Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Allard amendment. It is going to impose excessively rigid strictures on the way we function. What it says, very simply, is that any time that income does not exceed expense, that revenues do not exceed outlays, there is a 60-vote point of order to make any change to accommodate it. Just think what the consequences might be. We use our opportunities here to sometimes adjust to an economy that is in stress. We could be endangering our national security, because though a declaration of war may not have been made, the fact of the matter is that military preparation may be necessary in advance of that. What happens if our outlays exceed our revenues? We cannot go ahead and take care of our necessary business. What happens in times of depression when, in fact, revenues may be down and we may have a need to increase our expenses to help us carry our citizens through that period of time? What it does is it excessively restricts our ability to function. Proper fiscal policy is an important part of operating our Government. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the request to waive the Budget Act. 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.

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, is the Senator from Texas ready to yield back time? If so, I yield back my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield that time back.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2226

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Kyl amendment. I assume we have 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in opposition to an amendment presented by Senator Kyl that would call for a constitutional amendment and require a supermajority to vote to increase Federal revenues. This amendment effectively would grant special protection for tax loopholes. In this body, we only require a supermajority vote for things that deserve special protection--Social Security, for example. It would be wrong to give breaks for corporations and the well-off and permit them to have the same protection as the Social Security trust funds, and it would be outrageous to give those loopholes constitutional protection. The Founding Fathers had it right the first time. A simple majority vote is all that should be required for this body to act. That is a democracy. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it. It calls for a sense of the Senate looking for a constitutional amendment to be offered here. I am not going to take any more time. I hope that the Members will see that we are giving special protection to tax loopholes when certainly the status doesn't warrant it, but worse than that, we are talking about a constitutional amendment. Thank goodness it is a sense- of-the-Senate amendment. It has about as much force as so many of the other sense-of-the Senate amendments that we have already had here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the rest of the time has been yielded back, then I yield back the time I have.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment represents a modified version of the budget that President Clinton submitted to the Congress last month. The amendment incorporates all of the important priorities in the President's budget, maintains strict fiscal discipline, and adopts the President's commitment to save Social Security first. The amendment reserves all surpluses until we solve Social Security's long- term problem. That will help ensure when the baby boomers retire, Social Security will be there for them. Secondly, like the President's budget, this makes education a top national priority, calling for an initiative to reduce class sizes by hiring 1,000 new teachers, promotes higher standards and greater accountability, and provides more after-school opportunities for young people. In short, what this does is remind us all what the commitment is that the President made and what we would like to see in place. I will just say that this presents the President's budget in a modified form. I hope our colleagues will support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask to waive the point of order, and I request the yeas and nays on my motion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we oppose the use of the supermajority that the Senator proposes in this amendment, for a tax increase. We think it is inappropriate. We think it ought not be offered at this time. We hope everybody will stand against it, as opposed to putting into concrete the proposition that it should take a supermajority vote to close a wasteful corporate tax loophole, or other special interest tax break.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Hutchison amendment. It would reject President Clinton's call to save Social Security first. Yet, I hear conversations constantly about how everybody is saluting the sanctity of Social Security--preserve it, make sure we shore it up, make sure that we take care of it for future generations. But here we open the gate to use this money that would otherwise be reserved for Social Security for tax cuts. I think that the American people, if asked the question, would say no, we want to pay down the debt, shore up Social Security, and let's not use this for tax cuts, the benefit of which goes principally to those people in the higher income level. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment in the interest of saving Social Security first.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Grams amendment. As he clearly says, the budget surplus should be used to, perhaps, establish personal savings accounts. At the same time I heard the Senator say we all want to save Social Security. If we want to save it, then we ought to pay down the debt, shore up Social Security, and not turn over to the private sector the opportunity now to engage in individual savings accounts. This is not the place to do it. Perhaps it ought to be considered 1 day, but this would completely upset the principle of saving Social Security first. If we are going to talk about it, then we ought to really mean it and put all surpluses into saving Social Security and reducing the debt. I think that is the proper way to go, and I hope all my colleagues vote against this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I recognize the fact that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has sent up a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to prohibit sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. This amendment would prohibit those sense-of-the-Senate resolutions----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I owe the Senator an apology. I will start all over. I don't call attention to the fact that he has sent a sense-of- the-Senate resolution to the desk. This amendment, however, Mr. President, would prohibit any Member of the Senate from offering a sense of the Senate or sense of the Congress amendment to a budget resolution. The budget resolution already places serious restrictions on minority participation. This is how we get there. When you are on this side next year, you will know how it feels to be in the minority and you will have an opportunity to amend things that you don't see. I, frankly, don't see a lot of harm in it. It takes time, yes, but it gives a chance for an exchange of ideas that I think is important. I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator mind me asking to put a couple things in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that Congress should fulfill the intent of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 and appropriate sufficient funds in each of the next five years to enable Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan. In the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Congress declared that ``intercity rail passenger service is an essential component of a national intermodal passenger transportation system.'' With the passage of this Act, Congress and the President effectively agreed to provide adequate appropriations over the next five years for Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan so that it may achieve the goal of operating self-sufficiency. I would like to take a moment to thank Senator Lott for his cooperation on this amendment and for his commitment to providing the funding necessary for Amtrak to implement its Strategic Business Plan. I would also like to thank Senator McCain for his cooperation and assistance in working out the language of this amendment. Finally, I would like to thank Senators Roth, Biden and all of the cosponsors of this amendment for their continuing support of Amtrak. I believe that for the first time in memory, we have a general commitment among members of Congress to provide Amtrak with the funding necessary for it to turn its financial situation around. We will accomplish this by providing Amtrak with the capital funds necessary to modernize its equipment and facilities. For too long, Congress underfunded Amtrak, leaving it with an aging and inefficient capital stock. By providing sufficient capital funding, we will allow Amtrak to increase the efficiency of its operations and attract new passengers by providing better, more reliable service. Last year's $2.2 billion capital fund and the passage of the Amtrak Reform legislation brought the dawn of a new day for our national passenger railroad. We need Amtrak to reduce congestion on our highways and in our skies. Congress and the President have demonstrated clear support for Amtrak as a national system and for continued federal appropriations. Too often in the past, we under-funded this important system. Today, Amtrak is operating under substantial challenges to meet strict business goals. I believe Amtrak is up to the task and I hope and expect that we will provide them the funds we have promised and give Amtrak a fighting chance to succeed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added to the Amtrak sense-of-the-Senate amendment No. 2243: Senators Moynihan, Jeffords, Chafee, Kerry, Moseley-Braun, Lieberman, Durbin, Sarbanes, Mikulski, Dodd, Baucus, Leahy and Hutchison.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might add a word also, to say that working with our colleagues on the Republican side, particularly the chairman of the Budget Committee with whom I work closely and I consider a friend, we try to handle disagreements in a positive fashion. Sometimes it gets a little edgy, but rarely. I also want to say I thought, and I was discussing it with a couple of Senators here, that there was a degree of comity in this deliberation that is an improvement, I think, over what we have seen in past years. It is a much better way to work. I thank our leader for his support and also to say to the majority leader that his steady hand helped move things along. It has been an excellent experience. I wish we had won more than we did, but we go away knowing that we had a fair chance at the deliberation. That is what counts. I particularly want to say to Phil Gramm and to Senator Nickles, I thank them for their gesture--with the encouragement of the majority leader--in kind of righting what we took to be a wrong. I want to acknowledge it publicly. With that, I thank my friend from New Mexico and hope we will have lots of occasions to do these budget resolutions--with me in the majority seat. I hope we will be able to do this many times. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic staff of the Budget Committee for a job well done. They are Amy Abraham, Phil Karsting, Dan Katz, Jim Klumpner, Lisa Konwinski, Diana Meredith, Marty Morris, Sue Nelson, Jon Rosenwasser, Paul Seltman, Scott Slesinger, Mitch Warren, and, with particular thanks, Bruce King. Also, I extend my thanks to the Democratic floor staff and the Secretary for the Minority for a job exceptionally well done.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have respect for the Senator from Kansas. We have gotten to know each other a little bit. When we disagree, it is with a purpose of accomplishing something. When he talks about getting a big applause line in Kansas if there were to be the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, well, I happen to agree with the Senator on the elimination of the subsidy for tobacco, but I wonder whether it would get an applause line in North Carolina or Kentucky or South Carolina. What if I were to say, well, let's reduce the cost for the Corps of Engineers, we don't have to do all that flooding work, or maybe eliminate the program for agricultural subsidies because in New Jersey our farmers are pretty close to market and they don't need a lot of subsidy, they don't draw down subsidy? The point I make--without being too challenging, or too pedantic--is that what the Senator described is exactly the problem, a Nation with 50 States, one Nation wanting each of us here--and there isn't anybody here who hasn't stood up to protect a program in their State without feeling that they are doing the right thing. I don't know of anybody here. We have to respect those differences. I am not saying promote tobacco. I am not saying encourage agriculture. I am not saying that we ought to have our ports dredged and no one else ought to have an opportunity to move their economies along. When we lose our beaches in a storm, it is no different than a flood in Kansas, or a drought, or a tornado. It is our economy that is kept going. But, apart from that, the notion that we could suddenly change the rules and say, OK, who is it that is going to decide we are going to eliminate this program? I guarantee you that there will be quite a debate in this body about what programs get eliminated. There is only one way you can do this. That is through a deliberate, slow, and tedious discussion among us. It is called debate. It is called discussion, dialog. I hope that the Senator from Kansas would not prevail with this. I think it would be a disastrous conclusion. Imagine risking some of the services that we talked about. How would we feel about reducing the program in FEMA, the Emergency Services Program, where everybody calls up, picks up the phone, dials the big 911, saying, ``Help. Get out here. Hurry.'' We wouldn't have the funds to do it because we were giving tax breaks to well-off people. That would really create a stir in this country. I will tell you, it would be louder than an applause line. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield my time in fairness to the Senator from Kansas. I am going to, obviously, oppose the amendment. I yield the time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the request could be deferred.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a request.