed with, up or down, the bill will still be available for 
amendment. If there are better lockbox proposals or alternative 
proposals, there will be an opportunity for that.
  Let me also say, this Senator certainly is receptive to, and anxious 
to hear from, the Secretary of the Treasury or anybody else with 
respect to ways to perfect the approach we have taken. But what we have 
tried to do is simply put into a legislative form that which we passed 
as part of our budget resolution on a 99-0 vote. What that said, very 
simply, was we were going to reduce the Federal debt held by the public 
because it is a national priority; that Social Security surpluses 
should be used for Social Security reform, or to reduce the debt held 
by the public and should not be used for any other purpose.
  Mr. President, 99 people voted for this. Now, all of a sudden, we 
hear that having the words ``Social Security reform'' in this amendment 
is some kind of diabolical plot; or using the Social Security surplus 
to pay down the national debt is somehow a threat to the economy. If 
people believe that, I cannot imagine why they voted in the first place 
99-0 for this amendment when it was offered by myself and others during 
the budget resolution debate. The only thing that has happened since 
then is that we have tried to put into legislative context that which 
everybody said they were for. If there are criticisms of this, I think 
they would have to be technical ones because the basic principles that 
were voted on 99-0 are exactly what are embodied in this amendment 
before us today.
  We recently heard the statement: Who are the real friends of Social 
Security? We will find that out here in a few minutes. The question 
will be this, and this will be a question for seniors and those who 
will soon be recipients of Social Security benefits to answer for 
themselves: Are your friends the people who want to make sure the 
Social Security surpluses are protected from being spent or used for 
other Government programs or tax cuts or anything other than to reduce 
the national debt? Or are your friends the people who want to spend the 
Social Security surplus, such as the President proposed in his budget, 
or those who will vote against a provision, this amendment, that would 
protect the surpluses from being spent?
  Every time I talk to seniors in my State, I hear complaints that we 
have plundered the Social Security trust fund and spent those dollars 
on other things. This amendment is designed to put an end to that, to 
require 60 Senators to stand on this floor and to vote to spend Social 
Security money on something other than Social Security. Yet all of a 
sudden we find all kinds of excuses to oppose that.
  We will let the seniors decide who their friends really are. I think 
for too long we have seen these surplus dollars spent on other 
Government programs. It is time for that to stop. It is time for those 
dollars to be protected, to be used to pay down the public debt, or 
used as part of a Social Security modernization program. And that is 
not going to happen until we have bipartisan consensus on such a 
program.

[[Page 7242]]

  In the meantime, do we send those dollars off to other priorities in 
the budget, or do we put them into the reduction of the publicly held 
debt so that we, in fact, strengthen the economy, reduce our interest 
payments, and make more funds available in the future for Social 
Security when it will need it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire 
text of Senate Amendment No. 143, as well as the results of the Senate 
vote on that amendment be entered in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

                           Amendment No. 143

     SEC. XX. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a) The Congress finds that--
       (1) Congress and the President should balance the budget 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security 
     trust funds;
       (2) reducing the federal debt held by the public is a top 
     national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, 
     as evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's 
     comments that debt reduction ``is a very important element in 
     sustaining economic growth,'' as well as President Clinton's 
     comments that it ``is very, very important that we get the 
     government debt down'' when referencing his own plans to use 
     the budget surplus to reduce federal debt held by the public;
       (3) according to the Congressional Budget Office, balancing 
     the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social 
     Security trust funds will reduce debt held by the public by a 
     total of $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009, 
     $417,000,000,000, or 32 percent, more than it would be 
     reduced under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget 
     submission;
       (4) further according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     that the President's budget would actually spend 
     $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses in fiscal 
     year 2000 on new spending programs, and spend 
     $158,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses on new 
     spending programs from fiscal year 2000 through 2004; and
       (5) Social Security surpluses should be used for Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the debt held by the public and 
     should not be used for other purposes.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals 
     in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that 
     Congress shall pass legislation which--
       (1) Reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust 
     funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget 
     submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     and provides for a Point of Order within the Senate against 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment 
     thereto, or a conference report thereon that violates that 
     section.
       (2) Mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used 
     only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the federal debt held by the 
     public, and not spent on non-Social Security programs or used 
     to offset tax cuts.
       (3) Provides for a Senate super-majority Point of Order 
     against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
     other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or the reduction of the federal debt held by 
     the public.
       (4) Ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
     time.
       (5) Accommodates Social Security reform legislation.
                                  ____


                    Rollcall No. 58, March 24, 1999

                                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
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lugar
       

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes and about 5 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And then we vote, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, me thinks they doth protest too much. 
That is my paraphrasing of what some great writer said applying it in 
the singular. I am applying it in the plural.
  First of all, I recall vividly my very good friend and one-time 
chairman of the Budget Committee coming to the floor of the Senate with 
a big sign that said: ``Quit embezzling Social Security money.'' In 
fact, he said embezzlement is what is happening when we use their trust 
fund money for Government. Isn't it interesting that there are many 
Senators who at least feel that way enough to talk about it as 
embezzlement or stealing money from the senior citizens?
  Today, the seniors ought to ask: If it is embezzlement, what are you 
all going to do to prevent the embezzlement from continuing? The answer 
is going to be: Little or nothing, because whatever you try to do that 
is really serious and makes it hard to embezzle, they have some reason 
on that side of the aisle for not doing it.
  If you think this Senator, who has listened attentively and asked his 
staff to summarize the arguments on that side, is not frustrated when 
he hears, first, that a financial crisis will occur--let me tell you, 
the seniors think a financial crisis has already occurred because we 
are taking their money and spending it for Government.
  Secretary Rubin, for whom I have the highest respect, who does not 
want to tie the future debt limit of the United States to whether or 
not you use this Social Security trust fund, has written a letter and, 
essentially, the letter says he needs more flexibility because the 
money does not come in every month at the same level. We gave him the 
flexibility. Read the statute before you. If Secretary Rubin is worried 
about that, we gave him the flexibility.
  Now he raises a new argument: We may not be able to pay Social 
Security beneficiaries--an absurd argument. But we gave him the 
authority in this statute. We said if that the Secretary should give 
payments of Social Security checks priority.
  We thought we clearly took care of the most significant problem and 
concern of the Secretary of the Treasury.
  Then we hear: You have done nothing to extend the solvency of Social 
Security. Of course, we haven't. We said don't touch their fund until 
you have a reform package that helps with the solvency of Social 
Security, and if you have that, you can use it for that.
  Why wouldn't the senior citizens like that? Do they want us to just 
leave it there or they want us to use it in case we need it for Social 
Security reform or transition? Of course, that is an argument in favor 
of this statute, not against it.
  Then we were accused of perhaps putting Medicare in this Social 
Security trust fund. That was last week. It should just be for Social 
Security. Right? That was the big argument. We made it just for Social 
Security.
  Now what is the argument? You did not take care of Medicare. This 
money does not belong to Medicare. This money belongs to Social 
Security. If you want to take care of Medicare, take care of it another 
way. Do not use the Social Security money for Medicare.
  Last week, the Democrats were saying that lockbox is not going to be 
good because you might be able to use

[[Page 7243]]

the money for Medicare. We agreed with them. We did not put it in this 
statute. Now we are not doing enough for Medicare.
  Then we are accused of making this Government live on too rigid a 
budget for the appetite for spending or tax cuts. We are being accused 
of tying the hands too tightly.
  What do we do? We say, OK, we want to be reasonable about this. If we 
have a recession for two quarters, then this does not apply. Who would 
want this to apply in the middle of a recession if you needed money for 
unemployment compensation? Of course, you would not want it to. If you 
needed to do something to help the economy come up so the Social 
Security program would be helped by recovery and prosperity, who would 
object to that?
  Put that alongside of having no lockbox so you could use it for 
anything, like the President wanted to in his budget. It is amazing. 
The President wants to spend $158 billion of this trust fund for just 
programs, not emergencies, not a war, just for programs to expand on 
the Government. You can count on it, seniors. You cannot do that if 
this lockbox is put in effect. You will have to find the money in other 
program cuts or do something else, but you could not use it.
  We also said, if there is a war, if there is an emergency with 
reference to the defense of our country, you could use it, but not for 
ordinary expenditures of Government.
  I remind everyone, this is a lot of money, $1.8 trillion going in 
this trust fund over a decade which belongs to the seniors and takes 
down our national debt while it sits there waiting for us to use it for 
Social Security purposes only. Now we have somebody arguing it may be 
some new Social Security program that just Republicans want that you 
would use it for. That is kind of preposterous.
  When you have a reform Social Security program, it is going to have 
to clear both Houses of Congress and be signed by a President. It is 
obviously going to be a good program. Seniors are going to be watching 
it. But that is what we think this money ought too be used for.
  As I view it, everybody on both sides of the aisle and the White 
House talk about not using this trust fund for anything but Social 
Security. I worked very hard to find a way that will clearly say: You 
can't do it; you can't spend it; you need 60 votes, and you are going 
to have to increase the debt limit in order to spend this money.
  I thought that was something everybody would like. Frankly, I thought 
those running across America saying, ``We want to take care of Social 
Security,'' would not be for this.
  Do you know what I think? I think it is just too tight a lockbox. It 
is not a loose lockbox like they are talking about. It is too tight. 
You are not going to be able to embezzle from it anymore. You are not 
going to be able to rob from it anymore. You are not going to be able--
if you do not think it was embezzlement or robbery; if you just think 
we were spending the money--you are not going to be able to spend the 
money anymore.
  What is wrong with that? I believe that is exactly what we ought to 
do. Frankly, I anxiously await the vote. I do not believe we will get 
cloture, but everybody knows by not giving us cloture, the Democratic 
side of this Senate is clearly saying: We want to make sure you cannot 
spend the money, but don't make too sure that we can't spend the money; 
don't make it too certain that we can't spend the money; just leave a 
little bit open there so in case we need it, we can spend it, because 
we would like some new programs or we would like to cut taxes.
  Actually, this applies to tax cuts, too. You cannot use it for tax 
cuts because it says in there what it can be used for and nothing else.
  I thank everyone for the debate. It has probably been a healthy one. 
In particular, I thank Senator Abraham, a valid member and respected 
member of our Budget Committee. He is the principal sponsor of this 
proposal. I think he has carried the load admirably on the floor, and I 
thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would Senator Lautenberg like 1 minute of my time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be very generous.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I give the Senator 1 minute of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee knows his products very well. 
But I am forced to ask this question, and that is whether or not, under 
any stretch of view, Social Security reform could include a tax cut 
measure, perhaps in the interest of raising some retirement benefit 
that someone might have?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, unequivocally no.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. So it could only be used for Social Security reform, 
which would mean what?
  Mr. DOMENICI. It means any programmatic reform that the Congress of 
the United States passed and a President signed that increases the 
longevity of the trust fund and makes the Social Security program 
available for longer periods of time, increasing the solvency of the 
fund and guaranteeing the payments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me close this. If nobody objects, we can vote 30 
seconds early.
  I thank everybody for their participation. From my standpoint, I wish 
we had a reform-Social-Security package before us. That is my wish. But 
since we do not, we ought to leave the money there until we do. I hope 
everybody understands it is easy to make excuses; it is hard to come up 
with things that will really lock this money up. We have one before us 
today.
  I yield back my time. And obviously, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered; have they not?


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     amendment No. 254 to Calendar No. 89, S. 557, a bill to 
     provide guidance for the designation of emergencies as part 
     of the budget process:
         Trent Lott, Pete V. Domenici, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 
           Jeff Sessions, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Craig Thomas, 
           Slade Gorton, Chuck Hagel, Spencer Abraham, Thad 
           Cochran, Pat Roberts, Conrad Burns, Christopher S. 
           Bond, John Ashcroft, Jon Kyl, and Mike DeWine.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 254 to Senate bill 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 call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page 7244]]



                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
45. 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 majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________