Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I find myself in a kind of awkward position, because I really believe we ought to make the investment in highways that is called for in this bill. I will talk in some detail about that. But I have some very serious concerns about the abandonment of safety in the interests of getting from here to there. That is what I see happening with this bill. It is kind of a ``safety be damned, go ahead with the Toronados,'' and whatever the names of the other vehicles are. So, therefore, Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the National Highway System bill. As one of the Senate's primary advocates for infrastructure investment, I strongly support passage of legislation to designate the National Highway System. In fact, I was an original cosponsor of legislation in both the 103d and 104th Congresses to accomplish this. This $6.5 billion for the fiscal 1996 year that this conference report authorizes, is sorely needed. If we need any proof of that, just consider these few grim facts. Almost one-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition. This, in our wealthy, great country, America. One-fourth of our highways are in poor or mediocre condition, while another 36 percent are rated only fair. That is a total of 61 percent between the two that are fair or poor. One in five of the Nation's bridges is structurally deficient, meaning that weight restrictions have been set to limit truck traffic. On urban interstate highways, the percentage of peak- hour travel approaching gridlock conditions increased from 55 percent in 1983 to 70 percent in 1991. The cost to the economy for that is $39 billion. Experts indicate that an additional investment of $32 billion is needed to bring our highway and bridge infrastructure up to standard. Failure to make these investments increases costs in both the short and the long term. For example, failure to invest $1 today in needed highway resurfacing can mean up to $4 in highway reconstruction costs 2 years hence. The ability of our country to sustain higher productivity is the key to economic growth and a higher standard of living. Higher productivity is in part a function of public and private investment. That is not just my view. Over 400 of our Nation's leading economists have urged Government to increase public investment. These economists have urged us to remember that public investment in our people and in our infrastructure is essential to future economic growth, and clearly the National Highway System is a critical element of our public infrastructure. It is essential that we maintain that investment and increase our commitment in this area. Unfortunately, as much as I support the provisions in this legislation that would designate the NHS, I feel compelled to vote against this conference report. I do so for one simple reason, and that is that this bill undermines public safety. The bill will cost thousands of people their lives. It will mean that thousands of others will suffer serious injuries. It will mean that countless citizens will lose loved family members, be they their wife, mother, husband, father, son, daughter, brother, or sister--someone close, where the pain is extensive. There is no question that this bill will, unfortunately, end some lives and ruin others. I do not want the blood and the pain of these innocent Americans on our hands. I am concerned about what I see as a sense of complacency about highway safety in this Congress. It is disturbing. Maybe it is understandable. Maybe we have lost a sense of urgency about safety because we have made really good progress in the past. For 20 years, the motor vehicle death rate decreased steadily from a high in 1972 of 56,000 to 41,000 in 1992, a significant decline in that 20-year period. It is roughly 16,000 persons. That happened while the population of vehicles grew by 50 million. So we have done a good job. Unfortunately, according to a recent report by the National Safety Council, the 20-year trend of improvements has now been reversed. In 1993, traffic deaths rose to 42,200, and we learned that 43,000 died on our highways in 1994. This translates into a 5-percent increase over a mere 2-year period. Where is the increase in deaths occurring? A recently released DOT study showed that during fiscal year 1993, the latest year of the study, fatalities on roads posted at 55 miles an hour fell while fatalities on roads posted at 65 miles per hour rose. The study substantiates what we learned in 1974; that is, that speed kills. If we set reasonable speed limits, we will save lives. Mr. President, I heard one of our colleagues before say that nobody is obeying--or few are obeying--the speed limit laws. I do not quite know what that means in terms of this debate. Does it mean that people do not obey the law at 55, assuming, of course, that therefore enforcement is weak, and they therefore will obey the law at 75 miles an hour? That is a little hard to understand. I believe that if they go 65 when it is 55, they will go 85 when it is 75, thereby increasing the risk to life and limb. That is why I am so concerned about the provisions in this conference report that would eliminate entirely all Federal speed limits. Mr. President, whether it is one of my children or one of the children of others in this Chamber, if you live in New Jersey and your kids or your grandchild is in a car traveling in Montana or Colorado, or what have you, I would like to know that family member of mine and of others here and of people across this country are protected to the fullest extent possible. That is why, when we say let the States decide when there is Federal money being put into these systems, that I think the Federal Government has an obligation. We are responsible for the lives and well-being of our citizens. One-third of all traffic accidents are caused by excessive speed. So common sense tells us that increased speed will lead to more fatalities. But, Mr. President, the magnitude of this increase is greater than many realize. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-- known as NHTSA--total repeal of Federal speed limit requirements will lead to the deaths of an estimated 6,400 Americans each year. That is 6,400 more each year. Think about that for a second: 6,400 Americans will die each year because of the provisions in this bill that lift the Federal speed limits. These Americans will have typically family members left behind. It could be small children without a parent, or wives or husbands left to live their lives alone. Mr. President, those 6,400 Americans do not even include the thousands of others who will suffer disabling injuries in highway accidents. It does not include the people who will never again be able to walk or who will never again be able to work. Then, beyond these human costs, there are the financial costs. Lifting Federal speed limit restrictions will cost taxpayers over $19 billion annually in lost productivity, taxes, and increased health care costs. This loss is on top of the $24 billion that we already lose as a result of motor vehicle accidents caused by excessive speed. To give you an idea about what that $19 billion in additional costs would mean for some States, consider this. For taxpayers in California, the additional cost would be $2 billion. For taxpayers in Texas, the cost would be $1.7 billion. These are additional costs as a result of the additional deaths and injuries that will occur. Mr. President, the same arguments about safety apply to the helmet provisions in this bill. More than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to the motorcyclists. Head injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. Compared to a helmeted rider, an unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury. That is enormous difference--40 percent. That is one reason why NHTSA estimates that the use of helmets saved $5.9 billion between 1984 and 1992. Mr. President, repeal of mandatory helmet requirements is projected to lead to an additional 390 deaths every year, and it will also increase the annual cost to society by about $390 million. So, Mr. President, when you combine the effects of the speed limit removal and the motorcycle helmet provisions in this conference report, the legislation is likely to cause 6,800 deaths every year. That will mean more than 50,000 innocent people, men, women and children will lose their lives in traffic accidents in 1996. Mr. President, 50,000 deaths are simply unacceptable. The Nation was in mourning for many years after the close of the Vietnam war when we lost over 50,000 of our young, brave soldiers. Many of these deaths would have been preventable. Mr. President, I know that many of my colleagues believe strongly in the principle of States rights, and I respect their commitment to that view. But surely all of us believe in protecting innocent lives wherever possible. Who among us would intentionally withhold a cure for a young person dying of cancer, or AIDS, or some other terminal illness? Who could stand by a bedside and say, ``No, we can cure your condition, but we are not going to be able to give it to you. We are going to let you die.'' It would be unthinkable. Yet, in effect, Mr. President, that is exactly what we would be doing to thousands of Americans if we insist on weakening our highway safety laws. We will not know the faces of the innocent people who will die because of this conference report. But we know that there will be thousands and thousands of them. And I would suggest to my colleagues to look around at your constituents, at the people you know. Many of these, maybe some of these nameless and faceless casualties are even near us today. But we will not know it until it is too late. The vote that you cast in favor of increasing speed can cause excruciating pain and grief for families and friends that come from one's hometown or one's State. Mr. President, next time my colleagues are back home I encourage them to visit a trauma hospital. I have done it. It is an unfortunate, memorable experience. It is a terrible sight. The result of a serious accident often leaves a person in the condition that perhaps death might be a better outcome. Many cannot be recognized, or recognize their visitors. About a year ago, Mr. President, three young men in the State of New Jersey, ages 15 to 17, were waiting to make a turn off a road. The car they were driving was struck by a car from the rear. The force of the accident pushed this car into the oncoming traffic, where it was struck by a vehicle going in the other direction. Two of these young men died at the scene, and the third was rushed to the hospital in critical condition. That weekend I went to the hospital to visit the boy and his family, who are people I know. It was a terrible experience. This young man-- his name was Kenneth Agler--was in bed in a coma. His family did not know whether he would ever wake up again and, if he did, doctors were not sure what permanent damage he might have sustained. I held his hand, and I looked in his eyes, and he stared right through me. His body was there but his soul, his mind, his vitality were absent. Kenneth did eventually come out of his coma, but he has many years of tough, painful, and expensive physical therapy ahead of him. At the time of the accident Ken and his friends were obeying the law. They were doing everything they were supposed to in that situation. However, they were in what could be called the right place at the wrong time, and it was the car that came upon them moving at a high rate of speed that did the damage. Mr. President, we have a cure for this pain. The question is, do we have the will to use it? And we will not have if we refuse to set reasonable speed limit laws, and we will not if we refuse to encourage States to enact motorcycle helmet laws. We have had votes in this body on both of these issues, and in both cases, unfortunately, we lost. The vote on speed limits was 36 for maintaining them, 64 against. That was, I believe, a regrettable outcome. I fought hard to get the legislation passed. The debate for helmets was similarly decided. I do not know what the exact vote count was there, but the majority prevailed and helmets were no longer required. I will say, Mr. President, at this point that this conference report does have a prosafety provision which I support, and that provision establishes a zero tolerance policy for young people who drive after drinking under the age of 21 particularly. This provision is a positive step, and I commend our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, and the managers of the bill for including it. I authored the bill that set the drinking age at 21 across this country back in 1984, and it is believed that we have saved over 10,000 young people from dying on the highways--10,000 families that did not have to mourn, 10,000 families that were exempted from the grief of losing a young family member. So this is a positive thing. Unfortunately, the benefits of this provision are far outweighed by other provisions that undermine highway safety. As a matter of fact, in this bill, we exempted a particular truck, a single-unit truck that weighs between 10,000 and 26,000 pounds gross weight, from routine inspections that are now required. That is terrible news. There are about 3.25 million of these vehicles. There are some horrible ``factoids'' that accompany this exemption. Single-unit truck crash fatalities have risen nearly 50 percent in 4 years. Nearly 40 percent of all truck crashes involve single-unit trucks which fall within the class of vehicle eligible for the exemption program. In 1994, single-unit trucks were responsible for nearly 1,400 deaths. Ninety percent of these deaths were to the occupants of small passenger vehicles and nearly half of these deaths involved trucks that fit in this weight category. So we see another example of the abandonment of sensible safety rules included in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a Washington Post editorial dated October 12, 1995 be printed in the Record. It is entitled ``Trucks Amok,'' and it talks about the risk that is posed by the exemption of these trucks from routine safety inspection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask, what is the situation with respect to time? I believe I have an hour available.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What is the time constraint or the structure right now?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could the Chair tell me whether the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, is scheduled for some time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the question again--I am sorry--are the yeas and nays ordered?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wanted to offer 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I will be happy to yield 7 minutes from my time to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask how much time I have left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to stand up and announce my support of the comments and the program that the distinguished Senator from Delaware outlined in terms of where he would like to see things go for Amtrak. I, too, am an active proponent of Amtrak because its part in our intermodal transportation system is so significant. I note, Mr. President, that when I was chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations--and that was the situation until the beginning of this year--that whenever there was an opportunity to review another transportation bill, invariably colleagues would come and plead with me for continued service by Amtrak to their States, even those States that had a couple of trains a week going through there. They all loved the notion that Amtrak, the intercity rail system, the national passenger rail service, was going to continue providing service. Well, we have seen cutback after cutback, narrowing this thing down. And in these days of spare resources, I think it made sense to review very closely what was taking place there and to avoid as much as possible the continued costs for the operations of Amtrak. However, Amtrak stands alone in terms of the percentage of the fare box that is received among railroads across the world. Amtrak has the highest share of revenues per fare box of any railroad in any country on Earth. So, I fight very hard to protect the ability of Amtrak to function. And I know that is true of my colleagues from Rhode Island, including the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as other colleagues who see the value of Amtrak as part of the transportation system and who look at the possibilities that might exist if Amtrak was not functioning. The distinguished Senator from Delaware talked about aviation. I point out that we would need 10,000 flights a year, additional flights a year, DC-9 size, just to service the volume of traffic that Amtrak now handles. If Amtrak can improve its service, get higher speed service, make the capital investments to bring that system up to the level that it ought to be, it would carry even more passengers. A computer permutation shows exactly that. Here we are, when we have a chance, when we give the Governors--we talk about States' rights, and we talk about giving the States the chance to make their own decisions. Here we have a chance to do it. When it was supported in the Senate by a vote of 64-36, we lose it in conference. Frankly, I think that is a terrible condition. I was disappointed that it was believed that we could maintain the integrity of the highway trust fund by receding from the Senate position on Amtrak flexibility. Simply, this provision would have allowed the States the discretion to use a small portion of their highway formula funds for Amtrak expenses. I sponsored this same amendment when ISTEA was being developed and when it passed the Senate. So, when it comes to Amtrak, when it comes to motorcycles--when it comes to Amtrak, we do not say that the States know best. We say Washington knows best. And that is an anomaly that, frankly, I do not understand. Mr. President, I feel that we have lost an excellent opportunity here. I hope that we will be able to recapture it along the way with other legislation, as indicated by the Senator from Delaware. As the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell my colleagues that the appropriations bill that the President signed the other night included a 25-percent cut in Amtrak's operating subsidy; $137 million in a single year will be cut. Without having to be a rocket scientist, it is obvious these cuts will cause another round of service cuts, another round of layoffs. Amtrak just completed the largest round of service cuts and layoffs in its history. Now we are going to look again at another round of service cuts, another round of layoffs. This NHS bill was held to be minimizing these cuts, to allow the Nation's Governors to use their discretion, to enter into cost-sharing agreements with Amtrak and keep certain of these trains running. I am sure that those Members that insist that we deny the Governors this form of flexibility will be the same persons who complain when they endure additional losses in Amtrak service and additional losses in Amtrak employment. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I just want to reiterate--and I will not be long in deference to my colleagues who are waiting for the floor--that I think the NHS bill is a very positive piece of legislation in general, that it provides additional investments in infrastructure, which I repeat that I strongly support, but as we look at the abandonment of safety, we have to also consider what happens in terms of not only the loss of limb and life, but the additional financial costs that are associated with it. We also have to look at the fact that we will help create more air pollution as we load up further highway travel. We will be looking at depending more on imported oil from the Middle East. That is a tragic situation for us. More danger to law enforcement people. Put a patrol car out there having to enforce the law with someone going 90 miles an hour. I assure you that no policeman's family is going to like that assignment. But here we are. We are abandoning all other good judgment to save minutes a day. It is a regrettable thing, again, because this is tagged onto a good piece of legislation. But those who believe that safety is not a significant factor have abandoned that at this juncture. And I sincerely regret it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Eighteen?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe that I have some time remaining.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do I have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator mentions aviation and the problems, if we did not have Amtrak operating. The projection is that, if Amtrak were not operating, we would have 10,000 DC-9 flights a year more to accommodate the traffic that would come off of Amtrak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just wanted to respond to some of the comments that have recently in the last little while been made. I do not want to be harsh. I think we know around here despite the fact that occasionally this does look like fantasy land, wishing never makes it so. Law makes it so, votes make it so. That is what happens. Reality takes over. Thus, when we talk about no assurances that the States will rush to bump up their speed limits the minute they have this permission, I point out something to those who would believe it, that there are several States--nine in particular-- that have already in law a requirement that once the Federal speed limits are removed, and I address this to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, once the law is removed, the Federal speed limit is removed, there are nine States that immediately bump up by virtue of existing statutes. I am pleased to name them. It does not matter. Just for edification, I will: Montana, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Missouri, Texas, and California. These are States that already committed that once the rules are off from the Federal Government, they immediately move up. There are 28 other States that are States that have bypassed actions, indicate that they are anxious to get the speed limits moved up. They are States which increase the maximum speed limit on rural interstates within 6 months of the 1987 congressional enactment allowing 65 miles an hour. It is fairly easy to recognize, Mr. President, because the States that are outlined in blue, it is a fair number, and when combined with the nine States, gives us a total of 37 States that are likely to move ahead with their speed limit increases. I just put that in the Record, Mr. President, to indicate that as much as we hope, as much as we wish, we would like to see constraints on speed limits, it ``ain't'' going to happen, to put it crudely. So the mayhem that will follow that I projected--and I do not want to be the forecaster of gloom and doom around here, but I want to be realistic about what is going to happen when this bill becomes law. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would not object to the unanimous consent to allow an extra 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if I might just take a couple minutes off my time while the time allocation for the Senator from Wyoming is being considered. Would the Senator from Wyoming indulge us?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to my friend from Virginia, who knows this country so very well, I know he has traveled through and to New Jersey on occasion, the most densely populated State in the country, my precious home, and also has a major north-south highway called the New Jersey Turnpike. I am pleased to note that our Governor has made a statement that she intends to continue having the speed limits generally in the area that they are, given the need to make a choice. But anyone on that highway who sees these giant trucks bearing down on them, I do not care how steely one's nerves are, the fact of the matter is that it is not pleasant to be caught in the wind tunnel that these trucks make sometimes as they pass at 75, 80 miles an hour. So, whether it is in Wyoming with its beautiful mountains and spaciousness, or the State of New Jersey, the fact is that speed is something that concerns us all, whether it is marginally higher in the State of Wyoming--I note here it has a higher level of speed on its highways--the fact of the matter is, whether it is a far western sparsely populated State, they treasure lives just as much as any of us in the more crowded, densest parts of our country. But we are in a situation now where we are making a decision about a bill. I am not unrealistic when I look at the vote count that took place and saw that we lost the vote on this by 64 to 36. You might call me a sore loser in this case, but I believe in the fight that I took up and I hope we can do something about it. This is, after all, a conference bill. This was a meeting of the House and Senate conferees and they agreed to the policy that exists in the bill. Perhaps the Senator from Virginia offers a point of some salvation here in that he urges Governors to be as mindful of safety as they can be as they review their speed limits on their roads.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend and colleague from Virginia, few have the respect that he engenders in this body because he is very serious about the things that he does. I really enjoy working with him on so many issues. Here we simply have a kind of a divergence, if I might use the expression, of the road because, while I agree it is a good bill, it has many, many advantages to it in terms of the size of investment in our infrastructure, in terms of making certain that there are conditions met in the engineering and the construction of these roads that help achieve some measure of safety, of improving our bridges and the infrastructure of our vehicle transportation system--and I know very well that the Senator from Virginia has no less a concern about life and safety than do I. It is perhaps a change in perspective. I remember so vividly that horrible accident that took place with an intoxicated driver, a little girl and her mother waiting for a school bus not too long ago in Virginia. I know we have had his cooperation on all measures related to driving while intoxicated, getting rid of the drunk driver, getting them off the road. So we differ here, but we differ with respect to an evaluation that each of us has to make. And I thank the Senator for his ever-abiding cooperation on matters that we work on together, serving on the same committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this conference report authorizes $6.5 billion in infrastructure investments which we need, but while it gives on the one hand, it takes with the other. The antisafety provisions of this legislation will add almost $20 billion in additional costs on our society, so it is $6.5 billion in infrastructure investment more than offset in fact by three times with the extra $20 billion in additional costs on our society. The difference is that one is perceptible, can be seen, $6.5 billion in grant money from the Federal Government, as contrasted to people contributing in all areas of life, whether it is business or families or emergency medical and health care services--$6.5 billion in and $20 billion out and with that 6,800 lives annually. So if one judges only from a financial perspective, this legislation is clearly counterproductive. But more important than the money, I repeat, will be the lives lost and the lives ruined as a result of the drawing of this legislation--6,800 lives annually at stake, tens of thousands more injuries, $20 billion in lost productivity, increased health care, and other economic problems. Opponents of the speed limit and motorcycle helmet laws argued that decisions in these areas should be the responsibility of the States, and while I am not against giving States more flexibility in using their Federal transportation dollars, I do not, frankly, understand how this decision is abandoned by the Federal Government. We made that decision here again. So I support the concept of more flexibility in ISTEA, again, in the debate over allowing States to use their highway funding to support inner-city rail service. Unfortunately, I understand that that provision was taken out in conference as it applies to Amtrak, which I believe is a serious error as well. Simply put, Mr. President, saving human lives ought to be our top priority. And while I support the provisions in the bill that would facilitate investment in our highway system on the zero tolerance provision, overall I see the bill as a major step backward, and I cannot support it. I would like for a moment, Mr. President, to talk about what we show here on this chart about what higher speed limits mean. It shows 6,400 deaths here, plus those that result from removing the helmet requirements, amount to 6,800 deaths a year, $20 billion roughly in higher costs. And it shows the distribution of costs as it occurs through the country. In a State like California, almost $2 billion; a State like Texas, $1.7 billion; in the State of Virginia, $480 million. That is all lost as a result of the increases in speed limits. That is not a very positive decision, certainly not from the standpoint of the lives lost and the extra dollars involved. That is just one example. Mr. President, the best demonstration of what happened with our change in speed limits goes back some years--1974, to be precise, 20 years ago. These were the State speed limits that existed prior to 1974, and they scattered around the country. Montana had no speed limit at all; many were 70 miles an hour or over. From what we hear on the floor, what we hear constantly is that people do not obey these laws anyway, and you can add 10 miles an hour to that or 15 miles an hour to that. So if there is a 75-mile-an-hour speed limit, woe be to that person driving on that highway at 55 miles an hour, because they are concerned about their safety to handle a vehicle when someone comes behind them going 85 miles an hour. One does not have to be a physicist to know of the result of the contact between those vehicles. So we are kind of abandoning ship at this point without the traditional lifeboats available, and saying, ``Go, go as fast as you want.'' The automobile companies are--you see it subtly advertised: ``more power,'' ``get from there to here in 30 seconds,'' ``you can get there faster if you buy brand X or brand Y,'' ``for 60 seconds maybe you are better off with brand A or brand B or C.'' So there is an effort to go faster to get someplace, and maybe pay for that luxury with one's life or the life of one's loved one. So that is the situation, Mr. President. I think that I am probably a lonely minority on this matter. I just cannot, in good conscience, vote for legislation that will cause the kind of injury and pain that this bill will cause. I am going to vote no and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. And, Mr. President, I repeat once more, that I am for the investments in our infrastructure. I do not think that there have been stronger advocates than this Senator from New Jersey. I was chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee in Appropriations for some years and was always looking for ways to increase investment in infrastructure, get rid of the congestion on our highways, help clean the air that we breathe, invest in all types of transportation systems, rail and aviation and highways, to try and help our country be more efficient, improve the productivity in this very competitive world in which we live. But I could never, never participate in decisions that say, ``OK, perhaps we'll get there faster, perhaps we'll be able to move our missions from one city to another in a little more rapid fashion. There may be some life and limb lost along the way, but we'll get there faster.'' That is not, in my view, the way to make progress. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Coast Guard authorization bill. The Coast Guard plays a critical role in protecting lives, property and the environment, and it deserves the strong support and admiration of this Congress. In addition to funding the mission of the Coast Guard, Mr. President, this bill will help keep plastics and other garbage off our beaches by improving implementation of the 1987 Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act. I have been pursuing these improvements for the last 3 years and it is gratifying to see those efforts come to fruition in this bill. Mr. President, our marine waters are an essential national resource. They perform important ecological functions by providing habitat, nursery grounds and a source for a great diversity of plants, and fish, birds and other species. The resources in these waters support commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, recreation, and related opportunities. They result in annual expenditures of tens of billions of dollars and unquantifiable enjoyment for our citizens. In New Jersey, the lure of the Shore is a major element of the State's $18 billion tourism sector, our second largest revenue- producing industry. In 1991, 8.8 million people stayed overnight at the Shore and an additional 59 million made day trips to New Jersey's beaches. Furthermore, 353,000 people serviced these visitors in some capacity, making the tourism industry the number one employer in the State. Mr. President, this critical industry is jeopardized every time a person visits the beach and finds it littered with bottles, cans and other garbage. And so it is essential that our beaches are kept free from waste. I have participated in nationally sponsored beach cleanup events in New Jersey, and with other volunteers, have collected the trash that washes up on our shores. Mr. President, during their 1991 beach cleanup, the Center for Marine Conservation found nearly 90,000 pieces of plastic rope, 40,000 plastic trash bags, 33,000 plastic gallon jugs, and many other plastic items which originate aboard commercial vessels. There is likely to be far more ship-generated waste that is not documented because it is impossible to determine the origins of most beach trash. Furthermore, not all of the plastic that is discharged by vessels ever reaches the beach. Often, plastic fishing lines and other materials are ingested by marine mammals, which mistake them for food. Sometimes marine organisms wash up on the shore entangled in plastic. In 1987, I sponsored legislation that prohibited ships from discharging plastic and restricted other types of waste discharge into the sea. There has been substantial improvement as a result of my legislation. More, however, remains to be done. The Environmental Protection Agency's 1990 National Water Quality Inventory revealed that more than 8,500 square miles of the Nation's estuarine waters fail to meet water quality standards. In New Jersey alone, 141 square miles of estuarine waters are failing to meet water quality standards. The Office of Technology Assessment, in a 1987 report, concluded that the overall health of our coastal waters is ``declining or threatened,'' and that in ``the absence of additional measures, new or continued degradation will occur in many estuaries and some coastal waters around the country.'' OTA also determined that contamination of the marine environment has a wide range of adverse effects on birds and manuals, finfish and shellfish, aquatic vegetation and other organisms. In addition, OTA concluded that existing programs, even if fully implemented, are not adequate to maintain and improve our coastal waters. Since the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act was passed in 1987, I have worked with the Coast Guard to monitor and improve the law's enforcement. As past Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Committee, I saw to it that the Coast Guard received more resources to implement this Act than it requested. Yet an oversight hearing that I conducted highlighted numerous deficiencies in the Coast Guard's enforcement of this Act. To address these deficiencies I introduced the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act Amendments of 1993 which has been included in the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1995. This addition will provide the Coast Guard with additional authority and impose stricter requirements on it, all aimed at improving enforcement of waste disposal practices aboard vessels and at ports. One of the most difficult enforcement problems associated with Annex V of the international MARPOL Convention, which the 1987 legislation ratified, is determining whether garbage or plastics were dumped at sea. The MARPOL section of the bill before us today addresses the ocean dumping problem by requiring adequate waste reception facilities at all ports and terminals. It provides that adequacy can only be determined through on-site inspections by the Coast Guard, at which time a certificate can be issued. In order to insure that facilities are maintained, the certificate must be renewed every 5 years, or sooner if there is a transfer of ownership or responsibility for operation. At a Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee hearing I chaired about 2 years ago on the Coast Guard Budget, I questioned then-Admiral Kime about my proposals. Admiral Kime expressed strong support for this legislation, indicating that it is badly needed and goes a long way toward overcoming problems in inadequate enforcement. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 1995 that supports the Coast Guard and improves enforcement of waste disposal practices aboard vessels and at ports. This bill takes a significant step toward ensuring that oceangoing vessels take responsibility for properly disposing of their waste, instead of putting their trash onto our beaches or into the bellies of marine life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when the roll is called on this budget reconciliation conference report, I will be voting yes. But not for this bill. Instead, I will be voting yes for our seniors--yes for our students-- and yes for the middle class. And I will be voting no on the conference report. I will be voting no on massive Medicare cuts to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. I will be voting no on huge tax breaks for the rich and the special interests. I will be voting no on devastating cuts in nursing home care for seniors and the disabled. I will be voting no on increased taxes for working people. I will be voting no on ending the safety net for children. I will be voting no on the basic thrust of this legislation--that we must balance the budget on the backs of working families and senior citizens, while handing out billions in tax breaks for the rich and powerful. This bill represents the extremes of the Republican membership. Mr. President, when you get right down to it, this bill forces all of us to answer a simple question: ``Whose side are you on?'' Are you on the side of middle-class Americans? Are you on the side of our senior citizens, of middle-class families struggling to send their children to college, and of lower income working families? Or are you on the side of the wealthy and the special interests? The Republican reconciliation bill is paydirt for the rich and the special interests and senior citizens and working class families get stuck footing the bills. This is an outrage--and we Democrats are going to fight it as a basic matter of principle. We saw what happened with the continuing resolution when the public caught on to the scheme. Under the spotlight, the Republicans blinked, they retreated, they ran. They wanted to escape the public wrath and quickly abandoned their deep principles for political cover. This bill makes the biggest cuts in the history of Medicare. And the Republicans build their case around a false premise. They argue that in order to save Medicare, we must destroy its fundamental mission. This is simply not true. And they ought to be honest with the American people about the two major Republican falsehoods. The first false statement that the Republicans make is that we need $270 billion to save Medicare. This is simply untrue. The Republicans are using this $270 billion to finance their $245 billion in tax breaks for the rich folk. It is no coincidence that the Medicare cuts are $270 billion and the tax breaks for the wealthy total $245 billion. These figures are remarkably similar because one is being used to finance the other. They are taking from our senior citizens who paid the bills, signed the contract, and weathered the storms. And they're giving it back to the wealthy and the special interests. The second Republican falsehood is that we need to cut $270 billion to make Medicare solvent. Not true. The chief HHS Medicare actuary has stated that we only need $89 billion in savings to make Medicare solvent until the end of 2006. Mr. President, let me just give you some examples of what kind of tax breaks these Medicare cuts are paying for: Under this bill, approximately 2,000 large corporations will get a tax break of $2 million each because of changes in the alternative minimum tax. This is outrageous. In addition, this bill contains hundreds of millions of dollars in giveaways to oil companies. Finally, the capital gains tax cut included in this bill is a tax break for the super rich. Anyone can claim this tax break. Even millionaires and billionaires can get this tax break. Mr. President, I tried to draw a line on the tax breaks and put the money [[Page S 17309]] back into Medicare and Medicaid. I offered an amendment to the reconciliation bill that would have precluded the tax breaks from going to those who make over $1 million per year. That's the top one-tenth of one percent of all taxpayers. I thought this amendment would pass unanimously. I thought that we all could agree that millionaires and billionaires do not need a tax break when we are cutting Medicare--especially when 75 percent of all Medicare recipients earn under $25,000 per year. But no--52 of the 53 Republican Senators voted against my amendment. In essence, they voted to cut Medicare to provide tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Mr. President, Medicare is not just a health insurance program. Medicare is a commitment that we have made to our citizens. It is a promise--for those who work hard their entire lives--that your medical needs will be taken care of when you retire. But this Republican budget uses the Medicare Program as a slush fund for the tax breaks for the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to say no to Medicare cuts to pay for tax breaks for the rich. Let's reject the Republican budget reconciliation bill--let's start over. We can put together a compromise bill that moves toward a balanced budget but does not destroy our Medicare Program. But this is not such a bill. Unfortunately, this is a bill that sticks it to ordinary Americans, and lavishes huge breaks for the rich and the special interests. I think that's wrong. I say: It's time, for once, to put the middle class first and defeat this bill. I yield the floor.