Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to add a provision to the Brady Handgun Background Check Form to enforce the prohibition that persons under a restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child cannot purchase a gun. The Background Check Form, used by law enforcement and gun dealers to enforce the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, currently requires a purchaser to answer questions on whether he or she falls into one of the categories prohibited from purchasing a gun. The form asks whether the purchaser has been convicted of a felony, has been declared mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution, is an illegal alien, fugitive from justice or an illegal user of drugs--all of which would disqualify the person from lawfully purchasing a gun. However, there is one very important disqualification not listed on this form. The 1994 Crime Act prohibits a person under a restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or the child of that partner from purchasing a gun. But this disqualification is not on the Brady Background Check Form--in fact it is the only disqualification not on the Form. Dealers, law enforcement agencies, and purchasers rely on the form to provide notice as to who is prohibited from purchasing a handgun, and law enforcement agencies use the form as a guide in making background checks. This omission on the Brady Form means persons under restraining orders for harassing, stalking and threatening their partners and their partner's children can more easily obtain a gun even though it is illegal for them to do so. My legislation is necessary because all changes to the form are required to be done by legislation rather than by regulation or order. This simple change to the Brady Check List can mean the difference between life and death for women and children across America. Domestic violence in the United States remains the number one threat of injury to women ages 15 to 44, and hundreds of thousands of women are forced to obtain restraining orders to protect themselves and their children from abusive partners every year. More than twice as many women are shot and killed each year by their husbands or intimate partners than by strangers. Mr. President, Congress has already recognized that persons who are under restraining orders for harassing, stalking, and threatening their spouses, partners, and children should not be able to buy a gun. This simple bill will help to enforce this important prohibition to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a real and serious threat to their partners and children. Every year we see tragic incidents of victims of domestic violence who have obtained restraining orders only to be murdered by their partner. I hope you will join me and support this worthy bill to protect victims of domestic violence from the dangers that follow when their abusive partner gains access to a gun. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Rutgers University women's basketball coach, C. Vivian Stringer, and her team for their excellent success this past season when the Scarlet Knights made it to the NCAA Tournament. Even though Rutgers didn't make it to the NCAA Final Four, losing to the Tennessee Lady Volunteers 92-60, Vivian and the talented young women whom she has recruited and cultivated are champions to all New Jerseyans. Vivian began her career building the fledgling women's basketball program at Cheyney State in Pennsylvania, bringing the team to the NCAA Championship game in 1982. She moved on to Iowa State, where for nine consecutive seasons she brought her team to the NCAA Tournament. And then she landed at Rutgers. As one most respected head coaches in women's basketball history, Vivian has been named National Coach of the Year three times by her peers, as well as getting Coach of the Year awards from Sports Illustrated, USA Today, Naismith and the Black Coaches Association. So Vivian's success at Rutgers, however remarkable, is not unexpected. Before this year, the Scarlet Knights had not been to the NCAA Tournament since 1994. A recent news article in Newark, New Jersey's Star-Ledger describes the reasons behind Vivian's thriving tenure best, I think. It said that Vivian, now in her third season: ``pumped Rutgers with fresh talent and a distaste for mediocrity, a combination that has triggered the Scarlet Knights' rise and surge through the NCAA Tournament.'' Vivian has worked hard to recruit gifted women, instill discipline in practice and competition, and most importantly, inspire self-confidence among the players. The women attracted to the Rutger's basketball program all excelled in their high school years and have a strong desire to contribute to the game at a college level. The number of awards that the players on the team have received individually is part of an impressive collection, with honors such as Parade all-American, Rookies of the Year, Gatorade Player of the Year, and Sports Illustrated ``Faces in the Crowd.'' Again, I congratulate Vivian on her hard work and the ambitious young women who play for her. I wish them continued success.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Coverdell bill. This bill will undermine our public schools and provide the bulk of the tax breaks to wealthy individuals. Mr. President, before I talk about the Coverdell bill, I want to make two points. First, I am not opposed to tax cuts for families which help them make ends meet and invest in their children. For example, last year I supported the $500 family tax credit and the HOPE Scholarship $1,500 tax credit for college tuition both contained in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. I also believe that we can enact further targeted tax cuts for hard working middle class families this year without tapping the surplus. Second, I am not opposed to private schools. In fact, I commend the teachers and administrators in private schools for their work. And I strongly support the mission of the private schools in my State. Catholic, Jewish, and other parochial and private schools provide an excellent education to thousands of New Jersey children. But I am also a strong supporter of our public school system, because 93 percent of all children go to public schools. They come from all different, racial, ethnic, religious, disability, academic and financial backgrounds. They are generally poorer than children who go to private schools. They tend to live in unsafe neighborhoods-- surrounded by crime and drugs. They mostly attend schools that are in need of great repair. Many have no textbooks and ancient computer equipment that does not provide them access to the internet. Mr. President, these children should be our highest priority. And I will never give up on them. I strongly believe in educational equity--the ability for all kids to have access to an excellent education with modern facilities and talented teachers. But the Coverdell bill will only make our educational system less equitable. If we pass it, we are turning our backs on our public schools. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I must tell my colleagues that Federal budgeting is a zero sum game. And since this bill effectively spends money to help private schools, we cannot spend more for public schools. It is that simple. Unfortunately, our public schools have enormous financial needs. For example, our schools need a tremendous amount of modernization. In fact, our existing school buildings are in such poor shape, the General Accounting Office estimated that we need to spend $112 billion on repairs and renovations. Fourteen million children--mostly from poor or inner-city school districts--attend schools that need extensive repair or replacement. But the needs of our public schools do not stop here. They need modern computers. They need to be hooked up to the internet. They need more teachers to reduce class size. That is why the President proposed hiring 100,000 new teachers. We also need greater funding for educating disabled children. And the list goes on and on. That is why the 93 percent of all American children who attend them should be our number one priority. Mr. President, this bill is also unfair as a matter of tax policy. While we are awaiting final figures from the Treasury Department, I would like to point out the tax distribution of last year's Coverdell bill. Under last year's Coverdell bill, the average tax benefit for the richest 20 percent of all Americans would be $96. But do you know what the average tax benefit would be for the lowest 20 percent of all Americans? One dollar! One buck! Mr. President, this means that the richest Americans would get ninety-six times the tax break that the poorest Americans would get under the old Coverdell bill. Now, I understand that this new Coverdell bill is slightly modified, but I understand that the same dramatic inequity still exists. We simply should not pass a tax bill that is so skewed toward the rich. Any tax relief should be focused towards middle class Americans-- people who work hard to raise their families. Mr. President, the Democratic alternative to this bill meets part of our educational needs in an equitable manner. It will provide tax incentives for employer paid education and pre-paid college tuition plans that exist in many states. It also provides $22 billion for school modernization. This will mean that thousands of schools across our country will have better science labs, safer classrooms and smaller class size. If we pass the Democratic education plan, along with the President's proposals to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce class size, increase the number of tutors available and create new education opportunity zones, we will see real improvements in our educational system both public and private. Mr. President, I am pleased that the President has indicated that he will veto the Coverdell bill. It will hurt our public schools and provide a tax break for the rich on top of it. When it comes to our public school children, this bill says ``let them eat cake.'' I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation for the sake of the millions of children who walk through the public school door house every day and seek a solid physical and educational foundation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I too support our nation's railroads. Railroads play a critical role in my state in particular. Ships arrive in the intermodal hub that is the Port of New York and New Jersey, unload containers directly onto railroad cars, and send them into the heartland of the United States. Railroad lines exist throughout the state. That is exactly why I care about this issue and urge the railroads to join us in this effort to enact a comprensive bill into law. Madam President, I want to commend the Majority Leader for his involvement and diligence on this issue. Safety must be paramount. And that is what this issue is all about.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would like to stand with the Majority Leader not only in affirming the importance of pipelines to our national transportation infrastructure, but also as a personal witness to the damage that a pipeline accident can have on victims of pipeline eruptions, and particularly to the community. Four years ago, around midnight, on March 24, 1994, a major natural gas pipeline ruptured in Edison, New Jersey, a densely populated, urban environment. This rupture caused a deafening boom, awakening residents of the Durham Woods apartment complex. Seconds later, a plume of fire and gas shot hundreds of feet above the ground. Thankfully, the more than one thousand residents fled their homes, all leaving before the explosion leveled the Durham Woods apartment complex. I visited the site after the blast. I saw how the explosion incinerated cars, playground equipment and trees. Over one hundred people suffered injuries from the fire. One woman died from a heart attack. It was a miracle that nobody else died from that disaster. Four years later, the victims still suffer emotionally and physically. Some are still awaiting settlements. They escaped with their lives but their lives are not the same. A state grand jury determined that the disaster probably was tied to damage caused earlier by unauthorized excavation which weakened the pipe, causing it to explode.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, the Safety Board is right. Following the disaster, the State of New Jersey adopted a comprehensive one-call program that mandates participation throughout the state. It has been a resounding success. Every year since its adoption, accidental hits have decreased. In 1995 --the first year of the program, there were 4,624 hits of underground lines in 1.7 million excavations. In 1996, there were 3,974 hits in 2.1 million excavations. And last year, there were 3,796 hits in 2.5 million excavations--a success rate of 98.8 percent. One call programs work. We in New Jersey have seen the devastation caused by pipeline eruptions. We in New Jersey have seen what a one- call program can do.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I cannot agree more. States need the full participation of every stakeholder in order for a one-call program to be successful. A comprehensive national one-call initiative is far from comprehensive, far from national, if a major industry that has a significant role in the location of pipelines along their rights of way chooses to take a walk on an initiative that is important in protecting our communities and the environment against the damage incurred by pipeline accidents. As the Majority Leader noted, the Senate adopted the Lott-Daschle one-call bill as part of ISTEA reauthorization. This is not without precedent. The Administration included a one-call provision in its NEXTEA bill. A one-call bill, sponsored by my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Frank Pallone, and Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana, is moving through the House of Representatives. The support lies in the Senate, in the Administration, and in key areas in the House. All we need is to break that logjam and sign a comprehensive one-call bill into law. All that is standing in its way is that the railroads' adamant opposition to the bill--opposition that is preventing the bill from moving ahead. It would be a shame if we missed out on this opportunity to pass this safety initiative only because of the railroad industry.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents of the amendment have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So the Senator is yielding me 1 minute?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I didn't hear the Senator's closing comment. Did he yield back his time or reserve it?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will support it because I think it is a terrific amendment. I commend the distinguished Senator from California for her leadership. Too many kids spend more of their waking hours without supervision, without constructive activity, and it is only in school that they are able to have some supervision that makes sense. As many as 5 million kids are home alone after school each week. The prospect of a child alone without proper supervision is sometimes too grim to even think about when we think about those who would molest them, those who would invade the privacy of the home, those kids who might get their hands on a weapon. We have seen what happens there. I want to see that this amendment carries. It puts things in proper focus. We talk here constantly about children and about how important they are in our lives and what it means to every one of us. Anybody who has been a parent, a grandparent, niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, knows about the relationships that children need and require in terms of their growth and development. So I support the amendment of the Senator from California. We want to make sure there are quality after-school programs. The kids who do have good programs can do better in their schoolwork, get along better with their peers. I think it is a great amendment, and I want to see it pass even modestly if it passes. It doesn't have to be overwhelming.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Kansas. This amendment calls for a change in the Budget Act that would allow discretionary programs to be completely eliminated in order to provide new tax breaks for purposes other than the initial direction for this funding. I'm not sure that I understand who would determine that. Would it be the Budget Committee that would determine that? Would it be the specific committees? Would we go to Environmental and say, eliminate this environmental cleanup program? Or would we go to the Department of Transportation and say, eliminate safety programs, eliminate parts of the programs that are not financed through the trust fund? This would be an incredible departure from the rules that are established in the balanced budget agreement. It could threaten just about anything--education, anticrime efforts, environmental programs-- defense, as well, by the way. We know that we have a debate here between those who would typically like to spend more for defense or those who say, look, we have spent enough on defense to keep our security intact. How about the Coast Guard? You could come from a landlocked State and say, what do we need the Coast Guard for? How about other departments? Some might disagree with us on a program to protect our water or any number of programs that are often represented regionally. Frankly, I see this as a terrible prospect to contemplate. The Budget Act is designed to ensure that if we incur permanent obligations such as permanent tax cuts or new mandatory spending, we pay for these obligations with permanent savings. That is what the pay-as-you-go plan rules are all about. It has worked out well for many years. This amendment would change these rules. It says we should make cuts in temporary spending--that is, annually appropriated discretionary programs--and use those temporary cuts to fund permanent tax breaks. Well, it doesn't take a CPA to figure out that this can create serious problems in the long run. Cutting funding for a program in one year doesn't mean those savings are going to remain available in future years. Once you have a tax break on the books, its costs regularly occur, year after year. I am not opposed to tax cuts for ordinary Americans. In fact, I supported targeted relief like the expanded child care credit that the President proposed. But I think we ought to pay for tax cuts with permanent savings. I am also concerned that Senator Brownback's proposal could encourage further cuts from programs that educate us and help us continue the pursuit of a cleaner environment, put the cops on the streets, and make sure that our service people are well housed and equipped to do their duty. The budget agreement is already calling for substantial real cuts in discretionary programs. Under the agreement, nondefense discretionary spending in 2002 will reach its lowest level in almost 40 years as a share of GDP. These cuts are getting close to the bone, and we need to be careful about cutting further, especially if further budget cuts are to be used for large tax breaks that could very well blow a hole in the budget for the future. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will agree that this is no time, nor is it the correct process, for radical surgery on the Budget Act. If we want to do that, we can discuss it within the Budget Committee. This is a new subject. Let us not create fiscal problems in the future by allowing short-term cuts to pay for long-term costs, because I suspect that in there, there is a mission, and that is to kind of take care of the people who are largely at the top of the ladder, who benefit from most of the tax cut proposals we have seen. Let's not encourage further cuts in programs that deal with education and crime. Do you want to tell veterans--I am a World War II veteran. I served 3 years in the Army overseas during the war. Do you want to tell my colleagues--and many are not as fortunate as I am, to have this kind of a position--do you want to tell them that someone may want to cut their programs on behalf of the tax cuts for the well off? I don't see it, and I sure don't want to tinker with defense. I am not what you call a traditional hawk, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy amendment, which expresses the sense of the Senate that we should pass legislation establishing a patients' bill of rights. Mr. President, legislation to reform the way health plans often treat patients is long overdue. The integrity of the doctor-patient relationship is being whittled away, and that must be stopped. For example, many health plans have gagged their doctors, preventing them from presenting their patients with all possible treatment options. That's wrong. Mr. President, Democrats have introduced a bill that would remedy many of the problems that consumers are facing in their managed care health plans. Our bill would put an end to drive-through mastectomies. It would ensure that individuals with disabilities and others with special needs have direct access to specialists. And it would ensure that children have access to pediatric centers of excellence. Mr. President, the American people are demanding that we enact a managed care reform bill this year. And that's exactly what Senator Kennedy's amendment promises we will do. I commend the Senator for offering his amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I encourage all to listen carefully to what is proposed in this UC. The mission is to respond to the entreaties by Senators on both sides, ``When are we going to complete our work? We have plans to make, we have our appointments to keep.'' You cannot have it six ways. What we have done here is we have tried to be as considerate as possible. The Senator from New Mexico has clearly stated the case. I have a further request that would apply to both sides, and that is, where the subjects are in common in two or more amendments, if those parties would consent to try to consolidate, we can further eliminate any time for discussion. Even though it is only 1 minute on each side, we are looking at a considerable amount of time. I plead with our colleagues--10 minutes on their clock has to be the same as 10 minutes on our clock; they can't be a different 10 minutes. So if we are going to keep the voting limited, I urge the chairman of the Budget Committee to exercise all of the ``meanness'' that he can, be a bad guy and criticize and punish and all that. This is serious, and if people don't want to be looking at this clock at midnight, then they are going to have to adhere to the rules as we have them. I think I heard the Chair declare that the unanimous consent is in place. I would like to get on with the business at hand and do what we can to expedite the program and the time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment presents a modified version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress last month. The amendment delineates all of the important priorities in the President's budget. First, it maintains strict fiscal discipline and adopts the President's commitment to save Social Security first. The amendment reserves all surpluses--I want to emphasize all surpluses--until we solve Social Security's long-term problems. This will help ensure that when the baby boomers retire, Social Security will be there for them, just like it has been there for their parents and grandparents. Second, this amendment, like the President's budget, makes education a top national priority. It calls for an initiative to reduce class sizes by hiring 100,000 new teachers; it promotes higher standards and greater accountability; it provides more after-school opportunities for young people; and it would help modernize and rehabilitate many of our schools. These initiatives are not included in the budget before us. That is one of its greatest shortcomings. Third, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a historic commitment to helping families afford quality child care. It would double the number of children receiving child care subsidies by the year 2003. It would provide tax relief to working families who struggle to afford child care, whose biggest concern is that their kids are in good, safe, secure hands and it doesn't matter what your income is or what your assets are. Everybody wants that. It includes many other measures to improve the quality of child care. Again, the Republican budget in front of us fails to include a meaningful child care initiative and would do little for working parents and their kids. Fourth, this amendment, like the President's budget, would expand Medicare to provide health care to many older Americans who now lack private insurance. It would assist those people to help them pay for their fair share so that there are no additional burdens on the taxpayers at large. The Republican budget rejects this proposal. Fifth, this amendment, like the President's budget, includes a major investment in research, especially medical research at the National Institutes of Health, with all of the lifesaving possibilities it promises. The Republican budget claims to provide funding for NIH, but it provides no new money to do so. It merely assumes that the Appropriations Committee will cut other programs--cut education, cut environmental protection--to find the money to provide NIH with more resources. That is not likely to happen. Sixth, this amendment includes a significant investment in our transportation infrastructure in accordance with the agreement reached on ISTEA funding. That includes not only funding for highways but transit and safety matters as well. Seventh, this amendment, like the President's budget, reflects a commitment to environmental protection. It calls for reinstatement of the Superfund taxes on polluters and to use those funds for a variety of environmental objectives. The Republican budget, by contrast, uses most revenues from the Superfund tax for purposes that have nothing to do with environmental protection. Mr. President, this amendment accommodates a wide range of Democratic priorities that have been shortchanged in the Republican budget-- education, child care, health care, environment. We accommodate all of these priorities using real numbers scored by the Congressional Budget Office. This alternative budget fully complies with the discretionary spending caps in the balanced budget amendment, and it doesn't spend a penny of any surplus to meet the goals that we have had to modestly scale back some of the spending included in the President's original proposal. We have adjusted the levels of both nondefense and defense discretionary spending to be consistent with the spending caps, and we have held about $15 billion in the President's funds for America's initiative in reserve. Those reserves will become available upon the enactment of tobacco legislation, if that legislation produces more revenues than proposed by the President. I note that all of these priorities could be funded if we enact the proposal that Senator Conrad and I have been advocating; that is, to promptly increase the cigarette taxes to $1.50 a pack. Mr. President, to avoid any confusion on this point, let me explain. We are assuming that many of the President's discretionary initiatives will be funded in authorizing legislation, which largely means tobacco legislation. We think that is the most likely way that many of these priorities will be funded. If so, they would all be scored by the Congressional Budget Office under the pay-as-you-go system separate from the discretionary spending caps. Of course, as the administration has proposed, this could also be accomplished with the rules change included in appropriations legislation. The point is that, in any case, the President's priorities can be accommodated here within the current rules or with the rules change for tobacco legislation. I want to be up front about this. I don't expect a Democratic substitute to be approved by this Senate. I am not asking for an extended debate about this proposal. We aren't looking for a partisan fight. We simply wanted to put this forward to reassert our support for the President's budget and to counter those who might try to argue that the President's priorities cannot be accommodated using the Congressional Budget Office scoring. We have shown that they can be. If the Senate wants to reject the President's proposals to expand Medicare, child care, reduce class size, that is their right. We can disagree. We can disagree on these in good faith. But we shouldn't just blame it on the Congressional Budget Office. It will be our choice and an expression of our priorities. Speaking for most Democrats, we think that this budget represents the values and priorities that we care about and that this country ought to care about. It reflects our commitment to fiscal discipline. It saves Social Security first. It would improve the lives of millions of American families. Mr. President, I yield the time so that the Democratic leader can use as much of that time as remains. How much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I can have 2 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't want to take any more time than that, because we have an understanding about the use of time, but I do want to say to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is so articulate and who is so knowledgeable about the budget, the only thing is he happens to be wrong. Other than that, we are in very good agreement. What do I think the chairman is wrong about? Priorities. I think that when he lays out those things that are taken care of, we say, ``No, they are not taken care of,'' and we will do all we propose, all the President has offered by staying within the budget caps, and we are going to use the pay-as-you-go mantra; that is, nothing happens until it is paid for. That is the way we see it. When I see the narrowness, the demand that the only way that we spend any of our surplus is on Medicare--and I submit, and I proposed this the other day--ask any grandparent, because by the time you get to Social Security, you are pretty much a grandparent, if they would rather worry today about shoring up Medicare or keeping their child or their grandchild from starting smoking. I can tell you what the answer is going to be. They would say, ``Listen, we have lived a pretty good life, and we are worried about Medicare; we want you to help solve the problem, but if you are saying take a choice between keeping my youngster from getting hooked on tobacco, which will begin his or her final innings at sometime in life when it is very inopportune, take care of those kids.'' That is what we are asking for. If the revenues come from tobacco, we want those funds to be used for smoking cessation programs. I think it is a fairly simple choice, and that is, do we want to say to the American public that we are going to try to deal with all of the problems that we have, but we are only going to do it if we have the money to spend and, if not, then we are going to have to forego that as well? We committed to a balanced budget. I worked not only amicably but I think efficiently with my friend from New Mexico in getting a balanced budget into place. We were commended by people across this country, including leaders of both our parties. I want it to continue that way, Mr. President, and I hope we will be able to have the votes that say, ``OK, let's give the priorities that are for the people a chance to be put into effect.'' Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I ask a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did they see you coughing?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I make the point this is not a new entitlement. It is direct spending and the revenue source would be it. Motion to waive the budget act

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. amendment no. 2229

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison. It would reject President Clinton's call to save Social Security first. Now, the Hutchison amendment calls for diverting part of any surplus for tax breaks. It therefore directly contravenes the President's plan to preserve Social Security benefits for baby boomers and other young Americans. For the first time in 30 years, Mr. President, we are probably going to have a budget surplus at the end of 1998--1998; that is, the current fiscal year. It ends September 30. The forecast for the coming decade is for continued surpluses--$1 trillion over the next decade. We have tightened our belts, we have restored fiscal responsibility, and these surpluses are largely the product of our joint hard work. What do we do with the surplus? On this question, the President has spoken clearly and unequivocally. I agree, before we spend a penny of any surplus, we should save Social Security first. A decade from now, the baby boom generation will begin to retire. Additionally, Americans probably, Lord willing, are going to be living longer and having fewer children. That means fewer workers will be contributing to Social Security for each beneficiary. These forces will put severe strains on the Social Security system. It could have a real impact on our economy. If we do not maintain fiscal discipline, plan ahead, we could reduce the quality of life for our children and thus jeopardize the most important safety net for protecting senior citizens against poverty. That is why the President has been so insistent that we save Social Security first. That is why the amendment by the Senator from Texas is, in my view, misguided. I heard the Senator talk about restraining ourselves, about returning money to the citizens as quickly as we can. The President shares that objective. What he says when he says save Social Security first, he talks about doing it through paying down the debt. If we look at where we are now, I have to say, the President's leadership in managing this economy is pretty good. This doesn't mean that our friends on the Republican side haven't worked together with us and the administration to do things. This isn't pointing a finger. It is recognizing where we are: The lowest inflation rate, perhaps, in 30 years, in terms of the consistency and the level of the rate; the lowest unemployment rate in decades; the best growth rate in the economy that we have seen in decades; perhaps the best economic condition that this country has ever seen--maybe any country has ever seen. We are on the right track, and we are paying down debt. We have gone from almost $300 billion when President Clinton took over, down to a prospective surplus in 1998, a period of 6 years. That is quite an accomplishment. Why is it, at a time like this, that we suddenly recognize, ``My gosh, we have a huge deficit out there and we better get it paid down''? The President agrees, except he provides the leadership to do it. I urge my colleagues to resist the short-term temptations. Confirm the fact that we want to save Social Security. Confirm the fact that we want to pay down the debt. Let's continue to work together, not point fingers at who is at fault. If we are going to point fingers at who is at fault, we had better point fingers at those who helped us in the excellent job we have done together, and it was not all done by Alan Greenspan, as much respect as I have for him. I want to make sure Social Security will be there to protect younger Americans as it is here today for parents and grandparents. Mr. President, we have had all kinds of attacks on the present condition. Frankly, I scratch my head and say, What are my friends looking at? I see a stock market that is thriving--and I am not here to prognosticate the future of the stock market, but I heard a very distinguished economist, a personal friend of mine, on the air this morning. His name is David Jones. He is with a New York firm. He says that he thinks the economy is in pretty good shape in terms of the market. He doesn't see any reason to get overly concerned about sudden market dips. He doesn't predict that the market is going to continue straight up, but he predicts it is on a good, solid base. So the worry tree is sprouting buds here. I don't know whether it has to do with the political condition we will be facing when we get out there and talk to voters or exactly what it is. I want to be as frugal, as thrifty, as the next one, but I also want to make sure we maintain the service of our responsibilities to the people in our society, that those who don't have as much money as some at the top are still able to afford a college education for their child so that child can learn, to make sure there is sufficient housing for people, to make sure there are jobs for people who are moving from welfare to work. We had better have work for them. There are lots of worries and concerns, as I guess there always are with mankind, no matter what the conditions are. Recognize what we have, recognize where we have come, and at least admit we are doing the right kind of a job. So I don't want to do anything that will restrict the way we function with this economy of ours. That is why I don't want to succumb to the short-term temptation and take money out of programs to pay down the debt. We have a program laid out on just how we will do these things. I hope my colleagues will say no to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a reserve fund to allow revenues, taxes paid by large corporate taxpayers, to be used in a manner that is directly connected to environmental cleanup. Right now, the bill that we are considering permits only the use of $200 million out of a total revenue base of $1.7 billion to be used for environmental cleanup. Frankly, I think that is wrong. What we need to do is make sure that these funds are available for the purpose that it is collected. We don't want to see it going to tax breaks or other programs. Only $200 million of this will be used to pay for the ``orphan shares,'' those shares for which no polluter can be found. It is insufficient to take care of the job. That is the way Superfund was originally designed. I hope we can waive the budget point of order that has been raised.