Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is there a unanimous consent request at the desk calling for a specific time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought we talked about a series of votes at 7 o'clock.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be at 7 o'clock--you said 9 o'clock.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would this be included in this batch of votes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I consent to that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And trade for 3.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I reserve the right to ask a question? That is, this depends on the time, because we agreed we were going to control the time carefully. I ask how much time is left for the proponents of the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So we just let it flow, go with the flow, as they say. None of us want to do anything to impose a penalty on marriage. The statistics are not as good as we would like to see in the first place, so we do not want to make it any more difficult. But when the schedule says ``shall begin to phase out the marriage penalty this year,'' I think that is somewhat precipitous. But hearing the Senator from Alabama confirm I think what we all know, all we can do is kind of make this abstract recommendation and hope that it gets picked up along the way. So with that, with that caution, I am ready to go to a vote. I hope, I say to the chairman, in the interest of time, that we might be able to move it along. Is Senator Faircloth still on his way?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I see. My only question relates, frankly, to the schedule that is proposed here. The one thing I have to remind my friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, about is the volume of the sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. We are building--we may have a record year this year, I say to the chairman.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. I would like a short period of time. I think if we can agree--and I do not see anybody here that wants to talk in opposition--we ought to yield back the time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I tell you what, I am going to support this amendment. So I ask if I can talk as one of the proponents for a minute to raise a question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise in support of this amendment, which would establish a new point of order to protect the Social Security surplus. It's designed to enforce the principle that President Clinton emphasized in his State of the Union address: ``save Social Security first.'' The Social Security program is the most important social insurance program in the United States. It's dramatically reduced poverty among older Americans. And it provides a critical safety net for those who suffer from disabilities, or the death of a family member. Unfortunately, Social Security's long-term viability is now threatened by the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, and the significant new pressures that will place on the system. Congress needs to act promptly to address this problem. Congress already has made a clear commitment to Social Security, and we've created various procedural protections to enforce that commitment. For example, Section 301(i) of the Budget Act prohibits the Senate from considering a budget resolution that would reduce a Social Security surplus. And Section 311(a)(3) prohibits us from considering any measure that would decrease a Social Security surplus below the level set in the budget resolution. The point of order proposed today is consistent with these precedents. But rather than directly protecting Social Security, this point of order would protect the rules that protect Social Security. These budget rules, in effect, require 60 votes to reduce a Social Security surplus. The problem, though, is that there's a loophole. And the loophole is that these rules themselves can be amended under certain circumstances with only 50 votes. In general, legislation to amend budget laws is subject to a supermajority point of order, under Section 306 of the Budget Act. But this point of order doesn't apply to legislation that's been reported from the Budget Committee, or to any amendments to such legislation. So, for example, if the Budget Committee reports a minor bill to make technical corrections to the Budget Act, an amendment to gut the Social Security rules could be adopted by a simple majority vote. In my view, that's a loophole that we need to close. Let's not just proclaim our commitment to saving Social Security first. Let's put it in writing. And let's make it enforceable. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I understand, with the approval of the leadership, which I am asking indirectly, that we will be very strict about the time on these amendments. The traditional 15- or 20- minutes will be as it is and thereafter 10 minutes. But I ask all of our colleagues--because as I did a mental count here, we probably have 60 or 65 amendments sitting there--that we ought to not have anybody saying just give me a minute more. We made those decisions as of this moment and we are going to try to move the agenda along as expeditiously as we can. Last, everyone should understand that this is done at the request of Senators on both sides, lots of Senators who say let's get our business done, let's complete our agenda and let's be prepared to conclude the week, hopefully, by tomorrow evening. I do not mean to put words in the mouth of the Senator from New Mexico, but as I remember our discussion, that's where we want to be.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee. I ask one more question, or at least seek to get a clarification among those who hear us. That is, it is my understanding we are going to be very strict.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wanted to just explore publicly a question that arose, and that is we have not yet had an opportunity to examine these amendments and there may be an interest on either side to have a second degree. So we are not precluded, I assume, by that. I just wanted to confirm that with the chairman of the Budget Committee as to the process, assuming that there is no obstruction to that, and I know of none now, but I do have an inquiry that says what happens in a particular case if we have a second degree? There is no prohibition to that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator from New Mexico. As part of the structure that we have arranged, which is a half hour for those amendments that can be heard that are equally divided, and then there is a provision for 20 minutes for any second-degree amendment. Amendment No. 2273 (Purpose: To assure that use of the tobacco reserve fund is consistent with comprehensive tobacco legislation approved by the Senate)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment that is brought up be that offered by the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response to the Senator, both amendments were received that she offered and were sent to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that we forgo the reading of the amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have three more amendments that are currently at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be called up and then put aside: Senator Wyden's amendment No. 2203, Senator Torricelli's amendment No. 2212, and Senator Hollings' amendment No. 2193. Again, I ask unanimous consent that they be brought up and then put aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have amendments to send to the desk on behalf of the following Senators: Senator Kohl from Wisconsin has a modification to amendment No. 2204, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Conrad, Senator Bumpers, Senator Feinstein, Senator John Kerry, Senator Wellstone, Senator Charles Robb, Senator Biden, Senator Boxer, Senator Bingaman, Senator Bingaman again, Senator Robert Kerrey, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Moseley-Braun again, Senator Moseley-Braun again, Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Lautenberg again, Senator Torricelli, Senator Torricelli again, and Senator Moynihan. I offer those amendments and ask for their consideration. I ask unanimous consent that we suspend the reading of the amendments. Mr. President, I offer them en bloc. I also ask unanimous consent that they be put aside after being laid at the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, once again, I don't think we are going to hear any profound speeches in the next few minutes, but at least we ought to know what it is that is going on, because if those amendments are not up there by the witching hour of 6 o'clock, they will not have a chance to get an amendment considered, whether it is a ``vote-a- thon,'' ``vote-a-rama,'' ``rapid fire,'' or whatever you want to call it, or whether there will be a chance for debate. Six o'clock is it. We all turn into pumpkins at that time. Amendment No. 2204, As Modified, and Amendment Nos. 2226 through 2247, en bloc

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.