Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for their retirement. We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable, it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it easier. Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's because under current law, income contributed to IRAs must be ``compensation,'' or earned through work. Under the current rules, disability income doesn't qualify. We know that those who become disabled will still need to support themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend more because of their disability; and we know that because of their disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they have? It just doesn't make any sense. My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation, to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits. In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for their retirement. We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable, it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it easier. Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's because under current law, income contributed to IRAs must be ``compensation,'' or earned through work. Under the current rules, disability income doesn't qualify. We know that those who become disabled will still need to support themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend more because of their disability; and we know that because of their disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they have? It just doesn't make any sense. My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation, to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits. In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Disclosure Act with my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Dorgan and Dayton. This important legislation will require Medicare beneficiaries enrolling in a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, PDP, or Medicare Advantage Drug Plan, MA-PD, with a potential coverage gap to sign a short, easy to read, statement indicating that they are aware of the potential loss of coverage. Yesterday, 42 million Medicare beneficiaries became eligible to sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, scheduled to start on January 1, 2006. However, too many seniors are understandably confused about this complicated change to Medicare, and I fear that many may sign up for drug plans without understanding the major pitfalls of the program. The biggest pitfall in the drug plan is the notorious ``coverage gap'' also known as the ``donut hole.'' In the coverage gap, beneficiaries pay 100 percent of prescription costs after they exceed a certain level of out-of-pocket spending and before protection kicks in against catastrophic drug expenses. They also continue to pay 100 percent of their monthly premiums. We need to make sure that seniors are aware of the threat that the coverage gap poses, and it should not be hidden in a mountain of paperwork. My legislation would require plan providers to have beneficiaries sign the following certification before enrollment: I understand that the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan or MA-PD Plan that I am signing up for may result in a gap in coverage during a given year. I understand that if subject to this gap in coverage, I will be responsible for paying 100 percent of the costs of my prescription drugs and will continue to be responsible for paying the plan's monthly premium while subject to this gap in coverage. For specific information on the potential coverage gap under this plan, I understand that I should contact [prescription drug plan] at [toll free phone number]. The bottom line is that, after months of trying to explain this new drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, many do not understand the ramifications of the coverage gap. Unfortunately, millions of Medicare beneficiaries may learn about the coverage gap the hard way--when the pharmacist at the cash register tells them sometime next year that they are suddenly required to pay the full cost of their prescriptions. Mr. President, a study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 38 percent of Medicare enrollees are likely to experience this costly interruption in care. Moreover, the benefits must be renewed each year, meaning that the coverage gap repeats itself if beneficiaries reach the coverage gap again. A recent survey by the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, found that only 35 percent of people 65 and older said they understood the new drug benefit. In addition, the numerous media stories in recent days contain anecdotal evidence that illustrates the confusion around the new drug benefit. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill. Only with such a clear, separate disclaimer will seniors have a fair opportunity to be warned of the risks posed by this gap in drug coverage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Disclosure Act with my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Dorgan and Dayton. This important legislation will require Medicare beneficiaries enrolling in a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, PDP, or Medicare Advantage Drug Plan, MA-PD, with a potential coverage gap to sign a short, easy to read, statement indicating that they are aware of the potential loss of coverage. Yesterday, 42 million Medicare beneficiaries became eligible to sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, scheduled to start on January 1, 2006. However, too many seniors are understandably confused about this complicated change to Medicare, and I fear that many may sign up for drug plans without understanding the major pitfalls of the program. The biggest pitfall in the drug plan is the notorious ``coverage gap'' also known as the ``donut hole.'' In the coverage gap, beneficiaries pay 100 percent of prescription costs after they exceed a certain level of out-of-pocket spending and before protection kicks in against catastrophic drug expenses. They also continue to pay 100 percent of their monthly premiums. We need to make sure that seniors are aware of the threat that the coverage gap poses, and it should not be hidden in a mountain of paperwork. My legislation would require plan providers to have beneficiaries sign the following certification before enrollment: I understand that the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan or MA-PD Plan that I am signing up for may result in a gap in coverage during a given year. I understand that if subject to this gap in coverage, I will be responsible for paying 100 percent of the costs of my prescription drugs and will continue to be responsible for paying the plan's monthly premium while subject to this gap in coverage. For specific information on the potential coverage gap under this plan, I understand that I should contact [prescription drug plan] at [toll free phone number]. The bottom line is that, after months of trying to explain this new drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, many do not understand the ramifications of the coverage gap. Unfortunately, millions of Medicare beneficiaries may learn about the coverage gap the hard way--when the pharmacist at the cash register tells them sometime next year that they are suddenly required to pay the full cost of their prescriptions. Mr. President, a study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 38 percent of Medicare enrollees are likely to experience this costly interruption in care. Moreover, the benefits must be renewed each year, meaning that the coverage gap repeats itself if beneficiaries reach the coverage gap again. A recent survey by the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, found that only 35 percent of people 65 and older said they understood the new drug benefit. In addition, the numerous media stories in recent days contain anecdotal evidence that illustrates the confusion around the new drug benefit. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill. Only with such a clear, separate disclaimer will seniors have a fair opportunity to be warned of the risks posed by this gap in drug coverage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to be cooperative, but I do want to make sure it is clearly understood that we are all supporting--or those who are supporting this amendment. I would like it clearly on the record. Perhaps a 10-minute vote?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I were sitting in that chair, I would probably say yes, but I am not sitting in that chair. I ask that we have a rollcall vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If we continue to talk about it, we will have lost the opportunity to move the bill along. This was the understanding that we had, for a rollcall vote. Forgive me, my colleagues, but like everybody else I want to have a rollcall vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I don't want to be obstinate. If we could now declare the time that this session will end, perhaps we can then look at a standing vote. Other than that, if I agree to move my amendment along and find out that we still continue to drag on--will all the other amendments be subjected to voice votes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the yeas and nays on this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If that is the situation, I am going to cooperate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this modified version of my amendment contains several good suggestions from the managers of this bill, Senator Warner and Senator Levin. My underlying amendment stands for a very simple proposition: Those who knowingly compromise significant classified information should not continue to hold a security clearance and they should be denied further access to classified information. The modification to the amendment makes clear that it applies to Members of the Congress and to their staffs as well. My amendment is similar to one offered by our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, in July. Some of our colleagues reacted to Senator Reid's amendment by expressing their concern that it was an open-ended standard. In deference to these concerns, I have added the ``knowing'' standard; in other words, if someone reveals information knowingly. I am pleased to see my colleagues find this version acceptable. Senator Warner and I served in World War II. We had an expression then. It said: ``Loose lips sink ships.'' Everybody was participating in protecting ourselves from revealing information to the enemy. Exposing our secrets was a grave offense then and it is a grave offense now. No one is above this law and no one has a right to keep their security clearance if they knowingly reveal our secrets. Anybody in Government, whether the White House or the Congress or a Government employee, should have to live by the same standards as other hard- working Federal employees. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that an intelligence analyst lost his clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine. A Defense Department employee had her clearance suspended because a jilted boyfriend called her office and said she was unreliable. An Army officer had his clearance revoked over $67 in personal calls charged to a military cell phone. There should not be a double standard for anybody. I want to be clear with my colleagues. This amendment has nothing to do with criminal behavior. That is taken care of in other statutes. It merely governs under what circumstances someone should lose their security clearance for improper behavior. Given recent developments of which we are all aware, this is a necessary amendment. We need to make sure those who are careless with national security information are denied continued access to top-secret information. Anyone who leaks classified information should not continue to have a security clearance. I am sure across the country people would agree with that. If you are giving out information you should not reveal in the first place, why should you have access to that same type information on a continuing basis? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to amend my amendment, No. 2478, which I introduced earlier, to include another paragraph to clarify exactly what we mean. I listened to recommendations that we use other language that again further clarifies the intent here. The intent, very simply, is to say if someone violates the rules for transferring classified information knowingly, then we think they should lose that opportunity for access to that. That was the sole purpose. I offer it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to second- degree my amendment. I send it to the desk for consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is something I believe is urgently needed because of security concerns raised constantly these days, particularly as a result of a recent indictment we are all aware of. The amendment is relatively simple, straightforward. It clarifies part of the intelligence law to be clear that those who compromise classified information cannot hold a clearance. The indictment describes conduct by a White House official that must not be tolerated. Certainly, an irresponsible and reckless official should not be allowed to continue to hold a clearance to see top-secret information. The person at issue is identified in the recent indictment I spoke of earlier as ``Official A.'' According to the Washington Post, White House staff have confirmed that Official A is Mr. Karl Rove. He is the deputy chief of staff to the President. The indictment says this official gave classified information to a journalist. Any official who does such a thing should certainly not continue to hold a clearance. It is quite clear what President Bush's intent was when he said he wanted to clear the air about any leakage of classified information. I think we should follow his pledge or remind him of his pledge to remove anyone involved with leaking information. We know the information given to the journalist Robert Novak was, indeed, published, and a CIA operative was exposed. The actions taken by the White House staff have damaged our national security. Thusly, an indictment has come about. It has destroyed an operative's covert cover, compromised intelligence-gathering operations, and endangered the safety of other CIA employees and their contacts. The amendment I offer today is similar to one that was offered earlier in the year by Senator Reid in July. My amendment has one significant difference. It includes the words a ``knowing'' standard so that someone who unknowingly does it doesn't get included in our amendment. We wanted to narrow the field and say, if you talk about these things and know it, you ought to pay for it. The payment is fairly simple. My Republican colleagues reacted to the Reid amendment by talking about it as an open-ended standard. In deference to the concerns of our colleagues on the other side, I have added a ``knowing'' standard--in other words, if you don't know it, then that is one thing; if you do know it, it is quite something else--which is more than fair to someone who reveals our national security secrets. I see my colleague and friend from Virginia on the other side. I am reminded when both of us wore a uniform some years ago, it was ``loose lips sink ships.'' The lights were darkened all along the coast. You couldn't even tell your family where you were at the time. As a matter of fact, I was in an area in Belgium that was quite dangerous. I did find a place that sold a postcard that was written in the language of the area. It was Flemish. I sent it to my mother to give her an indication where I was. I kind of had to sneak by the censors. We are at war. People are at war with us. Terrorists are liable to attack us at any time. They are certainly doing what they can to even injure or kill our service people who are abroad. We ought to make sure we are as diligent about covering our security as we can be. We should ask nothing less than total obedience to the rules. I am here with the consent and support of Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Levin, and others who believe we should do this. I hope my colleagues across the aisle can agree that if somebody gives information they shouldn't, by golly, what we are saying is the penalty is that you should lose that security clearance and that person should be treated as the President suggests, removed from the security scene. It is plain common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, the Senator is correct. And what we say is, if you do it, the least that ought to happen is you ought to learn enough of a lesson that we are going to remove any access to classified information if you do it knowingly.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We tried our best to clarify it and remove the concern that was exhibited when Senator Reid offered it last July. This was added because colleagues on the other side made an observation that was sensible; that is, if someone does something unknowingly, you can't punish them. But on the other hand, if someone has a job that includes security, I would have to say they would know this is a violation to betray any of the rules they are subjected to. But this clarifies it. There is no intention here to pull the wool over anybody's eyes or anything such as that. It is to make sure we prevent any leakage as much as we can of security information. We are so sensitized to it that the country is at times locked up in concerns with these warnings being given out, and we ought to try to restrict that from happening as much as possible. It can be careless. The Senator can well remember the time, a very unfortunate time, when an informant, someone working with the CIA in Latin America--Guatemala, I believe it was--was assassinated after their identity was revealed. We don't want that to happen. We have our friends and relatives overseas now.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Certainly.