Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. She will have the task of having to find a way to do it, because I think that it is probably not going to be allowable in the budget resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. They are firetraps. They are insecure at a time when security is high in the consciousness list. So I hope a source can be found that doesn't violate the basic construction we put into this budget resolution. I commend the Senator from Illinois for her dedication, for her determination to bring this problem foursquare in front of us and try and solve it. The statistics are so terrible that if you look at them, they begin to lose their significance: 30 percent of the children not having adequate heating and ventilating; 24 percent--other schools without adequate plumbing. The list goes on. That is just the physical eyesore that is out there that you would expect to be something resembling a decaying factory and not a facility that is being used by youngsters who are trying, with the help of often inadequate supervision, to try and find some life for themselves that they can follow and get through. If you walk into a place that is a dump, it is not going to lift your spirits to start your day. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and just remind everybody that we now have other amendments in order and that this amendment will be voted upon. As I understand it, there is a UC that allots the remaining time for use in the morning.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection here, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 343 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on Social Security and balancing the budget)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 344 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting sufficient funding for veterans programs and benefits)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 345 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress concerning domestic violence)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 346, 347, and 348

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a group of amendments that will be sent to the desk to be considered, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered as offered by the appropriate sponsor and qualify under the previous order, and further they be considered as having been set aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You told Senator Gramm what you told him, and I told Senator Moseley-Braun what I told her and somehow or other there is a miscue.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree to that. But if it were very orderly, then Senator Moseley-Braun would be heard right now. But I certainly want to defer, if she doesn't mind.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not know if there is an exchange of lists or not. Was something missed in the mechanics process?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I listened with interest to the discussion that was going on regarding the amendment that we are now considering. It is a surprise. I shouldn't say that. It is not a surprise. But there is an anomalous difference between where we were when we were talking about Hatch-Kennedy and the response from those who were opposed when they were talking about how inconsistent it was with what we had. We had an agreement. I use the term ``hammered out'' because ``hammered out'' seems like it was really tough. And it was tough to get this agreement. It took a lot of giving, it took a lot of review, and a lot of hard thinking to get the consensus that we arrived at. It was said that it is ``inconsistent.'' How can you do it after all the work that was done with the President and ``we,'' and Senator Domenici and ``I,'' and the people from the House, the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee sitting there night after night for something like 6 weeks, long, long days? Finally we get this agreement. And there was shock almost, and people were horrified by the notion that Senators Hatch and Kennedy wanted to provide another $20 billion for children's health and tax tobacco and cigarettes to do it. The debate was I would say fairly long, fairly arduous at times, and fairly strong in terms of the exchange. But here we have now a proposal after we labored so hard to get nondefense discretionary up to a point that was acceptable. Once again I do not want to go through the whole litany of what the budget consensus constitutes--some give and take, and some got taken. But we are at this point now when suddenly we are talking about increasing the net tax cuts for the first 5 years from $85 billion to $161 billion by taking it out of nondefense discretionary. I hope that this wouldn't get a lot of consideration when it comes time to vote. I heard my good friend and distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee say that President Clinton isn't the kind of President under which you could do something like this, the thought or the inference being, ``Well, this is too good. This is too positive.'' Madam President, I am not an economist by profession, though my degree from Columbia is in economics. But I learned economics the hard way. I started one of America's great companies, modestly I say. And I started one of America's greatest industries, the computing industry. My name is in the hall of fame in Dallas, TX, for having been a member of information processing pioneers. So I learned it by doing it. I also learned it by reading. I remember the days of a very popular President, President Reagan. Under his leadership, about which people were so euphoric, the tax cut that was then introduced was in present terms something like $12.8 trillion. That was supposed to be evidence of how good the supply side would be and what eventually would trickle down into the economy which would stimulate things, and everybody would be kind of happy thereafter. But what we saw instead was the incredible growth in the debt in this society of ours with annual deficits just booming, and total debt skyrocketing. We are finally working our way out of it. And the reference is that this President wouldn't permit it. When this President took over the debt, the annual deficit was $290 billion. It is projected to be $67 billion, now the third projection by the Congressional Budget Office, that neutral body that is targeting their sights on what is accurate, and what is honest and what is fair. They have changed their mind three times in the last 6 or 7 months. People are working at more new jobs created than in almost any period I think--I will say almost in any period of history. Unemployment is at a historic low. Inflation is at a very stable rate. All signs are pretty darned good. We ``hammer out'' this agreement laboring all those hours, people getting angry at one another at times but finally agreeing. I shouldn't put the focus on ``angry.'' Once in a while tension would creep in. But essentially it was a debate or a negotiation conducted with the best of intentions. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and I, it is fair to say, worked very well together, as did our colleagues from the House. We were determined to try to solve the problem and not get the temperature up too high. We are here now. After all of that, and after the discussion we had throughout the day today about the violation of the consistency of the budget agreement, and now we are looking at what I think is a gross violation--if one can term it a violation--about changing not only the nondefense discretionary but increasing the tax cutoff over which there was much labor. A lot of people on this side did not want to see a major tax cut. As a matter of fact, many of them didn't want to see any tax cut. But it was understood that in the context of an agreement you sometimes do things that you wouldn't otherwise do. If you are working alone you can do anything you want. If you own the company you can do anything you want. If you are the CEO you can do almost anything you want. But when you get here we have to depend on the good will and the good judgment of others in order to arrive at agreement. Thus, we are faced with what I think is a difficult but nevertheless honorable consensus that was arrived at. The notion that we might change it at this late hour, change it by taking away nondefense discretionary, which I frankly think is underfed in some ways. Defense discretionary in my view is overfed in some ways. I just hope that our colleagues when it is time to vote--and I hope that will be soon--will reflect on the inconsistency factor that was considered so delicate and so essential before to maintain consistency that we will maintain consistency here, and that this amendment will be defeated. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may inquire of the chairman.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request, if I may. I ask unanimous consent that Nick Minshew, a fellow in the office of Senator Wellstone, be granted floor privileges for the day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope the manager will give us----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We reserve the right to object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request just to get someone in the Chamber included in the Senator's list. I have a unanimous-consent request to get someone in the Chamber on the list.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the distinguished Senator from California.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Illinois 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time does the Senator from Illinois--do we want to alternate?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes from the bill.