Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill we are calling the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act of 1997. Frankly, I hope we are going to be able to look back at this day and say this was a great day for America's children, that this was a great day for the future well-being of coming generations. I am joined by my Senate colleague from Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin, who worked with me in the past on establishing a ban on smoking in airplanes, he was a Member of the House before, and Senator Harkin from Iowa, and Senator Wellstone from Minnesota. They joined me this morning in declaring that we are interested this day in the health of our children. We want to warn them that a habit that they could be induced--if I may use the term more crudely, seduced--into, if they join in the tobacco addiction group, that they may be jeopardizing their health very seriously. Our bill will force tobacco companies to tell the truth, finally, to the American people. As witnessed by the Liggett & Myers' settlement, which wiped away the secrecy and deception perpetrated by the industry, truth is one of the few items in short supply in the tobacco industry. This bill will require tobacco manufacturers to disclose the ingredients of their product to the public. Actually, it is a modest step. Of the hundreds of products on sale in America that go into the human body, tobacco products are the only ones--the only ones--for which manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients. Take a company like Coca-Cola, one of the world's great companies. They have a proud tradition of keeping their formula secret. They have to list Coke's ingredients on every can. There is a major difference, of course, between Coca-Cola and cigarettes. Coca-Cola does not kill anybody and cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year--more than 400,000. That is one out of every three new users that the industry is trying to recruit. That is according to the Centers for Disease Control. Manufacturers of every food product and every over-the-counter drug disclose their contents. Cigarette manufacturers do not. Can we wonder why? Yet, of any consumable product for sale in the United States, it is by far among the most deadly. When you think about the materials that are in cigarettes, carcinogens--43. Should not America know that when you inhale you are going to get some arsenic, going to get some benzine, materials that are very dangerous to health? Lead, we fight all over the place to take lead out of gasoline, take lead out of paint. But we sell it to the kids. That is what the tobacco industry wants to do. Cadmium, nickel--you would not let your child go near these things, yet everyday this industry, these companies, get tax deductions to advertise their addictive, health-damaging product--maybe lethal. Our bill also is going to replace the warnings. We ask, A, they list the ingredients. B, we ask also that health warnings on the side of a cigarette package be significant, with larger warnings on the front and back that are simple and direct, saying: ``Cigarettes kill. Smoking can kill you. Cigarettes are addictive. Cigarettes cause heart attacks and stroke.'' It is pretty simple. But maybe, just maybe, then we will be able to stop the industry from targeting its recruits for the day. Mr. President, 3,000 children, young people, a day, are attracted and start smoking. And then they cannot quit. These kinds of warnings exist all around the world. Cigarettes kill one out of every three, again, I repeat, of its users. Over 400,000 Americans every year die from smoking and lots more get sick: Emphysema, heart attacks, cannot conduct their normal activity, cannot associate with their families, cannot show the kids how to hit a ball, run a base or go skating or skiing. We should disclose information on the ingredients of cigarettes to the public and provide it with realistic warnings about the health risks that cigarettes cause. It may seem that most smokers know a single cigarette may have hundreds of dangerous ingredients, but I doubt it. When a smoker lights a cigarette, some of these ingredients burn to create other chemicals, and some of these are carcinogenic. A Surgeon General's report in 1989 reported that cigarettes contain 43 carcinogens. The list is here, over 43. I did not know it until recently. But the public certainly has a right to know. Do most smokers realize that one of these chemicals is arsenic? I do not think so. Our bill would disclose that, as well as the other chemical carcinogens in cigarettes. With all these known dangers about smoking, we should not hide health warning labels in small type on the side of a cigarette pack. Other countries, countries like Canada, Australia, Thailand, put large labels on the front of each pack and they put it, of course, in their native language. The United States should provide equal protection to consumers. The warnings should be stark, brutal if necessary, and easily seen. When cigarettes get in the hands of kids, and 3,000 of them take up smoking every day, they ought to be looking at something that says: Smoking can kill you. Smoking is addictive. Smoking harms athletic performance. That is a lot more graphic and descriptive than the small print that appears today. We should have no beating around the bush because this bush kills you. With large and honest warnings, more children will get the message and perhaps some will put down that pack rather than lighting it up. Mr. President, the 105th Congress should enact this legislation. It should not be a partisan issue. In the coming weeks I expect this bill will attract cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The public has a right to know. They have a right to know the truth. Unless Congress forces the industry's hand, it will never fully disclose to customers what it puts in its product, what it puts in their products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be accorded to Mr. Dan Katz from my staff, who should be admitted to the floor because he worked so hard.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg pertaining to the introduction of S. 527 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent morning business be extended long enough for me to give my statement, which I believe will be less than 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill we are calling the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act of 1997. Frankly, I hope we are going to be able to look back at this day and say this was a great day for America's children, that this was a great day for the future well-being of coming generations. I am joined by my Senate colleague from Illinois, Senator Dick Durbin, who worked with me in the past on establishing a ban on smoking in airplanes, he was a Member of the House before, and Senator Harkin from Iowa, and Senator Wellstone from Minnesota. They joined me this morning in declaring that we are interested this day in the health of our children. We want to warn them that a habit that they could be induced--if I may use the term more crudely, seduced--into, if they join in the tobacco addiction group, that they may be jeopardizing their health very seriously. Our bill will force tobacco companies to tell the truth, finally, to the American people. As witnessed by the Liggett & Myers' settlement, which wiped away the secrecy and deception perpetrated by the industry, truth is one of the few items in short supply in the tobacco industry. This bill will require tobacco manufacturers to disclose the ingredients of their product to the public. Actually, it is a modest step. Of the hundreds of products on sale in America that go into the human body, tobacco products are the only ones--the only ones--for which manufacturers do not have to disclose the ingredients. Take a company like Coca-Cola, one of the world's great companies. They have a proud tradition of keeping their formula secret. They have to list Coke's ingredients on every can. There is a major difference, of course, between Coca-Cola and cigarettes. Coca-Cola does not kill anybody and cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year--more than 400,000. That is one out of every three new users that the industry is trying to recruit. That is according to the Centers for Disease Control. Manufacturers of every food product and every over-the-counter drug disclose their contents. Cigarette manufacturers do not. Can we wonder why? Yet, of any consumable product for sale in the United States, it is by far among the most deadly. When you think about the materials that are in cigarettes, carcinogens--43. Should not America know that when you inhale you are going to get some arsenic, going to get some benzine, materials that are very dangerous to health? Lead, we fight all over the place to take lead out of gasoline, take lead out of paint. But we sell it to the kids. That is what the tobacco industry wants to do. Cadmium, nickel--you would not let your child go near these things, yet everyday this industry, these companies, get tax deductions to advertise their addictive, health-damaging product--maybe lethal. Our bill also is going to replace the warnings. We ask, A, they list the ingredients. B, we ask also that health warnings on the side of a cigarette package be significant, with larger warnings on the front and back that are simple and direct, saying: ``Cigarettes kill. Smoking can kill you. Cigarettes are addictive. Cigarettes cause heart attacks and stroke.'' It is pretty simple. But maybe, just maybe, then we will be able to stop the industry from targeting its recruits for the day. Mr. President, 3,000 children, young people, a day, are attracted and start smoking. And then they cannot quit. These kinds of warnings exist all around the world. Cigarettes kill one out of every three, again, I repeat, of its users. Over 400,000 Americans every year die from smoking and lots more get sick: Emphysema, heart attacks, cannot conduct their normal activity, cannot associate with their families, cannot show the kids how to hit a ball, run a base or go skating or skiing. We should disclose information on the ingredients of cigarettes to the public and provide it with realistic warnings about the health risks that cigarettes cause. It may seem that most smokers know a single cigarette may have hundreds of dangerous ingredients, but I doubt it. When a smoker lights a cigarette, some of these ingredients burn to create other chemicals, and some of these are carcinogenic. A Surgeon General's report in 1989 reported that cigarettes contain 43 carcinogens. The list is here, over 43. I did not know it until recently. But the public certainly has a right to know. Do most smokers realize that one of these chemicals is arsenic? I do not think so. Our bill would disclose that, as well as the other chemical carcinogens in cigarettes. With all these known dangers about smoking, we should not hide health warning labels in small type on the side of a cigarette pack. Other countries, countries like Canada, Australia, Thailand, put large labels on the front of each pack and they put it, of course, in their native language. The United States should provide equal protection to consumers. The warnings should be stark, brutal if necessary, and easily seen. When cigarettes get in the hands of kids, and 3,000 of them take up smoking every day, they ought to be looking at something that says: Smoking can kill you. Smoking is addictive. Smoking harms athletic performance. That is a lot more graphic and descriptive than the small print that appears today. We should have no beating around the bush because this bush kills you. With large and honest warnings, more children will get the message and perhaps some will put down that pack rather than lighting it up. Mr. President, the 105th Congress should enact this legislation. It should not be a partisan issue. In the coming weeks I expect this bill will attract cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The public has a right to know. They have a right to know the truth. Unless Congress forces the industry's hand, it will never fully disclose to customers what it puts in its product, what it puts in their products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday, the Budget Committee walked through an analysis of the President's budget prepared by the Republican committee staff. And in anticipation of that meeting, I asked the Democratic staff of the committee to prepare an analysis of the Republicans' budget, or at least what we know of the Republican budget. So far, we know that the Senate Republican leadership has proposed as their first two bills--S. 1 and S. 2--legislation that would provide $200 billion worth of tax breaks over the next five years. Some Republicans have raised the possibility that those tax breaks might be deferred until after an initial budget agreement. But Senator Lott, Speaker Gingrich, Senator Roth, Congressman Armey, and others all seem very committed to large tax breaks. And that means that sooner or later--perhaps as part of an initial agreement, or perhaps later--they would have to pay for those tax breaks. The analysis prepared by the Democratic staff of the Budget Committee simply explains in a very straightforward, objective way what that would mean. And, not surprisingly, it's devastating. In the year 2002, 300,000 children would be denied participation in Head Start; because of cutbacks at the Justice Department, 11,000 additional criminals would be left free on the streets; a college education would be less attainable for as many as half a million students; 3.5 million children could be denied reading and math assistance; 2.75 million households would find themselves without heating assistance; 50 of the most hazardous toxic waste sites wouldn't get cleaned up; 250 VA medical and counseling centers could close; and 2,400 border patrol agents could be laid off. The list goes on and on. And it really makes the case against large tax breaks for the rich. Now, let me be clear that I remain very hopeful that we can move toward a bipartisan agreement to balance the budget. But I hope that when the information included in this report becomes known, many of my Republican colleagues will rethink their tax breaks for the rich. I ask that the text of the special report by the Senate Democratic Budget Committee staff be printed in the Record at this point. The report follows: Marauding the Middle Class--Republican Tax Breaks for the Rich An analysis of the gop tax scheme and its impact on national priorities (A Special Report of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee Democratic Staff, Mar. 19, 1997) introduction In January, the Senate Republican leadership introduced two bills that provide massive new tax breaks, primarily for higher-income Americans. The leadership made enactment of S. 1 and S. 2 top priorities for the 105th Congress. In the first five years, the tax breaks in these measures cost $200 billion. Over the next five years, costs rise by 60 percent for a ten-year total of $525 billion. In the subsequent ten-year period, the revenue loss increases dramatically, to more than $760 billion. Not a single dime of these Republican tax breaks is paid for in the bills themselves, or in an overall budget plan for 1998. As a result, the Republican tax scheme would dramatically increase the budget deficit. If the Republican tax bills were enacted, deficits would rise from $121 billion in 1997 to $251 billion in 2002. Since Republicans assert that they support balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002, providing tax breaks of this magnitude would require extreme cuts in programs that are critical to middle class Americans. These cuts would be far deeper than those proposed by the President in his balanced budget plan. Until now, however, there has been no discussion of these potential cuts. The Republican leadership has failed to offer a budget or to explain the reductions they intend to use to pay for their tax breaks. The American people have been kept in the dark about what the GOP tax scheme would mean for them. In stark contrast, President Clinton has proposed a budget that balances in 2002, based on estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The President's budget includes several tax cuts targeted to the middle class. However, by rejecting the Republicans' massive tax breaks for the wealthy, the President is able to protect important national priorities in education, environment, Medicare and Medicaid. This analysis explains the depth of the cuts that would be required to pay for the Republican tax breaks and examines their impact on ordinary Americans. The report explores the kind of spending cuts Republicans are likely to make to pay for these massive tax breaks and still balance the budget in 2002. Under this scenario, the Republican tax breaks would result in cuts of up to one-third in areas such as education, environmental protection, crime prevention, transportation, and health care research. These cuts would dramatically reduce economic and other opportunities for ordinary Americans, and reduce the quality of life for the middle class. In the coming months, the American people will have the opportunity to choose between the President's budget and the Republican proposal. We hope that this report will help Congress and the public make informed judgments about these competing approaches. Methodology This report calculates the impact of the Republican tax breaks using the approach proposed by Senator Robert Dole during his presidential campaign in 1996. Senator Dole advocated the enactment of extensive tax breaks paid for nearly exclusively through cuts in nondefense discretionary programs. Under Senator Dole's plan, nondefense discretionary programs would have been cut by nearly 40 percent. This report evaluates the additional cuts that would be required in nondefense discretionary programs to offset the costs of the tax breaks included in the GOP tax scheme. Our focus is on the final year of a five-year budget agreement, in which the budget will be balanced. To arrive at the appropriate figures, we have started with the baseline produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which anticipates the amount of spending that would be expected if current policies are continued. Using that baseline, outlays for nondefense discretionary programs are expected to total $321 billion in fiscal year 2002. To achieve balance in 2002, President Clinton has proposed cuts in nondefense discretionary spending totaling $26 billion. This would represent an 8 percent reduction from the amounts required to maintain current policies. However, the President's budget provides a set of additional policies to ensure that the budget actually balances in that year, should economic or other conditions vary from the President's projections. The President does not believe that these ``fail safe'' policies will be needed, and recent economic data support that conclusion. However, if CBO's estimates prove correct, nondefense discretionary spending would be reduced by an additional $10 billion in 2002, for a total cut of $36 billion. This would amount to a reduction of 11 percent. A comparison of the Republican tax breaks and the President's own revenue proposals shows that the additional tax breaks would lead to a deficit $67 billion larger than under the President's plan. The $67 billion figure is based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Assuming that these additional costs would be offset through cuts in nondefense discretionary programs, as Senator Dole proposed, the total cuts in these programs would amount to $103 billion in 2002. This represents a cut from current policy of 32 percent. These cuts are far deeper than a freeze or even last year's Republican budget. These cuts are 24 percent deeper than those made by the President in his alternative budget. These nondefense discretionary paths are shown in the table below. This report explains what a 32 percent cut would mean for a range of domestic programs of importance to ordinary Americans. The 32 percent figure represents an average of the cuts that would be needed. Of course, Congress could propose higher levels for particular programs; however, any such increases would have to be offset by even deeper cuts in other programs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution regarding Belarus. I am pleased that Senator D'Amato is an original cosponsor of this concurrent resolution. Representative Pallone has submitted a similar measure in the House of Representatives. I am deeply concerned about events in Belarus and the effort by President Lukashenka to expand his already considerable powers at the expense of basic democratic principles. I am deeply concerned by his proposal to unify Russia and Belarus. And, as the cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am dismayed by President Lukashenka's failure to abide by the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE agreements which guarantee respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The resolution recognizes March 25, 1997, as the anniversary of the proclamation of Belarusan independence. It calls on President Lukashenka and the Government to abide by the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and other agreements of the Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe; to guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the press, assembly, and expression; and to guarantee separation of powers. The resolution states that it is the policy of the United States to support the people of Belarus in achieving independent statehood, promoting the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, and assuring that Belarus has the opportunity to survive as an equal and full-fledged member- state among sovereign nations of the world. As we approach the anniversary of Belarus' 1918 declaration of independence, we are reminded that Belarus is a nation with a proud history and traditions. It is appropriate that we remember the brave struggle of Belarusan patriots in 1918. At the same time, we must recognize that the struggle for national sovereignty and democratic freedoms continues today and is greatly threatened by the actions of the Lukashenka regime. I urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to stop the growing gun violence and death associated with interstate gun trafficking. Recently, the scourge of gun violence invaded all of our homes, when a madman opened fire on innocent tourists atop the Empire State Building. When the shooting stopped, one person was dead, and six were injured. One of the victims was 27-year-old Matthew Gross of Montclair, NJ. Matthew Gross was shot in the head, and lingered in a coma, connected to a ventilator, for 8 agonizing days. Thankfully, this courageous young man has come out of the coma and is beginning the long and arduous task of recovery. Mr. President, this gun violence must stop. It is too easy to obtain a gun in America. This morning, I stood with Matthew's father and brother and we all committed ourselves to intensify the fight against gun violence. Because Matthew Gross wasn't only a victim of a disturbed gunman. He was a victim of the epidemic of gun violence. Reducing this violence must be a top national priority. Today, Mr. President, I am introducing the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act, to reduce interstate gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of handguns. The bill would prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun during any 30-day period. I am joined in this effort by Senators Kennedy, John Kerry, Feinstein, and Torricelli. Mr. President, no one needs more than one gun a month. In New Jersey, we have banned assault weapons, and we have established strict permitting requirements for handgun purchases. Yet the effectiveness of these restrictions is substantially diminished because the controls in other States are far less strict. Unfortunately, many gun traffickers make bulk purchases of handguns in States with weak firearm laws, and then transport them to other States with tougher laws for illegal sale on the streets. This has helped spread the plague of gun violence nationwide. And without Federal limits, there is little that any one State can do about it. A few years ago, Mr. President, the State of Virginia enacted legislation designed to prevent gunrunners from buying large quantities of handguns in Virginia for export to other States. Under that State law, as under my proposal, handgun purchases are limited to one per month. This Virginia statute has proven to be very effective in controlling gun trafficking from Virginia. Before the ban, Virginia had become the firearm supermarket of the East Coast. It supplied more than 40 percent of the guns used in crimes in New York City. But under the new legislation, the results were dramatic. The percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers fell by 61 percent for guns recovered in New York, 67 percent for guns recovered in Massachusetts, and 38 percent for guns recovered in New Jersey. Mr. President, Virginia's experience suggests that a ban on bulk purchases can substantially reduce gunrunning. However, to be truly effective, such a limit must be enacted nationwide. Otherwise, gunrunners will simply move their operations to other States. The only way to close down the ``iron pipeline'' is to plug it up at all ends. The Anti-Gun Trafficking Act will impose such a nationwide limit on bulk gun purchases. I do not claim this restriction would end all handgun violence. And, personally, I don't see why anyone needs even 12 guns a year. However, it is a reasonable and modest step in the right direction. Mr. President, a one-gun-a-month law would take a bite out of gunrunning without imposing any burden on hunters and other law-abiding gun users. After all, who but gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals needs more than 12 guns a year? Law abiding citizens are made safer by limiting the number of firearms available for purchase at one time. Mr. President, this is a sensible approach, and one which will help to make our families, our streets, our communities, and our country safer. I urge my colleagues to support restrictions on bulk purchases on handguns and to join in cosponsoring ``One Gun a Month.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, one of the subjects that dominates the landscape these days, of course, is the budget. How we are going to function as a society, what are the priorities, how will we finance these priorities and at the same time reach an objective that all of us care about, and of course that is getting a balanced budget by the year 2002. Of course, that is getting a balanced budget by the year 2002. The President has presented a budget to achieve that objective. There are disputes about how we reach that objective, where do we cut further, what is the revenue stream. I, therefore, Madam President, use this opportunity to comment on what I see as the lack of a budget proposal from the Republican side, from the majority side. The President has put down a budget. We have talked about it in the Budget Committee. I am the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. We have had numerous hearings as we explored various avenues, various parts of the equation with proponents and some opponents trying to dissuade us from proceeding with the President's budget. On the other hand, we have not seen anything yet from the Republican side, the majority side, I point out, Madam President. They have produced one piece of budget legislation this year, but it is not a balanced budget. It is the notion that we ought to be giving a big tax break, primarily devoted to the wealthy in our country. The Republican tax break will blow a huge hole in the deficit, even as we struggle to get down to a zero budget deficit by the year 2002. In the first 5 years, the Republican plan would cost $200 billion. In the next 5 years, these costs would increase 60 percent to $325 billion for a total of $526 billion over the 10-year period. This chart will help explain exactly where it is we are going. It causes a ballooning of the deficit. We see it from 1997, which is on the chart projected at $120 billion and expected to be less by the time we reach the end of the fiscal year, September 30. It continues to expand. In the year 2002, when we are striving to have a zero budget deficit, we are at $239 billion, unless some way is found to pay for these tax breaks. They are not free. If we adopt the Republican tax scheme, we would have to make deeper cuts someplace. I guess that would have to come from Medicare, Medicaid, education, transportation, crimefighting, and environmental protection. These tax breaks are also backloaded. Their costs explode, as we can see by the expansion of the deficit, after the year 2002. And, believe it or not, these tax breaks are bigger than those that were originally in the Contract With America, larger than the tax breaks that were proposed last year. This chart is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is now at $200 billion, expanded to $525 billion. These are the tax cuts as planned, to $525 billion. That would be a terrible consequence. That is in the year 2007. Finally, the Republican tax breaks are overwhelmingly tilted toward the very wealthy. According to one analysis, on average, the Republican tax scheme would give a tax break each year of $21,000 for those who make $645,000 a year, the top 1 percent of the income earners in our country. But if you are in the middle 20 percent of our wage earners and you make $27,000 a year, you would get $186 worth of tax relief, 50 cents a day--50 cents a day--for the average hard-working family. It borders on insulting to suggest that someone who makes $645,000 is entitled to a tax break of $21,000--I hardly think that those people need any help--and if you make $27,000, which is the per capita income of the middle 20 percent, $186 for the year. It is hard to comprehend how that is going to help our society or help hard-working families make ends meet, plan for their child's education, plan for a roof over their heads, plan for health care, plan for helping their parents, the elderly, achieve the tranquility and the peace that they need in their older age. Madam President, this is not a good way to do business. We have been down this road before. The Reagan administration gave us a tax break for the wealthy, and what was the result? The deficit exploded. It is time to get down to serious budgeting. It is time to balance the budget. I urge the Republican leadership, the good friends that I have on the Republican side of the aisle who are concerned about balancing a budget, to produce a budget that does the job. If the Republican leadership is committed to their tax scheme, they ought to put up a budget that reflects it. Show us how they would pay for it. But we can't continuously engage in this dialog without, at some point, having to put up a budget that reflects how they intend to get us to where they say they would like to be: Tax breaks for the wealthy, purportedly investments in our society to produce jobs, et cetera, while someone making $27,000 a year is going to get a $186 tax reduction. It is not fair, it is not just, it is not acceptable. The American people won't accept it, even though we could be bowled over by a majority vote. It is an outrageous scheme for doing things, the constant refusal to produce any kind of a response to a Democratic budget. We in the Democratic Party are not in charge. The Republicans are in charge, and if they are in charge, they ought to take the responsibilities of leadership. Produce a budget, show us exactly what you mean. Enough of this nonsense where they talk about a tax cut and no one willing to say where it is going to come from. If we have a $200 billion extra cost for our society, where are we going to get the money? People are worried about their future; they are anxious about their jobs. Yes, there has been good growth in our economy, but the anxiety factor has continued to expand because people do not believe that they have the security they need for the years ahead. So, Madam President, I hope that we will be able to soon get on with our business, have the budget produced by the Republican majority, and tell us how they are going to pay for it. Let us have an honest debate about it. Let the American people know what is going on here and not hide behind a smokescreen that says, well, we want to give this huge tax cut but we are not going to tell you how we are going to pay for it. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10 minutes from the time that is allocated to the Democratic side here, under the auspices of Senator Bingaman.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I reintroduce the Patent and Trademark Office Reform Act, a bill to establish the Patent and Trademark Office as a Government corporation and to provide needed reforms to its operations. The handful of changes I have made from the legislation I sponsored in the last Congress are designed to provide assurance to the Office's users that their fees will only be applied toward Patent and Trademark Office purposes and additional protections to the Office's employees. Our country's Patent and Trademark Office is one of the finest in the world. It has been and continues to be integral to America's competitiveness and economic growth. It is no exaggeration to state that tens of millions of jobs have been created as a result of the PTO's actions. I have seen first-hand the benefits of this Office in my home State of New Jersey, which although it is the ninth most populated State in the Union, receives the third largest number of patents per capita. Despite the comparative quality of work of the current PTO, laws and regulations outside of the control of the PTO's management have prevented it from being as efficient as it should be, and as its users deserve. And unless remedied by legislation, certain circumstances that I will detail below will cause PTO's performance to decrease dramatically. The Patent and Trademark Office is currently subject to the same procurement and personnel requirements, including personnel ceilings, as other Federal agencies. While these requirements make sense and, indeed, are essential for other Government entities, they hinder the effectiveness of the PTO and are not appropriate for a completely user fee-funded agency. By converting the PTO into a Government corporation, we would free the Office from most of these laws and regulations, but would keep its inherently governmental function within the Federal Government and its work would be continued by federal employees. Mr. President, the new PTO will be a wholly owned Government corporation run by a commissioner and two assistants. They will report to the Secretary of Commerce on patent and trademark policy matters only. Like my bill from the last Congress, I have inserted a firewall to prevent the Commerce Department from interfering with internal management decisions of the Office, as opposed to policy decisions. My legislation establishes an Office of the Under Secretary for Intellectual Property within the Commerce Department. The Under Secretary will ensure both attention to intellectual property issues at the Cabinet level and a coordinated Government approach to these matters. The new PTO will be able to procure equipment, supplies, even office space without the constraints of the Brooks Act, the Public Buildings Act, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. These changes are in response to criticism of undue procurement delays that have resulted in lower quality products at higher costs to the Office. My legislation would also permit PTO to lease, buy, or build office space that is more practical for PTO's needs. Currently, PTO is spread throughout over a dozen buildings, which is not only inconvenient for its employees, it's inefficient. Much of the work performed at the PTO requires specialized skills. Those skills are the main reason that the PTO's employees are so highly sought by the private sector. Limited by the general schedule and an overly structured employee classification system, the Office has been hindered in its ability to retain a large number of its workers. My legislation will enable the new PTO to provide its employees with competitive pay so that it might keep and hire top talent. The Office will no longer be subject to personnel ceilings, including those established in the Federal WorkForce Restructuring Act of 1994. There will also be a one-year carry-over of all PTO employees during the transition from the current PTO to the PTO as a Government corporation. One of the more significant differences between the bill I am introducing today and the one I sponsored last Congress involves personnel issues. Although both bills give the new PTO the flexibility to competitively compensate its employees, S. 421 permits collective bargaining over pay and other important terms and conditions of employment. This increased employee participation will provide an essential balance to needed managerial flexibility. I have also established a floor on basic pay for current PTO employees so that they will be assured of receiving no less then they do now after PTO becomes a Government corporation. Mr. President, this bill would give the users, who have fully funded the Office's operations since 1991, an advisory role over such matters as PTO's performance, fees, and budget. This advisory board will review and recommend changes to promote the Office's patent and trademark operations. This board will be comprised of 12 persons selected by the President and Congress who will serve for 4-year terms and who will meet at least quarterly. The Commissioner is required to consult with the board prior to changing or proposing to change fees or regulations. The board will submit an annual report containing its review of the Office to the President, the Commissioner, and Congress. In addition to the oversight of the Office's operations provided by the advisory board, I have included safeguards to ensure the new PTO remains accountable to Congress and its users. The new Office will have its own inspector general, who will be appointed by the President, to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. The Office's annual financial statements will be audited by either an independent CPA or the Comptroller General, and the results of such audits shall be provided to Congress. Furthermore, the new PTO is required to submit annual management reports to Congress and business-like budgets to the President. These reports and budgets must include statements on cash flows, operations, financial position, and internal accounting and administrative control systems. Congress will continue to set the user fees for the new Office, and thus, control, to a large extent, the PTO's revenue stream. This should provide comfort to my colleagues and the PTO's users concerned that, with its new-found freedom, the Office will move into plush offices or pay its employees unwarranted sums. I realize the decision to keep the fee-setting authority with Congress is counter to most government corporations. Hopefully we can revisit this issue in a few years after we see how well the new PTO is performing. Mr. President, there is one last difference between S. 421 and the bill I introduced 2 years ago that I would like to discuss today and that involves the patent surcharge fee. When Congress created the patent surcharge fee in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, it was done to make the Office completely user fee funded, and therefore, to reduce the budget deficit. Although the surcharge, which amounted to an almost 70 percent increase in fees, was intended to be applied only to Patent and Trademark Office uses, Congress has diverted approximately $140 million over the past 6 fiscal years for unrelated purposes. Until this year, the administration has not advocated, nor even supported, such action. In the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1998, however, over $90 million of the patent surcharge account will be applied for deficit reduction. In following fiscal years, the administration has proposed diverting all of the patent surcharge fees through 2002. As the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, I understand the strain on the administration and on this body to balance the budget. This is a goal supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. While I share the administration's budget priorities and commend the President for putting forth a budget that balances in 2002, I regretfully disagree with this component of his budget. Should this proposed diversion be enacted, the PTO would be prevented from hiring over 500 patent examiners this year, and patent pendency rates would double from the current 21 months to an estimated 42 months by 2003. The PTO projects that this delay will reduce PTO's revenues by over $400 million in lost issue and maintenance fees on top of the lost $570 million in surcharge fees. Not only will PTO suffer from this diversion, our economy will as well. Doubling the pendency times will slow the development of new technologies, hurt our productivity, and put us at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace. Mr. President, the legislation I introduced in the last Congress would have ended the patent surcharge fee in October 1, 1998. However, I am now convinced that the PTO needs the fees it should receive from the surcharge to make necessary hires and improvements to the Office's operations. Therefore, S. 421 continues the surcharge but reclassifies it as an ``offsetting collection'' like all other PTO user fees rather than an ``offsetting receipt.'' This modification to the 1990 OBRA would ensure that these fees are only applied toward PTO uses. Mr. President, although I might disagree with the administration on the surcharge diversion issue, the President and the Vice-President, in particular, deserve commendation for their support of reinventing the Patent and Trademark Office. The Vice President has been a tireless advocate on reforming Government and making it more responsive to the public. It is my understanding that the administration will soon send its own PTO reform legislation to Capitol Hill. The legislation I am introducing today is merely the starting point for discussion and I look forward to working with the administration to advance the concepts I have described above. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues and former colleagues in both Houses for their contributions on this issue. Unbeknownst to many Members, we came very close to enacting PTO government corporation legislation in the last Congress, largely due to the work of Senator Hatch and former Representatives Moorhead and Schroeder. I am pleased to note that Representative Moorhead's successor, Representative Coble, has continued the momentum and his Judiciary subcommittee favorably reported out a patent bill last week that contained a PTO government corporation section as well as protection against patent surcharge fee diversion. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this bill, which will provide the means to improve the Patent and Trademark Office's operations and which will make the Office more accountable to its users. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on March 10, 1997, I introduced S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997. I now ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill text follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I reintroduce the Patent and Trademark Office Reform Act, a bill to establish the Patent and Trademark Office as a Government corporation and to provide needed reforms to its operations. The handful of changes I have made from the legislation I sponsored in the last Congress are designed to provide assurance to the Office's users that their fees will only be applied toward Patent and Trademark Office purposes and additional protections to the Office's employees. Our country's Patent and Trademark Office is one of the finest in the world. It has been and continues to be integral to America's competitiveness and economic growth. It is no exaggeration to state that tens of millions of jobs have been created as a result of the PTO's actions. I have seen first-hand the benefits of this Office in my home State of New Jersey, which although it is the ninth most populated State in the Union, receives the third largest number of patents per capita. Despite the comparative quality of work of the current PTO, laws and regulations outside of the control of the PTO's management have prevented it from being as efficient as it should be, and as its users deserve. And unless remedied by legislation, certain circumstances that I will detail below will cause PTO's performance to decrease dramatically. The Patent and Trademark Office is currently subject to the same procurement and personnel requirements, including personnel ceilings, as other Federal agencies. While these requirements make sense and, indeed, are essential for other Government entities, they hinder the effectiveness of the PTO and are not appropriate for a completely user fee-funded agency. By converting the PTO into a Government corporation, we would free the Office from most of these laws and regulations, but would keep its inherently governmental function within the Federal Government and its work would be continued by federal employees. Mr. President, the new PTO will be a wholly owned Government corporation run by a commissioner and two assistants. They will report to the Secretary of Commerce on patent and trademark policy matters only. Like my bill from the last Congress, I have inserted a firewall to prevent the Commerce Department from interfering with internal management decisions of the Office, as opposed to policy decisions. My legislation establishes an Office of the Under Secretary for Intellectual Property within the Commerce Department. The Under Secretary will ensure both attention to intellectual property issues at the Cabinet level and a coordinated Government approach to these matters. The new PTO will be able to procure equipment, supplies, even office space without the constraints of the Brooks Act, the Public Buildings Act, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. These changes are in response to criticism of undue procurement delays that have resulted in lower quality products at higher costs to the Office. My legislation would also permit PTO to lease, buy, or build office space that is more practical for PTO's needs. Currently, PTO is spread throughout over a dozen buildings, which is not only inconvenient for its employees, it's inefficient. Much of the work performed at the PTO requires specialized skills. Those skills are the main reason that the PTO's employees are so highly sought by the private sector. Limited by the general schedule and an overly structured employee classification system, the Office has been hindered in its ability to retain a large number of its workers. My legislation will enable the new PTO to provide its employees with competitive pay so that it might keep and hire top talent. The Office will no longer be subject to personnel ceilings, including those established in the Federal WorkForce Restructuring Act of 1994. There will also be a one-year carry-over of all PTO employees during the transition from the current PTO to the PTO as a Government corporation. One of the more significant differences between the bill I am introducing today and the one I sponsored last Congress involves personnel issues. Although both bills give the new PTO the flexibility to competitively compensate its employees, S. 421 permits collective bargaining over pay and other important terms and conditions of employment. This increased employee participation will provide an essential balance to needed managerial flexibility. I have also established a floor on basic pay for current PTO employees so that they will be assured of receiving no less then they do now after PTO becomes a Government corporation. Mr. President, this bill would give the users, who have fully funded the Office's operations since 1991, an advisory role over such matters as PTO's performance, fees, and budget. This advisory board will review and recommend changes to promote the Office's patent and trademark operations. This board will be comprised of 12 persons selected by the President and Congress who will serve for 4-year terms and who will meet at least quarterly. The Commissioner is required to consult with the board prior to changing or proposing to change fees or regulations. The board will submit an annual report containing its review of the Office to the President, the Commissioner, and Congress. In addition to the oversight of the Office's operations provided by the advisory board, I have included safeguards to ensure the new PTO remains accountable to Congress and its users. The new Office will have its own inspector general, who will be appointed by the President, to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse. The Office's annual financial statements will be audited by either an independent CPA or the Comptroller General, and the results of such audits shall be provided to Congress. Furthermore, the new PTO is required to submit annual management reports to Congress and business-like budgets to the President. These reports and budgets must include statements on cash flows, operations, financial position, and internal accounting and administrative control systems. Congress will continue to set the user fees for the new Office, and thus, control, to a large extent, the PTO's revenue stream. This should provide comfort to my colleagues and the PTO's users concerned that, with its new-found freedom, the Office will move into plush offices or pay its employees unwarranted sums. I realize the decision to keep the fee-setting authority with Congress is counter to most government corporations. Hopefully we can revisit this issue in a few years after we see how well the new PTO is performing. Mr. President, there is one last difference between S. 421 and the bill I introduced 2 years ago that I would like to discuss today and that involves the patent surcharge fee. When Congress created the patent surcharge fee in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, it was done to make the Office completely user fee funded, and therefore, to reduce the budget deficit. Although the surcharge, which amounted to an almost 70 percent increase in fees, was intended to be applied only to Patent and Trademark Office uses, Congress has diverted approximately $140 million over the past 6 fiscal years for unrelated purposes. Until this year, the administration has not advocated, nor even supported, such action. In the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 1998, however, over $90 million of the patent surcharge account will be applied for deficit reduction. In following fiscal years, the administration has proposed diverting all of the patent surcharge fees through 2002. As the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, I understand the strain on the administration and on this body to balance the budget. This is a goal supported by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. While I share the administration's budget priorities and commend the President for putting forth a budget that balances in 2002, I regretfully disagree with this component of his budget. Should this proposed diversion be enacted, the PTO would be prevented from hiring over 500 patent examiners this year, and patent pendency rates would double from the current 21 months to an estimated 42 months by 2003. The PTO projects that this delay will reduce PTO's revenues by over $400 million in lost issue and maintenance fees on top of the lost $570 million in surcharge fees. Not only will PTO suffer from this diversion, our economy will as well. Doubling the pendency times will slow the development of new technologies, hurt our productivity, and put us at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace. Mr. President, the legislation I introduced in the last Congress would have ended the patent surcharge fee in October 1, 1998. However, I am now convinced that the PTO needs the fees it should receive from the surcharge to make necessary hires and improvements to the Office's operations. Therefore, S. 421 continues the surcharge but reclassifies it as an ``offsetting collection'' like all other PTO user fees rather than an ``offsetting receipt.'' This modification to the 1990 OBRA would ensure that these fees are only applied toward PTO uses. Mr. President, although I might disagree with the administration on the surcharge diversion issue, the President and the Vice-President, in particular, deserve commendation for their support of reinventing the Patent and Trademark Office. The Vice President has been a tireless advocate on reforming Government and making it more responsive to the public. It is my understanding that the administration will soon send its own PTO reform legislation to Capitol Hill. The legislation I am introducing today is merely the starting point for discussion and I look forward to working with the administration to advance the concepts I have described above. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my colleagues and former colleagues in both Houses for their contributions on this issue. Unbeknownst to many Members, we came very close to enacting PTO government corporation legislation in the last Congress, largely due to the work of Senator Hatch and former Representatives Moorhead and Schroeder. I am pleased to note that Representative Moorhead's successor, Representative Coble, has continued the momentum and his Judiciary subcommittee favorably reported out a patent bill last week that contained a PTO government corporation section as well as protection against patent surcharge fee diversion. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this bill, which will provide the means to improve the Patent and Trademark Office's operations and which will make the Office more accountable to its users. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that, if enacted, will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of drinking and driving. I am proud to stand with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio in introducing this bill. The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997 sets a national illegal blood alcohol content [BAC] limit of .08 percent for drivers over 21 years of age. The bill gives States that have a limit above .08 BAC, 3 years to adopt .08 laws. States that fail to enact this limit will have a percentage of their highway construction funds withheld. Mr. President, drunk driving continues to be a national scourge that imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of drunk driving accidents and their loved ones. In 1995, drunk driving increased for the first time in a decade. That year, 17,274 people were killed in alcohol- related crashes. Every one of those deaths could have been prevented, had the driver decided to call for a ride, handed the keys to a friend, or did anything other than taking the wheel. Every 30 minutes someone in America--a mother, husband, child, grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash. The numbers are increasing. Our highways are turning into death traps and our concrete clover leaves into killing fields. Mr. President, we have made progress over the past few decades in the fight against drunk driving. In 1982, 53 percent of motor vehicle fatalities involved alcohol; today, alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes is 40.5 percent. In 1984, I authored the bill that President Ronald Reagan signed into law to increase the drinking age to 21. Since 1975, 21 drinking age laws have saved roughly 15,700 lives. And, 2 years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a zero tolerance bill with sanctions, making it illegal for drivers under 21 years of age to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system. While that shows promise, we know we must do more--17,274 lives lost is 17,274 too many. Instituting a national standard for impaired driving at .08 BAC is the next logical step in the fight against drunk driving. There are those who ask why the standard for impaired driving should be .08 BAC. But I think the better question is: why should the standard be as high as .10? We know that any amount of alcohol affects motor skills and driving behavior to some degree. A 1991 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that each .02 increase in the BAC of a driver with nonzero BAC, nearly doubles the risk of being in a fatal crash. This means that the risk a driver faces begins much earlier than when his or her blood alcohol content is at .10 or .08, after the first or second drink. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] reports that in single vehicle crashes, the relative fatality risk of drivers with BAC's of .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with a BAC of zero. Mr. President, .08 BAC is not an insignificant level. A 170 lb. male must consume four and a half drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC. This is not social drinking. While most States have .10 BAC as their legal limit, it is actually at .08 BAC where driving skills are seriously compromised. At that level, the vast majority of drivers are impaired when it comes to critical driving tasks. Braking, steering, speed control, lane changing, and divided attention are all compromised at .08 BAC. Thirteen States have .08 BAC limits, and many industrialized countries have .08 BAC limits or lower. Canada, Great Britain, Austria, and Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France and The Netherlands have a .05 BAC limit. They adopted these laws because they know that they work. They work for these reasons: First, .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and fatalities. Most States that have adopted the .08 BAC level have found a measurable drop in impaired driving crashes and fatalities. A study conducted by Ralph Hingson, ScD. and published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that those States that adopted .08 BAC laws experienced a 16-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose BAC were .08 or higher. And, those same States experienced an 18-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving drivers whose BAC was .15 or higher. That means that not only did the rates decrease for overall drinking and driving, but also for drivers who were extremely impaired. This same study concluded that if .08 BAC were adopted nationwide, 500 to 600 lives would be saved annually. That alone should be enough to convince all of us that this should be a national standard. Second, .08 BAC laws deter driving after drinking. Crash statistics show that even heavy drinkers, who account for a high percentage of DWI arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the general deterrent effect of the .08 BAC. All of these facts, Mr. President, show us that .08 BAC needs to be a national standard, not just an option. Different standards lead to different perceptions, and in this case these differences can be deadly. In regions with high interstate traffic, a driver should not be considered ``impaired'' in one State, and then is legally sober by simply crossing a border. Pedestrians, passengers, and safe drivers should be protected no matter in which part of our nation they are. Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC laws work. We know that .08 BAC saves lives. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that .08 BAC laws are adopted. That's why my bill gives States 3 years to adopt .08 BAC laws. If a State does not meet that deadline, the Secretary of Transportation will withhold 5 percent of a State's total Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Surface Transportation Program funding combined in fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for each year thereafter until that State adopts the .08 BAC limit. Mr. President, sanctions work. While incentive grant programs allow States to decide whether to pass laws on their own, they are notoriously underfunded and States pay little attention. Since the inclusion of the .08 BAC limit as an incentive criteria, only seven States have passed laws due to that incentive. The Federal Government has a role to play to ensure that our highways and roads are safe, and that drunk driving is decreased. The public is on our side. We must not back down. Mr. President, .08 BAC limits save lives. This bill, if enacted into law, will work. I urge all my colleagues to join in the fight to decrease drunk driving, to make our roadways safer, and most important, to provide comfort to those victims of drunk driving and their families that the Federal Government stands behind them in the memories of their loved ones.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill that, if enacted, will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of drinking and driving. I am proud to stand with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio in introducing this bill. The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997 sets a national illegal blood alcohol content [BAC] limit of .08 percent for drivers over 21 years of age. The bill gives States that have a limit above .08 BAC, 3 years to adopt .08 laws. States that fail to enact this limit will have a percentage of their highway construction funds withheld. Mr. President, drunk driving continues to be a national scourge that imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of drunk driving accidents and their loved ones. In 1995, drunk driving increased for the first time in a decade. That year, 17,274 people were killed in alcohol- related crashes. Every one of those deaths could have been prevented, had the driver decided to call for a ride, handed the keys to a friend, or did anything other than taking the wheel. Every 30 minutes someone in America--a mother, husband, child, grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash. The numbers are increasing. Our highways are turning into death traps and our concrete clover leaves into killing fields. Mr. President, we have made progress over the past few decades in the fight against drunk driving. In 1982, 53 percent of motor vehicle fatalities involved alcohol; today, alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes is 40.5 percent. In 1984, I authored the bill that President Ronald Reagan signed into law to increase the drinking age to 21. Since 1975, 21 drinking age laws have saved roughly 15,700 lives. And, 2 years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law a zero tolerance bill with sanctions, making it illegal for drivers under 21 years of age to drive with any amount of alcohol in their system. While that shows promise, we know we must do more--17,274 lives lost is 17,274 too many. Instituting a national standard for impaired driving at .08 BAC is the next logical step in the fight against drunk driving. There are those who ask why the standard for impaired driving should be .08 BAC. But I think the better question is: why should the standard be as high as .10? We know that any amount of alcohol affects motor skills and driving behavior to some degree. A 1991 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that each .02 increase in the BAC of a driver with nonzero BAC, nearly doubles the risk of being in a fatal crash. This means that the risk a driver faces begins much earlier than when his or her blood alcohol content is at .10 or .08, after the first or second drink. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] reports that in single vehicle crashes, the relative fatality risk of drivers with BAC's of .05 and .09 is over 11 times greater than for drivers with a BAC of zero. Mr. President, .08 BAC is not an insignificant level. A 170 lb. male must consume four and a half drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC. This is not social drinking. While most States have .10 BAC as their legal limit, it is actually at .08 BAC where driving skills are seriously compromised. At that level, the vast majority of drivers are impaired when it comes to critical driving tasks. Braking, steering, speed control, lane changing, and divided attention are all compromised at .08 BAC. Thirteen States have .08 BAC limits, and many industrialized countries have .08 BAC limits or lower. Canada, Great Britain, Austria, and Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France and The Netherlands have a .05 BAC limit. They adopted these laws because they know that they work. They work for these reasons: First, .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and fatalities. Most States that have adopted the .08 BAC level have found a measurable drop in impaired driving crashes and fatalities. A study conducted by Ralph Hingson, ScD. and published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that those States that adopted .08 BAC laws experienced a 16-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose BAC were .08 or higher. And, those same States experienced an 18-percent decline in the proportion of fatal crashes involving drivers whose BAC was .15 or higher. That means that not only did the rates decrease for overall drinking and driving, but also for drivers who were extremely impaired. This same study concluded that if .08 BAC were adopted nationwide, 500 to 600 lives would be saved annually. That alone should be enough to convince all of us that this should be a national standard. Second, .08 BAC laws deter driving after drinking. Crash statistics show that even heavy drinkers, who account for a high percentage of DWI arrests, are less likely to drink and drive because of the general deterrent effect of the .08 BAC. All of these facts, Mr. President, show us that .08 BAC needs to be a national standard, not just an option. Different standards lead to different perceptions, and in this case these differences can be deadly. In regions with high interstate traffic, a driver should not be considered ``impaired'' in one State, and then is legally sober by simply crossing a border. Pedestrians, passengers, and safe drivers should be protected no matter in which part of our nation they are. Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC laws work. We know that .08 BAC saves lives. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that .08 BAC laws are adopted. That's why my bill gives States 3 years to adopt .08 BAC laws. If a State does not meet that deadline, the Secretary of Transportation will withhold 5 percent of a State's total Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Surface Transportation Program funding combined in fiscal year 2001, and 10 percent for each year thereafter until that State adopts the .08 BAC limit. Mr. President, sanctions work. While incentive grant programs allow States to decide whether to pass laws on their own, they are notoriously underfunded and States pay little attention. Since the inclusion of the .08 BAC limit as an incentive criteria, only seven States have passed laws due to that incentive. The Federal Government has a role to play to ensure that our highways and roads are safe, and that drunk driving is decreased. The public is on our side. We must not back down. Mr. President, .08 BAC limits save lives. This bill, if enacted into law, will work. I urge all my colleagues to join in the fight to decrease drunk driving, to make our roadways safer, and most important, to provide comfort to those victims of drunk driving and their families that the Federal Government stands behind them in the memories of their loved ones.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to talk about the vote that is pending tomorrow and the subject of the balanced budget amendment. We are coming to the close of yet another marathon debate on this subject, and I hope that I can crystallize the perspective and detail some of the major concerns of those of us who oppose this amendment. Mr. President, it is tempting, as the debate goes on, to accept right being on our side; the other side claims right and the moral imperative that says we should pass this balanced budget amendment, put it into the Constitution, open it up, have the courage to step forward. The courage is to be in the minority and say, ``No,'' though the most popular view is to amend the Constitution because the folks we represent, each of us in our States, really have not been made aware of what the penalty is if we lock ourselves into an amendment to the Constitution. We will be saying to people that in the future, programs that you relied on to sustain your family, to take care of your health care, to take care of your child's education, to take care of your unemployment insurance, may not be available, and if this country starts to slide into a recession, we may go the whole route. So, as we listen to the debate, it is very hard not to get to feeling rather sanctimonious about the side that we are on. I simply point out, as we talk about bipartisanship, and note that the Democrats are all of the votes in opposition, the 34 contemplated votes in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Not the majority. The majority says, ``We can't manage our own behavior; we have to be controlled by other strictures, we have to be told that we are not allowed to do these things,'' not that we were sent here, elected to this honorific body, one of 100 out of 260 million people, who say we have the guts to stand up and make the decisions or pay the consequences. We talk about courage. The courage is to say, ``No; we will accept the voters' decision in the future when we run for election if we insist on maintaining the posture as it is.'' Good news brought us to this point, to where the budget deficit has been reduced by over 60 percent in the last 4 years, where job growth is up to 11 million new jobs, as major company after major company shrinks down, closes its doors, sends its jobs overseas. The good news is inflation is under control, that our percentage of deficit to GDP is the smallest among the advanced nations of the world and the envy of all the other countries. So, Mr. President, I would like to discuss four points that go to the heart of the debate and hope that we will stay the course as it is and say no to a balanced budget amendment and say yes to the American people, that we have the backbone to stand up to this debate and we are obliged to carry on your wishes. First, the evidence is mounting and the public tide is turning against this amendment. Economist after economist, newspaper after newspaper, academic after academic believes this amendment is bad for the Nation, and for good reasons. Two, we will balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. Third, the balanced budget amendment could wreak havoc with the economy and the economic security of millions of Americans. And four, it would be almost impossible to undo the damage of a balanced budget amendment once the harm is done. On the first point, the mounting opposition to the balanced budget amendment is not confined to one group of Senators or Members of the House. It is also not limited, when we consider both bodies, to a particular party or segment of the political spectrum. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former CBO Director Rudy Penner, former Solicitors General Robert Bork and Charles Freid, not to mention our former and esteemed colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield, have all weighed in against the balanced budget amendment. Even last year's Vice Presidential candidate, Jack Kemp, appearing on ``Meet the Press'' called the amendment ``a recipe for future disaster in this country.'' In the November 25, 1996, edition of Newsweek, conservative columnist George Will wrote: The Constitution should not be amended, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. He goes on to say: Current conditions do not constitute a compelling reason. In its November 15, 1996, lead editorial entitled ``An Amendment is Poor Substitute for Backbone,'' USA Today said: Drafting a balanced budget amendment is a waste of parchment. The history of balanced-budget measures show that. The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberal thought, labeled the amendment a ``constitutional boondoggle,'' calling the amendment a ``flake-out.'' The Journal went on to say: The notion of amending the Constitution to outlaw budget deficits is silly on any number of counts. The Washington Post, too, had a scathing review of the balanced budget amendment. In its January 30, 1997, editorial, ``No to a Bad Amendment,'' the Post concluded: This is a fake show of strength and abuse of the Constitution whose effect would be to harm the system of government it purports to help. The New York Times called it ``an idea that looked good in the abstract but is dangerous in the reality.'' And one of my home State newspapers in New Jersey, the Bergen Record, tagged the balanced budget amendment as ``a misguided measure'' and a ``bad idea.'' On the economic policy front, Federal Reserve Chairman Dr. Alan Greenspan, who is known for choosing his words carefully, recently expressed his reservations about the balanced budget amendment. At a January 21 Budget Committee hearing, in response to a question that I asked on the balanced budget amendment, Dr. Greenspan said: I have not been sympathetic to the specific details of most balanced budget amendments largely because I think they are very difficult to enforce, and I am terribly much concerned about the issue of employing detailed economic policy within the Constitution itself. Mr. President, on January 30, along with some of my colleagues, I joined with a message from over 1,000--it was printed in the paper-- leading economists, including 11 Nobel Prize winners in economics, in speaking out against this amendment. At the press conference releasing this statement, one of the participants asked a very good question. He said: ``Where are all of the conservative economists in favor of the balanced budget amendment?'' The answer is that most of them are keeping a safe distance from it, and with good reason. The balanced budget amendment is fatally flawed economic policy. Mr. President, my second point is that we do not need this amendment. During the 1980's and the early 1990's, those who supported the amendment could point to historic increases in our annual deficits and the persistent unbalanced budgets submitted by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. Their concerns were understandable. In 1979, the deficit was $41 billion. In 1979 --almost 20 years ago--it was $41 billion or 1.7 percent of GDP. When President Clinton took office, the deficit was $292 billion and was expected to crest at $347 billion in 1997. The deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product stood at a whopping 4.9 percent. This staggering rise in the deficit led many to conclude that only a constitutional amendment could force the Federal Government to be fiscally responsible. The proponents pointed to the tide of red ink flooding the Nation and argued for this stop-me-before-I-spend-any-more amendment. But that sense of hopelessness has been now proven wrong. Since President Clinton took office, the deficit has gone down consistently and dramatically. Last year, it fell to $107 billion and 1.4 percent of GDP. It is now the lowest deficit, as a percentage of GDP, of any major industrialized country. President Clinton has a plan to make it balance in the year 2002, and it will be a real balanced budget, not this raincheck of an amendment that may be--and it is a big ``may be''--redeemed at a later date. We have proven that the Congress and the President can be fiscally responsible. I want to state in the strongest possible terms that we do not need an outdated and dangerous constitutional gimmick to do the job. We can do the job on our own, and we will. Mr. President, my third point is that the balanced budget amendment is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Perhaps most importantly, it would substantially aggravate economic downturn and it could turn a slowdown into a recession and a recession into a great depression. For example, during the Bush recession, real GDP fell 2 percent. If the balanced budget amendment had been in place, real GDP might have declined by 4 percent or more. Last year, the Treasury Department issued a very interesting report on how a balanced budget amendment would have worsened the Bush recession. I want to quote from it. They said: A balanced budget amendment would force the government to raise taxes and cut spending in recessions--at just the moment that raising taxes and cutting spending will do the most harm to the economy and aggravate the recession. That is what the Treasury Department said. During a recession, we need every tool at our disposal to deal with the economic downturn. The Government must be nimble and responsive, but the balanced budget amendment autopilot could send the economy into a tailspin. One President tried to balance the budget during a recession. His name was Herbert Hoover, and the recession quickly became the Great Depression. I am also very concerned that the balanced budget amendment could eliminate many of the automatic stabilizers, like unemployment insurance that protects people during a downturn and cushions some of the pain. Under current law, if unemployment goes up, so do unemployment insurance payments. That not only helps the workers and their families, but it moderates the impact of a recession on industry. Secretary Rubin estimates that without our automatic fiscal stabilizers, unemployment in 1992 may have crested at 9 percent, instead of 7.7 percent, which would have meant more than a million additional jobs could have been lost. It is possible that eventually we could have found the three-fifths supermajority needed to waive the provisions to the amendment. But Congress moved slowly even without a supermajority requirement, and most likely by the time we had reacted to the unfolding slowdown, the damage would have been done. Another major problem with this balanced budget amendment is that it increases the likelihood that the Government will default on its debt. The amendment includes language that requires a three-fifths majority vote in both Houses in order to raise the debt limit. This little-known provision is extremely dangerous, as one can imagine, to have a small minority denying the ability to raise the debt limit when it could very well be essential. Mr. President, the Nation was taken to the brink of default in 1995. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed in that feverish atmosphere, and we were able to raise the debt ceiling by a simple majority vote. But what would have happened in 1995 if the supermajority rule had been in place? A minority, as I said, in Congress could have caused a default on our financial obligations. A default would have disastrous consequences. The Treasury would be prevented, at least temporarily, from issuing checks for Social Security, Medicare, and veterans benefits. Our creditworthiness would be shot. The Nation would suffer a profound and long-lasting increase in interest rates, harming all those who borrow. Homeowners making payments on adjustable rate mortgages would be especially hard hit. And these higher interest rates would make it even harder to balance the budget thereafter as the Nation would have to devote an even larger share of the budget to interest on the national debt. Mr. President, my fourth and last point is that there is no fail- safe, sunset or automatic review built into this amendment. Congress has passed far lesser measures that contain at the very least a sunset, a time when this automatically stops for review. A case in point is the line-item veto that was enacted into law last year and contains a 9- year sunset. But this balanced budget amendment, that is by far one of the most sweeping and dangerous pieces of legislation ever to come before the Congress, has none. This is most troubling to this Senator, as it should be to all Americans. What would happen if the balanced budget amendment caused the type of problems that I just outlined? Remember, this is not a simple piece of legislation. This is a constitutional amendment. Imagine our Nation, wracked by recession or, even worse, depression. Millions are out of work. Factories are shuttered. Bankruptcy and foreclosures are rampant. Because a constitutional amendment is in force, Congress could not take the quick and responsive action that may be necessary, as we did during the Bush recession. The only legal course of action left to us would be yet another constitutional amendment to repeal this bad one and undo the damage. But hang on a minute. The last time that happened was in 1933, over 60 years ago, when the 21st amendment was ratified repealing the 18th amendment to the Constitution. The 18th amendment was prohibition. It, too, was supposed to save us from ourselves and legislate backbone. It took 14 years to repeal it. During a depression we could not wait that long. The American people, who depend on our sound judgment and rely on our fiscal stewardship, certainly cannot wait that long. And neither should we. We should vote against this amendment. Mr. President, let me again emphasize that I agree with the need to be fiscally responsible, and I am committed to working toward a balanced budget. The President of the United States proposed a budget that balances in the year 2002. We have a challenge. Let us examine it. As the ranking Democratic Member of the Budget Committee, I believe we can reach a balanced budget agreement this year. But we can do it without this flawed constitutional amendment. The former majority leader of the Senate, Mike Mansfield, said that he owed the people of his State more than an echo; he owed them his judgment. It is my best judgment, Mr. President, that this amendment is bad for the people of New Jersey, as it is bad for the people all across our Nation. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and oppose this amendment. I yield the floor and see my colleague, who is the right stuff, from Ohio about to take the floor. We will listen with interest. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that is very generous of my colleague. I will not take 20. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from our great State of New Jersey, and I salute him for his initiative. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I strongly oppose the balanced budget amendment. But if we are going to pass it, the least we should do is include the Torricelli amendment. Without it, the underlying balanced budget amendment would forever preclude our Nation from adopting what I believe is the essential nature of budgeting and investing in America--capital budgeting. As many of my colleagues know, I have long advocated dividing the Federal budget into separate capital and operating budgets. This is not budget or fiscal heresy. Quite the contrary. Most States do it. Almost every business does it. It's sound government. It's sound business. It's common sense. The balanced budget requirement that many States have affects only their operating budgets with capital budgets and pension funds excluded. Capital budgeting is a fundamental accounting principle employed by every major corporation in America. Fortune 500 companies use their borrowing power and creditworthiness to brag about their financial stability. I must admit that I am somewhat perplexed by my colleagues who support a balanced budget amendment. On the one hand, they say that we should operate the Government like a business. But on the other hand, they reject outright one of the most fundamental principles of operating a business--separate capital and operating budgets. Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. I come to the Senate from the business world and that experience gives me an invaluable and unique perspective. The company I founded with two friends, Automatic Data Processing, is the largest computing services firm in the world, and it employs 29,000 people in a number of countries. But it wasn't always that way. We grew that company from scratch, and we didn't do it with the type of budgeting required of the Federal Government today. We borrowed money. We took out loans. We didn't make across-the-board cuts or ask someone else to take the responsibility for making cuts. When I was CEO, I would look over my various departments, and say, I need more in marketing or more in product development or more in production. Mr. President, we budgeted those investments the way any business does. We didn't have a unified budget like the Federal Government. We had separate capital and operating budgets. We balanced our books in terms of day-to-day operations, and cut waste wherever we found it. But we weren't afraid to take out a loan for the long term. And those investments paid off. That's how most successful businesses do it. This is nothing radical, and it's certainly not confined to the business world. Families take out loans to finance homes and cars. Students rely on student loans to help finance their college education. States with balanced budget requirements float bonds and take on debt for capital expenditures. There's no reason why the Federal Government shouldn't do so as well. So if Congress wants to run the Government like a business, it will pass the Torricelli amendment. To get on the right track--the investment track--we must distinguish between short-term consumption and long-term investment spending. So far we have failed to recognize, let alone embrace, this elementary business practice. And as Government continues to underinvest in the long term, all Americans pay a big price. Public investment is crucial because these are investments that the private sector will not make on their own. Only Government will. The economic benefits of a first-rate education system, or a well- functioning transportation system, are spread throughout the economy making life better for all of us. These are capital investments. At a recent Budget Committee hearing on education, I emphasized my belief that greater public investment in education is of critical importance to our Nation's economic future. While parents fear for their children's future, and business worries about the quality of the work force, the ratio of workers to retirees is predicted to shrink to less than 2 to 1. Improving the output of our education system is not only desirable; it has become an imperative if our future work force will be able to support the growing number of retirees. The same is true with transportation. When we invest in roads, bridges, and transit, we lessen congestion and improve the efficiency of the economy for many years. I believe that the solution to many of our long-term investment problems is to create a separate capital budget. I see no other way to do it. So if my colleagues are serious about running this Government like a business--if they are serious about investing in America--they will vote for this amendment. If they don't, we will never have the chance to even consider capital budgeting and that would shortchange our great Nation. Mr. President, I commend my new colleague from New Jersey for his work here thus far. I salute him for this initiative. I think it is a very wisely developed thesis that this Government ought to operate just like other entities across our country, like the largest of the businesses, like virtually all businesses. When we talk about a capital budget, it is done for a sensible business purpose--the Government recognizes it--the depreciation of the asset over its life, and it entitles companies to take the value of the asset each year, charge that off to its operating statement so that you get an accurate picture of what it is that is being done within the company. And so it ought to be here. What we are talking about, almost forgotten in the recent debate, is the balanced budget amendment. I think it is fairly clear around here that this Senator stands in opposition to that balanced budget amendment. I have done whatever I could to assure that we are not going to permit the balanced budget amendment to become part of the Constitution. I think it would be poor judgment. I think it would be a poor tactic to have the Constitution amended to provide for a balanced budget when, in fact, if we look at the record--and that is one of the things, frankly, that astounds me at times--the record of the last 4 years has been quite spectacular when we examine the results of the Clinton leadership. The reduction in annual budget deficit has been enormous, some 60 percent, down to $107 billion last year. The CBO, our auditing arm, said in May that they thought we would be some $50 billion higher. And then in February they had to change their estimate to something considerably lower in a period of 8 months, with no understanding of the fact there was a dynamic change taking place. The same thing was true in an earlier year when the misestimate was by such an enormous amount that had we had a balanced budget in place, we would have made all kinds of adjustments, and we probably could have, without meaning to, sent this country into recession. Mr. President, the principal discussion here is how do we tell the truth to the American public about what is going on here? If we had a capital budget, I think it would be quite clear. Right now, we talk about obscure things. We talk about adjustments in the CPI. We talk about taking Social Security and other trust funds off budget. The fact of the matter is that we would be hamstringing ourselves with a balanced budget amendment that prevented us from responding to our national needs at any given time. Whether on the brink of recession, whether on the brink of war, whether on the brink of other national catastrophes, we would be limiting our capacity to operate. And I do not understand why we insist on doing that when, in fact, the record is good. The President has presented a budget that will be in balance in the year 2002. As a matter of fact, it is proposed there would be a surplus of some $17 billion at that time. But to my colleague from New Jersey, my junior colleague from New Jersey--I am not quite used to the ranks--but I want to say that this is a very thoughtful amendment that you have developed. You have not said where, when, precisely how--do not lock us out of having a capital budget as part of our accounting process in the future. I come from the corporate world. I ran a fairly large company--today, with 29,000 employees. I never would have dreamed of agreeing to a board of directors directive that said: OK, you can run this company, but understand what the conditions are under which you can run this company, that at the end of each year you are not allowed to be borrowing, not allowed to be doing anything else unless you prevent this company from having any kind of a deficit using an operating accounting process all the way through; when, if we erected a building, if we bought computer equipment, no matter what it was, you could not write it off over the life of the assets. Some of these assets are 40-, 50-year assets. Some of the assets we acquire in the Federal Government have lifetimes going way beyond that. If they said to me, those are the conditions, I would say this job cannot be done. You cannot restrict yourself in advance to certain conditions at the end of a year over which you have no control. If we had to cut back on expenses, I never took a wholesale approach to it and said, OK, cut marketing, cut product development, cut production, cut facilities. You could not do it that way. Each of these things requires thought. Here we are, 100 U.S. Senators, sent by people who elect us to represent them, unable, we are saying, unable to do it by ourselves. We need the constriction of a balanced budget amendment so we will all be good boys and girls here, so that we will remove the intuition, the judgment that we bring here from any decision we make because we want to be free of that kind of restraint. I, frankly, think that it shows very poorly in the public domain. I think we ought to do it the old-fashioned way. I think what we ought to do, as proposed by my colleague from New Jersey, is amend it if we can to be a better product, to amend that balanced budget amendment in case it does pass. And I hope it does not. In case it does pass, we ought to have conditions in there that permit us to operate in as free a condition as we can possibly do it. So, Mr. President, I see it as a fairly simple thing. The first thing we should do, look at the record, see where we are. I started to say before, I am astonished by the unwillingness of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize what has been accomplished since President Clinton took over, whether it is the reduction in the deficit, the growth in jobs, the icons of American industry, companies with whom you could tie your future, never worry about another thing as long as they do work--gone, shrunken, dissolved, in many cases. The President found a way to replace many of those jobs by encouraging small business investment. We have over 11 million new jobs in this period of time. We have the lowest portion of deficit to GDP of any country. We are the envy of all the developed nations in the world. I looked at the expectation for the future, as we look at the budget proposal. Mr. President, in the next 5 years our economy is expected to grow by $2 trillion--$2 trillion of GDP in the next 5 years, at the same time, expecting, based on the numbers developed thus far, that we will have a surplus in our operations for the year without a capital budget, which, again, we should have, without adjustments, in the CPI. I think that it is imperative that we vote on the Torricelli amendment, that we give it as much support as we can. Mr. President, I hope, perhaps contrary to the view of some very good friends here, that in the final analysis, that despite the fact that I want this amendment to pass, I hope we do not attempt to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment. I yield the floor, and I once again commend my colleague. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators DeWine, Levin, Inouye, Coverdell, Abraham, and myself, to introduce legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating the 150th anniversary of Thomas Alva Edison's birth. The introduction of this legislation today, February 11, is significant because Thomas Edison was born 150 years ago. Mr. President, few Americans have had a greater impact on our Nation, and our world, than Thomas Edison. He produced more than 1,300 inventions, including the incandescent light bulb, the alkaline battery, the phonograph, and motion pictures. In 1928, the Congress saw fit to award to Mr. Edison a Congressional Gold Medal ``for development and application of inventions that have revolutionized civilization in the last century.'' The legislation I am introducing today would once again honor one of the world's greatest inventors by issuing both commemorative and circulating coins with Mr. Edison's likeness. These coins not only would honor the memory of Thomas Edison, they would also raise revenue to support organizations that preserve his legacy. The two New Jersey Edison sites, the ``invention factory'' in West Orange and the Edison Memorial Tower in Edison, are both in need of repair. Irreplaceable records and priceless memorabilia are in danger of being destroyed because of moisture damage and structural problems. Each year, 9,000 young students visit the West Orange site to learn about the great inventor. Our legislation, at no cost to the Government, would provide the funds necessary to protect these and five other historical sites so that generations of schoolchildren can continue to visit them. Let me emphasize that this legislation would have no net cost to the Government. In fact, because circulating coins are a source of Government revenue known as seigniorage, this bill would reduce Government borrowing requirements, thereby lowering the annual interest payments on the national debt. An Edison commemorative coin program also has strong support among America's numismatists, whose interest is crucial to the success of any coin program. Mr. President, I introduced similar legislation at the end of the 104th Congress. I introduce it again on the 150th birthday of this great American inventor with the anticipation that my colleagues will join me in honoring the memory of Thomas Alva Edison while providing sorely needed funds to important historical sites. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators DeWine, Levin, Inouye, Coverdell, Abraham, and myself, to introduce legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins commemorating the 150th anniversary of Thomas Alva Edison's birth. The introduction of this legislation today, February 11, is significant because Thomas Edison was born 150 years ago. Mr. President, few Americans have had a greater impact on our Nation, and our world, than Thomas Edison. He produced more than 1,300 inventions, including the incandescent light bulb, the alkaline battery, the phonograph, and motion pictures. In 1928, the Congress saw fit to award to Mr. Edison a Congressional Gold Medal ``for development and application of inventions that have revolutionized civilization in the last century.'' The legislation I am introducing today would once again honor one of the world's greatest inventors by issuing both commemorative and circulating coins with Mr. Edison's likeness. These coins not only would honor the memory of Thomas Edison, they would also raise revenue to support organizations that preserve his legacy. The two New Jersey Edison sites, the ``invention factory'' in West Orange and the Edison Memorial Tower in Edison, are both in need of repair. Irreplaceable records and priceless memorabilia are in danger of being destroyed because of moisture damage and structural problems. Each year, 9,000 young students visit the West Orange site to learn about the great inventor. Our legislation, at no cost to the Government, would provide the funds necessary to protect these and five other historical sites so that generations of schoolchildren can continue to visit them. Let me emphasize that this legislation would have no net cost to the Government. In fact, because circulating coins are a source of Government revenue known as seigniorage, this bill would reduce Government borrowing requirements, thereby lowering the annual interest payments on the national debt. An Edison commemorative coin program also has strong support among America's numismatists, whose interest is crucial to the success of any coin program. Mr. President, I introduced similar legislation at the end of the 104th Congress. I introduce it again on the 150th birthday of this great American inventor with the anticipation that my colleagues will join me in honoring the memory of Thomas Alva Edison while providing sorely needed funds to important historical sites. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is 5 minutes the time that is available under morning business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is that the expiration of morning business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I further ask if the time is already accounted or distributed in such a way?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks for 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, just a few hours ago, President Clinton delivered his 5-year balanced budget to the Congress. For the first time in a long while, no one was singing a funeral dirge on budget day. The budget is alive and it is well and already has a sense of momentum and history to it. This is a budget that reflects mainstream America. It does not favor one special group at the expense of another. It does not pit generation against generation or rich against poor. The President's budget reflects the hopes and the desires of all of our citizens, whether it is one of our seniors on a fixed income worried about health care or a family concerned about the quality of education of their children or citizens fighting the pollution in the neighborhood in which they live. The budget moves ahead toward the future without leaving anyone behind. As the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this is a credible budget. Do not just knock it. Look at it and see if you want to recommend adjustments or amendments to it. It will reach balance by the year 2002. There are safeguards built into this budget to ensure that promise. President Clinton deserves a lot of credit for presenting a real balanced budget that builds upon the deficit reduction of his first administration. Since the President first took office, that deficit has been reduced consistently and dramatically to last year's low of $107 billion. I can remember when President Clinton took office that no one dreamed, no one thought it possible that we could have a budget deficit at that low level. It is now the lowest deficit as a percentage of GDP of any major industrialized country. There are no dark clouds on the horizon. The economy continues to grow and surpass most expectations. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Dr. Alan Greenspan, recently testified before the Senate Budget Committee: ``The economy has retained considerable vigor, with few signs of the imbalances and inflationary tensions that have disrupted past expansions.'' And last week we had more good news. The GDP grew at a 4.7 percent rate in the fourth quarter of 1996. The President has presented a forward-looking budget that not only demonstrates fiscal stewardship but is oriented toward the 21st century and its challenges and opportunities, what America needs to regain its full-time leadership across the face of the globe. It looks forward to the future but does not leave anyone behind. This budget protects Medicare. For example, rather than trying to impose radical and untested structural changes to Medicare, the President's budget ensures solvency through the year 2006 while at the same time crafting pilot and demonstration projects that will expand health choices for seniors without jeopardizing the quality of care. This budget also makes critical investments in education, transportation, environmental cleanup, investments that are necessary if we are going to have long-term economic growth and an improved standard of living. We must make sure, however, that any new caps on discretionary spending will allow these investments to continue, because if we do not, we will be forced to make deep cuts during this 5-year period in programs like computers in schools, highway modernization, safe drinking water grants, and community policing. I hope, too, that as this budget evolves, we will take a closer look at cutting special-interest tax breaks and subsidies to help offset the costs of making sound investments. The President has proposed about $34 billion of savings in this area, and we should consider this number only a beginning. Since we will spend over $2.8 trillion for tax breaks over the next 5 years, I think we can identify even greater savings in this area. The President's budget also includes $98 billion of tax relief for middle-class Americans, and it is targeted toward child care, college tuition, and buying and owning a home. Mr. President, this budget is an excellent starting point, and I believe the Budget Committee markup is the appropriate venue for Republicans and Democrats alike to resolve their differences. The American people deserve to know and everybody within the sound of my voice deserves to know the changes that the Republicans would like to make to the President's budget. If they think they can do better, OK. Look at it and try to make some decision. But they have an obligation to the American people to show ``how,'' ``where,'' and ``when'' and not simply carp. Mr. President, Senate Majority Leader Lott has called for the so- called regular order to produce a budget through the normal legislative process. I second that call. Regular order would be for the Budget Committee to conclude its hearings in a timely manner and then write a budget in early to mid March. At that point, either the Republicans would use the President's budget, or Chairman Domenici will have a chance to put down a budget of his own. Congress would then stand a chance of meeting the April 15 statutory deadline for producing a budget and the bipartisan goal of a balanced budget. Mr. President, as we move toward the balanced budget, we must also remember that we are Senators, not simply accountants. We have to look at any budget proposal and evaluate its impact on the American people, their lives and the economy. A budget--as the distinguished occupant of the chair knows from his professional background as a physician tending to people's needs --a budget is far more than numbers. A budget is programs like Medicare, Medicaid, educational opportunity, cleaner environment. A budget has to be a reflection of the American people, their needs, their dreams, their hopes. That is what this budget, frankly, is. I hope we will get to work quickly on a review of the budget if any changes are going to be recommended. As I said earlier, let's hear them. But I am encouraged by what I have heard to this point--not just those who want to hang a black drape and say it doesn't work, it won't go, it can't go, it shouldn't go, but rather a more reasoned approach, I think. We all know that we are on different sides of the aisle in terms of the parties, but I am talking about a more reasoned approach that says maybe this budget is one that we can work from, or work to, and we can get ourselves a budget that reflects the interests of both of our parties, our country, and our people. It is time for a reasoned discussion. It is time for a deliberate discussion for a serious review. And I am optimistic about the possibilities of being able to say to the American people that we did just what they wanted us to do. We got over the bipartisan squabbling. We are not fighting anymore. What we are trying to do is to do what our constituents sent us here to do, and that is solve the problems, folks, don't just argue about them. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.