Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the quorum call is begun, I agree with the Senator's mission here; that is, perhaps we can stack several votes together, but we will work on that during the quorum call. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. The motion is very simple. It instructs the conferees who are going to be reviewing the budget resolution to include in the conference report provisions that will reserve all Social Security surpluses for Social Security and for Social Security only--not other programs, including other retirement programs, as has been suggested, and not for tax cuts. For years, Democrats have been arguing that our top fiscal priority should be to save Social Security first, and we feel very strongly about that. It is, after all, our party's creation that kicked off Social Security, and we have spent decades since then protecting the program from attack. In our view, Social Security represents a sacred trust between the Government and the people. It is a trust that should not and must not be violated. Nearly 44 million Americans now benefit from Social Security, and many of them depend heavily on the program for their survival. For 66 percent of the elderly, Social Security provides half their income. Without Social Security, the poverty rate among the elderly would be 48 percent; roughly 15 million more Americans would be living in poverty than do now. For single, divorced, or widowed elderly women, the poverty rate without Social Security would be 60 percent--60 percent for elderly women. Unfortunately, Mr. President, under current projections, Social Security is adequately financed only until 2034. At that time, just when millions of baby boomers will be retired and struggling to get by, Social Security may be unable to pay the full benefits to which these Americans are entitled. We need to act promptly to address this problem. President Clinton has proposed policies which would extend Social Security significantly to the year 2059. Unfortunately, the majority has rejected those policies, and in their place nothing has been proposed. Thus, the budget resolution approved by the Senate included nothing to extend Social Security's solvency by even a single day. Having said that, while the Senate resolution did nothing to actually help Social Security, it at least seemed to do no harm. The resolution was based on the premise that, at a minimum, Congress should not spend Social Security surpluses on anything else. That would not extend solvency at all, but at least it would not make matters worse. Unfortunately, we now understand that the Republican leadership has backed off from even this modest commitment. Instead, they reportedly-- and we have not really seen the details--have agreed to include in the final version of the budget resolution a provision that could pose a direct and serious threat to Social Security. Although we have not seen any final language, this provision apparently calls for using Social Security not just for Social Security but for other programs as well. Apparently, the provision would allow Social Security taxes to be diverted to other things that have some connection to retirement security. That could be a catchword. It could mean a new privatized Medicare system. Perhaps it could include civil service or military retirement programs. More likely, I am afraid it could also mean tax cuts for the wealthy that are claimed to somehow affect retirement. I was stunned when I heard about this provision, and I think it is remarkable that the Republican leadership would even consider using Social Security surpluses for anything other than Social Security. After all, how many times during the debate on the budget did we hear about the Republicans' commitment to preserving Social Security surpluses? That was supposed to be a centerpiece of their whole resolution. But now it appears that when the Republican leadership met behind closed doors, their commitment was overwhelmed with other concerns. This reversal is especially stunning in light of Republican criticisms about double counting, and now the GOP seems to want to use Social Security surpluses for all sorts of other programs. That sounds like double counting to me, Mr. President. After all, you cannot use a dollar twice. If you use it as a Social Security dollar for Medicaid or tax cuts, that is one less dollar available to pay Social Security benefits. So we ought to stand up for a simple proposition; that is, to use Social Security surpluses for Social Security. That is the message of this motion to instruct. It is an effort to reverse yesterday's decision and to get the entire Senate on record in support of saving Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and exclusively for Social Security. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle will establish some type of elaborate lockbox that will protect Social Security. But given the agreement that developed yesterday, it makes one wonder: What will Social Security surpluses be locked up for? Will they be locked up for tax cuts? For other retirement programs? For some new type of program that is given the label ``Social Security''? Or will they be locked up to pay guaranteed Social Security benefits, as they are supposed to be? I think Social Security taxes should be used for Social Security benefits, not for other types of spending or tax cuts that somehow or other can be called retirement security. So I strongly urge the Republican leadership to reverse the decision that was reached last night. Social Security surpluses should be used for Social Security-- and I drum the point home--and only Social Security, not other programs, not tax cuts. If we are serious about that principle, let's really make a commitment to it. Let's not endorse open-ended language like retirement security that could encourage future abuses. I hope and urge that my colleagues will support this motion to instruct to reverse a commitment to language that permits an open-ended use of that money under the umbrella of ``retirement security.'' I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California. She is a valuable member of the Budget Committee and works hard in making sure that the commitments we develop are to be met. I remind my good friend from New Mexico that we are pleased to have his support, that the vagary that develops as a result of this new language ``retirement security'' is kind of a red flag. It tells us that there is something else. Knowing the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee as I do, when he says he is going to do this, I know that he is going to do it. I know when he goes to conference again that he is going to make sure that this is held. I am comforted by that notion, as are millions of Americans who are one day to get Social Security as part of their retirement program. This is kind of a happy day. I hope that all of the Republicans will support this, as will the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee. I do not see how they can resist. With that, Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico whether he is ready to yield back time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this motion is pretty simple. It instructs the conferees on the budget resolution to include in the conference report provisions that would reserve all Social Security surpluses for Social Security, and only Social Security--no other programs, including other retirement programs, and not for tax cuts. I hope when the conference is held that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee will be there to say, ``Here is a vote that is potentially 100-0 or 95-5. This is serious.'' It is not part of a scheme to go into conference and say, ``Sorry, we are dropping it.'' We don't want it dropped. I know that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee doesn't really want it dropped. We can differ about the approach, but all of us will make a single statement: If Social Security has a surplus, we want it there for the people who are going to retire when their time comes. It is as simple as that. I am pleased to have the support of the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like a roll call.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That wouldn't be a problem. The question is in terms of whether we have our other amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are OK with that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I yield back the time we have on our side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have potentially two more. The Senator from Connecticut is going to be offering a motion to instruct, and there may be a question about another, which we will find out about in just a few minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Since the chairman of the committee asked how many I think, I am free to give an answer. I think there are four, but my guess is that we have to wait to see if there are going to be any more or not.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is hard for me to imagine there is anything here-- --

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will have to kind of slug our way through and see how it goes. I appreciate the introduction that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee presented. We are going to offer our motions on instructing conferees. Mr. President, are we now in a position to go ahead and offer those?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to recount, there is a half hour equally divided on the motions themselves?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct the conferees on H. Con. Res. 68, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Bottled Water Safety and Right-to-Know Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to ensure that bottled water safety standards protect public health, and to give consumers the right to know about contaminants in their bottled water. Mr. President, I have been interested in bottled water for several years. Bottled water consumption has doubled in the U.S. since 1987, largely due to the public perception that bottled water is cleaner and safer than tap water. This is especially true in my state, where we hear so often about contamination of tap water. Unfortunately, bottled water today does not have to meet all the same safety standards met by tap water. Nor do consumers have the right to know about the contaminats found in bottled water. Let me discuss each of these issues in more detail. There is an important disparity between contaminant standards for bottled water and those for tap water. Bottled water is regulated as a food by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, while tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Unfortunately, several contaminants are regulated less stringently in bottled water by the FDA than in tap water by the EPA. In particular, the FDA has no standard for phthalate, a probable human carcinogen which leaches out of some plastic bottles, no ban on fecal coliform of E. Coli, and weaker standards for several other contaminants. In addition, the infrastructure guaranteeing the safety of bottled water is far weaker than the regulatory programs the EPA and its state and local partners have established for tap water. There is, in addition, a disparity in the transparency of information about the two types of water. Public water systems have long been required to monitor contaminant levels and allow no more than a maximum amount of contamination in their water. Facing only these regulatory requirements, however, water companies had little incentive to provide more than the minimum-required level of drinking water protection. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 changed that by adding consumer Right-to-Know requirements to the existing regulatory programs. The purpose of the Right to Know requirements is to increase public understanding of drinking water threats, foster public demand for prevention of those threats, and thereby lead water companies and state and local agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements in preventing the threats. Unfortunately, no equivalent Right to Know exists for bottled water. Customers have no way to know whether the bottled product--hundreds of times more expensive than what comes out of the tap--is the safer, cleaner product. In other words, Mr. President, bottled water is the snake oil of the 1990's--it is sold as a cleaner product purely on the basis of claims and perception, not facts. The Bottled Water Safety and Right-to-Know Act of 1999 would correct these deficiencies, establishing contaminant standards and Right-to- Know requirements for bottled water at least as stringent as those placed on tap water. First, the bill would give the FDA two years to make all standards for contaminants in bottled water as protective of public health as the tap water standards established by the EPA, the State of California, the World Health Organization, and the European Union. If the FDA failed to implement this requirement, the bill would transfer regulatory authority over bottled water to the EPA. Second, the bill would require that bottled water companies list, on their products' labels, the concentration of any regulated contaminant found at levels high enough to cause adverse health effects, and of any other contaminants whose presence in tap water would be disclosed to the public under federal law. Bottled water without contamination would require no such contaminant labelling. In addition, labels would name the source of the water, the type of treatment applied, and whether the treatment meets the EPA's criteria of full protection of immuno- compromised individuals from Cryptosporidium and other microbial pathogens. Finally, the bill would require bottled water companies to send the FDA information on the contaminants in the water, the source of the water, and type of treatment applied. The FDA would then make the reported information, information on the recent inspection and enforcement history of the relevant bottled water facilities, and other background information available to the public through the Internet and in paper form through a 1-800 number, both of which would be printed on bottle labels. Mr. President, bottled water consumers have the right to bottled water that is as safe as tap water, and they have the right to know about the contaminants in their bottled water. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a modification to amendment No. 178 to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may, because I'm struck by a paragraph on page 5, beginning with line 8: This resolution does not adopt the President's proposal to reduce medicare spending by $19,400,000,00 over 10 years, nor does the resolution adopt the President's proposal to spend $10,000,000,000 of medicare program. . . That is followed by: Congress will not transfer to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund new IOUs that must be redeemed later by raising taxes on American workers, cutting benefits, or borrowing more from the public. Would that preclude any use of surpluses if there were additional surpluses that arose? How can you attribute a tax increase, or more borrowing, directly to this? This is out of the general revenues, and I am curious how the connection is made and whether or not a surplus would be able to be used.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So we are specifically targeting raising taxes. Could this be competitive by using--and this is said with all due respect to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. If tax cuts are put into place, or attempted to be put into place, would the response be, then--and if we prohibit that by virtue of an agreement here and in the House, would that be considered raising taxes if we didn't cut taxes? Would that, in turn, be considered a tax increase?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So that it is possible that there could be a competitive environment where tax cuts are competing with our capacity to continue to fund Medicare. You know, we have a debate about these transfers and whether IOUs are really significant. If we transferred $1 billion in cash to the Medicare trust fund--the insurance trust fund, and they were to go out into the public marketplace and buy $1 billion worth of insurance bonds, or what have you, those IOUs would have established their value--that cash, rather, I am sorry, would have established its value. Why wouldn't an IOU from the Federal Government, which is where so many companies and individuals put their money because it is the full faith and credit of our Nation, thereby guaranteed by strength more there than anyplace else--why wouldn't those IOUs be considered the same as a cash transfer? It is true that they are going to come out of general revenues to be paid for, but it would also ensure that no pressure on the Appropriations Committee could say, all right, we are not going to be able to fund that, and then a later Congress says, OK, we are going to have to cut back on benefits by raising age or raising deductible, raising copays, or what have you. This at least ensures that that money will be there; those funds will be there off into the future; am I correct or not on that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask the Senator from North Dakota to oblige, or we will refer it to the author of it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts asked the very question that I was trying to find out about. And that is that it has the appearance of another attempt to limit the development of a solvent Medicare program in deference to the possibility of across-the- board taxes. That is the sense, with all due expect, that I get out of this. I don't know whether the Senator from Massachusetts views it the same way. But it would be good if we could kind of straighten that out before a vote occurs on it.