[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12989-13001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1 
hour of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the cloture motion 
on H.R. 1259.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me begin debate on this cloture 
motion today and take up to 10 minutes. I hope I won't need to use all 
of that, as there are other speakers on our side.
  We are here now after having, on three occasions, failed to obtain 
cloture on a Senate bill to try to lock away the Social Security trust 
fund moneys and prevent them from being spent on other Federal 
Government expenditures. The Democrats have filibustered the lockbox 
for 58 days. This is significant, because an additional $304 million of 
new Social Security surplus funds are added to the trust fund virtually 
every day.
  In my judgment, we should be husbanding these surpluses carefully to 
provide for future Social Security benefits and to make necessary 
reforms as easily and seamlessly as possible. But because of this 
filibuster, $17.6 billion of these future Social Security benefits have 
been placed at risk of being spent on other non-Social Security 
programs. This is the equivalent of taking away the annual Social 
Security benefits for 1.6 million American seniors.
  Mr. President, today we are attempting a new approach having thrice 
failed to be able to obtain cloture on a Senate amendment to a budget 
reform act bill. We are today voting on a different version of the 
lockbox, one that passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly, 
and, in my judgment, would therefore seem to be a piece of legislation 
that we could have overwhelming bipartisan consensus on in the Senate. 
The question is, Will we do so?
  All I can say to my colleagues is that in Michigan, seniors surely 
hope that we will do so--that we will vote cloture, that we will pass 
the lockbox, and that we will protect their Social Security benefits.
  Let me introduce you to Gus and Doris Bionchini of Warren, MI. They 
have been kind enough to come out to Washington this week to help 
ensure that Social Security lockbox is passed. They have been receiving 
Social Security for over 10 years and tell me that Social Security is 
very important to them, as it is to so many Americans, and that they 
pay most of their bills, especially food and utilities, with their 
benefits.
  Gus and Doris tell me that they can't understand why anyone would 
want to spend their future Social Security benefits on new Government 
spending, and that they think it is time and imperative Congress pass a 
law which stipulates that we should not spend a dime of their Social 
Security dollars on anything other than Social Security. They believe 
seniors should have a voice.
  Let me introduce you to someone else, Mr. Joe Wagner, a 70-year-old 
from Kentwood, MI, a new Social Security recipient, but someone who 
already finds himself nearly entirely dependent upon his benefits to 
pay his bills to meet his everyday needs. He said that he strongly 
supports the original lockbox bill that I introduced with Senators 
Ashcroft and Domenici and others. He also knows that the President has 
proposed spending over $30 billion of the Social Security surplus every 
year. He thinks that is wrong, and I agree with him.
  Then we have another person for you to meet, Eleanor Happle. Eleanor 
is a 74-year-old widow who is very active for her age and who enjoys 
spending time with friends and volunteering at the hospital. She 
supplements her Social Security benefits by working in an assisted-
living facility. I know that she agrees with us that the Social 
Security surplus should be protected.
  Finally, here is Vic and Joanne Machuta in front of their home in 
East Grand Rapids, MI, where they have lived for 20 years. They have 
been married for 54 years. They have three children. Vic is 73 years 
old and worked as a police officer for over 35 years. Joanne is also 73 
and worked for a bank as well as for Central Michigan University. They 
have been receiving Social Security for 10 years and believe that the 
surplus should be used for Social Security as opposed to other 
Government spending. They also believe that legislation which would 
make it more difficult for Government to spend their Social Security is 
a good idea.
  Now we find ourselves with a new version of the lockbox. It is a 
looser version, I admit. But we still find the same old foot dragging 
which we have been suffering through for 58 days.
  H.R. 1259, the House lockbox legislation, passed the House on May 26 
by a vote of 416 to 12--416 for this lockbox proposal in the House, and 
only 12 against it. But still we are here, of course, to vote on 
cloture to end broad, uncontrolled debate on this subject. I don't 
understand that.
  It seems to me that when the House votes this overwhelmingly clearly 
this is a version which is a bipartisan consensus, and we should get 
down to the business of protecting Social Security dollars.
  That is what at least this Senator thinks. That is what my 
constituents

[[Page 12990]]

such as Gus, Doris, Joe, and Eleanor think.
  I hope today that we will finally have 60 votes for us to consider in 
a carefully crafted fashion a lockbox proposal that would enjoy 
bipartisan support. This one certainly does. It did in the House. I 
believe it will in the Senate. I hope that today we can finally obtain 
cloture, move forward, and pass this legislation quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend and colleague from 
Michigan. I am inclined to agree with him on a couple of things; that 
is, that people really want their Social Security protected. That is 
what they are thinking about. That is what they are looking at.
  I rise now to oppose the motion to invoke cloture on the House-passed 
Social Security bill lockbox legislation, because it doesn't protect 
Social Security as it is commonly believed.
  I want the public to know that this isn't an internal debate about 
some arcane process. We are talking about whether or not Social 
Security is going to be stronger as a result of this tactical approach 
to preparing perhaps for a nice tax cut in the future.
  When we talk about the filibuster, sometimes the public doesn't quite 
understand. A filibuster can be an appropriate delay. If I think 
something is wrong, if someone on the other side of the aisle thinks 
something is wrong, they have a right to defend their point of view 
standing on this floor for as long as they have the energy and the time 
is available. So cloture isn't a simple thing. It is designed to cut 
off other people's opinion. It is designed to give the majority a 
chance to roll over the minority and perhaps what the public really 
wants.
  I want to say right from the beginning that I strongly support 
enactment of a Social Security lockbox. In fact, we want to pass a 
lockbox that not only protects Social Security, but for many people, 
while they worry about Social Security, Medicare, which is high on 
their list of concerns because Social Security will be there but 
Medicare, conceivably if it is not protected and made more solvent, may 
not be there.
  Ask anybody what their primary concerns are once they get past their 
Medicare family needs, and they will tell you that it is health care. 
There is a crying need for reliability in health care systems across 
this country. People are worried that they will lose out in one place 
and not be able to get it in another place. They are worried about 
having a condition where that is ruled out for them--a long-term 
disease.
  Medicare has to be protected as well. We want a lockbox that has an 
impenetrable lock, not one that includes all kinds of loopholes that 
will leave these programs largely unprotected. That is the thing we 
have to keep in mind; that is, what is the ultimate outcome?
  The bill before us now is an improvement over the version that we 
considered yesterday. But unlike that legislation, the one that was 
considered yesterday, the House-passed bill, does not pose a risk of 
Government default. So there is a slight measure of more security 
there. Therefore, it doesn't pose the same kind of threat to Social 
Security benefits. However, the House-passed bill still desperately 
needs improvement. Most importantly, the bill's lack of protection for 
Medicare is a primary part.
  In addition, the bill lacks an adequate enforcement mechanism. It 
relies solely on 60-vote points of order.
  Again, I don't like to get into process discussions when the public 
has a chance to evaluate. Why should there be 60 votes necessary to 
change it? In almost every other situation we rely on the majority to 
take care of it with 51 votes. It doesn't back up these 60-vote points 
of order, across-the-board spending cuts should Congress raid these 
surpluses in the future.
  In addition, the legislation before us includes a troubling loophole 
that would allow Congress to raid surpluses by simply designating 
legislation as ``Social Security reform'' or ``Medicare reform.'' But 
it is not what you really get when you look at the title of these 
programs, because under Social Security reform it is conceivable that 
some could favor a major tax cut for wealthy people, and say: Listen. 
They are going to be paying more into the fund as a result of earning 
more as a result of a more buoyant economy. They could say that is 
Social Security reform. But, aha, really what we want to do is give a 
good fat tax cut to people who do not need it.
  There is no definition of what constitutes Social Security or 
Medicare reform. We want to do that. But this obscure definition 
permits hanky-panky all over the place.
  This could allow Congress to raid surpluses for new privatization 
schemes, no matter how risky, or even tax cuts--big tax cuts.
  Democrats want to strengthen this bill to make it better. But we are 
being denied an opportunity in the process by the majority. They are 
saying that 45 Democrats representing any number of States, any number 
of people--if we just take the States of California and New York, we 
have a significant part of the population in this country.
  However, the majority is saying: We will not let you offer any 
amendments; we have decided we have the majority, and we are locking 
you out. That is the real lockbox.
  It is not right. That is not the proper way to operate. It is not the 
way the Senate is supposed to function--not permit the offering of 
amendments? What are they afraid of? Let the public hear the debate. 
Let the public look at the amendments. Maybe we will help them pass a 
bill we also can agree to. Right now, they are afraid to let the public 
in. The public doesn't have a right to know, as far as they are 
concerned.
  For too long now, the majority has engaged in a concerted effort to 
deny rights to Democratic Senators. They have repeatedly tried to 
eliminate our rights. The once rare tactic of filling up the amendment 
tree--again, another arcane term that blocks out any other amendments--
has now become standard operating procedure.
  The majority thinks they have a right to dictate how many and which 
amendments. They are asking to see our amendments before we can offer 
them. That is unheard of in the process as structured in the Senate.
  Compounding matters, cloture is no longer being used as a tool to end 
debate. It is being used as a tool to prevent debate. The majority 
leader, in his technical right, has filed a cloture motion on this bill 
before either side even has an opportunity to make an opening 
statement. That, too, is unheard of. We used to have debate, and one 
side or the other would finally say: Listen, they are delaying; they 
are filibustering, and we want to shut off debate.
  Now what happens, as soon as the bill is filed, a cloture motion is 
filed that says the minority or those who are in opposition will not 
even have a right to speak.
  The majority is even going further in limiting the period known as 
morning business, when we can talk about things that are on our agenda. 
Eliminate that right?
  I hope the American public will understand what this mission is; that 
is, not to give the public what they want but to give them what the 
Republicans want.
  This effort to restrict minority rights is not appropriate. It is not 
the way the Senate is supposed to operate. We Democrats are not going 
to put up with it much longer. There is no reason this Senate cannot 
approve a Social Security and Medicare lockbox and do it very soon. We 
are willing to work toward a unanimous consent agreement to limit 
amendments. Debate on these amendments should not take very long.
  However, we cannot accept being entirely locked out of the 
legislative process. We will not tolerate being denied an opportunity 
to make this Social Security lockbox truly a lockbox, a safe deposit 
box, one that can't be opened casually, that protects both Social 
Security and Medicare in a meaningful way.
  The majority understands, if they continue to function this way, we 
will

[[Page 12991]]

not get a Social Security and Medicare lockbox enacted into law. It is 
as simple as that. Perhaps they don't want to live under this lockbox 
but would like to talk about it, hoping they do not have to pass the 
test of reality. Maybe they just want an issue to talk about. That is 
why they are following procedures guaranteed to produce gridlock and 
not results. I hope that is not true.
  I look at actions. I see them speaking louder than words. There is 
every indication the Republican leadership is not trying seriously to 
produce a bill that can win bipartisan support.
  I call on my colleagues to oppose cloture, to oppose cutting off 
debate. I urge my colleagues in the majority to change their mind, 
rethink it, talk to this side about it, allow this bill to be 
considered privately or openly, with a full opportunity for debate and 
for amendments.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota up to 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the fourth time the Senate is being 
asked to vote on a so-called lockbox without being given the 
opportunity to consider amendments.
  What is the majority afraid of? Why aren't they willing to vote on 
amendments? That is the way we do business in the Senate. Somebody 
makes a legislative offering, and then Members have a chance to amend 
and a chance to vote to decide what is the best policy for this 
country.
  I have believed for a very long time and I have fought repeatedly in 
the Budget Committee, in the Finance Committee, and on the floor of the 
Senate to stop the raid on Social Security surpluses. I see our friends 
on the other side all of a sudden become defenders of Social Security.
  Some Members have not forgotten. Sometimes our friends on the other 
side of the aisle think we have amnesia, but we remember the repeated 
attempts on the other side to amend the Constitution of the United 
States with a so-called balanced budget amendment that would have 
looted and raided Social Security to achieve balance. We remember very 
well.
  It was done in 1994; it was done in 1995; it was done in 1996; it was 
done in 1997; and here is the language. This language makes clear that 
the definition of a balanced budget was all the receipts of the Federal 
Government and all the expenditures of the Federal Government, 
including Social Security. Then they were going to call that a balanced 
budget. That is what they were doing in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997--an 
absolute raid on the Social Security trust funds and trying to put that 
in the Constitution of the United States.
  All of a sudden, they are defenders of Social Security. I welcome the 
transformation. I welcome them coming over to our side and agreeing now 
that we ought to protect Social Security. But why won't they allow 
amendments? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid to vote? I think 
they are. I think they are afraid to vote. I think they are afraid to 
vote because we have an amendment that provides a lockbox for Social 
Security, one that is defended against what can happen out here on the 
floor--unlike the amendment being offered now. It is defended by 
sequestration. Their amendment has no such defense.
  I think they are afraid to vote on an alternative because we not only 
protect Social Security but Medicare.
  Looking at the Republican ``broken safe,'' we try to look inside and 
find out what is there. What we find is that there is not one single 
additional penny for Medicare in the Republican lockbox. No, Medicare 
is left out of the equation.
  Senator Lautenberg and I believe Medicare ought to be protected with 
Social Security. We ought to have a lockbox to protect both. We ought 
to have procedures that defend them, not create enormous loopholes that 
can be used to again loot Social Security and not protect Medicare.
  The fact is, the amendment we want to offer that they will not let 
this side consider is an amendment that provides $698 billion for 
Medicare over the next 15 years; the Republican plan provides nothing, 
zero, not one penny. That is why they don't want to vote. They don't 
want to vote because they don't want to protect Social Security and 
Medicare.
  It is fascinating what a difference a year makes. Just 1 year ago we 
had a debate in the Budget Committee of the Senate. Here is what the 
Republicans were saying then. This is Senator Pete Domenici, the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee:

       Mr. President, this is a very simple proposition. . . . We 
     suggested, as Republicans, that Social Security and Medicare 
     are the two most important American programs to save, reform, 
     and make available into the next century. . . . I believe the 
     issue is very simple--very simple: Do you want a budget that 
     begins to help with Medicare, or do you want a budget that 
     says not one nickel for Medicare; let's take care of that 
     later with money from somewhere else.

  Senator Domenici was right then. They don't want to consider the 
amendment that would do exactly what he is talking about--protect 
Social Security and Medicare. They want to forget the position they 
were taking just a year ago.
  Here is another member, a senior Republican member of the Budget 
Committee. He said 1 year ago:

       But the fundamental strength of it is, whether they are 
     democrats or republicans who have got together in these dark 
     corners of very bright rooms and said, what would we do if we 
     had a half a trillion dollars to spend?
       . . . the obvious answer that cries out is Medicare. . . . 
     I think it is logical. People understood the President on 
     save Social Security first and I think they will understand 
     save Medicare first. . . .
       Medicare is in crisis. We want to save Medicare first.

  It is 1 year later now. All of a sudden those brave words are 
forgotten and our friends on the other side want to prevent us from 
even considering an amendment that would do what they were advocating a 
year ago, save Social Security first and save Medicare first. Now they 
want to forget Medicare. Now they do not want to provide an additional 
dime for Medicare, even though it is endangered in a more immediate way 
than is Social Security.
  One more quote from the chairman of the Budget Committee:

       Let me tell you for every argument made around this table 
     today about saving Social Security, you can now put it in the 
     bank that the problems associated with fixing Medicare are 
     bigger than the problems fixing Social Security, bigger in 
     dollars, more difficult in terms of the kind of reform 
     necessary, and frankly, I am for saving Social Security. But 
     it is most interesting that there are some who want to 
     abandon Medicare . . . when it is the most precarious program 
     we have got.

  The reason I believe our colleagues on the other side do not want any 
amendments is because they do not want to vote on an amendment that 
Senator Lautenberg and I are prepared to offer that would save Social 
Security first, every penny, and save Medicare as well. They do not 
want to vote.
  That is not the way the Senate ought to operate. That is not what we 
should do here.
  Let me conclude by saying the amendment we have would save $3.3 
billion in debt reduction; the Republican plan, $2.6 billion. Our plan 
is superior. We ought to have a chance to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will just make one brief statement and 
then I will yield to the Senator from Wyoming. I do want to remind my 
colleagues that in the last efforts to secure cloture before the 
Senate, it was cloture on my amendment to another bill. We just wanted 
a vote on our Social Security lockbox. If we had gotten that vote, and 
it had passed, the amendments that are being discussed today would have 
been in order to be brought.
  So the notion we had previously denied anybody the opportunity to 
have any amendments is not accurate. That opportunity would have been 
presented. All we wanted was a chance to have a vote on this lockbox. 
That was in the previous effort, on the Senate version.
  Now we are dealing with a House bill, and it is different in this 
context, but

[[Page 12992]]

the impression created that somehow before there would have been no 
opportunity to present alternatives would not have been the case had we 
had a chance to vote on our amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I am going to yield on my time to the Senator from 
Wyoming, who has been waiting. I will be happy to if we have an 
opportunity, but I do want to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
bringing this subject, his amendment, to the floor. We are talking 
about lockbox legislation. We are talking about Social Security, which 
is the bottom line. Lockbox is simply the first step to accomplish 
that. We have had in our agenda this year: Social Security, tax reform, 
education, and security for this country. These are the things we have 
been talking about and will, indeed, continue to talk about.
  The two Senators from the other side of the aisle have spoken about 
excuses for not going forward with this bill. I can hardly understand 
it. They talk about amendments. They have 22 or 25 amendments designed 
to keep us from voting on the bill. That is why we are not doing 
amendments. We decided to move forward with something designed to 
ensure that Social Security surplus funds will be reserved for Social 
Security alone. There are lots of things involved, of course, in 
addition to Social Security. That is, if you like smaller government, 
if you like tax relief, if you would like to limit the amount of 
spending, then this is the way to do that and hold the spending to 
those funds that do not come from Social Security. So this helps us 
retain our commitment to smaller and more efficient government.
  One only has to look at last year's omnibus appropriations to see 
this legislation is necessary, where $20 billion in nonemergency 
spending was taken from Social Security last year. The same thing will 
happen again unless we make a move to do something about it. 
Unfortunately, the Democrats have decided to filibuster this bill and 
not let it happen. Apparently they support these ideas of raiding 
Social Security for their big government agenda. I understand that. The 
President's budget raids the Social Security funds to the tune of $158 
billion. That is where we are, absent this kind of movement.
  We are, of course, dealing with everything from lockbox to 
fundamental Social Security reforms. Everybody knows the system is not 
sound; by 2014, Social Security begins to run a deficit. Obviously, 
there are a number of demographics that bring that about--the declining 
number of workers, their increased longevity, and the impending 
retirement of the baby boomers. There are three solutions to the 
problem: One is to raise taxes on Social Security, one is to reduce 
benefits of Social Security--neither of which is acceptable to most of 
us--and the third is to provide an increased rate of return on the 
investments we have.
  I am not for raising taxes. There are better ways to do that. I 
certainly want, however, to do something with Social Security which 
will allow a certain part of those funds to be put in private accounts 
to be invested in the private sector to increase the returns so we 
strengthen Social Security. We cannot do that unless we set aside these 
funds.
  I am amazed at the opposition to this. The President has been talking 
for 2 years and all he said was: Save Social Security; no plan, no 
effort, no movement.
  Now we have a chance to take the first steps to do something. We have 
a plan that works to move us to save Social Security, and what do we 
have? Opposition by filibuster. It is amazing to me. I guess it is 
simply a defense of spending more for large government. I do not want 
to do that. Americans work hard for their money. They ought to have a 
say in how it is spent. Therefore, I urge we move forward with the 
first step in doing something about Social Security.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMAS. No. We have used our time. I return it back to the 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No questions, no speeches.
  Mr. THOMAS. We can on the Senator's time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 1 minute, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say, I wonder whether our friends on the other side 
know they filled up the amendment tree as soon as they laid down 
yesterday's bill. What are they talking about when they say you can 
offer amendments, when they closed it? They know very well. This 
chicanery should not get past the public, I will tell you that.
  Why should we not spend a little time? Filibuster? We have a half-
hour available. I want the American public to know they think that is 
enough time to discuss Social Security and Medicare. That is what the 
public has to know. Not cut off the filibuster--what kind of filibuster 
is this? That is not even an pinkie-size filibuster.
  That, I think, is important for the Record to reflect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will respond to the Senator from New 
Jersey. The Senator from New Jersey knows if we get cloture on this 
bill, germane amendments would be allowed. So if what he is concerned 
about is Social Security and debating Social Security, germane Social 
Security amendments will be available. What will not be available are 
spurious amendments to make political points that have nothing to do 
with Social Security, such as what is being discussed by the Senator 
from North Dakota who wants to take non-Social Security money, non-
Medicare money, and create a lockbox of general fund revenues for 
Medicare.
  As the Senator from New Jersey knows, that has nothing to do with 
Social Security. It has nothing to do with lockboxing Social Security. 
It has nothing to do with lockboxing the Medicare trust fund. It is a 
tangential amendment aimed at making political points, having nothing 
to do with Social Security, as are the bulk, from my understanding, of 
the other amendments.
  So in sincerity, I say to the Senator from New Jersey, if he really 
is concerned about Social Security and having an honest debate about 
Social Security and the amendments thereto, vote for cloture because he 
will have ample opportunity to have a plethora of amendments that deal 
with the issue of Social Security and the lockbox thereon.
  So the demagoguery we have heard that somehow we are precluding 
debate on the most vital issue of the day is false. We are, in fact, 
providing a forum for a limited and narrow and focused discussion, 
absent political demagoguery, to talk just about Social Security.
  So, if the Senator is truly concerned with the issue of Social 
Security and the preeminence of it as a policy issue, then he has the 
opportunity before him right now to vote for cloture so we can focus 
the agenda and the discussion on that very issue.
  Second, I want to respond to the Senator from North Dakota who I 
think has offered a very reasonable concept, although I am not sure his 
charts follow through with that concept. The Senator from North Dakota 
suggested that we need to lockbox Medicare and suggested there were 
$650-some-odd billion to be lockboxed for Medicare. I do not know where 
he comes up with $650-odd billion that is in the Medicare fund surplus 
in the future. In fact, between the years 2000 and 2009, the net 
surplus in the Medicare trust fund is $14 billion. In the next 5 years 
the surplus will be $53 billion, but then it goes negative, from 2006 
to 2009 $39 billion.
  I am willing right now to coauthor a bill with the Senator from North 
Dakota to put a lockbox on the Medicare trust fund similar to the 
Social Security trust fund. But that is not what

[[Page 12993]]

the Senator from North Dakota is saying. He would lead you to believe 
that is what he is saying, that we need a similar lockbox for Medicare 
as we have for Social Security.
  Remember, the Social Security lockbox said Social Security money must 
be used for Social Security. A similar Medicare lockbox would be very 
simple: Medicare taxes must be used for Medicare.
  Is that what the Senator from North Dakota has asked for? No, he has 
not. What the Senator from North Dakota said is all of the surplus in 
the future--the non-Medicare surplus, the non-Social Security surplus, 
the general fund surplus--has to be used for Medicare. That is what the 
Senator from North Dakota did. That is not what he told us, but that is 
what he did.
  Why does he want to do that? Because he wants to take the general 
fund surplus--which many believe, if we have more money in the general 
fund than we need, we should provide tax relief to those who overpaid--
and use it for Medicare.
  I believe in the integrity of the Medicare program and the integrity 
of the Social Security program. They are funded specifically by taxes 
and spent within that trust fund. That is how we should fix Medicare, 
and that is how we should fix Social Security. We should not be 
borrowing from other areas any more than on the general Government side 
we should not be borrowing from Social Security and Medicare. It is 
honesty in budgeting. What happened a few minutes ago on the floor was 
not exactly the most forthright explanation of budgeting in this area.
  What we are proposing is very simple. We have a surplus in Social 
Security, and if we do not lock it up and create hurdles for spending 
that money, there will be those, incredibly enough, who will use that 
money for other things such as, oh, wonderful things, including tax 
cuts. There may be some who want--I do not want to do tax cuts with 
Social Security money; I will not do tax cuts with Social Security 
money. You will not find any tax cut I will not vote for. I will vote 
for all of them, but I will not use Social Security money.
  It puts constraints on us on this side of the aisle who would love to 
see tax cuts but will not use Social Security, contrary to what the 
Senator from New Jersey just said. You cannot use it for tax cuts and 
spending increases. That is all we say.
  Let's make a downpayment on Social Security reform by not spending 
the money. It is as simple as that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do we have on our side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 21 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a copy of S. 605, as amended.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 605

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
        TITLE II--SOCIAL SECURITY FISCAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

     SECTION 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 202. 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. 203. 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. 204. 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. 205. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or 
     repositories, cash in an amount equal to the redemption value 
     of all obligations issued each month that begins after 
     October 1, 1999 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. This 
     section shall not be construed to require the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to maintain an amount equal to the total social 
     security trust fund balance as of October 1, 1999.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a copy of the Republican Policy Committee talking points 
on S. 605 dated June 15.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  RPC Talking Points on S. 605--Hollings Amendment to Social Security 
                                Lockbox

       S. 605, a bill by Senator Hollings, which may be offered as 
     an amendment to the Social Security lockbox bill, states in 
     part: ``. . . 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.''
       The Mechanics: In short, the Hollings Amendment would 
     require the federal government to come up with cash equal to 
     the amount of the Social Security trust fund balance--an 
     amount which at the end of this fiscal year (FY 1999) is 
     estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $857 
     billion.
       The amendment would require an $857 billion payment on 
     October 1, 1999. This money presumably would have to be 
     borrowed--thus driving up interest rates to incredible 
     levels--since that amount could not be raised through 
     taxation in the next three months.
       In addition, over the next 10 years (2000-2009), CBO 
     estimates Social Security will run a surplus of $1.78 
     trillion. And so, the costs of this proposal are enormous.
       The Costs: The desire to stockpile hard currency is more 
     than just problematic--it is costly in both direct and 
     indirect economic costs.
       If this money were not used to pay down the public debt, 
     the federal government would incur a cost of $467.8 billion 
     over 10 years in lost debt service savings.
       This stockpiling concept would also have implications for 
     monetary policy. Without the Federal Reserve re-liquidating 
     (i.e., issuing an equivalent quantity of money), the American 
     economy (and thereby the world's) would come under severe 
     deflationary financial pressure--slower economic growth. Of 
     course, when the Social Security funds reentered circulation, 
     the effect would be just the opposite--inflationary pressure 
     from an over-supply of money.
       In short, the Hollings amendment would not only have 
     enormous costs for the federal budget, but for the American 
     and world economy as well.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this blasphemy--and it is blasphemy--has 
to stop. The Republican Party fought Social Security. They cut all the 
benefits back in 1986, but still they do not learn. That is how they 
lost the Senate at that time. Now they have been trying to privatize 
and get rid of Social Security.
  This is just another charade. The Senator from New Jersey is correct, 
we cannot offer an amendment, for the simple reason that when they laid 
their bill down, they filled up the tree, and, under that premise, you 
cannot offer an amendment.
  My amendment, S. 605, would be relevant to this piece of legislation. 
It has been referred to the Budget Committee. You cannot make it more 
relevant than having it referred to that

[[Page 12994]]

committee. S. 605 creates a true lockbox. We worked it out with Ken 
Apfel and the Social Security Administration where we pay an equal 
amount of those securities back into the Social Security trust fund.
  What does the Republican policy committee say? They take the entire 
debt. Mr. President, I had no idea that the Republicans would admit to 
the fact that there is nothing in the lockbox. Actually, at the end of 
this fiscal year, by the end of September--this is June--we will owe 
Social Security $857 billion. Read the policy committee statement. They 
say:

       . . . the end of this fiscal year . . . is estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office to be $857 billion.

  They finally admit there is nothing in the lockbox. The intent of 
Hollings in S. 605, and others who have cosponsored it, is to put some 
money in the lockbox; namely, the annual surpluses. I have juxtaposed 
the language in my legislation but I can tell you, you can see their 
intent by this Republican policy committee statement.
  The 1994 Pension Reform Act says you cannot pay off your debt with 
pension funds. But they have been doing that, and their particular bill 
continues to pay down the debt with the pension funds. They have tried 
to do that under the ruse that it would be terrible by calling it, 
what? They call it stockpiling hard currency, and it is going to wreck 
the world economy.
  I wish everybody would read the talking points of the Republican 
Policy Committee and this nonsense they have afoot. There is not any 
question that they intend to spend the money. They have one sentence in 
here:

       In addition, over the next 10 years . . . CBO estimates 
     Social Security will run a surplus of $1.78 trillion. And so, 
     the costs of this proposal are enormous.

  Substitute the word ``savings'' for the word ``costs.'' The savings 
to Social Security will be enormous if we pass S. 605. But their intent 
is that there be nothing in the lockbox.
  The Senator from Michigan sits down there with his senior citizen 
picture. I am a senior citizen. I am not worried. Strom is not worried. 
We are going to get our money. It is the young baby boomer generation 
that the Greenspan Commission said set aside for--actually section 21 
of the Greenspan Commission report--that should be worried. The law, 
section 13301 of the Budget Act, says to do exactly that. But they 
continue to put this shabby act on the other side of the aisle like 
they have a lockbox and they are trying to save Social Security Trust 
Fund monies, when they know full well there is nothing in the lockbox. 
The Republican Policy Committee said they are guaranteeing that nothing 
is ever going to be in that lockbox.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the motion to invoke cloture on 
the Herger Social Security safe deposit box. This legislation will 
create a much-needed mechanism to protect Social Security surpluses 
from being spent on non-Social Security items.
  We need this legislation because, despite his promises to save Social 
Security and to protect Social Security, the President keeps forwarding 
budgets which would take a massive bite out of Social Security.
  We need this legislation. For example, under President Clinton's 
proposed budget, $158 billion from the fiscal year 2000 to 2004 budget 
will be diverted from debt reduction--which is getting the obligations 
of the country down so we can honor the responsibilities we have to 
Social Security--it will be diverted by the President, $158 billion, 
toward more spending. According to the Senate Budget Committee, that 
would represent 21 percent of the Social Security surplus over that 
period. In fiscal year 2000 itself, that represents $40 billion, or 30 
percent of the surplus.
  While President Clinton has been proposing that we spend the Social 
Security surplus, this Congress has been working to protect Social 
Security.
  In March, I introduced S. 502, the Protect Social Security Benefits 
Act. This legislation, which the Herger legislation before us follows--
very similar--called for the establishment of a point of order that 
would prevent the House and Senate from passing or even debating bills 
that would spend money from the Social Security trust fund for anything 
other than Social Security benefits or reducing our debt so that we 
have a better capacity to pay for Social Security.
  In April, we passed a budget resolution that does not spend a dime 
out of the Social Security surplus. In addition to protecting the 
Social Security surplus, the budget resolution sticks to the spending 
caps from the 1997 balanced budget agreement. It cuts taxes and it 
increases spending on education and defense within those limits. That 
is the way we ought to operate in terms of protecting Social Security 
and setting priorities.
  Folks may not understand the entirety of what it means to have a 
point of order. It simply means when a person proposes spending that 
would require us to invade the surplus of Social Security in order to 
cover the spending, a point of order can be raised and that proposal 
will be ruled out of order. In other words, when someone proposes 
invading Social Security, the Chair can say that is out of order, and 
we cannot debate it, let alone discuss it. We cannot vote on it unless 
we change the rules of the engagement, unless we set aside the rules. I 
do not think Members of this body are going to say we want something so 
bad that we are going to invade the retirement of Americans in order to 
get it. Not only is the point of order established, but it is a 60-vote 
point of order, meaning you have to have an overwhelming majority of 
the Congress in order to make sure that is done.
  I believe this is the kind of durable, workable protection for the 
Social Security surplus that will make sure we do not continue what we 
have done for the last 20 years; and that is, to pretend that that 
money is available for spending on social programs, the normal 
operation of Government. We, as a result of that, boosted Government 
spending monumentally by acting as if the Social Security surplus was 
merely available for ordinary spending. It should not be. It should be 
protected. The Social Security surplus, therefore, should be the 
subject of the point of order called for in this measure upon which we 
will vote shortly.
  This vote is all about protecting Social Security surpluses. It is a 
vote about making sure that the surpluses are not used to pay for new 
budget deficits or operations in the rest of Government.
  The vote supporting the Herger plan should be bipartisan and 
unanimous. Think about what the vote was in the House of 
Representatives. In the House of Representatives, this vote was 416 to 
12--416 to 12. That is an overwhelming endorsement. During the debate 
on the budget resolution, the Senate voted 99 to 0 in support of 
legislation to protect Social Security.
  We are calling on every Senator to vote with us to pass the 
legislation implementing this unanimous resolution.
  As I said, in addition, the House recently passed the Herger bill, 
416-12. There is no reason that the Senators on the other side of the 
aisle should not join with us on this vote to protect Social Security.
  I want to commend Congressman Herger for his hard work in bringing 
the bill to the floor and obtaining such an overwhelming vote in favor 
of protecting Social Security. I hope that we can do the same on the 
Senate side and put this bill on the President's desk immediately.
  We need to pass this bill because we need to implement procedures to 
protect Social Security now.
  Social Security is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2034. Starting in 
2014, Social Security will begin spending more than it collects in 
taxes.
  Despite this impending crisis, over the next 5 years, President 
Clinton's budget proposes spending $158 billion of the Social Security 
surpluses on non-Social Security programs. We need to

[[Page 12995]]

stop this kind of raid on Social Security.
  We need to protect Social Security now for the 1 million Missourians 
who receive Social Security benefits, for their children, and for their 
grandchildren.
  This provision will help do that, by making sure that Social Security 
funds do not go for anything other than Social Security.
  Under this provision, Congress will no longer routinely pass budgets 
that use Social Security funds to balance the budget. A congressional 
budget that uses Social Security funds to balance the budget will be 
subject to a point of order, and cannot be passed, or even considered, 
unless 60 Senators vote to override the point of order.
  One of the most important lessons a parent teaches a child is to be 
responsible--responsible for his or her conduct and responsible for his 
or her money. America needs to be responsible with the people's money.
  The Herger bill, like the original Ashcroft point of order, will show 
the American people that we are being responsible, by protecting the 
Social Security system from irresponsible Government spending.
  Americans, including the 1 million Missourians who receive Social 
Security benefits, want Social Security protected. This bill does what 
America wants, and what every Senator has said they want to do.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator from Massachusetts want 3 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Three minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is another case where the seniors 
and the young people of this country ought to look beyond the words to 
the real meaning of the program. We will have an opportunity to debate 
a Patients' Bill of Rights in the next few days, I hope. But we will 
have what is effectively a ``Patients' Bill of Wrongs.'' It will be 
introduced by our good friends on the other side of the aisle as a 
``Patients' Bill of Rights'', but it does not provide the protection.
  And here we have another example of this, where we have an illusion 
that we are protecting Social Security. They say it, but they do not 
mean it, because the legislation effectively denies it. In reality, 
this Republican ``lockbox'' does nothing to extend the life of the 
Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. In fact, it would 
do just the reverse. The sponsors of the legislation deliberately 
designed their ``lockbox'' with a ``trapdoor.'' Their plan would allow 
Social Security payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified 
``reform'' plans. This loophole opens the door to risky tax cut schemes 
that would finance private retirement accounts at the expense of Social 
Security's guaranteed 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.
  As has been pointed out by my good friends from New Jersey, South 
Carolina, and others here, this loophole undermines the protection of 
these resources that should be allocated to protect our senior 
citizens.
  No matter how many times those on the other side say that this really 
does give them the insurance and that it really does provide the 
protection, as has been pointed out by speaker after speaker after 
speaker, it fails to meet the fundamental and basic test. Because of 
the ``trapdoor,'' the Republican ``lockbox'' fails to provide 
protections for our senior citizens. It does not deserve the support of 
the Members of this body.
  This Republican ``lockbox'' is an illusion. It gives only the 
appearance of protecting Social Security. In reality, it does nothing 
to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future 
beneficiaries. It would, in fact, do just the reverse. The sponsors of 
the legislation deliberately designed their ``lockbox'' with a 
``trapdoor''. It would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social 
Security to be spent instead of risky privatization schemes.
  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, the administration's proposed budget would contribute 
2.8 trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the 
next fifteen 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 service savings should be used to strengthen Social 
Security. I wholeheartedly agree. But the Republicans refuse to commit 
these savings to the Social Security Trust Fund. 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 
fifteen 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 Member 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 ``lockdoor.'' Their plan would allow Social Security 
payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified ``reform'' 
plans. This loophole opens the door to risky tax cut schemes that would 
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 then 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.
  Repubican retirement security ``reform'' could be nothing more than 
tax cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefitting 
their wealthy friends. Pacing Social Security on a firm financial 
footing should be our highest budget priority, not further enriching 
the already wealthy.

[[Page 12996]]

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 last 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.''
  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 refused to reserve any of the surplus exclusively for 
Medicare. They call this legislation the ``Social Security and Medicare 
Safe Deposit Box Act,'' but in fact they do nothing to financially 
strengthen Medicare. Rather than providing a dedicated stream of 
available on-budget revenue to Medicare, their proposal pits Medicare 
against Social Security in a competition for funds that belong to the 
Social Security Trust Fund. We all know that the dollars in the Social 
Security Trust Fund are not even sufficient to meet Social Security's 
obligations after 2034. There clearly are no extra funds available in 
Social Security to help Medicare. Their plan will do nothing to ease 
the financial crisis confronting Medicare. The Republican proposal for 
Medicare is a sham--and they know it.
  By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 40 percent of the on-
budget surplus to Medicare. 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 targeted 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 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 establish 
genuine lockboxes for both Social Security and Medicare. H.R. 1259 
creates only the illusion of protecting these two landmark programs. It 
provides inadequate protection for Social Security and no protection at 
all for Medicare. We can do better than this.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey and yield back my remaining time 
to him.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I will speak for a moment on this issue which has been of great 
concern to me. As many of you know, I come from a banking background. 
Bankers manage trust funds. I come from a business background where 
businesses, as you know, manage their employees' pension funds.
  Congress has passed laws that make it illegal for any business man or 
woman in the private sector to reach into an employee's pension fund, 
take the money out, and spend it on some other program.
  A few years back Congress passed laws making it illegal for State and 
local governments to plunder the pension funds of their employees. But 
during all this time, where Congress has put these laws on the books 
and made it illegal in the private sector and at the State and local 
government level to plunder pension funds, we have gone on and on in 
Washington taking all the money that goes into the Social Security 
trust fund, taking every dime of it out, and spending it on some other 
program.
  As a result, as I speak now on the Senate floor, there is no money in 
the Social Security trust fund. All of it has been taken out and spent 
on other programs. They have put meaningless, nonmarketable, 
nonnegotiable securities in the Social Security trust fund, securities 
that have no economic value because they cannot be sold to raise cash.
  Right now our Government is building up, theoretically, surpluses in 
the Social Security trust fund, but they are taking all that money out 
and spending it. So when we actually need it to pay benefits, beginning 
in the year 2014, there will be no money there. No matter what the 
balance of those bogus IOUs is in the Social Security trust fund, in 
the year 2014--whether that balance is $1 trillion or $5 trillion--they 
are of no assistance in paying benefits to those who depend on Social 
Security. The country will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits 
to make up for the shortfall that is anticipated after the year 2014.
  This legislation is basic, decent common sense. We should not allow 
Congress to continue frittering away the Social Security trust fund. I 
urge all my colleagues to support it and end this outrageous practice 
of plundering the Social Security trust fund, to the detriment of our 
Nation's seniors and those who will be desiring to live on Social 
Security benefits in the next century.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
California.

[[Page 12997]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership. What he 
did in the gun debate is expose that the other side had a sham bill 
which they said would promote sensible gun laws. He exposed that. He 
put forward the Lautenberg amendment, which eventually passed, that did 
something about the safety of our children.
  He is doing it again today. He is ready to offer a real amendment to 
help our seniors, and he is not able to do it.
  Let's face it--the Republicans admit it--Medicare is not included in 
their lockbox. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, accuses us 
of political demagoguery for pointing this out. To me, that is 
extraordinary. Because we want to offer an amendment to include 
Medicare in the lockbox, we are practicing political demagoguery.
  Let's ask the average senior citizen if they need their Medicare. 
There is a beautiful picture of a beautiful couple next to our friend 
from Michigan. If they were sitting on this floor, I think he would 
lean over to her and say: Honey, I didn't know they were leaving out 
Medicare.
  Let me tell you why. Because if you leave out Medicare, even if you 
do save Social Security--and that is not a fact in evidence in this 
lockbox; there are so many loopholes in it--and all of a sudden seniors 
have to pay $300 a month more for their Medicare, maybe even more, that 
will eat up their Social Security.
  Medicare and Social Security are the twin pillars of the safety net 
for our retired people. Before Medicare, 50 percent of our seniors had 
no health insurance.
  Put Medicare into the lockbox. Give us a chance. Vote down cloture. 
Let's have a debate that is worthy of this body.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Will the Chair tell us how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 6 minutes 5 
seconds, and the Senator from New Jersey has 2 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak briefly.
  I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion over the arguments 
about this debate from the other side. When we had what we termed to be 
a tough lockbox--and we believe it was, the Senate bill--we were told 
it was too tough. The Secretary of the Treasury sent a letter saying it 
should be vetoed; it is too tough, puts too many constraints on the 
Government.
  Now we are using the House bill, which virtually every Member of both 
parties in the House voted for, and it is accused of being too easy, 
too loose, too many loopholes. I have a hard time figuring out what it 
will take to be a satisfactory lockbox.
  If you look at the money that comes to the Federal Government and 
divide it into two categories, you have one category which is the money 
that goes into Social Security, on which we run a surplus, and all the 
rest of the money that comes to Washington. It seems to me there is a 
consensus on all sides that the money that goes into Social Security 
ought to not be spent on anything except Social Security. It seems to 
me we could pass that bill, and we could provide the seniors, who I 
have introduced to us today, with the security that all their Social 
Security money will be used for Social Security.
  There is no consensus as to what to do with all the rest of the money 
that comes to Washington. That is why we have appropriations 
committees. That is why we have reconciliation bills. That is why we 
have annual budget debates.
  It does seem to me a little bit odd, if everybody is in agreement 
that we ought to keep the Social Security revenues for Social Security, 
that we can't pass that bill but instead we have to have countless 
other debates going on about a variety of other spending priorities. 
Can't we at least agree that the Social Security money that comes for 
Social Security ought to be spent on Social Security?
  To me, Mr. President, that is self-evident. All this other discussion 
increasingly must be an effort to thwart a debate on what to do with 
the Social Security surplus. To me, that debate ought to be simple. It 
ought to be used for Social Security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. If you have any other speakers, we 
wanted to have the----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The last word?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. If you have somebody else who wants to speak, then we 
will go.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 2 minutes 14 
seconds. The Senator from Michigan has 3 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are in the final minutes of this 
debate. I wonder whether could we get unanimous consent to extend this 
debate by 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It has been suggested that we not extend it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I strongly support measures that will 
create a financially solvent Social Security system for current and 
future beneficiaries.
  I am pleased that the Senate is debating this issue, since the 
Trustees predict that in 2034 the current Social Security system will 
no longer be solvent.
  However, the proposed lockbox in this legislation is not the way to 
make Social Security financially solvent for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  The proposed lockbox reminds one of the 1980s--real efforts at fiscal 
discipline were ignored in favor for catchy slogans and irrelevant 
procedural changes.
  As Congress fiddled, our budget burned. During the 1980s and early 
1990s, the national debt quadrupled and the annual deficit reached 
almost $300 billion in 1992.
  If we are going to create a lockbox, the Senate needs to develop one 
without any holes.
  Unfortunately, the lockbox in the current proposal has several large 
holes.
  It allows Social Security Surplus to be used for Social Security and 
Medicare Reform.
  For instance, Social Security reform can mean different things.
  Some of them do not mean achieving solvency of the Social Security 
system.
  Social Security reform could mean creating individual retirement 
accounts.
  Let's not allow the surplus out of the lockbox until we have 
``reform'' that ensures solvency.
  If I had been allowed, I would have offered an amendment that would 
use the Social Security surpluses to pay off the debt held by the 
public.
  Only this action will truly ensure that the Social Security surplus 
is used to create a stronger economy.
  Paying down the debt would lower long term interest rates.
  Lower interest rates make it less expensive for the American public 
to borrow money.
  The low cost of borrowing would encourage the American public to get 
loans that they could invest in new business ventures and in education.
  The new economic activity and increased labor productivity derived 
from these activities will lead to increased economic growth.
  More economic growth leads to increased FICA tax revenue which gives 
the Social Security Trust Fund more income and extends solvency.
  This lockbox proposal that we are considering has numerous other 
holes.
  The proposal focuses on securing the bank that will hold the Social 
Security surplus.
  However, it does not secure the train that takes the money to the 
bank.
  Jesse James, the famous American outlaw, used to rob banks and 
trains.
  Like any good outlaw, he would steal money where it was easiest to do 
so.
  If the bank was too secure to rob, he would rob the train that 
brought the money to the bank.
  Congress' abuses of its emergency spending powers are similar to 
robbing the train that brings the Social Security surplus to bank.
  The 1990 budget agreement specifically outlined a binding, multi-year

[[Page 12998]]

deficit-reduction plan, along with a web of procedural controls to 
restrain federal spending.
  That included rules on instances when Congress could escape those 
spending restraints to pay for emergency needs.
  Unfortunately, this emergency safety valve is increasingly used to 
evade fiscal discipline.
  What Washington believes to be a true ``emergency'' is decidedly 
different than what the average person probably thinks.
  In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, we passed a 
$532 billion omnibus appropriations bill.
  Included in that bill was $21.4 billion in so-called ``emergency'' 
spending.
  Without the emergency designation, Congress would have been required 
to offset each expenditure under the ``pay-as-you-go'' rule that is 
critical to maintaining fiscal discipline and balance.
  Let's consider the numbers.
  In 1998, the Social Security surplus was $99 billion.
  $27 billion of that surplus was used to cover a deficit in the 
Federal operating budget.
  An additional $3 billion was used to pay for emergency outlays.
  All of a sudden, the $99 billion Social Security surplus was reduced 
to $69 billion.
  In 1999, we are projecting a $127 billion Social Security surplus.
  But we have spent another $12.6 billion for emergencies, reducing 
that surplus to $98 billion.
  And even though we have not yet reached the 2000 fiscal year, we 
already know that emergency spending expenditures will reduce that 
year's Social Security surplus by $10 billion.
  Our repetitive misuse of the emergency process continues to erode the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  Senator Snowe of Maine and I have introduced legislation that would 
establish permanent safeguards to protect the surplus from questionable 
``emergency'' uses.
  Specifically, our legislation would do the following:
  1. Create a 60-vote point of order that prevents non-emergency items 
from being included in emergency spending bills.
  This will ensure that non-emergency items are subject to careful 
scrutiny.
  2. Create a 60-vote point of order that will allow members to 
challenge the validity of items that are redesignated as 
``emergencies.''
  3. Require a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate for the passage of 
any bill that contains emergency spending.
  This will serve as a ``safety value'' to ensure that there is strong 
support for a bill containing emergency spending even if neither of the 
proceeding points of order were exercised for any reason.
  Mr. President, as we adjust to the welcome reality of budget 
surpluses--after decades of annual deficits and burgeoning additions to 
the national debt--we must never forget how easily this valuable asset 
can be squandered.
  For too long, the Federal Government treated the budget like a credit 
card with an unlimited spending limit.
  If our hard-won surpluses are going to be preserved, we have to 
prevent the abuse of emergency spending from taking over the budgetary 
process.
  Too many instances of misuse will enlarge the hard task of 
identifying true emergencies and injure the credibility and original 
purpose of ``emergency'' spending.
  Just as private citizens are warned against falsely dialing 911, 
Congress should be restrained from misusing its emergency spending 
powers. The next door wide open to raids on the surplus will be the one 
that passes on more debt--and a less secure Social Security system--to 
our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, a ``lockbox'' is a good idea. But we can make this one 
stronger. We can control ``emergency spending'' so there will be money 
to put in the lockbox for future generations.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the lockbox legislation 
being considered by the Senate. The Senate has tried to bring this 
important issue to a vote and begin changing the way people think about 
budget surpluses. Our House colleagues have passed their lockbox 
legislation and now it is up to the Senate to finish the job.
  The source of the surplus is a rising inflow of Social Security 
payroll taxes. Under the current budget rules, this revenue is treated 
like revenue from any other source--it is put into the general fund and 
then spent. The lockbox would capture the difference between the 
inflows to the Social Security trust fund and the payment of benefits 
to current retirees--reserving it for the Social Security program only.
  This debate is not only about preserving Social Security, but the 
entire concept of a balanced budget. In 1997, Congress passed the first 
balanced budget since 1969. We now have a surplus of $134 billion for 
fiscal year 1999 and forecasts show a combined surplus totaling $1.8 
trillion over the next ten years. That gives Congress the opportunity 
to work on long term solutions to the fast approaching insolvency of 
the Social Security and Medicare programs. There are only 28 years 
remaining before Social Security is forecast to go broke. Medicare will 
be bankrupt in less than half that time. We must ensure that we capture 
as much of the surplus as possible to give Congress the ability to 
develop a new Social Security program that is actuarially sound for 
Baby Boomers.
  Without the balanced budget, there would be no surplus to save. That 
goes for the spending caps, too. Without spending caps, there would 
have been no enforcement mechanism to prevent Congress from increasing 
the deficit. The spending caps were the tool that Congress used to 
ensure a surplus. The lockbox is another tool for fiscal discipline--
like the spending caps--that will help ensure that the Social Security 
surplus is used for its stated purpose.
  The Social Security surplus is not ``found money.'' It is money that 
will provide income for retired Americans. The Administration that said 
it wanted to preserve every penny of the surplus for Social Security 
has decided that saving the program means spending $1.8 trillion on 
unrelated programs. Congress rejected the President's attempt to spend 
the surplus and double the national debt in the process. We must not 
spend money that is already earmarked for future Social Security 
beneficiaries. As an accountant, I have a hard time reconciling the 
President's plan to what I know about accounting. He wants to spend the 
same money he is claiming to save. You can't have it both ways--either 
you spend it or you save it. The lockbox saves it. Otherwise, the 
President forces us to spend it.
  The lockbox legislation prohibits spending the surplus on anything 
but Social Security by requiring a 60 vote point of order against any 
legislation that spends the surplus. The legislation would also combine 
the lock with a second provision--the requirement that debt held by the 
public also decline by the same amount the Social Security surplus 
increases. That would save the Federal government about $230 billion a 
year in interest over the next 30 years. That is $230 billion that is 
available for national defense or even education. If we do nothing, the 
government will pay over $10 trillion dollars in interest over the next 
thirty years. The lockbox would help cut the national debt and ensure 
that future generations are not liable for the fiscal irresponsibility 
of past generations. It is the national debt that could become a 
significant roadblock to the economic security of the Baby Boomers. 
What will the children of baby boomers do when they have to spend all 
the U.S. tax revenues on Social Security and know that they will never 
see a penny of it. Would they revolt? Would they end Social Security? 
This is a reactionary generation coming up, what will their reaction 
be? The debt reduction provision of the lockbox legislation is the type 
of farsighted leadership that has been missing in years past. It is 
also this provision that has earned a veto threat from the President 
for that reason. It would prevent the President from increasing the 
national debt as well as the size and scope of government.
  The Social Security lockbox will protect the Social Security surplus 
from

[[Page 12999]]

wasteful spending and ensure that the money will be there to fulfill 
future obligations. Just as corporations are prohibited from spending 
their pension funds on regular business expenses, Congress should have 
the same restrictions on the Social Security surplus. If company 
executives handled pension funds like the current use of Social 
Security the executives would be in jail! The temptation to go back to 
the old tax and spending ways is too great if Congress has access to a 
growing pot of money. Congress must not go back to the old spending 
rules. Just because we have a surplus does not mean that the battle has 
been won. It means that we must continue to be watchful and ensure that 
the surplus continues to grow.
  Last night, both Houses of Congress took up legislation that would 
spend the surplus on programs other than Social Security. The House of 
Representatives passed legislation that would spend $14.3 billion more 
than budgeted for airports. The Senate had a procedural vote to allow 
the consideration of legislation to give loans to the steel industry 
and small oil and gas producers. That money comes right out of the 
surplus. It is this type of action that the lockbox is designed to 
prevent.
  The lockbox's time has come. Congress must not continue to pay lip 
service to the concept of preserving the Social Security surplus. We 
must take the bold steps necessary to ensure that the program is around 
for the long term. We must not use long term funds to satisfy short 
term wishes. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
commitment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In the final minutes of the debate, I hope we can 
clear the air so that everybody understands what we are talking about.
  There are these kinds of random accusations about demagoguing this 
issue, et cetera. We are not demagoguing the issue. It is very simple. 
We ought to be able to discuss it on the floor of the Senate without 
having the amendment tree filled up so you can't offer amendments, 
without having cloture offered the minute the bill is introduced, so 
that there is a lame suggestion there is a filibuster going on when 
there is no time, 1 hour equally divided--that is a filibuster? That is 
not a man-size filibuster at all. We have had filibusters that have 
taken 20 hours. So that is not a filibuster. It is all an excuse to 
lock out other opinion, controverting what is being presented to us.
  Yesterday our good friend from Michigan said that we refused to let 
that bill go forward, that the Secretary of the Treasury said that we 
could go into default. That is what he said. We hear these descriptions 
that are ignored on the other side. We heard our friend from Illinois 
say that Social Security has these meaningless instruments to protect 
the trust fund. Meaningless? All they have is the full faith and credit 
of the United States. If any of you have any money, it says on there 
``full faith and credit,'' consider it meaningless, even if you have a 
lot of it.
  This is a nonsense kind of discussion. What they are saying is there 
is nothing to increase Social Security's solvency being offered. 
Whatever surplus there is in Social Security stays with Social 
Security. We agree with that.
  We want to take the non-Social Security surplus and use 40 percent of 
that to preserve Medicare. That is what we want to do. Our friends do 
not want to let us do that. They do not want to have the debate, and 
they do not want the American public to have their Medicare protected.
  That is not where they are; they are at protecting it for tax cuts or 
other uses they find appropriate, not for what the American people 
want.
  I assume that we are out of time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first of all, I commend Senator Kennedy, 
because he offered an amendment. It is pending. I join him in that 
amendment. That amendment is germane, and it takes care of the entire 
argument about there being a loophole, because it takes the loophole 
out.
  We didn't put the loophole in. The House did. The loophole is that 
the Social Security trust fund should be used only for Social Security. 
The House said it should also be used for Medicare.
  Now, the good Senator from New Jersey is saying there are no 
amendments possible. This amendment could be called up after cloture, 
and it would take that part of it out and would leave it just for 
Social Security.
  Now, senior citizens are hearing an argument that says we ought to 
protect both Medicare and Social Security in a proposal that is trying 
to take the Social Security fund and keep it for the future for senior 
citizens. One at a time, let's get it done. What is wrong with the 
other side of the aisle coming forth and debating keeping the Social 
Security trust fund for Social Security, not divert over and talk about 
Medicare, which is in committee being debated as to getting a 
bipartisan bill out of committee? We ought to wait for that to occur 
before we start talking about Medicare with Social Security.
  Finally, the idea that this won't work and the notion that Senator 
Domenici in the past has said: Let's first pay off Medicare's 
responsibility, let me clear that up.
  We were talking then about a huge cigarette tax. That is not before 
us. The cigarette tax was going to be spent by the President and by 
many on both sides of the aisle, to which I said: Before we do that, we 
ought to set it aside to see if Medicare needs it. That was a brand new 
tax.
  Plain and simple, if the Democrats will cooperate, which they are not 
going to, we will bring before the Senate and have a debate: Do you 
want to put 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund aside and use 
it only for Social Security, or do you want to save 62 percent, as the 
President says, for Social Security? Incidentally, to the credit of 
Democrats in our committee, not a single one of them voted for the 
President's budget, not a single one. They voted for little pieces. 
Even they didn't think the President's ideas were correct. Frankly, 
from our standpoint, we stand ready, and we say to the American senior 
citizens: Put the blame where it belongs.
  They didn't let us vote on a tough lockbox because it was too tough. 
We fixed it up to accommodate the Secretary; still too tough. The other 
side says: You can't get it done. Now we have one that is not as good, 
but significant, and now they say they want to take care of Medicare 
also.
  We ought to get our priorities straight. We are debating a trust fund 
in the Senate for Social Security money. If they want to offer 
amendments to change that in some way, even after cloture, they can 
vote on those amendments. I repeat, Senator Kennedy has handled it 
right. He put in an amendment already. That amendment says Social 
Security trust funds should only be used for Social Security. It takes 
Medicare out of the House bill. That is a good way to approach this 
legislation--not to stand up and say Republicans aren't doing anything. 
As a matter of fact, we came up with the toughest lockbox you could 
imagine. But we heard that it is too tough, too hard on future 
Americans, to hard on our debt, so we changed it some. Then the excuse 
was: We are not ready to vote on that; we need more amendments.
  I think the American senior citizens know what we are trying to do. I 
hope they know what the Democrats are trying to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 13000]]




                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that Sean McClusky, Curtis Rubinas, 
Dennis Tamargo, and Zachary Bennett of my staff be afforded floor 
privileges for the consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, once again, the Senate has the 
opportunity to do something meaningful for the American people; that 
is, to protect and strengthen both Social Security and Medicare for 
generations to come. I fear we may lose that opportunity in just a few 
moments.
  Repeatedly, we have seen lost opportunities as we have debated this 
lockbox issue now for several months. Rather than allowing Senators to 
exercise their rights and offer amendments to improve a given piece of 
legislation, many of our Republican colleagues have opted for a take-
it-or-leave-it approach. The losers in each instance are the American 
people. They know this behavior produces gridlock and partisanship and 
fails to address the problems and concerns faced by American families 
around the country. Yet, this is precisely the course the majority has 
chosen to follow on yesterday's so-called lockbox bill and again on 
today's version.
  In both instances, our Republican colleagues have resorted to 
procedural tactics to deny Senators the right to offer even a single 
amendment.
  The right to amend is a fundamental part of the legislative process 
and is particularly important given the nature of the bills before us 
yesterday and today. Both of these bills have flaws that, if addressed, 
could quickly lead to final passage of both. Neither the Abraham bill 
we considered yesterday, nor the House-passed bill we will soon be 
voting on, sets aside a single dollar for Medicare--not a dollar, not a 
dime. Nothing.
  Democrats believe we should protect and strengthen both Social 
Security and Medicare. Republicans--at least some of them--can't seem 
to bring themselves to do anything to address the Medicare issue. Given 
a choice between Medicare and tax cuts, or just tax cuts, our 
Republican colleagues are choosing just tax cuts every time.
  This position is particularly troubling given the state of Medicare's 
finances and the size of the projected on-budget, non-Social Security 
surpluses. According to OMB, we will have an on-budget surplus of $1.7 
trillion over the next 15 years.
  According to Medicare's actuaries, the Medicare trust fund is likely 
to go bankrupt in 2015--at the very time when large numbers of the baby 
boomer generation reach retirement age.
  Large non-Social Security surpluses are within our reach while large 
problems are looming in Medicare. It seems only natural that we would 
try to set aside a portion of the $1.7 trillion in on-budget surpluses 
to help protect and reform Medicare. This is precisely the approach 
taken by Democrats in our alternative: pay down the debt and set aside 
resources for Social Security and Medicare as well.
  If you look at the comments made by Republicans last year, you would 
think that they would join us now in our pursuit to protect both of 
these important programs. Just last year on this floor, Republican 
after Republican took the opportunity to tell us about the importance 
of saving Medicare.
  Quoting one Republican Senator:

       What would we do if we had half a trillion dollars to 
     spend? The obvious answer that cries out is Medicare. I think 
     it is logical. People understand the President on ``save 
     Social Security first,'' and I think they will understand 
     ``save Medicare first.'' Medicare is in crisis. We want to 
     save Medicare first.

  So says a Republican colleague just last year.
  These words, in various forms, were spoken by a number of our 
Republican colleagues. The only thing that has changed since then is 
the size of the non-Social Security surplus; it has grown considerably 
in the intervening period. Despite their words from last year and 
forecasts this year showing even larger surpluses--$1.7 trillion over 
the next 15 years--Republicans now resist setting aside a single dollar 
for Medicare.
  Equally disturbing about the so-called Social Security lockbox is 
that it does not even truly protect Social Security.
  Rather than lock away Social Security trust funds for Social Security 
benefits, the Republican bill allows Social Security funds to be tapped 
for anything they decide to call ``Social Security or Medicare 
reform.'' Be careful of that word ``reform'' because under their 
proposal Social Security trust funds could be spent to privatize the 
program or, believe it or not, even to fund tax cuts. Not surprisingly, 
given this gaping loophole, the Washington Post described the latest 
Republican lockbox proposal as follows:

       This is phony legislation . . . . its purpose is to protect 
     the politicians, not the program; and most of it is merely a 
     showy restatement of the status quo. This is legislation 
     whose main intent is to deceive and whose main effects could 
     well be harmful.

  So states the Washington Post.
  Given the Republicans' so-called Social Security lockbox doesn't 
really lock anything away, one could easily conclude that the Post's 
characterization of the lockbox as ``phony'' is, if anything, too 
generous.
  The lockbox proposal proposed by our colleagues on the Republican 
side is a collapsible box that could ultimately end the Social Security 
system as we know it today.
  Very clearly, Democrats have long supported the idea of protecting 
Social Security, and we stand ready to work with our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle today as well. But both the Senate and House 
bills need improvement. The Republicans have set up procedures to deny 
us the opportunity to make improvements. We are prepared to work with 
the majority when they decide to proceed in a bipartisan fashion and 
put good policy ahead of what they evidently perceive to be better 
politics.
  That time has not come today, and I ask my colleagues, for that 
reason, to oppose the cloture motion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under leader time to 
conclude the debate. I realize we had notified Members we would be 
having a vote around 12:30, so I will not use the full 10 minutes. I 
will just use a portion of it.
  I want to begin by commending and thanking Senator Abraham and 
Senator Domenici for their leadership in this area. As always, Senator 
Domenici pays very close attention to how we proceed on the budget and 
what happens with the people's money. He is a very good custodian of 
the people's money, and he has provided real leadership in this area; 
and Senator Abraham has been persistent.
  What we are trying to do is very simple. It doesn't need a lot of 
explanation. We have the good fortune after many years of having not 
only a balanced budget but having a surplus. But an important factor is 
that the surplus is caused or provided by the FICA tax. It is Social 
Security revenue that comes in that gives us this surplus. The question 
is, What are we going to do with it?
  There are a lot of really innovative, thoughtful Members in this and 
the other body who will surely come up with a variety of ways and say, 
well, this is an emergency, or that is an emergency, or we need to add 
more money here, or we need a tax cut somewhere else. Social Security 
taxes should go for Social Security, and only for Social Security--not 
for any other brilliant idea we may have. We need some way to lock that 
in.
  I have talked to young people about this. I talked to my mother. 
Bless her

[[Page 13001]]

heart. She is 86 years of age and is living in an assisted care 
facility, and is very dependent on Social Security. I have talked to 
people from Montana to Pennsylvania, and Missouri. It is overwhelming. 
People say: You mean, it doesn't already exist this way? You mean that 
money has been being used or could be used for somebody else? The 
answer is, it can be, unless we have some procedure, some way to put it 
in a lockbox.
  Senator Domenici and Senator Abraham had a tighter lockbox, one that 
would really be hard to get out of, and it would include the President 
in the lockbox. We ought to do it that way. But the Senate has 
indicated three times it does not want to do that. The House has passed 
overwhelmingly--I think with 415 votes, bipartisan votes--this 
procedure, this procedure that would allow or require a super vote of 
60 votes in the Senate to use these funds for anything else.
  That is all we are trying to do--just say that Social Security tax 
money should go for Social Security; that people support this 
overwhelmingly, probably at least in the 80 percentile.
  As far as amendments, I would be glad to try to work to consider 
other amendments. I have asked for, and I presume we will be receiving, 
a copy of one amendment, at least, that Senator Daschle has discussed.
  But the problem is, this is really simple. It is not complicated. We 
shouldn't be getting off into all kinds of other areas, which are very 
important. But Medicare should be dealt with as Medicare. We should 
have broad Medicare reform--not starting to piecemeal it or trying to 
attach it to Social Security.
  That is why we want a clear vote. We want a straight vote. It is a 
simple procedure. Everybody can understand it. And we can move on and 
deal with other issues.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. Let's get this done. Let's 
move on. We will have other opportunities to deal with other issues. It 
is something that is long overdue, and it is only the first step. The 
next step should be a tighter lockbox, and the next step beyond that 
should be not just more spending for Medicare but genuine, broad 
Medicare reform.
  But, for now, let's protect Social Security. Let's vote for cloture, 
and let's pass this procedure.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  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 H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe 
Deposit Box Act of 1999.
         Trent Lott, Spencer Abraham, Rick Santorum, Gordon Smith 
           of Oregon, Mike Crapo, John H. Chafee, Judd Gregg, 
           Larry E. Craig, Rod Grams, Connie Mack, Frank 
           Murkowski, John Warner, Slade Gorton, Fred Thompson, 
           Michael B. Enzi, and Paul Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on H.R. 1259, an act to amend the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 to protect Social Security surpluses through strengthened 
budgeting enforcement mechanisms, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays result--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 170 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     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
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________