[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8007-8012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The clerk will report S. 557.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Lott (for Abraham) Amendment No. 254, to preserve and 
     protect the surpluses of the social security trust funds by 
     reaffirming the exclusion of receipts and disbursement from 
     the budget, by setting a limit on the debt held by the 
     public, and by amending the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     to provide a process to reduce the limit on the debt held by 
     the public.
       Abraham Amendment No. 255 (to Amendment No. 254), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Lott motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs, with instructions and report back 
     forthwith.
       Lott Amendment No. 296 (to the instructions of the Lott 
     motion to recommit), to provide for Social Security surplus 
     preservation and debt reduction.
       Lott Amendment No. 297 (to Amendment No. 296), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes for debate on the cloture motion on amendment No. 255.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, might I just ask, is the 30 minutes of 
debate to be equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. In that case, Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 
minutes at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just to remind our colleagues, as well as 
those who watch our deliberations, what we are trying to do with this 
amendment is to amend the budget process in such a fashion that we 
protect the surpluses that will be built up over the next 10 years in 
the Social Security trust fund. We have now entered an era in which we 
project very substantial surpluses coming into the Federal Government, 
not just as a result of Social Security trust fund payments but also in 
the rest of the budget as well. We do not need to use Social Security 
trust funds to balance the budget. We are at the point now where we can 
accomplish that without any Social Security money being used.
  That, combined with the fact we are facing a huge long-term unfunded 
obligation problem in the Social Security trust fund, in my judgment, 
absolutely requires us at this time to protect those Social Security 
trust fund dollars so they can be used to modernize Social Security. 
The purpose of this amendment is to try to accomplish that.
  In short, this amendment says that until we come up with a plan to 
modernize Social Security, the Social Security trust fund surpluses 
should be used to pay down the publicly held debt.
  I do not think this is a very complicated proposal. I think it is one 
that people on both sides of the aisle were applauding just a few 
months ago when it was talked about by the President in the State of 
the Union Address, and yet now we hear one after another argument as to 
why we should not do this. The arguments range from those of some 
colleagues who say, well, let's just take all the Social Security trust 
fund surplus and, instead of paying down the national debt, put it in 
Fort Knox or some other place where it is secure--I can't quite even 
figure out how that one would work--to others who say this is not the 
right kind of lockbox; instead of just protecting the Social Security 
trust fund surplus, we should also save money for fixing Medicare.
  Well, their argument seems to be that if we don't somehow address 
Medicare simultaneously, we should spend the Social Security trust fund 
surplus. That one I can't figure out, either. Then we have heard, from 
the Secretary of Treasury, various concerns raised about the process by 
which this amendment would work. We have offered to try to address 
those concerns. We attempt to do that. We address that in this 
amendment, responding to his initial letter. Then we heard additional 
concerns in a second letter. Yet, we have heard no proposal from either 
the White House or the Treasury as to how to put together a lockbox 
that would satisfy them.
  Based on the vote last week, and what I expect to be the vote today, 
I think we are hearing an awful lot of protests, but I am increasingly 
questioning whether or not people are really sincere about truly trying 
to save this trust fund surplus.
  So for those reasons we are going to keep pushing this issue. We are 
going to keep bringing this back to the floor. We believe the money 
people send in for Social Security which creates a surplus ought to be 
saved to either modernize Social Security or used to pay down the debt 
and not spent on more programs here in Washington. The people pay in 
the money. They deserve to have it for their own retirement. We

[[Page 8008]]

are going to keep working very hard to make sure they do.
  At this point, Mr. President, I will yield back any remaining time I 
had in this first 5 minutes, and now for 5 minutes I yield to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the provision to protect 
Social Security, to, in effect, put it in a lockbox to make sure it is 
not dissipated or misallocated or used to cover deficits in other parts 
of Government.
  The votes we are about to cast are important votes. They relate to 
the future of Social Security, the integrity of Social Security, the 
strength of America and its ability to meet its obligations when 
individuals call upon Social Security to do what Congress has said 
Social Security would be able to do.
  This vote is about making sure the Social Security surpluses are not 
used to pay for new budget deficit spending in other parts of 
Government.
  Congress is committed to stopping the raid on Social Security. This 
Congress has passed a budget without using Social Security trust funds. 
This is historic and it is novel. We have not been passing budgets like 
this. We have not done it before.
  It is important; we have passed a budget that says we are not going 
to raid the Social Security trust fund. In contrast, over the next 5 
years, President Clinton's budget would have taken $158 billion from 
the Social Security trust fund to pay for non-Social Security programs.
  I think Congress is on the right track. Should we have a $158 billion 
raid or no raid at all? I think Congress has it right: Don't have any 
raid at all on Social Security.
  Frankly, this vote should be bipartisan and unanimous. Last month, 
the Senate voted 99 to nothing in support of legislation to protect 
Social Security. We are calling on every Senator to vote with us to 
pass the legislation that implements the unanimous resolution passed by 
the Senate 99 to nothing earlier this month.
  The Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft lockbox will make sure that Social 
Security funds do not go for anything other than Social Security.
  The bill will achieve these three important results:
  No. 1, the President will no longer be able to propose budgets that 
use Social Security funds to balance the budget. Write into the law the 
President is not to send us proposals for spending which include a 
backdoor raid on Social Security. It really establishes a priority. It 
says Social Security is more important than these other new programs or 
ideas for spending.
  No. 2, Congress will no longer routinely pass budgets that use Social 
Security trust funds to balance the budget. A congressional budget that 
uses Social Security funds to balance the budget will be subject to 
what is called a point of order.
  All of us have been involved at one point or another in meetings 
where someone tries to bring something up and the chairman simply says 
with a thump of the gavel, ``That's out of order; we are not going to 
discuss it.'' That is how it should be when people propose, for 
example, raiding the Social Security trust fund for other Government 
programs.
  Mr. President, you, as the occupant of the Chair, should say, with a 
thump, ``That is out of order, that is off the table, we do not discuss 
those things, that is not part of what we do.'' A point of order then 
simply allows, provides for the Chair to say, ``That's out of order, 
that's not something we do, and if you want to do that, you have to 
change the way we do business around here, you have to change the rules 
or suspend them.'' I think that is a major step forward.
  As a final tool to make sure Social Security trust funds are not used 
to finance new deficits, this provision will reduce the amount of debt 
held by the public by the amount of the Social Security surplus, so 
that when the Social Security surplus is not spent on programs but is 
invested to pay down the national debt so that we are stronger when we 
need to pay for Social Security, this makes sure the money will not go 
into other programs. This will ensure that any and all Social Security 
surpluses will be directed toward reducing the debt, which means 
strengthening the capacity to pay Social Security when the time comes.
  Americans, including the 1 million Missourians who receive Social 
Security benefits, want Social Security protected, and they have a 
right to have it protected. They paid for it, they have earned it, and 
we should protect the integrity of the fund.
  This bill does what America wants and what every Senator has 
previously said they want to do as well in behalf of their 
constituents. It is time for the Senate to vote now to end the debate 
on this bill, to pass this bill, to do this month what we said last 
month we wanted to do when we passed the budget resolution; that is, to 
protect the Social Security trust fund, to reserve it for the benefit 
of the recipients of the fund, to strengthen and protect the integrity 
of the fund. I call upon other Members of the Senate to join in this 
noble cause to which they have already registered their serious 
commitment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is left on 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 6 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. It is my understanding that the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, wants to be the final speaker on our side 
for approximately 5 minutes, and Senator Lautenberg, who is the ranking 
member of the committee, wants to have approximately 5 minutes before 
that. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask, in our desire to 
protect the time on our side, that the time be assessed against Senator 
Lautenberg's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 10 minutes 20 
seconds left, and the Senator from Michigan has 5 minutes 51 seconds 
left.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support walling off all Social Security 
surpluses and in strong opposition to the pending Social Security 
lockbox.
  I stand in opposition to the Social Security lockbox proposal that is 
in front of us because I believe this legislation is a lockbox in name 
only. In reality, instead of protecting Social Security benefits, I 
believe it would actually threaten them, and I think the threat is a 
serious one. It could cause a Government default and trigger worldwide 
economic instability.
  Before I review the problem with the Social Security lockbox, I will 
take a minute to talk about saving Social Security and my continuing 
hope that we can address this issue in the near future.
  I am fairly optimistic, Mr. President, but I have heard a lot of 
gloomy comments about the prospects for legislation to protect and 
preserve Social Security for the future. I hope we do not give up on 
this.
  I do not want to be critical in any way of any of my colleagues. I 
know many are concerned that this issue is just too hot to handle 
politically, but I do not see it that way. In fact, I think we have a 
unique opportunity this year to really prepare our country for the 
future, and it is an opportunity we should seize.
  President Clinton has made Social Security reform a top priority. He 
is in his second term and is eager to take on this politically 
difficult task and can lend us the leadership it requires. We are now 
in pretty good financial shape.

[[Page 8009]]

We are projecting budget surpluses for years to come. And with the 
economy going so strong, our Nation is ready to accept some of the hard 
choices that will be necessary to get the job done.
  If we cannot solve the Social Security problem now, I would ask, When 
can we? This is the time to act, and we need to do it soon before we 
get too close to the next year's Presidential election. And we need to 
do it on a bipartisan basis. Frankly, that is the only way it can be 
done--through direct negotiations between the congressional leadership 
of both parties in both Houses and the White House.
  One thing should be clear to everyone, and that is that the Social 
Security lockbox amendment before us does not represent Social Security 
reform. It does nothing to prepare our country for the financial 
pressures which will be created when the baby boomers retire. It does 
not extend Social Security solvency by even a single day. I just hope 
it will not be used as an excuse to avoid dealing with Social Security 
in a real and meaningful way.
  I have reviewed this before, but I want to again recount for my 
colleagues the three serious problems I see with this legislation.
  First, it directly threatens Social Security benefits. Treasury 
Secretary Rubin has explained in a letter that under this proposal an 
unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social 
Security checks, as well as Medicare, veterans', and other benefits.
  Additionally, the amendment contains a huge loophole that would allow 
Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than 
direct Social Security benefits. Anything the Congress labels as 
``Social Security reform'' would be exempt from the lockbox. So this 
could include privatization plans that might be risky, tax cuts, or who 
knows what.
  I know some of my colleagues dispute my interpretation of this 
provision. But I would simply point to the broad language of the 
legislation itself. It effectively exempts from the lockbox any 
legislation which includes a provision designating itself as Social 
Security reform. So if Congress passes a big tax cut, even if it 
provides significant benefit to wealthy retirees, we can just claim 
that this represents Social Security reform, and all the costs of the 
legislation will be exempt from the lockbox. Some of the bill's 
cosponsors may say that is not their intent. But that is what the bill 
says.
  I would like to be able to offer an amendment to correct this 
problem. The majority, however, has prohibited us from offering any 
amendments whatsoever. So we have had little opportunity to do anything 
but point out the loophole.
  Mr. President, the second major problem with the pending bill is that 
it does absolutely nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows 
Congress to squander funds needed for Medicare on tax breaks which go 
largely to the wealthier among us.
  Senator Conrad and I have developed a different lockbox to protect 
both Social Security and Medicare. Our bill, S. 862, would reserve all 
of the Social Security surpluses exclusively for Social Security, and 
40 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses for Medicare. We would 
like an opportunity to offer that lockbox amendment to this bill, but 
again the majority is blocking all of these amendments.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Republicans' so-called 
lockbox threatens a potential Government default. In the short term 
this could undermine our Nation's credit standing and increase interest 
costs. Ultimately, it could block benefit payments and lead to a 
worldwide economic crisis. That is why the Treasury Secretary, Robert 
Rubin, has said he would recommend that the President veto the bill if 
it ever reaches his desk.
  Mr. President, the lockbox Senator Conrad and I have developed avoids 
the risk of default, while protecting both Social Security and 
Medicare. Our lockbox would not establish a new debt limit. It would 
use supermajority points of order and across-the-board cuts to 
guarantee enforcement. I think it is a far better, more responsible 
approach.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on this legislation. Let's 
establish a Social Security lockbox. In fact, let's establish a Social 
Security and Medicare lockbox. Let's make it a real, responsible 
lockbox, not one that actually, in its implementation, could threaten 
Social Security benefits, risking a worldwide financial crisis. And 
then, Mr. President, let's sit down with the White House and negotiate 
a compromise which will truly protect Social Security and Medicare for 
the long term.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican ``lockbox'' proposal is 
deeply flawed, and does not deserve to be adopted. It does nothing to 
extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future 
beneficiaries. In fact, it would do just the reverse. This legislation 
actually places Social Security at greater risk than it is today. It 
would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be 
spent instead on risky privatization schemes. And, because of the harsh 
debt ceiling limits it would impose, this plan could produce a 
governmental shutdown that would jeopardize the timely payment of 
Social Security benefits to current recipients.
  It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the 
``lockbox.'' Their statements convey the impression that they have 
taken a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they 
have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would 
not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future 
retirees. Nor would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even 
one more day. It merely recommits to Social Security those dollars 
which already belong to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that 
is all their so-called ``lockbox'' would do.
  By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 
trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next 15 
years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the 
Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050.
  There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do 
with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt 
reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from 
paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have 
been required to pay interest on the national debt will become 
available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes 
those debt savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. Since 
it is payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction possible, 
those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social Security. I 
wholeheartedly agree. It is an eminently reasonable plan. But 
Republican Members of Congress oppose it.
  Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources 
to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even 
effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used 
to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a 
trapdoor in their ``lockbox.'' Their plan would allow Social Security 
payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform'' 
plans. This loophole opens the door to risky schemes to finance private 
retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed 
benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will 
be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future 
Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make 
Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today, 
necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future.
  A genuine ``lockbox'' would prevent any such diversion of funds. A 
genuine ``lockbox'' would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars 
would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future 
recipients. The Republican ``lockbox'' does just the opposite. It 
actually invites a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The Social Security reform proposal put forth by Chairman Archer and 
Congressman Shaw earlier this week demonstrates that the real 
Republican

[[Page 8010]]

agenda is to substitute private accounts for traditional Social 
Security benefits. That plan would spend the entire Social Security 
surplus on tax credits to subsidize private accounts. There would be no 
money left for debt reduction, and thus no debt service savings which 
could be used to help fund future Social Security benefits. In fact, 
their plan will ultimately require either enormous new borrowing or 
drastic program cuts to continue funding the private accounts after the 
Social Security surplus is exhausted. These costly tax credits would go 
to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefiting the most 
affluent workers. Low and middle income workers would receive little or 
no net benefit from the Archer plan. Their retirement security would 
not be enhanced at all.
  Placing Social Security on a firm financial footing should be our 
highest budget priority, not further enriching the already wealthy. 
Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social Security 
retirement benefits for more than fifty percent of their annual income. 
Without it, half the nation's elderly would fall below the poverty 
line.
  To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to 
strengthen Social Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert 
dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other 
purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future 
Social Security benefits.''
  The proposed ``lockbox'' poses a second, very serious threat to 
Social Security. By using the debt ceiling as an enforcement mechanism, 
it runs the risk of creating a government shutdown crisis. The 
Republicans propose to enforce their ``lockbox'' by mandating 
dangerously low debt ceilings. Such a reduced debt ceiling could make 
it impossible for the federal government to meet its financial 
obligations--including its obligation to pay Social Security benefits 
to millions of men and women who depend upon them. The risk is real. It 
is fundamentally wrong to put those who depend on Social Security at 
risk in this way.
  The ``lockbox'' which proponents claim will save Social Security 
actually imperils it. As Treasury Secretary Rubin has said, ``This 
legislation does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security 
Trust Fund, while potentially threatening the ability to make Social 
Security payments to millions of Americans.''
  While this ``lockbox'' provides no genuine protection for Social 
Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The 
Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that 
they have completely omitted Medicare from their ``lockbox''.
  By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 15% of the surplus to 
Medicare over the next 15 years. Those new dollars would come entirely 
from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The Republicans have 
adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for Medicare. 
Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus on tax cuts 
disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest Americans.
  I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to reject this ill-
conceived proposal. It jeopardizes Social Security and ignores 
Medicare. It is an assault on America's senior citizens, and it does 
not deserve to pass.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are taking a critical step 
toward saving Social Security. However, in considering this measure we 
are seeking to reaffirm provisions in the current law stating that 
money earmarked for Social Security should not be considered for 
purposes of the Federal budget. Furthermore, this measure would make it 
very difficult for this Congress and Administration, or future 
Congresses and Administrations, to use Social Security surpluses to 
achieve a balanced budget.
  In his 1998 State of the Union address, the President pledged to save 
every penny of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Many of 
us supported his pledge and worked not to spend Social Security surplus 
money. However, his fiscal year 2000 budget request would require the 
use of $158 billion in Social Security surplus money over the next five 
years.
  The ``lockbox'' measure we are considering today would prohibit 
Congress or the President from spending Social Security trust fund 
money but would still allow Congress the flexibility needed in case 
unforeseen emergencies, such as a war or a recession, develop. It is 
vital that we take steps to exercise fiscal restraint so that we don't 
squander the surpluses necessary to enact improvements to the Social 
Security program which would enhance the retirement security of our 
children and grandchildren.
  I believe that this is of critical importance in the path toward 
saving Social Security, so much so that I am missing a field hearing by 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation back home 
in Iowa that Senator McCain was gracious enough to hold on the 
difficulties Iowa faces with competition in the airline industry. 
Unfortunately, I can't be there right now, but I hope my being here to 
cast this vote supporting this proposal is a testament to the 
importance of taking steps to bring us closer to saving Social 
Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes 51 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself such time as I use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me suggest that this idea 
that we are locking out any amendments with our Social Security 
Protection Act is nice to say, but it isn't true. If the Democrats let 
us vote on this, we will see whether it passes or not, but once it 
passes, it is subject to amendments.
  The good Senator from New Jersey, my dear friend, can offer his 
substitute or his amendment, but first we have to have an opportunity 
to vote on this amendment, which for some strange reason, while the 
other side of the aisle and the President keep saying, ``Let's not 
spend any of the Social Security trust fund,'' they somehow do not want 
to vote for a proposition that will really lock it up so it cannot be 
spent, it cannot be embezzled, as some Democrats called it a few years 
ago, when you use it. They said you were embezzling the trust fund. I 
would think if that is true--I never used that word--you ought to lock 
it up tough, you ought to put a whopping key on it that can't hardly be 
moved. So that is what we have done.
  For those who say, ``If you can't spend the Social Security trust 
fund, you are going to destroy the economy of America,'' that is just 
absolutely untrue. Would anyone believe that taking a trust fund which 
belongs to Social Security, using it to pay down the debt until we need 
it for Social Security reform, would anybody submit that that is going 
to harm America? That is going to help us. We are going to be reducing 
the debt right at the right time by a huge amount, which is going to 
keep inflation down, which is going to keep interest rates down, all of 
which helps Social Security.
  All of these arguments about cash management, and you can't pay 
Social Security--just read the bill. The bill says, under all 
circumstances the Social Security checks are forthcoming, just by 
specific item. The management problems that the Treasury Secretary has 
have been fixed.
  The truth of the matter is, those on the other side of the aisle 
think it might be easy to spend this money if you do not have this 
lockbox. And they are right, it will be easy to spend it. In fact, the 
President of the United States, in his budget, spent $158 billion of it 
in the first 5 years. No wonder he does not want this lockbox. It 
wrecks his budget, because he is already going to spend it. We say, 
``No. No, you can't spend it. You challenged us not to spend it. We are 
for real.'' That is what this is all about.
  Last but not least, let me suggest that it is really amazing for some 
on the other side of the aisle to talk about saving both Medicare and 
Social Security in some kind of a lockbox when

[[Page 8011]]

you see what it really is. It is sort of a Democratic position that we 
should not cut taxes for the American people or, if we do, we ought to 
do it their way--even though we are in the majority and the President 
has a veto pen, we ought to do it their way.
  We say there is plenty of money outside of Social Security to give 
the American taxpayers back a real tax reduction over the next decade. 
Whenever you say, let's take more of that surplus that does not belong 
to Social Security, and say let's spend it on something else, you are 
really choosing not to give the American people a tax reduction that 
they deserve.
  Frankly, I do not believe today we are going to get cloture. But I 
think sooner or later--and hopefully it will not be too much later--we 
will make this filibuster a real one. We will stay down here until we 
wear out, around the clock. And let's stay here a couple nights so 
everybody will understand this is serious business, and who is keeping 
us from voting on it, to protect our seniors and their money for the 
next decade when it is most in jeopardy. It will be those on that side 
of the aisle who will not vote today. They will probably not vote for 
it the next time. But sooner or later, a lot of Americans are going to 
be asking, who is holding up the real lockbox that will protect our 
money? It is going to dawn on a few people on the other side of the 
aisle that they are and that the American people are cognizant and 
aware of it, and maybe some people will change their minds.
  With that, if I have any remaining time, I yield it back. I 
understand we have agreed to start voting at this time, in any event.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Mexico have 
some time remaining, may I ask?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with all due respect and friendship 
for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, we both 
would like to get to the same place. I am sure he has never heard me 
use terms like ``embezzlement.'' I don't do that kind of stuff. 
Frankly, I do not like that terminology. I don't care from where it 
comes.
  But what we see here is what I would call a couple of escape hatches 
in the legislation that worry the devil out of us. That is, perhaps in 
the interest of Social Security reform or retirement security, we are 
locking ourselves into a position where we would be unable to respond 
to changes in the economy. That is not where we ought to be.
  This economy is too important in the whole world scheme of things. It 
is too important in terms of those who are very dependent, totally 
dependent, in some cases, on the benefits derived from Social Security, 
veterans' benefits, Medicare. That is all they have in many cases. With 
the threat of creating a debt limit, and I think artificially creating 
a new debt limit, I think we could immediately be damaging the 
possibility that these benefits might be offered.
  That is where we differ. I always enjoy my work with the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, except when he wins, which we 
does so often. But other than that, we ought to be able to sit down and 
reason out some of these things.
  I hope this vote, by discouraging cloture, will give us some impetus 
to sit down and try to work the problems out.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to use it at this point to make a 
couple of points.
  Senior citizens, what some like to do is to say, to protect your 
Social Security trust fund, we are going to hurt other people who are 
entitled to Federal money because we may have a recession one of these 
days and things may change.
  We are aware of that. Read the bill. It says the lockbox is held in 
abeyance in the event we have two quarters of economic downturn, which 
normally is called a recession. You hold it steady there and see where 
we come out. Anybody who would be looking at this kind of proposition 
would think that is a prudent thing to do. We did that.
  Likewise, in case of a national emergency like a war, we have said, 
you cannot not spend money on that, and so there is an emergency that 
takes place then and you can temporarily use it. Remember, we are 
holding $1.8 trillion for the seniors and these emergencies of which we 
are speaking. If they occur, they will be very small in proportion to 
the good we are doing under this proposal.
  I, too, hope we can get a true lockbox put together. If bipartisan, 
fine; if not, I am very comfortable with this one.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     amendment to Calendar No. 89. S. 577, a bill to provide 
     guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part of the 
     budget process.
         Trent Lott, Pete Domenici, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jeff 
           Sessions, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Craig Thomas, Slade 
           Gorton, Chuck Hagel, Spencer Abraham, Pat Roberts, Thad 
           Cochran, Conrad Burns, Christopher Bond, John Ashcroft, 
           Jon Kyl, and Mike DeWine.

                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 255 to S. 557, a bill to provide for 
designation of emergencies as a part of the budget process, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll:
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) is 
absent on official business.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bunning
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hatch
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Stevens

[[Page 8012]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). On this vote, the yeas are 49, 
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________