Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand it is possible to extend the time some because the vote, I am told, is going to be delayed from 4 to 4:30. I ask the Senator from Idaho if he is interested in taking some more time for our discussion here. I do not want the time to go by without use.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am announcing new legislation that will go even further in taking drunk drivers off the road. This legislation means three strikes and, then, you lose your license. This would set nation-wide standards for license revocation for drunk drivers. Currently, states have a patchwork of laws that range from a fifteen day suspension to a ten year revocation for a third offense. This bill would require that all states adopt at least the following for each level of conviction, otherwise they would face a 10 percent cut in their highway funds. For the first offense, this bill calls for a six-month license revocation, $500 fine, and assessment of alcohol abuse. If a person's blood alcohol content (BAC) is .16 or greater, his or her punishment includes a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, impoundment/ immobilization of his car for 30 days, an ignition interlock for 180 days, and 10 days in jail or 60 hours of community service. For the second offense, the repeat offender receives a one year license revocation, a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, impoundment/immobilization of his or her car for 60 days, ignition interlock for a year, 10 days jail or 60 hours of community service, and an assessment of alcohol abuse. And, finally, for the third offense, the repeat offender will lose his driver's license permanently. With a tough license-revocation law, we can save hundreds of lives each year. This is the next logical step in the fight against drunk driving. It will build on what we started in 1984, when Democrats and Republicans joined together to increase the drinking age to 21. Back then, the liquor lobby issued all kinds of dire warnings that the industry would not survive that legislation. But of course, the industry did survive. And more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths were prevented. We need this legislation. Remember, drunk-driving deaths are not ``accidents.'' They are the result of somebody's irresponsible and criminally reckless behavior. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am announcing new legislation that will go even further in taking drunk drivers off the road. This legislation means three strikes and, then, you lose your license. This would set nation-wide standards for license revocation for drunk drivers. Currently, states have a patchwork of laws that range from a fifteen day suspension to a ten year revocation for a third offense. This bill would require that all states adopt at least the following for each level of conviction, otherwise they would face a 10 percent cut in their highway funds. For the first offense, this bill calls for a six-month license revocation, $500 fine, and assessment of alcohol abuse. If a person's blood alcohol content (BAC) is .16 or greater, his or her punishment includes a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, impoundment/ immobilization of his car for 30 days, an ignition interlock for 180 days, and 10 days in jail or 60 hours of community service. For the second offense, the repeat offender receives a one year license revocation, a ceiling of .05 BAC for the next five years, impoundment/immobilization of his or her car for 60 days, ignition interlock for a year, 10 days jail or 60 hours of community service, and an assessment of alcohol abuse. And, finally, for the third offense, the repeat offender will lose his driver's license permanently. With a tough license-revocation law, we can save hundreds of lives each year. This is the next logical step in the fight against drunk driving. It will build on what we started in 1984, when Democrats and Republicans joined together to increase the drinking age to 21. Back then, the liquor lobby issued all kinds of dire warnings that the industry would not survive that legislation. But of course, the industry did survive. And more than 10,000 drunk-driving deaths were prevented. We need this legislation. Remember, drunk-driving deaths are not ``accidents.'' They are the result of somebody's irresponsible and criminally reckless behavior. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Concealed Firearms Prohibition Act, that would help make our communities safer. Across the country, citizens are looking for ways to stop gun violence. They see their families torn apart, their friends lost forever, and their communities shattered. And they wonder what has gone wrong in a nation where more than 30,000 people are killed by gunfire each year. One area of growing concern is concealed weapons. Recently, the NRA tried to push a measure that would have allowed more concealed weapons in Missouri. They spent about $4 million trying to pass their referendum. But the voters responded with a resounding ``no.'' They do not want more people secretly carrying weapons in their schoolyards, malls, stadiums and other public places. Regrettably, there are still too many politicians who will not listen to the people. They insist on marching in lockstep with the NRA. They actually want to escalate the arms race on our streets. They try to suggest that if more people are carrying guns, our neighborhoods will be safer. That position simply defies common sense. The answer to gun violence is not a new version of the Wild West, with everyone carrying a gun on his or her hip, taking the law into their own hands. Every day people get into arguments over everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. And since some States allow individuals to carry concealed weapons with little or no training in the operation of firearms, there is a greater chance that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidentally injure or kill innocent bystanders. More concealed weapons on our streets will also make the jobs of law enforcement officers more dangerous and difficult. But you do not need to take my word for this, Mr. President. Just ask the men and women in law enforcement. In fact, the Police Executive Research Forum did just that. In their 1996 survey, they found that 92 percent of their membership opposed legislation allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Mr. President, although the regulation of concealed weapons has been left to States, it is time for Congress to step in to protect the public. All Americans have a right to be free from the dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of residence. And Americans should be able to travel across State lines for business, to visit their families, or for any other purpose, without having to worry about concealed weapons. Besides the strong Federal interest in ensuring the safety of our citizens, there are other reasons why this area requires Congressional intervention. Beyond the lives lost and ruined, crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation. Moreover, to ensure its coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the legislation from the gun-free school zone statute that was struck down in the Supreme Court's Lopez case. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equal more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Concealed Firearms Prohibition Act, that would help make our communities safer. Across the country, citizens are looking for ways to stop gun violence. They see their families torn apart, their friends lost forever, and their communities shattered. And they wonder what has gone wrong in a nation where more than 30,000 people are killed by gunfire each year. One area of growing concern is concealed weapons. Recently, the NRA tried to push a measure that would have allowed more concealed weapons in Missouri. They spent about $4 million trying to pass their referendum. But the voters responded with a resounding ``no.'' They do not want more people secretly carrying weapons in their schoolyards, malls, stadiums and other public places. Regrettably, there are still too many politicians who will not listen to the people. They insist on marching in lockstep with the NRA. They actually want to escalate the arms race on our streets. They try to suggest that if more people are carrying guns, our neighborhoods will be safer. That position simply defies common sense. The answer to gun violence is not a new version of the Wild West, with everyone carrying a gun on his or her hip, taking the law into their own hands. Every day people get into arguments over everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. And since some States allow individuals to carry concealed weapons with little or no training in the operation of firearms, there is a greater chance that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidentally injure or kill innocent bystanders. More concealed weapons on our streets will also make the jobs of law enforcement officers more dangerous and difficult. But you do not need to take my word for this, Mr. President. Just ask the men and women in law enforcement. In fact, the Police Executive Research Forum did just that. In their 1996 survey, they found that 92 percent of their membership opposed legislation allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. Mr. President, although the regulation of concealed weapons has been left to States, it is time for Congress to step in to protect the public. All Americans have a right to be free from the dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of residence. And Americans should be able to travel across State lines for business, to visit their families, or for any other purpose, without having to worry about concealed weapons. Besides the strong Federal interest in ensuring the safety of our citizens, there are other reasons why this area requires Congressional intervention. Beyond the lives lost and ruined, crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation. Moreover, to ensure its coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the legislation from the gun-free school zone statute that was struck down in the Supreme Court's Lopez case. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equal more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the pending resolution authorizing the use of ``all necessary force and other means'' to address the crisis in Kosovo. I know our vote will be a procedural one, and that the Senate may well vote to table the resolution. I would therefore urge my colleagues to demonstrate their support for the resolution by joining the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, and the Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, and others who have cosponsored this legislation. I am heartened by this bipartisan support for President Clinton's leadership of NATO efforts to stop the killing in Kosovo and allow ethnic Albanians to return and rebuild their homes under the protection of a NATO-led peacekeeping force. Mr. President, we are not debating whether our values and interests merit the engagement of our armed forces. President Bush first issued the so-called Christmas warning in 1992, threatening the use of force if Yugoslav forces moved against Kosovo. President Clinton renewed that pledge soon after taking the oath of office for the first time. Unlike our colleagues in the other body, the Senate clearly voted to authorize the President to conduct air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. Why did we do so? Why does the fate of ethnic Albanians in a province of what remains of Yugoslavia matter to the American people? Because fundamental United States interests and values are at stake. The first is the credibility of the United States as a moral leader in establishing rules of civilized behavior among countries, to take a stand against mass killings and mass rapes and mass expulsions of innocent civilians wherever they occur. The second is the promise of developed nations banding together to enforce these standards of conduct, as members of NATO are doing through joint military action against Belgrade. At the fiftieth anniversary Summit, the leaders of nineteen democracies strengthened the Euro-Atlantic partnership so we can more often act--particularly in Europe--in concert with allies who generally share our interests and values and who have the capability to undertake fully integrated military operations alongside U.S. armed forces. Those nineteen heads of state and government were joined by the leaders of many other nations in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council expressing solidarity to address the threat to European security from the Milosevic regime in Belgrade. Third is the credibility of United States threatening the use of force when appropriate. We have followed through on declarations made by President Bush and President Clinton. Now we must prevail. Otherwise, our leadership around the world will not be taken seriously, and we may find our interests threatened more in the future. Fourth, we must stop conflicts early, before a small but intense fire becomes a widespread conflagration. We must help neighboring states, particularly Albania and Macedonia and Montenegro, confront the challenge of helping hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians driven out of their native Kosovo. We have already seen the pressure which Belgrade has brought to bear by flooding these countries with refugees. One cannot fully predict what will happen if we do not prevail, stopping these crimes against humanity, this genocide in the Balkans, rather than permitting this abhorrent behavior to become an ordinary means of controlling events. Finally, I would remind my colleagues, Mr. President, that Milosevic and his police and military forces are killing people and raping women and driving families from their homes based on their ethnicity--they are committing unacceptable acts. We have an obligation and a responsibility to act to stop genocide. We cannot stand by and allow these massacres to continue and claim to stand for what is right in this world? Mr. President, the United States Senate has already decided that our national interests and values justify the engagement of our armed forces. NATO air power has struck targets in Yugoslavia for more than a month now. There are signs Belgrade's will to resist may be faltering. Therefore, we should not be showing weakness, because civilized values will certainly be under assault. We must have history reflect that such appalling behavior will trigger sharp rebuff by democratic, life-respecting nations. Milosevic cannot seriously question the military superiority of NATO. Despite some losses, we have managed to sustain a serious air campaign with relative impunity. We have overwhelming force on our side. Milosevic is instead pinning his hopes on NATO lacking the unity and political will to use the necessary force to prevail. The time has come to disabuse him of these delusions. This resolution will tell Milosevic that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to halt and reverse his campaign of terror against the people of Kosovo. Let me address some of the questions raised by my colleagues who may not support the pending legislation: Does this Resolution mean the United States and our NATO allies will fight their way into Kosovo on the ground? Should we not give air power more time to be effective? Why not negotiate an end to the conflict? The resolution would authorize the President ``to use all necessary force and other means, in concert with United States allies. . . .'' That would authorize use of resources if the President determines this is necessary. The President has asked us to be patient, to give air power time to achieve Belgrade's acceptance of NATO conditions. While I am reluctant to wait while the killing and the rapes and the expulsions continue, as a practical matter it will take some time-- perhaps months--to plan and mount a ground campaign. NATO Secretary General Solana has rightly decided to update plans for the use of ground forces to liberate Kosovo and escort more than a million displaced Kosovars back to their homes. By signaling our readiness to commit ground forces if necessary, we can actually improve prospects for Belgrade's capitulation. In any case, the United States should participate in an international force to maintain stability and protect the civilian population of Kosovo, though our European partners will appropriately take the lead in such an effort. Negotiations are taking place. Former Russian Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, and others are trying to mediate a solution. This is all well and good, so long as these mediators understand that we will not negotiate away the principles NATO has set out as conditions for an end to the bombing. We all appreciate Reverend Jesse Jackson's courageous intervention to secure the release of the three American soldiers captured on the Yugoslav/Macedonian border. However, we cannot accept the ostensibly humane act of their release as a license for Milosevic's forces to continue the mayhem, rape, and killing they are committing even as we speak. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a description from the New York Times of a singular atrocity.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, our cause is just. Our objectives are reasonable. President Clinton has thus far insisted that Kosovo be granted substantial autonomy within the borders of Yugoslavia. We should be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevail, to stop the killing and the rapes and the expulsions, to reverse ethnic cleansing. We must stand up for what is right. I hope my colleagues will agree and will join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I plan to vote against the motion to table the Resolution. I believe the Senate has the right and the responsibility to clearly address this issue. And I hope that this Senate, given the opportunity to vote on the Resolution, will rise to the occasion and clearly authorize the President to do what it takes, together with our NATO allies, to prevail over the Milosevic regime, to stop the killing in Kosovo and help bring peace and stability to a troubled region of Europe. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Mexico have some time remaining, may I ask?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with all due respect and friendship for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, we both would like to get to the same place. I am sure he has never heard me use terms like ``embezzlement.'' I don't do that kind of stuff. Frankly, I do not like that terminology. I don't care from where it comes. But what we see here is what I would call a couple of escape hatches in the legislation that worry the devil out of us. That is, perhaps in the interest of Social Security reform or retirement security, we are locking ourselves into a position where we would be unable to respond to changes in the economy. That is not where we ought to be. This economy is too important in the whole world scheme of things. It is too important in terms of those who are very dependent, totally dependent, in some cases, on the benefits derived from Social Security, veterans' benefits, Medicare. That is all they have in many cases. With the threat of creating a debt limit, and I think artificially creating a new debt limit, I think we could immediately be damaging the possibility that these benefits might be offered. That is where we differ. I always enjoy my work with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, except when he wins, which we does so often. But other than that, we ought to be able to sit down and reason out some of these things. I hope this vote, by discouraging cloture, will give us some impetus to sit down and try to work the problems out. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to support walling off all Social Security surpluses and in strong opposition to the pending Social Security lockbox. I stand in opposition to the Social Security lockbox proposal that is in front of us because I believe this legislation is a lockbox in name only. In reality, instead of protecting Social Security benefits, I believe it would actually threaten them, and I think the threat is a serious one. It could cause a Government default and trigger worldwide economic instability. Before I review the problem with the Social Security lockbox, I will take a minute to talk about saving Social Security and my continuing hope that we can address this issue in the near future. I am fairly optimistic, Mr. President, but I have heard a lot of gloomy comments about the prospects for legislation to protect and preserve Social Security for the future. I hope we do not give up on this. I do not want to be critical in any way of any of my colleagues. I know many are concerned that this issue is just too hot to handle politically, but I do not see it that way. In fact, I think we have a unique opportunity this year to really prepare our country for the future, and it is an opportunity we should seize. President Clinton has made Social Security reform a top priority. He is in his second term and is eager to take on this politically difficult task and can lend us the leadership it requires. We are now in pretty good financial shape. We are projecting budget surpluses for years to come. And with the economy going so strong, our Nation is ready to accept some of the hard choices that will be necessary to get the job done. If we cannot solve the Social Security problem now, I would ask, When can we? This is the time to act, and we need to do it soon before we get too close to the next year's Presidential election. And we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. Frankly, that is the only way it can be done--through direct negotiations between the congressional leadership of both parties in both Houses and the White House. One thing should be clear to everyone, and that is that the Social Security lockbox amendment before us does not represent Social Security reform. It does nothing to prepare our country for the financial pressures which will be created when the baby boomers retire. It does not extend Social Security solvency by even a single day. I just hope it will not be used as an excuse to avoid dealing with Social Security in a real and meaningful way. I have reviewed this before, but I want to again recount for my colleagues the three serious problems I see with this legislation. First, it directly threatens Social Security benefits. Treasury Secretary Rubin has explained in a letter that under this proposal an unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social Security checks, as well as Medicare, veterans', and other benefits. Additionally, the amendment contains a huge loophole that would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than direct Social Security benefits. Anything the Congress labels as ``Social Security reform'' would be exempt from the lockbox. So this could include privatization plans that might be risky, tax cuts, or who knows what. I know some of my colleagues dispute my interpretation of this provision. But I would simply point to the broad language of the legislation itself. It effectively exempts from the lockbox any legislation which includes a provision designating itself as Social Security reform. So if Congress passes a big tax cut, even if it provides significant benefit to wealthy retirees, we can just claim that this represents Social Security reform, and all the costs of the legislation will be exempt from the lockbox. Some of the bill's cosponsors may say that is not their intent. But that is what the bill says. I would like to be able to offer an amendment to correct this problem. The majority, however, has prohibited us from offering any amendments whatsoever. So we have had little opportunity to do anything but point out the loophole. Mr. President, the second major problem with the pending bill is that it does absolutely nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows Congress to squander funds needed for Medicare on tax breaks which go largely to the wealthier among us. Senator Conrad and I have developed a different lockbox to protect both Social Security and Medicare. Our bill, S. 862, would reserve all of the Social Security surpluses exclusively for Social Security, and 40 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses for Medicare. We would like an opportunity to offer that lockbox amendment to this bill, but again the majority is blocking all of these amendments. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Republicans' so-called lockbox threatens a potential Government default. In the short term this could undermine our Nation's credit standing and increase interest costs. Ultimately, it could block benefit payments and lead to a worldwide economic crisis. That is why the Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, has said he would recommend that the President veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk. Mr. President, the lockbox Senator Conrad and I have developed avoids the risk of default, while protecting both Social Security and Medicare. Our lockbox would not establish a new debt limit. It would use supermajority points of order and across-the-board cuts to guarantee enforcement. I think it is a far better, more responsible approach. So I urge my colleagues to oppose cloture on this legislation. Let's establish a Social Security lockbox. In fact, let's establish a Social Security and Medicare lockbox. Let's make it a real, responsible lockbox, not one that actually, in its implementation, could threaten Social Security benefits, risking a worldwide financial crisis. And then, Mr. President, let's sit down with the White House and negotiate a compromise which will truly protect Social Security and Medicare for the long term. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, throughout my career in the Senate I have made the fight against crime one of my top legislative priorities. Consequently, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the career and accomplishments of one of New Jersey's most distinguished public servants, Chief Thomas C. O'Reilly of the Newark Police Department. For years, the City of Newark has faced many challenges. But I am proud to say today Newark is now a city on the rise. There are many people to thank and recognize for the rebirth of New Jersey's largest city. Today, I would like to thank Chief Thomas C. O'Reilly in particular. Chief O'Reilly has devoted more than four decades of his life to serving the city of Newark as a police officer. His service to the city began on December 10, 1956, when he joined the Police Department. He started as a patrol officer and rose through the ranks to Detective, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Inspector, Deputy Chief, Chief-of-Staff and finally Police Chief. Tonight, April 29, 1999, Chief Thomas C. O'Reilly will be honored by the city of Newark and I am happy to join the many voices who will thank him for his career on the front lines of law enforcement. We are indebted to him for his service. Those who follow him as Police Chief have a spendid model of leadership to follow. Chief Thomas O'Reilly's level of commitment and dedication to the safety of Newark's residents represents our nation's finest traditions of community service.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So it could only be used for Social Security reform, which would mean what?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be very generous.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. The chairman of the Budget Committee knows his products very well. But I am forced to ask this question, and that is whether or not, under any stretch of view, Social Security reform could include a tax cut measure, perhaps in the interest of raising some retirement benefit that someone might have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad, I am introducing legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act, to reserve budget surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, this bill is an alternative to the Abraham-Domenici- Ashcroft lock box legislation now before the Senate. There are several differences between the two versions. But I want to highlight this, most importantly: the Republican proposal claims to protect Social Security, but it doesn't even pretend to protect Medicare. This bill would reserve surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. And the main question for the Senate is whether we care enough about Medicare to provide it with a real lock box. Mr. President, as I explained earlier, the Republican lock box has three major flaws. First, it fails to protect Social Security, and actually threatens benefits. Second, it reserves nothing for Medicare. And, third, it could result in a government default, which could trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe. Our plan corrects each of these problems in a responsible way that will work. It provides an ironclad guarantee that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus will be saved for Social Security. It reserves 40 percent of the non-Social Security, on-budget surplus for Medicare. And, the lock box is enforced not by a risky new limit on public debt, but though the same budget procedures that produced the first budget surplus in 30 years. With respect to Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box would create a new point of order against a budget resolution that spends the Social Security surplus. This provision is also in the Republican amendment. But our point of order requires a supermajority to waive while theirs can be waived by a simple majority vote. The Republican amendment also contains a trap door that would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than Social Security benefits, such as risky new privatization schemes. Our proposal includes no such trap door. To the contrary, its enforcement procedures would remain in effect until legislation is enacted certifying that Social Security's life has been extended for the long- term. In addition to protecting Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box extends similar protections to the Medicare program. The proposal creates supermajority points of order against a budget resolution or any subsequent legislation that fails to reserve roughly 40 percent of the on-budget surplus for Medicare over the next 15 years. Mr. President, the Medicare Trust Fund is now expected to be bankrupt by 2015. We should move quickly to reform and modernize the program. But it's also clear that we'll need additional resources when the baby boom generation starts to retire. Even with reforms that substantially reduce costs, the revenues coming to the Medicare Trust Fund will not support this larger number of beneficiaries. Nor will they provide the resources needed to modernize the program or provide a prescription drug benefit. In case anyone has any doubt about that, consider the so-called Breaux-Thomas plan that was considered by the bipartisan Medicare Commission. By their own calculation, that plan would save $100 billion over ten years and extends the Trust Fund for only 3 additional years. In the scheme of things, that's not very long. But even this meager extension of the Trust Fund relies on several controversial proposals, including raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, establishing unlimited home health copayments, and completely eliminating the Direct Medicare Education program from Medicare. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we need more resources for Medicare. And our amendment would give us an opportunity to provide them. Under our proposal, in the short term, the Medicare reserve would be used to reduce the debt. Over the next ten years, our proposal would reduce debt held by the public by $30 billion more than the Republican plan. By reducing debt held by the public, our lockbox would dramatically reduce the government's interest costs. And that would free up resources to allow the government to meet its existing commitments to Medicare. By contrast, under the Republican plan, every penny of the non-Social Security surplus is consumed. That would increase interest costs and almost guarantee further cuts in benefits in the future. Mr. President, not only does our lockbox do more to protect Medicare and reduce debt, it also has a stronger lock and more responsible enforcement procedure for both Social Security and Medicare. As I've explained, Mr. President, the Republican amendment includes a reckless new scheme that relies on the threat of a default to enforce its provisions. That not only could permanently damage our credit standing, it could force the government to stop issuing Social Security checks. We have a better idea, Mr. President. As I said earlier, we have a 60-vote point of order against including Social Security in the budget totals, as well as a 60-vote point of order against using any of the Medicare reserve. Then, even if Congress tries to spend that money, our lockbox blocks it through automatic across-the-board cuts, rather than creating a crisis. Mr. President, this is the best way to ensure fiscal restraint. Not by causing a crisis after money has already been committed. But by using the tools of the budget process to block those commitments in the first place. That's why our legislation would enforce the lock box through the tried and true mechanisms of the pay-go rules and across- the-board cuts. If Congress attempts to spend part of the Social Security surplus or Medicare reserve, the sequester rules of the Balanced Budget Act would make automatic spending cuts in order to keep the reserve intact. This is far better than triggering a debt crisis, and threatening a government default, as the Republican amendment proposes. To sum up, Mr. President, the Republican amendment claims to protect Social Security, but it really threatens Social Security benefits. Ours is a real lockbox that protects both Social Security and Medicare. It's a more responsible alternative that avoids the risk of default. And it would reduce debt by more than the underlying amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, along with certain related materials, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad, I am introducing legislation, the Social Security and Medicare Lock Box Act, to reserve budget surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, this bill is an alternative to the Abraham-Domenici- Ashcroft lock box legislation now before the Senate. There are several differences between the two versions. But I want to highlight this, most importantly: the Republican proposal claims to protect Social Security, but it doesn't even pretend to protect Medicare. This bill would reserve surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare. And the main question for the Senate is whether we care enough about Medicare to provide it with a real lock box. Mr. President, as I explained earlier, the Republican lock box has three major flaws. First, it fails to protect Social Security, and actually threatens benefits. Second, it reserves nothing for Medicare. And, third, it could result in a government default, which could trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe. Our plan corrects each of these problems in a responsible way that will work. It provides an ironclad guarantee that 100 percent of the Social Security surplus will be saved for Social Security. It reserves 40 percent of the non-Social Security, on-budget surplus for Medicare. And, the lock box is enforced not by a risky new limit on public debt, but though the same budget procedures that produced the first budget surplus in 30 years. With respect to Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box would create a new point of order against a budget resolution that spends the Social Security surplus. This provision is also in the Republican amendment. But our point of order requires a supermajority to waive while theirs can be waived by a simple majority vote. The Republican amendment also contains a trap door that would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than Social Security benefits, such as risky new privatization schemes. Our proposal includes no such trap door. To the contrary, its enforcement procedures would remain in effect until legislation is enacted certifying that Social Security's life has been extended for the long- term. In addition to protecting Social Security, Mr. President, our lock box extends similar protections to the Medicare program. The proposal creates supermajority points of order against a budget resolution or any subsequent legislation that fails to reserve roughly 40 percent of the on-budget surplus for Medicare over the next 15 years. Mr. President, the Medicare Trust Fund is now expected to be bankrupt by 2015. We should move quickly to reform and modernize the program. But it's also clear that we'll need additional resources when the baby boom generation starts to retire. Even with reforms that substantially reduce costs, the revenues coming to the Medicare Trust Fund will not support this larger number of beneficiaries. Nor will they provide the resources needed to modernize the program or provide a prescription drug benefit. In case anyone has any doubt about that, consider the so-called Breaux-Thomas plan that was considered by the bipartisan Medicare Commission. By their own calculation, that plan would save $100 billion over ten years and extends the Trust Fund for only 3 additional years. In the scheme of things, that's not very long. But even this meager extension of the Trust Fund relies on several controversial proposals, including raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, establishing unlimited home health copayments, and completely eliminating the Direct Medicare Education program from Medicare. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that we need more resources for Medicare. And our amendment would give us an opportunity to provide them. Under our proposal, in the short term, the Medicare reserve would be used to reduce the debt. Over the next ten years, our proposal would reduce debt held by the public by $30 billion more than the Republican plan. By reducing debt held by the public, our lockbox would dramatically reduce the government's interest costs. And that would free up resources to allow the government to meet its existing commitments to Medicare. By contrast, under the Republican plan, every penny of the non-Social Security surplus is consumed. That would increase interest costs and almost guarantee further cuts in benefits in the future. Mr. President, not only does our lockbox do more to protect Medicare and reduce debt, it also has a stronger lock and more responsible enforcement procedure for both Social Security and Medicare. As I've explained, Mr. President, the Republican amendment includes a reckless new scheme that relies on the threat of a default to enforce its provisions. That not only could permanently damage our credit standing, it could force the government to stop issuing Social Security checks. We have a better idea, Mr. President. As I said earlier, we have a 60-vote point of order against including Social Security in the budget totals, as well as a 60-vote point of order against using any of the Medicare reserve. Then, even if Congress tries to spend that money, our lockbox blocks it through automatic across-the-board cuts, rather than creating a crisis. Mr. President, this is the best way to ensure fiscal restraint. Not by causing a crisis after money has already been committed. But by using the tools of the budget process to block those commitments in the first place. That's why our legislation would enforce the lock box through the tried and true mechanisms of the pay-go rules and across- the-board cuts. If Congress attempts to spend part of the Social Security surplus or Medicare reserve, the sequester rules of the Balanced Budget Act would make automatic spending cuts in order to keep the reserve intact. This is far better than triggering a debt crisis, and threatening a government default, as the Republican amendment proposes. To sum up, Mr. President, the Republican amendment claims to protect Social Security, but it really threatens Social Security benefits. Ours is a real lockbox that protects both Social Security and Medicare. It's a more responsible alternative that avoids the risk of default. And it would reduce debt by more than the underlying amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, along with certain related materials, be printed in the Record.