Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in conclusion, the American people want to protect the environment and to protect our investments in our national parks and refuges and forests. This amendment could go a long way toward meeting these goals in a deficit-neutral manner. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2195. Mr. President, I want to point out that we have the following cosponsors on our amendment. They include Senators Daschle, Kerry, Baucus, Bingaman, Boxer, Graham, Moynihan, Leahy, Reid, Wyden, Lieberman, and Murray. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a reserve fund that would allocate funding from a reinstated Superfund tax on polluters for several important environmental initiatives. Mr. President, President Clinton has made environmental protection a top priority. And the American people agree with that. Americans feel strongly about the need to keep our water and air clean, and our national parks well maintained. And, in my view, they're right. The President has urged that several related environmental initiatives be funded by reinstating the Superfund tax on polluters. But the resolution before us largely rejects this approach. It does allow for spending up to $200 million next year from this tax, if it is reinstated, and if the reinstatement is part of broader Superfund reauthorization legislation. However, the Superfund tax raises $1.7 billion per year. And the Resolution would allow the extra $1.5 billion per year to be used for purposes that have nothing to do with environmental protection. By contrast, my amendment would use these environmental taxes for environmental objectives. My proposal largely incorporates the President's Environmental Resources Fund for America, as proposed in his budget. Under the proposal, revenue from a reinstated Superfund tax could be used for a variety of environmental priorities. These include, but are not limited to the following: cleanup of hazardous waste sites; clean water initiatives to assist states in protecting waterways from polluted runoff; construction and maintenance for our deteriorating national parks, forests, refuges, public lands and tribal schools; and purchases of valuable natural resources through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The funding for hazardous waste cleanup would increase the Superfund budget by 40%. This would double the pace of cleanups, bringing the total number of cleanups to 900 by the end of 2001. Let me be clear, also, that this amendment does not raid the Superfund program to pay for other initiatives. Under the amendment, we would still appropriate more money for hazardous waste cleanup than is collected from the Superfund tax, as has been our practice in the past. Mr. President, let me take a moment to highlight the Clean Water and Watershed Restoration Initiative. Today, the major source of pollution of our rivers, lakes and other sources of drinking water is not industry, and it's not municipal sewage treatment plants. It's polluted runoff from our cities and farms. This program would provide funds--not to increase the federal bureaucracy--but to aid states and localities in their efforts to address this problem. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this amendment would not increase the deficit or reduce a surplus by one penny. It's entirely deficit neutral. I would also note that the amendment is broad enough to allow the appropriate committees to make the specific decisions about where this additional $1.5 billion per year would be spent. The amendment does not limit the committees to the particular proposals in the President's budget. Rather, it allows them flexibility to shape programs based on their needs and priorities when the Superfund tax is passed. I would note that the amendment is supported by the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Planning Association. In conclusion, Mr. President, the American people want us to protect the environment and to protect our investments in our national parks, refuges and forests. This amendment could go a long way toward meeting these goals in a deficit-neutral manner. I hope my colleagues will support it. We have a letter from the Council on Environmental Quality responding to our request for administration views on the proposed amendment. Please be assured that the Administration strongly supports your efforts to secure adequate funding for pressing environmental challenges facing this country. I submit that and the letter from the League of Conservation Voters, as well as a letter signed by 44 environmental groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane and I, therefore, raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act. Is the time available all on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I can't promise that. If we have time left, we will use it. It is there now for the proponents to make their case.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I watched with interest the development of this amendment and the others that we heard over the last couple days. It seems like there is a testimonial here to Alan Greenspan. He is a very smart guy, and I will tell you how I know how smart he is. He used to be on the board of my company, and when I left to come to the Senate, he was still on the board of my company. He didn't leave there until he was chosen to be chairman of the Fed. At that point, he could not stay and continue enjoying the private side of things. It was very nice. He is a very bright guy. At our board meetings, everybody used to listen so attentively to what Alan said. Fortunately, in this country of ours, there are lots of smart people. It doesn't mean that he is wrong, but it means that others can have a differing view. I think that this amendment--and I am not putting myself in his league, I must tell you; but we talked to economists, too, and we see a problem with this. This amendment would establish a point of order against any budget resolution in which revenues do not exceed outlays for any given year. We are considering a budget resolution today. There would be a point of order against any budget resolution in which revenues do not exceed outlays for any given year. Well, this amendment would lock us into a rigid formula for fiscal policy, threaten to make future recessions more severe, jeopardize our national security--I don't use these words casually--and deprive the Nation of needed investments in our future well-being. We all know that reducing the Federal debt is an important goal of fiscal policy. I don't think it is unknown that our President, President Clinton, is a very strong advocate of doing that. He proposed using any surpluses to pay down debt and, yes, to shore up Social Security, which it does at the same time--pay down that. That is what the President said, ``I am not going to let you tinker with that. If I have anything to do about it, I don't want you to use that money for anything but paying down the debt.'' So we have a common goal here, but it should not be pursued to the exclusion of all other worthy goals. If this amendment were to pass, it would make future recessions deeper by eliminating the budget's ability to stabilize the economy automatically. We use it that way--perhaps to the surprise of some--and when an economic downturn hits, tax revenues go down automatically and spending for unemployment benefits increases automatically. That is the way, frankly, I think it should be. The budget's automatic response helps to offset some of the economic pain and to shorten the recession's duration. Handcuffing our fiscal policy in times of economic crisis, as this amendment would do, risks turning recessions into depressions. As one who lived through the Great Depression myself, I know very well what that would mean to our Nation. I know what it did to help my family, the only time--other than the GI bill--that we had to reach out. My father was humiliated when his job was finally lost in the Depression and he had to go to work for the WPA, a Government program. It was embarrassing to him, but that was the only way he could see to try to support his family. That is the way it happens in times of stress like that. So when I look at what is being proposed here, I say thank goodness we have the capacity in times of need to make changes. For instance, the Allard amendment doesn't just pose a threat to our economic security; it also jeopardizes our national security. The cold war may be over, but that doesn't mean we won't face serious new military threats in the future. What would happen if America confronted an enemy that was building up its military in preparation for conflict? We would not be able to arm ourselves to meet the challenge because of this fiscal straitjacket. I know that the Senator from Colorado wants to do the right thing and, again, we share a goal, but the approach is radically different. The Allard amendment does include an exception in matters of Defense, when a declaration of war is in effect. There is very significant meaning to those few words. We faced a variety of major military challenges since war was last officially declared, and the year was 1941. This amendment, in those several times, would have tied our hands behind our backs. I also say to Senators who care about public investment that this amendment could prevent us from providing prudently for our future. Here is an example: If Congress were to decide that it's important to make significant new investments in our telecommunications infrastructure or our transportation infrastructure and we wanted to amortize the cost over several years, even though we don't have amortization formally in our financial statement, the Allard amendment would create a new roadblock. I want to say especially to our friends on the other side of the aisle who believe that tax cuts underwrite our future prosperity, this amendment would also make it more difficult to enact tax cuts. My point is not at all to advocate huge, new tax breaks. But I want to highlight the fact that this amendment will tie everybody's hands behind our backs and limit flexibility for Senators on all sides of the ideological spectrum. We have eliminated the deficit, restored fiscal discipline, and helped create the strongest economy in decades--maybe retroactively we are going to say it has been the strongest decade ever. We have done it all without procedural gimmicks that limited our flexibility. We did it the old-fashioned way, with hard work and hard choices. That is the way I think we ought to do it now and in the future. There is just no need for this kind of rigid rule. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I think it would be a huge mistake. It could wreak havoc on our economy, could weaken our national security to a dangerous point. It could impede our ability to make needed investments either directly or through the Tax Code. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I intend to raise a point of order against this amendment. It is not germane. If the proponents of the amendment move to waive my point of order, I hope my colleagues will vote no on the motion to waive. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In my 30 seconds, by unanimous consent, Mr. President, I say that it is important to note that in a March 13, 1998, letter to the Budget Committee, Chairman Roth wrote, ``I believe a comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code should be in place before any action is taken to sunset the existing Tax Code.'' I rest my case.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thirty seconds apiece.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I guess that is what I thought we said, but it is like the Senator made a mistake and thought 7 o'clock was 9 o'clock. Fair enough.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the discussion on the amendment is done, I yield myself 2 minutes off the bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know that Chairman Roth in a March 13, 1998, letter--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in short, I hope that the amendment by the Senator from North Dakota will prevail, because it makes good sense and it tests the mettle of those who are voting. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Mr. President, I sat and listened here with wonderment. We are about ready to say, ``Let's get rid of this other thing because that will make us behave like responsible citizens. That's the only way we can do it.'' We heard the same speeches, with all due respect, about whether or not we needed a balanced budget amendment because we cannot discipline ourselves, and, thank the Lord, that failed. And we did not alter the Constitution, and we did not get into the ridiculous kind of arguments that we would have. We just went out and did it. To my friends on the other side I would say, have faith, have faith in your own ability that you can make a difference. You have a majority. Let us change it. But if you want to burn down the house so we can be forced to move and find another location, I think that is a pretty poor way of conducting business. I see what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has proposed as an alternative, something that promotes economic growth, something that is a low tax rate. This amendment would delete the provision in the resolution calling for scrapping the tax code without an alternative. Instead, the amendment calls for the continued tax deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. I share the frustration of most Americans about the Internal Revenue Service, and believe strongly that we must pass IRS reform legislation as soon as possible. The House approved similar legislation last year. It's long past time for the Senate to act. At the same time, I have serious concerns about the proposal to scrap the tax code without an alternative. I think, with all due respect, that it is a reckless political gimmick that would backfire on this Congress. The main problem with this proposal is that it would create enormous uncertainty about the continued availability of many important tax code provisions. And that could create economic chaos and other problems for millions of Americans. The Finance Committee needs to consider these problems before we scrap the whole tax code. For example, what will this do to the value of homes? How will uncertainty affect contributions to charities, or savings plans for retirement and education purposes? How will employers react to health and retirement plans; will they refuse to set up new plans? Will they reduce contributions to existing plans? What will be the overall effect of uncertainty on economic growth and job creation? These are important questions that need to be publicly examined. The Finance Committee ought to consider these types of questions before we approve sunsetting legislation. But I do think it is important that, in the meantime, we reaffirm our support for the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope that the Senators will oppose this attempt to waive the point of order. This is a new scheme for things. It says that we ought to depart from present pay-as-you-go rules. It would give special protection to special interest tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, very simply, I urge my colleagues to vote against the waiver.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have expressed myself before. I am concerned about trying to initiate change this year, but I think it is fairly clear that this amendment has support. We do not want to continue a penalty in any way, whether it is marriage and taxes or marriage and any place. So unless there is someone else on my side who wants to use a few seconds, I yield back my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a question I would like to resolve that I think is agreed upon. The first vote would be the traditional 15, plus 5, and thereafter 10-minute votes. All of them are strictly controlled so we can move the program along.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the manager whether this now precludes second degrees. Are we going to go ahead? Are we just going to vote?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is the condition, as I understand it. I ask the manager of the bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Craig's amendment. This amendment would prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending and, instead, require all new mandatory spending to be offset with other mandatory cuts. The amendment would prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending. Alternatively, instead, it would require all new mandatory spending to be offset with mandatory cuts. The amendment would represent a significant departure from current pay-as-you-go rules. It would give special protection to special interest tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social Security and Medicare. It would further undermine the prospects for comprehensive tobacco legislation. There is nothing new about using revenues to offset mandatory spending. The pay-as-you-go rule has been in place for many years and it has worked well. That rule says that new mandatory spending must be fully offset either by revenue increases or mandatory savings. In other words, new mandatory spending must be deficit neutral. Under Senator Craig's proposal, however, deficit neutrality is not enough. Under this amendment, legislation to provide a new mandatory benefit, like Medicare coverage for a new medical procedure, would have to be offset with other mandatory spending cuts. No new revenue could be used. If you think about that for a minute, it really doesn't make sense. If we are looking to pay for a new benefit, why would we say that cutting Social Security is fine, but closing a wasteful tax loophole is not? Why would we say that cutting Medicare is OK, but eliminating a corporate tax subsidy is not? Well, Mr. President, maybe some people think that the Tax Code is just fine the way it is and that it doesn't contain any loopholes or special breaks for the special interests. I happen not to be one of them. I don't think many Senators on either side of the aisle would make that claim. After all, we are now hearing calls to scrap the entire Tax Code even without a replacement. Can these same Senators now also be claiming that there is not one special tax break or loophole that deserves closing, even if the savings could be used to provide for new health benefits for people stricken with newly discovered deadly diseases? I hope that not many of my colleagues really believe that. In my view, we ought to be intensifying our efforts to eliminate wasteful tax loopholes. The last thing we should do is give any special protections to them at the expense of Social Security or Medicare. So it is a little out of balance. This amendment would compound the obstacles already created in this budget resolution for comprehensive tobacco legislation. Under this amendment, tobacco legislation could not use tobacco revenues to pay to finance antitobacco activities. It doesn't make sense, and it would undercut what could be the most important piece of legislation in this session of the 105th Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It would change a fundamental rule that has worked well for many years. It would give special protection to wasteful tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social Security and Medicare and could seriously impair the ability to get us to a comprehensive tobacco program. The pending amendment is not germane. I, therefore, raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I don't see anyone else in opposition. I yield the time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Has the proponent side used all of its time at this juncture?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is all right with us. I agree, certainly.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But how much time did Senator Craig use last night to debate his amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So what time would be available for Senator Craig now if the debate was conducted last night? What system are we operating under?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to clear the air and be sure we are both hearing what each other is saying, that is that if that is the case, then we are going to ask for another unanimous consent that would enable Senator Craig to offer his amendment, give us a chance to take a look at it, but Senator Craig, I thought, debated his amendment last night.