Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the interested parties to the Bellcore issue raised during the debate on the manager's amendment have come to an agreement on a statement of goals that outline a mutually agreeable solution to the issue. The parties intend to negotiate legislative language to be included in the final bill. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of goals be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is my desire that the parties conclude these negotiations in a timely manner. I will support the product of the negotiations and urge that the Senate accept that product in the final version of this bill. Finally, I would like to thank the Senator from North Carolina for helping to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I commend the managers of the bill thus far. I know they are anxious to conclude a period of a lot of hard work and having struggled through many discussions and agreements to get this behind. The reason that I raise the possibility of an objection is because, in the process of developing the managers' amendment, it was determined that a major research company based in New Jersey but doing work throughout this country, a company that has offered many innovative ideas in this period of new technology in communication, would be prohibited as a result of the present managers' statement from engaging in manufacture, even though it is the public declaration that they intend to be free of the regional Bell companies ownership. There they are, a company trying to engage in a competitive practice. I had a discussion with two good friends, Senator Hollings on the Democratic side and Senator Pressler on the Republican side, to see if there was any way that we could defer action on this tonight so we might discuss the competitive environment tomorrow morning. Apparently, it is the belief of the managers that this bill has gone through so much labor and so many delicate steps that to further delay that might be injurious to the success, ultimately, of passing this bill. So while I will not object, I would ask the managers whether or not I can have their support for a discussion of a proposal to enable the competitive character of the field to be expanded although it is lacking in the statement of the managers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that statement, if the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I have no objection to going forward.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1995. This bill makes it a criminal offense to knowingly bring a gun or fire a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The penalty for violating the law would be up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $5,000. Mr. President, I believe that this bill is critical to protect the sanctity of our schools and the safety of our students. In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 12 students carried a gun to school within a 30-day period. Each day, an estimated 135,000 pack a gun with their books on their way to school. At a time when guns are becoming more and more prevalent on neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for their safety. In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free Schools Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of you know, a sharply divided Supreme Court recently invalidated that bill, saying that it exceeded congressional power. I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an amicus brief supporting its validity. But that is not the issue before us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children. The 1995 act ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free Schools Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. That provision will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will ensure our power to keep America's schools safe. Mr. President, this bill has the support of the law enforcement and education communities. It has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Certainly this bill is not a panacea, but it is a worthwhile attempt to keep our children away from the dangers of guns and violence. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns don't kill; people do. But the gun statistics I've seen belie their contentions. Just consider these numbers. In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,220 in the United States. The problem, Mr. President, isn't that we have more people. It's that we have more guns. We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that's overtaking our streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this worthy bill and to help protect our children and our teachers from the dangers of violence.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1995. This bill makes it a criminal offense to knowingly bring a gun or fire a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The penalty for violating the law would be up to 5 years in prison or a fine of $5,000. Mr. President, I believe that this bill is critical to protect the sanctity of our schools and the safety of our students. In 1993, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 12 students carried a gun to school within a 30-day period. Each day, an estimated 135,000 pack a gun with their books on their way to school. At a time when guns are becoming more and more prevalent on neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for their safety. In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free Schools Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of you know, a sharply divided Supreme Court recently invalidated that bill, saying that it exceeded congressional power. I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an amicus brief supporting its validity. But that is not the issue before us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children. The 1995 act ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free Schools Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. That provision will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will ensure our power to keep America's schools safe. Mr. President, this bill has the support of the law enforcement and education communities. It has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Certainly this bill is not a panacea, but it is a worthwhile attempt to keep our children away from the dangers of guns and violence. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns don't kill; people do. But the gun statistics I've seen belie their contentions. Just consider these numbers. In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,220 in the United States. The problem, Mr. President, isn't that we have more people. It's that we have more guns. We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that's overtaking our streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this worthy bill and to help protect our children and our teachers from the dangers of violence.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the shift of up to $2 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement in the military budget, for use in addressing the problem of domestic violence. Mr. President, this budget resolution proposes to reestablish a so- called firewall that will give special protection to the military budget--protection not provided to any other program in the entire Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be blocked from shifting funds from the military budget for use in meeting domestic needs here at home. The only way to waive the prohibition would be to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes. This supermajority vote requirement, in my view, is wrong. As I see it, if a majority of the Senate believes it's more important to address a particular domestic problem than to lavish more money on the Pentagon bureaucracy, or on an unnecessary weapons system, a majority ought to have that right. Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall for the military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall will indeed be erected. However, I am hopeful that my colleagues will agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds for particularly compelling purposes. Mr. President, fighting domestic violence deserves to be a very high priority. Mr. President, every 12 seconds, a woman is battered in the United States. Each year, over 4,000 women are killed by their abusers. Mr. President, domestic violence has reached crisis proportions. And we have got to do--it is critical that we do everything possible to respond. Mr. President, I know that many of my Republican colleagues do not believe that there is any waste in the Pentagon budget. I think they are wrong. But even if they are not yet convinced, I hope they will support the amendment. Under my proposal, it will be up to the Senate to decide whether any particular item of military spending is wasteful. That is a judgment that a majority of Senators should be allowed to make in the future. Also, the amendment limits transfers to $2 billion, which represents less than 1 percent of the military budget. So, Mr. President, this amendment poses this question to my colleagues: Whose side are you on? Do you want to support wasteful bureaucratic overhead at the Pentagon? Or do you want to stand with America's women, and support the fight against domestic violence? I think it is an easy choice. And I hope my colleagues agree.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would allow the shift of up to $1 billion from wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement in the military budget, for use in fighting illegal immigration. Let me take a moment and explain why the amendment is needed. Mr. President, this budget resolution proposes to reestablish a so- called firewall that will give special protection to the military budget--protection not provided to any other program in the entire Government. Under this provision, a majority of the Senate would be blocked from shifting funds from the military budget for use in meeting domestic needs here at home. The only way to waive the prohibition would be to obtain a supermajority of 60 votes. Mr. President, I strongly object to this supermajority vote requirement. In my view, if a majority of the Senate thinks it's more important to address a particular domestic problem than to spend more money on the Pentagon bureaucracy, or on an outdated weapon system, a majority ought to have that right. Unfortunately, the Senate seems determined to establish a firewall for the military budget. And so it seems inevitable that the firewall will indeed be erected. However, I am hopeful that my colleagues will agree to reasonable exceptions to allow the transfer of funds for particularly compelling purposes. The premise of my amendment, Mr. President, is that fighting illegal immigration is one such compelling purpose. Mr. President, illegal immigration is rampant in this country. Some estimates show that 300,000 illegal immigrants come to this country each year. Despite its past admirable work, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is woefully understaffed and underfunded. We need more border patrol agents to stop illegal immigration and other INS officials to help deport those who are living in this country illegally. Mr. President, illegal immigration is a major problem. Ask State and local officials from California, Texas, Florida, New York, and New Jersey about the toll that illegal immigration takes on their economies and local services. Mr. President, at a minimum a majority of the Senate ought to be free to provide up to $1 billion into fighting illegal immigration, if we can identify savings from military spending that the Senate agrees is wasteful. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I voted against the bill before the Senate today because of its misplaced priorities: cuts in education, cuts in training, cuts in housing, but no cuts in programs which do not address critical needs or waste tax dollars. Mr. President, President Clinton has shown real leadership by drawing a line in the sand and standing up for important investments in our future. The President has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to work with the Congress to reduce spending, but that it is his responsibility to protect important investments in our future. The President does not want to pile up a stack of veto messages. He wants to work with the Congress to move legislation that will help the American people. He saw gridlock in the last Congress and does not want to repeat the experience. Despite his efforts to cooperate, the House of Representatives crafted a bill to cut programs which the President found unacceptable. The Senate, after a great deal of effort, came up with a deficit reduction bill which every Member voted for and which the President said he could sign. In conference with the House of Representatives, however, it changed again. Almost 85 percent of the funding for priorities important to the President was eliminated. That was done, in many cases, without Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee having access to the decisionmaking process. I support the President's decision to veto this bill, and have voted against it. Mr. President, rather than force a useless confrontation, we can and should have revised this legislation and passed it. Everyone agrees that the disaster relief in this bill is important. Everyone agrees that the aid to Oklahoma in this bill is critical. Everyone agrees that the aid to Jordan in this bill protects our national self-interest. And everyone agrees that we can and should cut some of the funding appropriated for certain programs last year. It was irresponsible for the Republican majority, in a fit of partisan political pique, to simply refuse to revise this legislation and get it passed. Yet the most ardent budget cutters claimed they were too busy to save the American taxpayers a mere $10 billion or so in what they see as unnecessary and wasteful spending. That, Mr. President, is ridiculous. If we had worked with the administration, we could have quickly adopted legislation to give people the aid they need and the reductions in overall spending they want. Mr. President, I voted for the initial Senate version of this bill, a bill which more closely met my own priorities, especially when compared to the House measure. I was not entirely satisfied with the Senate bill. We cut billions from housing programs, but we did not touch a penny of military spending. We cut billions from education and training programs, but we did not touch wasteful subsidies which go to wealthy and corporate agricultural interests. We cut millions for dozens of important, productive, and efficient programs, but we did not look for the waste and mismanagement which permeates too many of our programs. That situation did not get better in conference. We cut $1.4 billion in job training funds and another $831 million in education. Look at the specifics: $65 million for adult job training, gone; $67 million for displaced workers, gone; $12.5 million for school to work programs, gone; $236 million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, gone; $91 million for vocational and adult education, gone. Those programs represent an investment in our future, and those cuts make that future a little darker. So, Mr. President, I oppose this conference report. I still believe the Government can play a role in improving the lives of the American people. I accept and embrace the need to reduce the deficit and get control over spending, but I believe we can do that while still addressing the needs we face as a nation. Given that, Mr. President, I voted against this bill and will support the President's veto. I hope our colleagues will quickly move to put together a bill which meets our obligations to reduce overall Federal spending while preserving programs that help people.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that May is Rape Prevention Month in the State of New Jersey. Rape is one of the most violent and hurtful crimes committed in our society. It is a severe problem and we must do all we can to reduce its incidence, punish offenders, and assist victims. In this country, rape and child sexual abuse still continues to increase at an alarming rate. Organizations like Women Against Rape in Collingwood, New Jersey have taken on the difficult task of combating rape by providing crime prevention programs, teaching rape prevention techniques, offering escort services, and having hotline and counseling services available. For the 15th consecutive year, Women Against Rape is sponsoring the month of May as Rape Prevention Month. During this month they have worked hard to address this problem in both crisis and everyday situations. Education is one of the first steps to stopping this awful crime, and I commend the volunteers and professionals who have dedicated their time and effort to raise awareness about rape and sexual abuse.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment was submitted on behalf of myself, Senators Rockefeller, Murray, Harkin, Wellstone, Reid, Daschle, and Mikulski. The Senate considered this amendment yesterday. Mr. President, this amendment could not be more simple. It closes the ``Ex-Patriots'' billionaires tax loophole and takes the money and restores some of the drastic cuts in veterans programs contained in this resolution. I call this amendment--take from ``ex-patriots and give to American patriots.'' This is the same amendment that I offered in committee. While this amendment failed on a tie 11 to 11 vote, it did enjoy bi-partisan support. The distinguished junior Senator from Maine [Senator Snowe] voted for my amendment. Mr. President, we have now all heard about this so-called ``Benedict Arnold'' tax loophole. This loophole allows billionaires and multi- millionaires who have made their fortunes in this country to renounce their citizenship and avoid paying Federal taxes like estate taxes and flee to some Caribbean island with their money. This is no minor loophole. It costs the Treasury more than $3 billion over 10 years. And as a recent story in Fortune Magazine showed, wealthy individuals deliberately look at using this loophole to avoid paying taxes. My amendment will close this loophole. And it will take the proceeds and put them into restoring the massive cuts in veterans programs contained in the Republican budget. This Republican budget cuts discretionary spending on veterans programs by a whopping $26 billion over the next 7 years. But this is only discretionary spending on items like VA hospitals and outpatient clinics. This budget also cuts veterans' entitlement programs by $10 billion over 7 years. That is a $36 billion slap in the face to our Nation's veterans. What kind of reward is this for our Nation's veterans? Isn't it ironic that [[Page S7451]] on the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, we are destroying the VA system for those heros who saved us from Fascism? The Republican budget will force cuts in veterans' pensions, payments to those with service-connected disabilities, the GI bill, and numerous other health and benefit programs. My amendment will help alleviate some of these cuts. It will not restore all of the funding but it will make a start in trying to cushion the coming blow. Mr. President, the men and women who have put their lives on the line for this country deserve better. They deserve to be treated with respect. Their benefits should not be cut while we are providing tax cuts for the rich. The Republican budget represents the wrong priorities. Mr. President, I want to deal with one issue up front. Republicans may argue that we passed an amendment in the Budget Committee to close the Benedict Arnold tax loophole. The fact is we did not. We passed a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate amendment concerning this issue. However, we did not change any numbers in the resolution to force the Finance Committee to in fact close this loophole. So the Finance Committee can do as it wishes regarding this tax loophole. It will not be required to do this in any way. So if Republican say that they already voted to get rid of the loophole, they are not shooting straight with the American people. This amendment again poses the same question to the Senate as other amendments. The question is, ``Whose side are you on?'' Are you on the side of billionaires who revoke their citizenship to avoid paying taxes? Or are you on the side of our Nation's veterans-- the men and women who have fought for their country--who have laid their lives on the line to defend freedom? I stand firmly with American Patriots not ex-patriots. I hope my colleagues will do the same. The veterans of our country deserve much better than the cuts contained in this Republican budget. (The following statement was inadvertently omitted from the Record of May 24, and appears here at the request of Mr. Rockefeller. Amendment no. 1166

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Nebraska. [[Page S7333]] Mr. President, in the fairly short time that I have available--and I am pleased to have the precious time taken for these couple of moments--I would like to describe several amendments that I have prepared which will be voted on this afternoon. First, Senator Rockefeller and I will offer an amendment to close the so-called Benedict Arnold billionaires' tax loophole. We would transfer the savings to veterans programs. I call this the ``from expatriates to patriots'' amendment. Then I will be offering four amendments that would create exceptions to the so-called firewall that prohibits transfers between the military and domestic programs. The amendment would allow the Senate, by a majority vote, as opposed to 60 votes, to transfer funds from the wasteful bureaucratic overhead and procurement in the military budget for specific and compelling reasons. The purposes would be up to $2 billion to address the problem of domestic violence; up to $1 billion to strengthen reinforcement of immigration laws; up to $5 billion to hire police officers for community policing and to do prison building; and up to $100 million for research on breast cancer. My final amendment would create a 60-vote point of order against cutting Medicare or Medicaid to pay for any tax cuts for the rich. Some of my Republican friends have claimed that that is not their intent, and I say, well, then let us put it in writing and make it enforceable. Certainly, the intent was challenged when we saw the chart go up at an earlier time in this debate when the Senator from Texas proposed tax cuts amounting to over $300 billion. So, Mr. President, when I look and see those who have made their fortunes in this country and decide to renounce their citizenship so they do not have to pay a State tax, they do not have to pay capital gains taxes; they move out of here, give up their American citizenship, leave this place where their fortunes were made, where their families were raised just to avoid some taxes, to take something out of these huge fortunes that went abroad, I want to give it to the patriots, those who served their country, those who need help, those who are turning to the VA for hospital care, those who are turning to the VA for prostheses, those who are turning to the VA for counseling. I want to take it from the Benedict Arnolds and give it to those who served their country. With that--I do not see the ranking Member--is there any time left on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support the amendment by Senator Roth to remove language in the budget resolution which might allow drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A provision in the budget resolution assumes leasing revenues of $1.4 billion from leasing rights in the coastal plain. It is, in reality, nothing more than a yard sale to special interests of the resources in this critical Arctic wilderness. Additionally, the $1.4 billion revenue estimate is highly speculative, at best. All and all, the provision is misplaced and misguided. The issue of whether to drill in the coastal plain in the Arctic Refuge deserves full, open and deliberative debate. This is an embarrassing back-door attempt to allow development of our last remaining wilderness. We should not consider a decision of major importance to be made under the time restrictions required by the budget resolution--we should pursue this discussion through separate legislation. That's the responsible thing to do. Including this discussion in the context of the budget resolution denigrates the natural values of the coastal plain which, unlike barrels of oil on the open market, cannot be quantified. The budget resolution concerns itself primarily with identifying revenues and directing spending. It is not the place to develop Federal policy on land use or natural resources. The ecological values of the coastal plain, many of which are intangible, will lose out when compared to the CBO scoring of potential revenues of barrels of oil. Mr. President, I oppose the budget committee proposal because it continues, and even strengthens, the existing misplaced energy priorities that have yet to reduce our need for foreign oil. The language in the resolution emphasizes environmentally destructive energy development when what we need to do is develop cleaner, nonpetroleum-based fuels and seek important energy conservation opportunities. If we allow drilling in the coastal plain, we are destroying what the Fish and Wildlife Service calls the biological heart of the only complete Arctic ecosystem protected in North America. We will be destroying that resource for a one in five chance of finding any economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. And, even worse, we will destroy that biological heart in an effort to recover what many experts suggest will be only 200 days worth of oil for the Nation. In addition, Mr. President, we cannot be sure that the revenues the committee assumes from the leasing are real. First, the leasing revenues are speculative in light of what has been bid on other highly prospective leases near the Arctic Refuge. The State of Alaska's most recent onshore lease sale located west of the Refuge brought in an average of $48.41 per acre, and leases immediately offshore the refuge in the Beaufort Sea only gained an average of $33-$153 per acre, versus the estimated $1,533 per acre the committee assumes would be paid if the entire coastal plain were leased. Second, the Federal treasury may take in as little as ten percent of all leasing revenues, not a split of 50 percent as it appears that the Budget Committee currently assumes. The State of Alaska can be expected to sue to get 90 percent of the leasing revenues, as it does currently for other leases on Federal lands in Alaska. Mr. President, after the Exxon Valdez spill, I visited the tragic spill site, the industrial complex at Prudhoe Bay, and the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. What I saw was the best of nature and the failings of humanity. I saw the best of nature in the Arctic Refuge, an area that the renowned biologist George Shaller calls ``unique and irreplaceable, not just on a national basis, but also on an international basis.'' He notes, ``most remote ecosystem, both inside and outside reserves, are rapidly being modified. The refuge has remained a rare exception. The refuge was established not for economic value, but as a statement of our nation's vision.'' [[Page S7342]] Beauty, wilderness, pristine--these words simply fail to capture what I saw and what is at stake if we allow oil and gas drilling to proceed. The infrastructure alone will severely impact the ecosystem. The oil rigs, roads, pipelines, airstrips, production facilities, seismic testing and air and water pollution associated with the development will have dramatic negative impacts on the fragile coastal plain ecosystem. We also threaten the food and culture of one of the most traditional subsistence peoples in the world, the Gwich'in indians who depend on the healthy and undisturbed porcupine caribou herd which gives birth and raises its young in the coastal plain. Unfortunately, in seeing the spill in Prince William Sound, I saw how empty promises and humanity's carelessness despoiled a rich ecosystem. Dead wildlife, oil-coated beaches, fishing towns and villages of native Alaskans turned upside down with the destruction. Today, seabird, seal, sea otter, and herring populations still have not recovered, and the social disruption still is felt by the villagers. Most natural resources injured by the spill still show little or no sign of recovery, according to the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council. If we drill in the refuge, we threaten the unique wilderness system. And if we destroy the wilderness values in the Arctic Refuge, we also threaten an undisturbed ecosystem with its polar bears, snow geese and international porcupine caribou. The very nature of the budget process will denigrate the values of the coastal plain which the public and previous Congresses have sought to protect. The debate will not be about whether wildlife and wilderness are worth more than the chance of finding oil--the debate will hinge on what scores for budget deficit purposes. How do you score polar bears, musk oxen and caribou? How do you measure the loss of an intact, undisturbed ecosystem to science? How will the Budget Committee account for the wilderness values which will be gone forever? For all these reasons, Mr. President, I strongly object to the provision assuming leasing revenues from the coastal plain in the budget resolution. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Roth amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I think we are getting down to where this debate is all going to be in the Record and the decisions will have been made. It focuses or centers around a couple of fairly narrow issues, as I see them. We can discuss forever whether there were tax cuts intended when the Budget Committee passed the resolution on the floor, or whether there were not; and at times, it was said in the slip of a tongue that, yes, they were for tax cuts; no, they were not for tax cuts because the Finance Committee was going to be making its decision. It was just going to be kind of set aside, $170 billion set aside that would be there to provide savings, but everybody knew it was there, but for the wink of an eye was reserved for tax cuts. Today we have heard a debate about the real thing. We have come face to face, finally, with what the issue is. The issue, very simply, is whether or not we are going to deprive people of programs that are essential; that is, to take care of those seniors who are beneficiaries of Medicare, to make sure that Medicaid has the funding so that in places like Newark, NJ, and throughout this country, hospitals that derive 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent of their income from Medicaid because they serve a poverty-stricken population will not have to close. We want to do that, as I hear the argument today, so that we can take care of the tax cuts that benefit primarily those in the upper income levels. As a matter of fact, roughly, for every person earning $350,000 it is estimated by Treasury that there will be a $20,000 reduction in taxes. That is a pretty hefty present at the end of the year, $20,000, while they are asking senior citizens who, on average, 75 percent of them, make $25,000 a year or less, who are totally dependent on $25,000 a year or less for their income and, on top of that, are having to supplement their Medicare Program with about 20 percent of their income, or roughly $5,000, for that group that is at the $25,000 level. It does not leave much for ordinary living. And heaven forbid that a nursing home long-term care program is involved. That is the end of it. But we want to do that so we can take care of the tax cut, a tax cut primarily for those who are at the top of the income ladder. The question resolves itself very much, whose side are you on? On this side of the aisle we are on the side of the working Americans, the people who are doing their darnedest to try to keep home and family together, to try to provide for the education of their children, to give them a hand up so when it is their turn to takeover family responsibilities and leadership in the country they are prepared to do it. An America falling behind competitively is not a sight that is pleasant to see. An America whose health, whose longevity is declining compared to other nations in the world is not a pleasant sight to see. An America who is 25th among nations in foreign aid --25th among the 25 most advanced nations in this world. They leave us behind. When there are not only important diplomatic objectives to be gained but important commercial objectives to be gained as well. We see what happens. We need border guards. We know the State of Texas likes to see more border guards to help curb illegal immigration. We need more FBI agents, as we have seen very recently. We have to change the way we deal with security issues. But, no, all of those things are put on hold so we can take care of a tax reduction for those who in many cases do not need it. Yes, when you get to the middle class Americans, when those who are in the level of income where they need all the help they can get, that is a worthwhile consideration. But for someone who is making $150,000 a year, $350,000 a year, or more? That is not necessary, in my view, when it comes to considering the price that is paid for it. The statement was made just a few minutes ago about whether we would like to see our children healthy or educated? I could not agree more with what the Senator from Texas said. I would like to see the kids healthy first. But I also want my kids to be secure. I want them to know in the next century that instability within our society was not created by the elimination of some programs to give people job training, a decent education, an opportunity for full participation in our society. Instead of pretending we are going to be able to shield off some of the problems that we have.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I close with the question very simply put on this chart, [[Page S7179]] and that is: Whose side are we on? We here are on the side of the average American and our friends on the other side of the aisle want to take care of those who have enough, who have enough power, to give them an extra edge they do not need. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise this morning to honor a great statesman on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Abba Eban--statesman, diplomat, scholar, and author--was born in South Africa on February 2, 1915. As a young man growing up in London, Mr. Eban learned fluent Hebrew and became an active member of the Zionist movement. He studied at Cambridge University, and became a lecturer in Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian literature. Mr. Eban served in World War II, where he was assigned to Jerusalem as liaison officer of Allied Headquarters. After the war, he entered the service of the Jewish agency in Jerusalem. In 1947, he became the agency's liaison officer with the U.N. Special Commission on Palestine. In 1948, Mr. Eban was appointed as Israel's representative to the United Nations and in this capacity, he appeared before the General Assembly to plead successfully for his country's admission to the United Nations. In 1950, Abba Eban was appointed Israel's Ambassador to the United States. At 35, he was the youngest person to hold such a high rank in Washington's diplomatic corps. In 1959, after returning to Israel, Mr. Eban was elected to the Israeli Knesset as a member of the Labor Party. He joined the Cabinet as Minister Without Portfolio, was appointed Minister of Education and Culture in 1960, and in 1963, he became Deputy Prime Minister under Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. In 1966, Mr. Eban became Israel's Minister for Foreign Affairs, a position he held until June 1974. Through the years, Mr. Eban has been recognized in numerous arenas for his diplomatic prowess and his contributions to the state of Israel. He holds honorary doctorates from several universities, including New York University, Boston University, the University of Maryland, and the University of Cincinnati. He is a fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the only living member of the Orator's Hall of Fame. Mr. Eban recently served as host and narrator of ``Israel: A Nation is Born,'' a five-part historical television mini-series, documenting 40 years of Israel's history. Mr. President, the Israeli people have been fortunate to count Mr. Eban among their leaders. He has consistently represented the Jewish state with dignity, with strength and with aplomb. As he celebrates this birthday, we should all take this opportunity to celebrate his many accomplishments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I ask the manager for another minute, please?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is pretty simple. The Republicans cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim the budget resolution is going to balance the budget when it leaves out the Social Security trust fund, but we are not in that debate right now. Well, if so, then it also will provide for the tax cuts. If some now claim the resolution does not include a tax cut, they must be saying that it will not really balance the budget. For all practical purposes, this resolution does include a tax cut, a tax cut that will almost certainly provide disproportionate tax breaks for millionaires and other wealthy individuals. Nobody ought to be fooled by these denials. Mr. President, this is what my Democrat colleagues stand for. It is the right thing to do for our country, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. One minute, and I will be finished.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend and colleague from Nebraska. Mr. President, on Friday I had some comments to make about the amendment that is pending before us and the budget resolution generally. I am privileged to sit on the Budget Committee, and the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is on the floor. As I said before, while we do not always agree, I always respect his intellect and his commitment to try to do what he sees is right. We have now a difference on approach, because I understand also that after my comments it was suggested that I want to divide this country, and that perhaps my tactic is along those lines. I would raise a question. I mean, why is someone who takes one position harmonious and for a unified approach, and someone who takes another position out to divide? There are sides in this debate. The question about whether or not we are going to cut spending is long past. It is a question of how we are going to cut spending, and who is going to win and who is going to lose. Whose side will Government be on? It is a fair question, it is a reasonable question, because there are choices being made. One only need look at what is proposed by the House Republicans, and intimated by my friend in the Senate on the Republican side that someone is going to get a tax benefit, a lot of tax benefit, especially if you are in the substantially higher income brackets. So someone is going to have to pay for it, we know that, whether it is education, or housing, or Medicare, as the discussion currently develops. The Republican budget reflects a party philosophy, and a constituency. The Republicans generally believe the answer to society's problems is to make sure that the powerful have enough power, and more money goes to millionaires. That is evidenced by the fact that, if you make $350,000 in a year, you get a $20,000 tax reduction. That is pretty hefty.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to finish, and then I will be happy to yield. It is reflected here in this chart. It says the winners, $20,000 tax break; corporate subsidies still protected. I come out of the corporate world, and I respect and appreciate what corporations have done by way of helping this country build, my corporation as well. But if you look at the earnings statements around the country these days, they look pretty good. If you look at the stock market, it is pretty good. It does not look as if the corporations are starved for profits. Look at the automobile companies. But we are protecting subsidies for oil and gas and others. And tax loopholes are still protected. So even as we do this, we are asking those who are Medicare recipients and those who, because of a situation in life, may be subjected to having Medicaid, a program for the poor, be the only device by which they can get medical attention. So what we look at is on balance, and we have heard the debate about reducing the growth and not cutting the programs, reducing the growth. The fact of the matter is that, if there is to be a similar level of service with the same options preserved, it is going to cost $6,400 for a senior couple over the next 7 years as we pursue a balanced budget; $6,400 may not be a lot to the guy who makes $350,000, but to the average couple, 75 percent of the senior citizens who are making $25,000 a year, whose income is $25,000 a year or less, $6,400 is an awful lot of money, and especially when on top of the--may I have the Chair's attention; thank you--especially on top of the fact that the average senior citizen is also paying over 20 percent of their income for health care needs that are not provided by Medicare. We know that there is a cut in education funding, that it is going to cost those who have to borrow to go to college substantially more as a result of the cuts there and the elimination of the earned income tax credit. And it is going to be a terrible penalty for families making $28,000 a year or less--$28,000. Why, that is almost as much as, slightly more than the refund that someone earning $350,000 is going to get by a lower tax rate. So that is the situation. That is what we are looking at--a tax increase for working families, more cost to go to on programs for which they have paid and paid handsomely for a lot of years. There is no getting around the concept that there are winners and losers in this resolution. And the American people have a right to know how they will be affected. But some Senators on the other side of the aisle obviously do not like a discussion of winners and losers. Some even suggested, as I said earlier, that somehow the Democrats are trying to divide the country. It is an outrageous charge and has to have a response. Mr. President, the way to unify this country is to treat everybody fairly. It is not to take away quality health care from our senior citizens and use it to pay for tax cuts for the rich. The way to unify the country is to relieve the financial burdens wherever possible on working families. It is not to increase taxes on these families and then again to give it to the wealthiest. The way to unify the country is to give all Americans a chance to get an education. It is not to increase costs for students to pay for tax cuts for the rich. If our country is going to pull together, Government must stand with ordinary Americans even if they are not rich, even if they do not have lobbyists representing them and even if they do not have the strong political connections. When our friends on the Republican side say we are trying to divide the country, I suggest they take a look in the mirror and see whether or not trying to take from one group that can least afford it to help relieve the tax burden on the wealthier group is unifying. I do not think so. It is obvious that ordinary Americans, already furious at the Government, think they are being ignored. They think Government does not care about them. Some even see the Government as an enemy. To reverse this disturbing trend, Government has to do a better job of standing up for ordinary Americans. That is what we Democrats are trying to do. We want Government to stand with middle-class families, with seniors, and with our young people. If we invest in our young, we are investing in the next century, trying to provide the leadership that is going to make this the competitive Nation we once were. It is going to give us a health care standard we once had that led the world. We are not among the top few nations with longevity. We are not among the top few nations with health care facilities that deal with mental illness. We are not where we used to be. And that is what we are trying to do, we the Democrats. We want Government to stand with middle-class families, with seniors, and with our young people. These are the people who are the backbone of this great country of ours. To a great extent they are the country, and it is time for them to be treated that way by their Government and in this debate. Mr. President, the pending Rockefeller-Lautenberg amendment reflects this approach. Its message is simple. It says let us eliminate tax cuts for the rich and apply the savings to Medicare and Medicaid. And once again I remind my colleagues who benefits from Medicare: 75 percent of the beneficiaries have incomes of $25,000 or less; 35 percent of them, $10,000 a year or less; 25 percent of those people rely solely on their Social Security checks. On top of this, Medicare recipients pay 21 percent of their income in out-of-pocket health care costs--21 percent. So if an average income is $25,000, they are paying over $5,000 in out- of-pocket health care costs. They have worked their entire lives, these senior citizens, and paid into the Medicare Program. In turn, they have been promised health security through Medicare. The budget resolution breaks that promise, and it does so, again, to make sure that it is balanced off with tax cuts on the other side. The final chart rather sums it all up. Senior couples on fixed incomes get a $6,400 tax increase for every senior couple, and on the other side it is a $20,000 tax break for people earning $350,000 a year. Mr. President, it is not fair to our Nation's seniors. It is also unfair to millions of middle-class families, and as we all know, there are millions of working parents in America who help out their own parents who are retired. These parents are struggling hard enough to make ends meet for their own children. And this budget will shift another heavy financial burden on their shoulders. They will have to pay more of their hard-earned money for health care expenses for their parents. It is not right. We have heard a lot of denials from the other side of the aisle.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the pending amendment. This amendment again poses the central question in this budget debate: Whose side are you on? In this case, the issue is whether the Senate will side with ordinary, middle-class families who are trying to ensure a decent education for their kids. Or whether we will again side with the wealthy, by preserving the slush fund that will be used to provide them with lavish tax breaks. I have heard Senators from the other side of the aisle say that this budget is for our children and grandchildren. They say it is for their future. Yet if Republicans really are concerned about our children, why are they proposing the biggest cut in education in the history of the United States? Let me repeat: This budget contains the largest cut in education in the history of this country. Is that their idea of helping our children? This budget resolution cuts education for young people from pre- school to graduate school. These cuts will affect all students. From 3 year olds who are learning fingerpainting, to graduate students studying business administration. No young person will be spared. The Republican budget cuts the Federal investment in education by 33 percent by the year 2002. This figure comes from CBO, not from the Democrats on the Budget Committee. Mr. President, let me tell you the impact that this will have on our young people. Let us go chronologically. First, let us start with the preschoolers. The discretionary cuts in this budget mean that 350,000 to 550,000 preschoolers will not be able to get into a Head Start Program. Second, let us take a look at what will happen to those children from kindergarten through 12th grade. The Republican budget will: Cut funds for math and reading for 2 million children. It will cut $1 billion for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs. It will cut $5 billion for special education for almost 6 million children with disabilities. It will cut assistance for school to work programs that help students who don't go to college to acquire skills and obtain meaningful employment. Regrettably, the education cuts do not end at the 12th grade. These cuts will also hurt those young people who want to get a college education. The Republican budget also makes deep cuts in the student loan programs and Pell grants. These programs help young people attend the college of their choice. They help them obtain skills to get a foothold in our economy. They help them live out the American dream, just like the GI bill did for me and other Members of this body. The student loan program is not a welfare program for poor children. It is for all low and middle income Americans. In fact, 50 percent of all college students receive Federal financial assistance. Middle class families need this assistance because college tuition has gone through the roof. Tuition, room and board at a private college now costs approximately $25,000 per year. If you think I am kidding, let me give you some examples of these costs. These include tuition, room and board: Brown University--$26,000; Dartmouth College--$24,000; Georgetown--$24,500; Harvard--$25,000; Yale--$25,000. Mr. President, if you think you can avoid paying such costs by sending your child to a quality State university--think again. Tuition, room and board for non-residents at many State schools also are staggering. Consider two examples: University of Michigan--$16,000; University of California Berkeley--$20,000. It is very difficult for American families to afford this type of tuition without borrowing money. The proposed Republican deferral of interest will cost these students and their families another $3,000 to $5,000 on top of the thousands of dollars they now spend. [[Page S7113]] Members of the other side of the aisle have talked a lot about balancing the budget so that the young people of this country will not be burdened by the national debt. Well, if we pass this Republican budget they will be saddled with more debt. They will be punished for trying to get ahead. Punished for getting a college education. This is simply wrong. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment. Stop the tax cuts for the rich and restore these harmful cuts in education. opposing education cuts

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller and I have sent an amendment to the desk. It is cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Kennedy, Daschle, Wellstone, and Boxer. This amendment, Mr. President, is based on an amendment that I offered last week in the Senate Budget Committee. It is pretty simple. It takes up to $100 billion from funds set aside for tax cuts for the wealthy and puts them into Medicare and Medicaid. I would like to repeat that this amendment eliminates any suggested tax cuts for the rich and puts the proceeds into Medicare long-term care. Now, Mr. President, the budget resolution that we are considering today forces Members to make a fundamental decision. It is a decision about what we stand for. Whose side are we on? The debate on this resolution is going to reveal a fundamental difference between our friends on the Republican side and those on the Democratic side. As Democrats, we believe that Government was meant to serve average Americans, middle-class families, who struggle to keep things afloat; senior citizens, who struggle to make end's meet on a fixed, often modest, income; and children, the future of our Nation. By contrast, the Republican Party has a very different philosophy and a different constituency. The Contract With America and the budget resolution before the Senate today is designed to serve the most powerful and wealthy members of our society. It has a group of winners. If a person makes $350,000, that person will get a $20,000 tax break. There is protection for corporate subsidies. And a number of tax loopholes have been protected--as usual. On the other hand, it impairs the Medicare program that served our senior citizens so well for 30 years. It leaves intact a variety of subsidies and loopholes for the wealthy, and it lavishes massive new tax cuts for the rich. The losers are ordinary Americans. Medicare, for a senior citizen couple, is going to cost that couple $6,400 more over the next 7 years. In the last year of that 7-year cycle we are discussing with the budget, it will cost around $1,800. We chopped away at education. And we increased taxes in place after place for hard-working Americans. Mr. President, yesterday I had a radio call-in show to New Jersey. Person after person--these were working people, some retired--who said for goodness sake, please put aside that tax cut. We do not need it. We would like to have it, but America needs our help more at this time. And my kids will need help more one day in the future. I noted with interest and pleasant surprise that seven colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Republican friends, U.S. Senators, said, ``Forget tax cuts. We are not taking them. We are opposed to them.'' However, the budget resolution stores away $170 billion on the other side, and over $350 billion on the House side, specifically earmarked for tax cuts, principally for the wealthy. If my view and the view of my fellow Democrats, these priorities are fundamentally wrong. In our view, Government must stand on the side of ordinary Americans. Mr. President, nothing better illustrates the fundamental difference between our two parties than the budget resolution's drastic cuts in Medicare--again, socked away for tax cuts for the rich. It is denied, it is not stated, but it is very clearly in the air. To Democrats, this kind of proposal is just abhorrent. It runs completely contrary to everything we stand for as Democrats. It will hurt millions of ordinary Americans around our country. As we can see, Medicare recipients are people of typically very modest means. Seventy-five percent of these people have incomes of less than $25,000 a year. I know that in high-cost places like my own State, like New York State, like other industrialized States, $25,000 a year does not permit the basic necessities of life, especially when considering that over 20 percent of their income is needed to supplement the Medicare health benefits that they already get. Thirty-five percent of these people live on less than $10,000 a year, or make less than $10,000. Twenty-five percent of them rely solely on their Social Security checks. That is tough going, especially when the prospects are that they will have to pay a lot more for their health care in the future. On top of this, we see on the chart and are reminded that seniors already paid 21 percent of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses. If someone is earning $25,000, 20 percent, roughly $5,000, on top of their Medicare program. Despite, however, interestingly enough, the high out-of-pocket costs and the lack of adequate medical care coverage for prescription drugs and long-term care, Medicare recipients are basically happy with the program. The polls that have been done, the analysis that has been developed, we see that 89 percent of the senior citizens--the Medicare beneficiaries--89 percent say they are basically satisfied with the quality of care that they derive from Medicare. That will change if this resolution is approved. Mr. President, we simply cannot cut $256 billion from Medicare without having a real impact on senior citizens. Now I have heard our colleagues from the other side say, ``No, no, it is not a cut. You do not understand it. Democrats do not understand it.'' People across the country must not understand it, because I get lots of phone calls saying, ``Whatever you do, do not permit them to go through with this.'' It says it is intended to reduce the growth in costs for Medicare. Medicare [[Page S6979]] is going to get more money than it does today. But that does not account for the swelling of the population or the long-term needs of that population or the services that they need as they age and as their health deteriorates, which is natural in older people. These cuts threaten to force seniors to pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copayments. And it also threatens to undermine the quality of their health care, which they are content with, if not to deny many seniors the right to choose their own doctor. These cuts will fundamentally change Medicare and make it a lesser system, much more costly and less complete. How do we do this to people with whom we have engaged in virtually a contract? How do we violate our word? How do we breach that trust? The Republican cuts in Medicare are wrong. They break a promise with our Nation's senior citizens, people who have worked often their entire lives and have paid into the Medicare program. For this hard work the Federal Government promised health security through Medicare. This budget resolution breaks that promise. It will force senior citizens to pay, as we saw earlier, approximately $3,200 individually in additional Medicare costs; that is $6,400 for a retired couple, a $6,400 tax increase over the next 7 years, to retired persons. Further, these are just average figures which grossly underestimate the real impact for many seniors, for those who are at the bottom end of the income scale, for those whose health care needs accelerate substantially, for those, frankly, in the greatest need. The added costs would be a terrible burden. This last chart kind of sums it up. The budget that is proposed, the Republican budget: $6,400 tax increase for every senior couple, and for people on the upper end of the scale, earning $350,000 a year, it is a $20,000 bonus. I have been lucky in my lifetime. I developed a good business. As a matter of fact I helped develop an industry. And I am a member of, though it is not an auspicious hall of fame, but there is a hall of fame called the Information Processing Hall of Fame, that puts New Jersey as the only State with two Hall of Famers, Bill Bradley in basketball and me in information processing. The kids just run after me for my autograph. But the fact of the matter is, I have been successful in business and as a result of that I have enjoyed the fruits of that success. And this is one U.S. Senator who is not ashamed of his success. I understand one of my colleagues complained about being lectured about programs for modest-income people, poor people, by those who inherited their wealth. I know lots of people with inherited wealth who turned out to be selfless, giving citizens who have turned back their energies into the community to try to make it a better place. But speaking for myself, I came from a family where my mother was widowed when she was 36 years old. I was 18. I had already enlisted in the Army. My father died. We were left worse than penniless. There was no health care plan around to take care of us. The family owed $2,000 to doctors and hospitals, which we had to pay over a lengthy period of time, I think about a year and a half. I sent home my allotment from the military. And I worked like the devil to build a business with hard work and with the help of loyal partners. And success came our way. But I remember a period of time when my father had to resort to the WPA, for those old enough or knowledgeable enough about that period, to try to keep food on the table, to try to have a job that would permit him to lift his head up and not be disgraced by the fact that he had to resort to Government help for his family. So my success did not come from any inheritance. It came because I worked for it, and I did it the old fashioned way, the American way. And as a consequence, when I talk about ordinary working people I know very well what they are going through and I want to try to give them an appropriate helping hand where necessary. And this is where it is necessary. This is a commitment that was made to people, people who helped build this country to its greatest levels after World War II, after first, in many cases, serving in the military during that period of time. It is not fair to our Nation's seniors. It is unfair, and for many it is calamitous. People can weave and dodge, wink at the truth and say, listen, just remember, we are in the Budget Committee. I am one of those. And we cannot tell the Finance Committee what to do. But individual Members of this body have said that they stand on a commitment to give tax cuts and that they would do whatever they could to block a budget resolution that does not include them. And the Republican Party, in charge in the House, made it very specific. They set aside the funding, $350 billion in the contract on America. I think it is outrageous. Why should we make senior citizens, 75 percent of whom make under $25,000 a year, pay more so we can give a $20,000 tax cut to the richest 1 percent of the population? Where is our sense of priorities? Where, for that matter, is our sense of fairness and decency? We would be a lot better keeping a promise that we had, taking care of the education of our children so they can help lead this country in the next century to a more competitive position and regain the leadership that this country so rightly deserves and has had in the past. This amendment is an effort to reverse these misguided policies. It will take the money that is being set aside in the slush fund for tax cuts for the rich and leave it in the Medicare and Medicaid Program. That is where it belongs. The amendment will help ensure that the Medicare recipients will not have to pay higher deductibles or copayments when they go to the hospital. It will help protect against the serious decline in the quality of their health care. It will help ensure that seniors are not denied the freedom to choose their own doctor. And it will help ensure that the Federal Government keeps its promise to senior citizens who paid and labored in good faith. We are discussing a bill to achieve a goal, a balanced budget goal. And I think it is fair to say that almost every one of us, Democrat or Republican, would like to achieve that goal. The question is how does it get done? Does it get done by assigning taxes to senior citizens, higher taxes? Does it get done by taxing students who want to further their education but will have to pay substantially more in the $4,000 to $5,000 range, on average, to get their college education? Or to deny modest-income families, with incomes under $28,000, their earned income tax credit? Everyone knows how tough living on that kind of income is. By saying to them, no, no, you are going to have to pay more taxes, the three-- the seniors, the kids who want to go to school, and the modest-income people--you have to pay more taxes so we can balance the budget and, by the way, on the trail to a balanced budget we are going to drop off some tax cuts--$20,000 if you make $350,000 in a year. It sounds like a lot of money to me. Mr. President we will hear a lot of denials. We have heard them this morning from the other side of the aisle. They say, no, there is not a tax cut for the rich in this resolution. It is not here. They will say the House has a tax cut for the rich. No one is fooled by these denials. The resolution that comes before us contains the fund, the slush fund to reach into and pull out a tax cut for the rich. According to some estimates, this slush fund will contain about $350 billion for tax cuts over 10 years--not just the $170 billion that people talk about over the next 7 years. The House hit the number on the head, $350 billion. I do not think that the intention is to deceive or to fool. But the result comes out that way. Are the American people supposed to believe that the Republican budget will not cut Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich? The American people know better than that. They are not going to be fooled by the rhetoric. If anyone has any doubts, consider what happened during the Budget Committee's deliberation on this resolution. I offered an amendment that would have required a 60-vote supermajority to cut Medicaid or Medicare to pay for a tax cut for the rich. I did not have much Republican support. As a matter of fact, if memory serves me right, it was nobody, no one, who said, ``Yes, we are willing to test this Senate. We are willing to put the test to our colleagues in the Senate. We will require 60 votes to cut Medicare [[Page S6980]] and Medicaid to pay for a tax cut.'' Nobody came through. As a matter of fact, it was so extreme and the attitude was so harsh, so rigid, that I offered an amendment that said let us get after the Benedict Arnolds in our society, the expatriates who take their fortunes that they have made in this country and renounce their citizenship, and go to another country so they do not have to pay State or other taxes for the privilege of living in America. I said let us do that, let us cut that out--it is over $3 billion for a period of 7 years--and give it to veterans programs. I could not even win this commonsense amendment. This morning I had a phone call to a veterans hospital in New Jersey. There is a new program that I helped get put into place. It is bedside phones. It is to give someone who is confined to bed or a wheelchair or is immobile a phone alongside their bed so they can communicate with their families, so they can have some contact with the outside world, and not have to go down the hall and stand where everybody is smoking and wait to put a quarter in the telephone. That program had struck such a cord with the people in the veterans hospital, but when it came to saying OK, we want to recapture the taxes that these people are evading by running out of the country after they made it here and lived here and renounced their citizenship, and give to the veterans, I could not get one Republican Member to say, ``Frank, that is not a bad idea. Let us at least try it.'' So I think, Mr. President, it is fair that it reflected an attitude. It is evidence. It says that we are going to take it from modest-income people, and we are going to give some of it to the rich, people who do not need it, and in many cases do not even want it. People I have spoken to have said let us invest in our society. In Speaker Gingrich's world, it is the crown jewel of the Republican agenda. There is no way to get around that. So when we get right down to it, this amendment is simple. It asks each Senator to decide what we said initially: Whose side are you on? That is what is going to be judged as we count the votes. That is what I stand for. That is what my Democratic colleagues stand for, and I think it is what the American people believe in. It is the right thing also for our Nation. We have an opportunity to prevent our senior citizens from being socked with a $6,400 tax increase. Let us say no to tax cuts for those who have the wealth. Let us say yes to our senior citizens and the middle-class families who help support them. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee will permit me for a moment, and our friend from Tennessee, as well, just to say, while it is not specifically earmarked, there are distinguished Members of this body from that side of the aisle who say that this bill without a tax cut is not going anywhere. The distinguished majority leader made himself very clear on what he expects. He expects a tax cut to result from this bill. I know it is the province of the Finance Committee. But we had a long debate in the Budget Committee about it was not for tax cuts and it was for tax cuts. At one point, it was kind of squeezed out that it was for tax cuts. At another point, it was said, ``Well, that is not our decision to make.'' Whether it is done in all fairness with a wink of an eye or the implicit suggestion that, OK, it is there. Listen, if the Finance Committee elects to give it to a tax cut program, why, that is up to them. But seven Members of the Senate from the Republican side were so discomforted by the notion that tax cuts are being considered that they renounced them immediately. I think it tells you something.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need to make my presentation. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to do that.