Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. In effect, we started late, and the original plan was to have a 2-hour discussion, equally divided, from 9:30 until 11:30. We started 10 minutes late. So the purpose of this unanimous consent agreement would be to add in the additional 5 minutes to each side because of our late initiation. That isn't how much time is left. That is how much time will be added to each side because of the loss.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Let me explain.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself an initial 5 minutes, and if the Chair will let me know when that time is reached, we will see how much time is remaining to speak. I have had the pleasure of listening now for about 3 days to a variety of criticisms raised by the other side of the aisle on this amendment, almost all of which are baseless in every conceivable way. Some of them, I think, are caused by failure to read it, some because of a reliance on letters received from the Department of Treasury before it had even been drafted, and some for reasons that are frankly, to me, still confusing--the most recent being the comments of the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee that they have had no opportunity to address the issue. What we have before us is cloture on this amendment, not cloture on this bill. If cloture is invoked, then we will go ultimately to a vote on this amendment, and once it is dispensed with, up or down, the bill will still be available for amendment. If there are better lockbox proposals or alternative proposals, there will be an opportunity for that. Let me also say, this Senator certainly is receptive to, and anxious to hear from, the Secretary of the Treasury or anybody else with respect to ways to perfect the approach we have taken. But what we have tried to do is simply put into a legislative form that which we passed as part of our budget resolution on a 99-0 vote. What that said, very simply, was we were going to reduce the Federal debt held by the public because it is a national priority; that Social Security surpluses should be used for Social Security reform, or to reduce the debt held by the public and should not be used for any other purpose. Mr. President, 99 people voted for this. Now, all of a sudden, we hear that having the words ``Social Security reform'' in this amendment is some kind of diabolical plot; or using the Social Security surplus to pay down the national debt is somehow a threat to the economy. If people believe that, I cannot imagine why they voted in the first place 99-0 for this amendment when it was offered by myself and others during the budget resolution debate. The only thing that has happened since then is that we have tried to put into legislative context that which everybody said they were for. If there are criticisms of this, I think they would have to be technical ones because the basic principles that were voted on 99-0 are exactly what are embodied in this amendment before us today. We recently heard the statement: Who are the real friends of Social Security? We will find that out here in a few minutes. The question will be this, and this will be a question for seniors and those who will soon be recipients of Social Security benefits to answer for themselves: Are your friends the people who want to make sure the Social Security surpluses are protected from being spent or used for other Government programs or tax cuts or anything other than to reduce the national debt? Or are your friends the people who want to spend the Social Security surplus, such as the President proposed in his budget, or those who will vote against a provision, this amendment, that would protect the surpluses from being spent? Every time I talk to seniors in my State, I hear complaints that we have plundered the Social Security trust fund and spent those dollars on other things. This amendment is designed to put an end to that, to require 60 Senators to stand on this floor and to vote to spend Social Security money on something other than Social Security. Yet all of a sudden we find all kinds of excuses to oppose that. We will let the seniors decide who their friends really are. I think for too long we have seen these surplus dollars spent on other Government programs. It is time for that to stop. It is time for those dollars to be protected, to be used to pay down the public debt, or used as part of a Social Security modernization program. And that is not going to happen until we have bipartisan consensus on such a program. In the meantime, do we send those dollars off to other priorities in the budget, or do we put them into the reduction of the publicly held debt so that we, in fact, strengthen the economy, reduce our interest payments, and make more funds available in the future for Social Security when it will need it?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side of the aisle be allotted 1 hour each for debate on the pending amendment, and that all time consumed to this point count against the time limitation, and the scheduled vote occur at the expiration of that time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for 5 minutes to speak to the amendment.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will in a moment yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ABRAHAM. If the Senator will yield, perhaps I will seek time.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. That is right. I agree.

Mr. ABRAHAM. As I think I laid out very clearly what the amendment does, I think the Senator from South Carolina would agree with me that when we take the Social Security surplus dollars and spend them on new spending programs or tax cuts or the expansion of existing programs-- that is what has been going on--I don't think that is what we want to see done with those dollars.

Mr. ABRAHAM. The issue is what do we do with them, if we don't spend them or use them for more spending programs? The legislation we are proposing says we either use those dollars to fix Social Security to deal with this long-term insolvency, or until we pass such legislation that we would use it to pay down the national debt. In my State, at least, I find an overwhelming number of people who feel that paying down the national debt is the one and only alternative for using these dollars. That makes sense to them because they know that will help us in the long term to address Social Security and solvency and a variety of other challenges that we face as a country.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I was about to ask what business we were on, and the Chair has answered the question. What I will do now is talk for a few minutes about the reasoning behind the amendment I brought on behalf of myself and Senators Domenici, Ashcroft, Lott, Nickles and several others, the so-called Social Security lockbox. First, I think it is important for our constituents to understand exactly what process happens now and what has been happening to their Social Security payroll taxes. If you are a working American, Social Security payroll taxes are taken out of your paycheck. Most Americans rue that little FICA box, as they know it means a reduction in the amount of take-home pay they have. The money that falls under the Social Security component of the FICA tax goes into the Social Security trust fund. From there it is used to pay Social Security benefits to retirees. Right now, however, the Social Security trust fund is taking in more money in taxes than it is paying out in benefits. We are doing that because in 1982 and 1983, as a result of the Bipartisan Commission's recommendations, we came up with an increase in the payroll taxes, the goal of which was to begin to build a surplus that could be used to meet the retirement demands, in terms of the system, of baby boomers. As a result, over the next 10 years, starting this year, Social Security will build up a surplus of $1.8 trillion. That means 1.8 trillion more payroll tax dollars are going to go into the Social Security trust fund than will be needed to meet the retirement benefit paychecks that will be paid during that timeframe. As I think most Americans know, and it seems at least virtually every senior or person nearing senior citizen age in my State that I meet with knows, Social Security surpluses have, in recent years, been used to mask the size of the Federal deficit and basically to finance other Government spending--everything from foreign aid to funding for the bureaucracy in the Internal Revenue Service. Now, however, Mr. President, as a result of the hard work this Congress and previous Congresses have done in the last several years, we are on the verge of balancing the budget without using the Social Security surplus. In fact, over the next 10 years, the Federal Government will accumulate a total budget surplus of $2.7 trillion-- $1.8 trillion, as I mentioned, in the Social Security trust fund and $900 billion in non-Social Security surpluses. The question, then, is what should we do with the Social Security surpluses that we are contemplating generating over the next 10 years? Should we continue spending those surpluses on other Government programs, on new spending programs, or on increases in existing programs? Or should we save those dollars for Social Security? Remember, that was the intent of developing the surplus, to set aside additional surplus Social Security dollars for the day when Social Security income is no longer meeting its outflow in terms of paychecks. Well, those of us bringing this amendment today say, very simply, let's save it all. We want to save every penny of every dollar to fix the Social Security program, to modernize the program, so that it is ready to meet the demands of the 21st century. If we don't pass a Social Security modernization plan, then it is our belief that that money should be used to reduce the public debt and not used for new spending programs, for tax cuts, or for anything else. That is the purpose of the legislation we are offering in the form of this amendment--to set up, in effect, a safe-deposit box into which we would put Social Security surpluses to guarantee that they are used solely to modernize Social Security or to pay down the debt. Mr. President, this protection is needed. It is needed because, without it, the Social Security surplus will be spent. President Clinton said in a press statement of November 15, 1995, that he wanted ``to assure the American people that the Social Security trust fund will not be used for any purpose other than to pay benefits to recipients.'' ``Under current law,'' he went on to say, ``the Secretary of the Treasury is not authorized to use the fund for any purpose other than to pay benefits to recipients. There will be no exceptions under my watch. None. Not ever.'' That is pretty unequivocal language: The Social Security trust fund will not be used for any purpose other than to pay benefits to recipients. Unfortunately, in 1998, as you will recall, the President threatened to shut down the Government if we didn't appropriate $21 billion in new Federal spending, to be funded, in effect, from the Social Security surplus. And now the Congressional Budget Office reports and has estimated that the President's latest budget, the one he submitted in February, spends $158 billion of the Social Security surplus--20 percent of the surplus that will be generated over the next 5 years on non-Social Security programs. If we have learned anything else over the last several years, we should have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt that money left in Washington will be spent in Washington. That includes money in the Social Security trust fund. I have singled out the President in my comments here because of this year's budget submission, as well as last year's spending bills; but it is not one side of the aisle alone that has a tendency to spend dollars. We have all voted for spending bills here that have taken the Social Security trust fund money and spent it elsewhere. In my judgment, the failure of the current budget process to provide safeguards against such spending demands that we put in place the kind of safe-deposit lockbox we are discussing here today in order to make sure that in the future the Social Security surplus dollars are protected, because unless we protect that surplus, in my judgment, it will be spent and we will not have adequate money to make sure that Social Security is not only available to today's seniors but tomorrow's seniors as well. The purpose of our Social Security lockbox is to make Social Security funds unavailable to those who want to spend them. First, it reaffirms that Social Security is off budget. Second, it establishes a 60-vote Senate point of order against any resolution or legislation that spends the Social Security surplus. Third, it establishes in law a declining limit on the amount of debt to be held by the public, which keeps Social Security moneys from being spent on Washington programs. In other words, Mr. President, initially on an annual basis, and then on a biannual basis, this legislation would mandate that the publicly held debt be decreased by the amount of money in the Social Security trust fund surplus until such time as we pass Social Security modernization legislation that would use those surpluses. In other words, if Congress does not pass a Social Security modernization plan, we will reduce the public debt, and the total amount over that 10-year period would be over $1.2 trillion--well over $1 trillion that would otherwise have been simply spent would, under this proposal, be used to pay down our debt. That, in turn, would lower interest rates, strengthen our economy, and strengthen the Social Security system accordingly. By strengthening our economy, this debt reduction will directly impact, in my judgment, not only economic growth but the strength of Social Security. Mr. President, in light of the time, I want to turn at this point to some of the comments that have been made on the Senate floor with regard to this amendment. Perhaps the most serious we have heard are serious charges that this amendment would prevent the Federal Government from meeting its obligation to pay Social Security benefits themselves. This is premised on a letter that was sent by Secretary of the Treasury Rubin some time ago--before this legislation was even drafted, I might add--criticizing the as-yet-to-be-drafted legislation on a number of counts. Some have referred to the letter from Secretary Rubin in expressing his concern about a bill not yet introduced. I urge my colleagues who have raised these concerns to please read the text of the amendment before us today. Let me point out in this regard that no fewer than three provisions in this amendment guarantee that there will be absolutely no disruption of any kind in the payment of Social Security benefits. We attempted--even though we had not yet drafted the legislation--in drafting the initial bill itself, which is offered in this amendment, to make sure that the concerns raised by the Secretary of the Treasury were, in fact, addressed. First, we included a recession trigger, which would suspend these public debt limits in times of recession and reinstate them only after we had recovered from a recession at a newly adjusted public debt level. Second, we included a provision seeing to it that no short-term task management problems would endanger Social Security payments. We have done that very specifically. Finally, we provided for a 7-month delay in implementing the lower debt limit figures--a delay that would make sure that when the publicly held debt limit was reduced, that event would occur at a time when the Treasury was at its maximum annual cash flow position, so that any type of management of money challenges the Secretary of the Treasury might have that might precipitate a short- term cash flow problem would not be encountered. In our judgment, this will provide the Secretary with a buffer that will be more than adequate, in terms of cash flow, to meet all Social Security obligations. In addition, the amendment contains a legal declaration that Social Security benefit payments required by law have priority claim on the U.S. Treasury. Such provision should not be necessary because in the highly unlikely and, indeed, unprecedented case of a default, I would be shocked to find that Secretary Rubin, or any of his successors, would give greater priority to spending dollars on foreign aid, corporate welfare, or the IRS bureaucracy than paying benefits to seniors. Nonetheless, to ensure that does not happen, we have included in this amendment a guarantee that, in the highly unlikely event of a default, Social Security benefits will be paid first. Finally, I must add one other guarantee of Social Security payments. I must mention one, and that is the Members of Congress themselves. I cannot conceive, and I am sure the Presiding Officer cannot conceive, that there is any Member of this body who would not vote to suspend these debt limits immediately if there was any risk of failing to meet our Social Security obligations. That would not happen. I don't think there is a Member in the House or the Senate who would vote to make sure those payments were met, and that is what we have--a point of order that can be overturned by a 60-vote Senate vote on the legislation. Social Security benefits are not endangered by this amendment. They are, in fact, made much safer by its provisions for saving Social Security, as well as the clear priority the amendment gives to all Social Security payments. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we believe this amendment would make Social Security safer, and that is why 99 Senators recently voted for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution declaring that every nickel of the Social Security surplus should be saved in this way to fix Social Security, or to reduce the public debt. I urge those same 99 Senators to vote for cloture so that we can have an up-or-down vote on this amendment. I also say this. I know there are other Members who have other ways in mind as to how, perhaps, to address the challenge of protecting the Social Security surplus. In fact, I suspect the Senator from South Carolina, who spoke about this yesterday, will perhaps offer an amendment that he offered in committee. That is fine. I think we should offer different proposals. Let's vote them up or down. Let's not prevent votes from taking place. I would like a vote on this amendment, and I would certainly be happy to have a vote on amendments offered from other Members on either side of the aisle. But let's move the process forward. I think most people would like to see us addressing this issue head on and not deferring it and not refusing to take votes on it. I think what we should do is try to offer those various approaches and have the chance to have them debated in the context of the bill on the floor, and then vote on the amendment we are proposing, and on others as well, and we will see where the Senate judgment ultimately lies. In any event, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, and that I will now replace the Presiding Officer. I notice that the time for that, too, has arrived.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I will yield for one. I have to relieve the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Our proposal, as the Senator knows, is to make sure that every Social Security surplus dollar is either spent in conjunction with legislation to modernize and guarantee the long-term solvency of Social Security, or used, as I said, to pay down the publicly held debt.

Mr. ABRAHAM. As the Senator from South Carolina knows, Mr. President, right now we are spending as much money as the current benefit system requires. We are fulfilling every single benefit which Social Security on an annual basis requires. The question is, If you have additional money, what do the American people want done with it? I think the American people do not want it spent for and don't want to see that additional surplus used for tax cuts. I think the American people are fed up with that. In my judgment, if the amendment were offered and passed, then that money will be spent, or it will be used in one of the fashions you have just described, the very way it has been used since 1983. So the question is which option do we prefer? I would like to see the money used to modernize Social Security. I hope we can on a bipartisan basis come forward with a plan that, in fact, modernizes Social Security for the 21st century. Until we do that, of the three choices left to us, it seems to me that at least the constituents in my State want to make sure that money doesn't get spent. I don't want to see it used for tax cuts. We want to see it used either to fix Social Security, or to bring down the national debt, because by bringing down the national debt we will, in effect, strengthen our position as we attempt to solve Social Security in the long term.

Mr. ABRAHAM. We are sort of moving a little beyond the question here, I say to the Senator, in that I have to relieve the Presiding Officer. Here is what I say to the Senator from South Carolina. We have a lot of ideas. Senator Hollings has offered in the committee his alternative as to how we should deploy these resources, these surplus dollars. Others have talked about an even bigger lockbox than the one we are proposing that might encompass other areas of Federal spending. That is fine. I am more than happy to debate each of these options. I would just like to see us vote on this option. I would like to see the Members of the Senate have a chance to vote yes or no on the question of whether or not we create as an option to using these dollars for spending or tax cuts the option that would have to be followed of using it to pay down the debt. In my judgment, Mr. President, that is an option that seniors, and people who will soon be seniors, would prefer to see these dollars used for as opposed to the way they have been spent in recent years. But if a majority of the Senate thinks that they prefer to see these dollars spent, whether on tax cuts or new spending programs, they can vote on it. And they should have a chance to vote on it. In fact, tomorrow they will have their first chance to vote on it. I say let's give the various plans their day in court here and let's see if the majority of the Senate supports one over the others. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for giving us an opportunity to begin this debate. I realize we have a number of Members on various sides of this issue with different ideas. I think if we have a discussion here, perhaps we can identify some of the concerns and address them. I hope we can because I think this is a topic that needs to have our full attention. Let me begin by saying I have just submitted an amendment here on behalf of myself as well as Senators Domenici, Ashcroft, Lott, Nickles, McCain, Frist, Crapo, Collins, and Grams. The amendment is the Social Security Preservation and Debt Reduction Act. It implements a sense-of- the-Senate resolution which we approved as part of the budget resolution just before our Easter recess. As you know, that sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed this Chamber on March 24 by a vote of 99 to zero. It said simply that we ought to truly protect Social Security by seeing to it that moneys in the Social Security trust fund are only used to fix Social Security or to pay down the public debt, and for no other purpose. We all agree that saving Social Security is our No. 1 priority in this Congress. That has been a discussion that virtually every Member at one time or another has been part of. The President, in both his 1998 and his 1999 State of the Union Addresses, said we should save every penny of the Social Security surplus. In this year's Address, he said we should use it to reduce the Federal debt so as to ensure it will not be squandered on other spending programs. I agree with that. So do my cosponsors. Therefore, it is our hope, through this amendment we are offering today, to put into effect that which so many people, including the President, have sought to accomplish. If enacted into law, this amendment would save every penny of the Social Security surplus either to fix Social Security or to reduce the public debt. Using hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund for new spending will not save Social Security. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the President's own budget, the one he submitted to us in February, spends $158 billion of the Social Security surplus, 20 percent of the surplus that will be generated over the next 5 years. Fortunately, as you know, the Senate charted a different course. Through our sense-of-the-Senate resolution, 99 Senators stated our intention to lock up the Social Security trust fund to protect those dollars from being spent on other Government programs. Let me recount what this resolution, which we passed as part of the budget, provided. First, it provided we would place Social Security truly and fully off budget. Second, we pledged to create a subcategory of the current gross Federal debt limit; namely, debt held by the public. Third, we pledged to mandate the reduction of that publicly held debt level by an amount equal to the Social Security trust fund surplus. In addition, the limits could be adjusted one time to accommodate substantive Social Security reform. In other words, unless we were using the Social Security trust fund surplus to fix Social Security, reform to modernize the Social Security system, then it would be used to reduce the current levels of Publicly held debt. The amendment I am offering would implement those pledges. So let me briefly run down its provisions. The Social Security Surplus Preservation and Debt Reduction Act reaffirms that Social Security is off budget. That means its assets should not be counted for purposes of the budget submitted by the President or the Congressional Budget Resolution. The legislation establishes a simple majority point of order against any budget that does not count Social Security moneys. This amendment also codifies the budget resolution language to establish a 60-vote Senate point of order against any budget resolution, budget amendment, or budget conference report that runs a deficit unless that deficit results solely from Social Security reform legislation. Of critical importance is the amendment's provision establishing in law a declining limit on the amount of debt that could be held by the public. This limit would be reduced in the year 2000, in the year 2001, and at 2-year intervals thereafter through the year 2009, by an amount equal to the entire Social Security trust fund surplus for each corresponding time period. The amount would be measured as CBO's current annual projections of the Social Security surplus for these same years. The 60-vote point of order would lie against any resolution or bill that would exceed the publicly held debt limits. In other words, we could not expand the publicly held debt unless we had 60 Members of this Chamber who would make such a decision. However, these limits would be automatically adjusted for the cost of Social Security reform, as I have mentioned, and/or for any changes in the actual or projected Social Security trust fund surpluses. Clearly, we are trying to read out the long period of time through this legislation, a 10-year period. So if, as we move through that period, the size of the Social Security trust fund surplus were to be readjusted or projected differently, then the legislation we are offering right now would provide the mechanism for making adjustments in that reduction of the publicly held debt accordingly. A number of additional provisions would protect Social Security recipients from unforeseen events. First, specific language in the amendment states that the Secretary of the Treasury shall give priority to the payment of Social Security benefits required to be paid by law. This amendment guarantees that Social Security benefits will have the highest priority on all Federal moneys. We institute a concrete guarantee to seniors, and to those who one day will be seniors, that their benefits are truly backed up by the full faith and credit of the Government of the United States. In addition, Mr. President, this amendment includes a provision that would set aside the public debt reductions in the case of recession. Whenever the Commerce Department reports two consecutive quarters of less than 1 percent growth, the limits would be set aside until there is one full quarter of more than 1 percent real growth. Once reestablished, the limit would restart 6 months later at the level of public debt held at the time of the recession's ending and then step back down at the rate projected by the newly determined Social Security surpluses. Finally, this amendment includes an exception for emergencies such as the current crisis in Kosovo. On March 17 of this year, Treasury Secretary Rubin sent a letter expressing several concerns about this approach. First, let me say that I was somewhat disappointed when he did so and surprised that he would raise the concerns about a bill that had not yet been written, let alone introduced. I appreciate the way Washington public policy debates work, Mr. President, and I understand the Secretary of the Treasury wanted to, at a very early stage, express concerns. What we have tried to do is respond to those concerns in such a fashion, I hope, that the way we have crafted the amendment will satisfy some of the issues raised in his correspondence. Let me talk about a few of those considerations at this time. First, Secretary Rubin in his letter commented that fiscal restraint is best exercised through the tools of the budget process; debt limits should not be used as an additional means of imposing restraint. But the last 2 years have clearly shown that current budget rules are inadequate to curb Washington's spending habits. Last year, the President threatened to shut down the Government unless we spent $21 billion of the Social Security surplus through various so-called ``emergency'' spending declarations. There was a lot of debate as to whether or not some of those provisions truly were appropriately described as emergencies. This year, as I noted, the President proposed spending $158 billion of the Social Security surplus on new spending programs over the next 5 years. The budget rules, therefore, I do not believe are protecting the Social Security surplus, and it is not just the President who has proposed ideas and ways by which these Social Security surplus dollars can be spent. Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have a lot of spending ideas, as we have heard. In my judgment, the current budget rules do not protect these Social Security surplus dollars adequately. They are not designed for that purpose. Therefore, in my judgment, only by locking away the Social Security surplus and guaranteeing that the spenders cannot get ahold of it will we be able to protect those surplus dollars. The fact of the matter is, if there is money available, people will find a way to spend it under the current rules. I think that is very simple and clear, and I think we should take additional steps to address it. I do not think we can count, as the Secretary has indicated, on the existing rules to suffice. Next, Secretary Rubin has raised the specter of default saying: Even the appearance of a risk that the United States of America might not meet its obligations because of the absence of necessary debt authority would impose significant additional costs on American taxpayers. Mr. President, we should keep in mind that we currently have a debt ceiling of $5.95 trillion. We live within a debt ceiling. We are not talking about creating something out of whole cloth here, a limit on the amount of indebtedness the American Government can assume. That is the law, and the Treasury cannot issue more debt than that. Further, current gross Federal debt is about $5.48 trillion. It is not at the moment projected to rise significantly over the next 10 years. There is no specter of failure to meet our obligations here. I will note, however, that the CBO estimated that the President's proposals in his budget would raise gross Federal debt to almost $8.4 trillion, almost $3.5 trillion over the current debt limit, exceeding the current debt limit by nearly 40 percent. Therefore, using the Secretary's logic, the President's budget will place us in immediate jeopardy of default because it will exceed the debt limits that we already have in place. Our proposal, on the other hand, simply creates a sublimit of our current debt limit, one for debt held by the public. It does nothing to limit our ability to meet our obligations. Nonetheless, we have tried to take Secretary Rubin's concerns seriously. What we have done to try to address those concerns--and I will elaborate on this a little bit further at a later point in these remarks--we have delayed the implementation of each year's new debt limit by 7 months to ensure that they become effective when the Treasury is most flush with cash. This will establish a buffer that is more than sufficient, in our judgment, to cover Treasury's short-term cash management needs, even during seasons of the year when cash deficits have historically appeared. Third, Secretary Rubin has expressed concern that the publicly held debt limits ``could easily be inadequate for the Government to meet its obligations at a given point during the year. If the Treasury could not borrow or raise, it is possible that it could simply stop honoring any payment.'' And he even went on to say Social Security payments. What he means by that, and it is related to the earlier point that I just addressed, is the fact that the revenue stream to the Government does not always coincide with the outflow of money during particular points in the year. That is why, as I have mentioned, we have altered our original proposal to move the date at which these publicly held debt ceiling changes would occur to a point--May 1--at which time, based on the past 10 years, the Government has been most flush, has had the largest inflow of money--obviously, it corresponds to some extent to tax payment day and other factors--for the exact purpose of making sure the changes would occur at a point when the Treasury would have the most cash on hand and the greatest flexibility with respect to any obligations, it would seem to me. In addition, we have placed into this amendment a legal declaration that Social Security payments required by law have priority claims on the U.S. Treasury. In other words, we try to do two things here that I think address all of the concerns raised by Secretary Rubin. First, we have changed the effective date as to when the debt limits would be changed to meet the maximum point of revenue stream to the Government, thus giving him and his successors total flexibility with respect to meeting obligations, and the guaranteed Social Security benefit checks will be paid by ensuring in the language of the amendment that they would receive top priority of expenditures. In addition, we have responded to the Secretary's concern about short-term cash management swings, as I say, with a 7-month delay of implementation of the debt limits. We are open to other ideas, but we are trying to be responsive to those concerns that have been raised. That is our hope here, to try to address anything that might serve as an impediment to anyone concerning the support of this vitally needed legislation. In addition, Secretary Rubin has worried that the proposed debt limits could run the risk of worsening an economic downturn. We take that to mean concerns that if a recession were occurring, we would be in a difficult position to adequately address it. Once again, we have taken into account those concerns, and we have placed in our amendment language, as I mentioned earlier, that would suspend the debt limits during times of recession and reinstate them only after we have recovered from such recession at the newly adjusted publicly held debt levels. Finally, the Secretary expressed concern that the lockbox does not allow for emergencies. Let me first observe that this administration's use of the term ``emergency'' has been somewhat variable, and it would certainly be the view of this Senator, and I know others, that it has been used to characterize a number of expenditures that are hard pressed to be included under that definition, at least as I see it. We spent $21 billion of the Social Security surplus on an emergency package at the end of the last Congress that certainly had provisions which did not, in my judgment, meet the normal definition of that term. However, considering that we now have a 60-vote point of order against any nondefense emergency spending provisions as part of the budget resolution that we passed, we have placed in this amendment language to automatically adjust upwards the publicly held debt limits for any emergency spending provisions. Thus, we once again address the concern that was raised. Mr. President, I believe this meets, therefore, every one of the serious concerns expressed by the Treasury Secretary, while at the same time still meeting the central goal of protecting and preserving the Social Security trust fund surpluses. It successfully addresses the No. 1 issue of this Congress: Saving and strengthening Social Security. While it may not constitute the long-term reform proposals that I know will be further debated as the Congress moves ahead, it protects the surpluses of the trust fund so they can be employed to make sure that we modernize the Social Security system in a way that not only guarantees today's beneficiaries are able to receive what they are entitled to, but also the future beneficiaries will as well. We owe it to those who have reached retirement age, as well as those who will one day join them, to do this. As recent events have shown, the only way to do that is to take Social Security finally and fully off budget, because so long as Social Security trust fund surpluses can be accessed by spending priorities, they will be spent. In my judgment, it is that simple. It is simply too easy to point to good ideas and good programs and arguments of things that can be done with large amounts of the American people's money, too easy to see the benefits of Federal spending without looking at the cost to our financial stability and to those who depend on a sound Social Security system. In my opinion, we must, in order to meet our obligations to the American people, see to it that every penny of the Social Security trust fund surplus is preserved for Social Security. And the only way to do that is to lock up those funds by using them to pay down the public debt. I think it is the right thing to do. President Clinton himself has endorsed the idea at the root of this amendment. This Chamber recently voted unanimously for a resolution calling for legislation of this sort. So I hope we can get together, as colleagues, to take what would be the final step--this amendment--to place Social Security surpluses above the risks that they will be squandered and secure them for generations to come. Mr. President, I am pleased, on behalf of a variety of colleagues, to offer this amendment. We look forward to the discussion. I hope that it can encompass not just a discussion of this proposal as offered, but if Members have ideas with respect to the lockbox, I hope they will share them with us, because I think protecting the Social Security surplus dollars is something that we have an obligation to achieve in this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment to the desk.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his work on this legislation as well as many other things which he does here. But particularly for how hard he worked on this, as has his staff, to help us move this forward, I express my appreciation to him as well. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gregg of New Hampshire be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I yield such time as he needs to the Senator from Alabama. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, on our side I am not aware specifically of any other Member who wishes to speak. I do know that the Senator from California is here and there may be others coming. We do have some time left. We will temporarily reserve the remainder of our time, but if others who wish to speak from either side of the aisle are here, we will be glad to offer that. At this point, I will reserve the remainder of my time. The Senator from Alabama may stay for a minute. I am not sure. If necessary, I will come back down. I want to make clear to the Presiding Officer that anyone who wishes to speak may draw from that time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Knowing there are speakers on each side who hope to have a chance to speak, so we do not run the clock completely off during quorum calls, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.