Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg and Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S. 757 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe we have requested 10 minutes of time for the introduction.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request? I have just a short unanimous-consent request to make. Mr. President, on vote 139 that took place yesterday, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' It does not change the outcome of the vote in any way. I ask unanimous consent that that be recorded as a ``no.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. The Armenian genocide marks an ignominious chapter in world history. It reminds us how low unchecked hatred can drag the human spirit, unleashing cruelty and brutality. As we memorialize the Armenians who died needlessly in the genocide, we must resolve never to forget how they suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Nor can we forget how the Armenian people continue suffering today as the country struggles to cope with the devastating impact of Azerbaijan's blockade. The blockade has put a strangle-hold on the Armenian people. Necessities--like food and heating oil--are in scarce supply. Such shortages endanger the lives of many in Armenia, especially during the harsh winter months. While humanitarian assistance provided by the United States can help alleviate the suffering, it cannot lift the blockade. Only the Government of Azerbaijan can do that. That is why we must continue to apply pressure. We should not provide United States foreign assistance to Azerbaijan as long as it maintains its blockade of Armenia. The blockade should be lifted without delay. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating this anniversary. It is important that we remember the atrocities of the past, and support efforts to allow the Armenian people an opportunity to live in peace in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage at the provision in this rescission bill that would increase funding for the Market Promotion Program by $25 million in fiscal year 1995. A provision that would increase subsidies for major corporations, at the same time that we are cutting billions from programs that are vital to our Nation's children. My opposition to the Market Promotion Program is long-standing. I do not believe that the U.S. Government should be spending $100 million a year to subsidize overseas advertising by large corporations. In recent years, the Market Promotion Program has used taxpayer money to subsidizes such corporations as McDonalds, Miller Beer, Sun Maid Raisins, and General Mills: hardly struggling corporations in need of Government largesse. It would be a travesty for the Senate to increase spending on this wasteful program while we are considering billions of dollars in cuts from far more important programs in the fiscal year 1995 budget. How can we cut housing assistance for low-income families and seniors while we increase subsidies for large corporations? How can the U.S. Senate cut the Head Start Program, the Youth Training program, the National Service Program, the Safe and Drug Free School Zones program, Child Care, Education, and so many other programs that benefit our Nation's children and families, help hard-working Americans, and prevent drug abuse and crime? How can we cut all those programs and then turn around and increase funding for multinational corporations? Mr. President, this is wrong. Dead wrong. The market promotion program should not be increased. It should be eliminated. If we can cut funding for child nutrition programs and elderly housing, we certainly can ask billion-dollar multinational corporations to do their fair share as well. I recently introduced legislation that would eliminate the Market Promotion Program and several other wasteful subsidy programs operated by the Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that the Senate has an opportunity today to cut some real waste out of the Federal budget. with me in supporting the Bumpers-Bryan amendment. funding for the united nations population fund [unfpa]

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my unequivocal support for Dr. Shirley Jackson's nomination to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dr. Jackson is a fellow New Jerseyan, and has spent most of her career teaching and working in our State. But that's only one of the many qualifications that make her so ideal for this position. Dr. Jackson has devoted her life to the study of science. Over the course of her career, she has gained world-wide renown and she has also broken many societal barriers. Dr. Jackson was the first African-American woman to receive a PhD from MIT. She has accumulated more than two decades of research and management experience in high energy physics, nuclear physics and condensed matter physics. She has been a professor and a consultant. And she has also found time for public service, serving for 10 years as founding member of the New Jersey Commission on Science and Technology. Dr. Jackson is currently a consultant to AT&T Bell Laboratories on Semiconductor Theory, vice chair of Governor Whitman's Economic Master Plan Commission and a member of the [[Page S5522]] Executive Committee of the M.I.T. Board of Trustees. And despite her heavy responsibilities, Dr. Jackson puts aside time to help recruit more women and more African-Americans to the sciences. Dr. Jackson has always blended her advanced scientific research with an eye toward practicality. She has researched subjects as esoteric as the electronic and optical properties of strained layer semiconductor super-lattices. But she has also worked toward basic goals that you and I can understand--like economic development in the State of New Jersey. I understand that President Clinton has said he would like Dr. Jackson to head the NRC after her confirmation and I enthusiastically support that decision. I am confident that her scientific and management backgrounds have been ideal preparation for that leadership position. Mr. President, I believe that Dr. Jackson's background has made her a unique, unparalleled nominee for this position. I urge my colleagues to vote for in support of this excellent nomination, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to Senator Gorton's timber salvage provision to this rescission bill, and in support of Senator Murray's alternative language. The language currently in the bill mandates the expeditious sale of salvage timber without concern for the cost to the Federal Treasury, without concern for market demand, without concern for sound environmental practices, and without concern for citizen and judicial involvement. This is old fashioned politics. It is a giveaway which will enrich one industry and impoverish a Nation of its natural resources. Mr. President, at a time when we are trying to reinvent government, this is not the way to do business. Senator Gorton's provision would result in a dramatic change in the Federal Government's approach to timber management and sale--without appropriate review by the Senate and the public. The language approved by the committee is an assault on our Nation's natural resources, an assault on sound science, an assault on existing laws, and an assault on the Senate's legislative process. The existing provision assumes that there is a forest health crisis due to insects, disease, and fires. The timber industry feels that salvaging the diseased and dying trees is crucial to forest health. Others feel that much of what salvage logging would remove is actually crucial to the forest ecosystem. Obviously, this is a scientific matter that should best be left to the experts, or to comprehensive, fair hearings in committees--certainly not fast-track fixes on a rescission bill. The language in Senator Gorton's provision suspends virtually every major environmental law, including, but not limited to, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act; the Federal Land Policy Management Act; the National Environmental Policy Act; the National Forest Management Act; the Endangered Species Act, and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. This is not sound policy and could be disastrous to our Nation's forests. That is why I support Senator Murray's amendment to the bill. Senator Murray's proposal is a balanced approach to this contentious issue. It expedites sales of timber salvage, which should satisfy the timber interests. But at the same time it respects existing law, excludes Federal lands that should not be touched, limits the definition of salvage sale, and allows for citizen and judicial involvement. In all honesty, I would prefer a bill with no provision addressing timber salvage. This bill is not the place for such a provision, particularly one that will result in a steep cost to the Federal Treasury. I commend the junior Member from Washington for stepping into a leadership role, and developing a sound compromise to this very difficult issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senate is debating a truly fundamental change to our system of government. We have before us legislation which proposes to reconsider some of the most basic principles of our democracy. For over 200 years, the Federal government has maintained a careful balance between the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. That balance has stood the test of time, and has helped sustain our nation's cherished liberties for generations. Mr. President, given that remarkable record, we need to be very cautious before altering this historic balance of powers. It's not something we should do lightly. It's not something we should rush through. We do, however, have to be prepared to respond to changing conditions, and to make needed changes in the way we do business. Despite all that's good about our democratic system, we also face some real problems. And one of the most important is government waste, and the deep public anger that it provokes. Mr. President, as much as any time in our history, it is critical to reduce waste in government. We are continuing to load debt on our children and grandchildren. The tax burden is heavy. Americans are losing faith in government as they are repeatedly bombarded with examples of unnecessary spending--from fraud in government programs to the Lawrence Welk Center--and taxpayers are infuriated. They have a right to be. They also have a right to demand that we do something about it. And there is broad public support for trying some form of line item veto. Yet, Mr. President, we should not exaggerate what a line item veto can accomplish. It won't eliminate all government waste. Nor will it balance the budget. It may result in eliminating unnecessary pork barrel projects and special-interest tax loopholes. This is not to say, Mr. President, that all narrowly--targeted spending or tax provisions are wasteful. But many are. And the most egregious examples get the most publicity, and erode public confidence in the Congress and our government. Surely that's one We need to look for ways to address this problem. And the line item veto might help, by giving the President additional power to eliminate items that are truly indefensible. Under current law, when the Congress sends the President a broad spending or tax bill, the President's options are pretty limited. He can sign the whole bill into law. Or he can veto the entire package. Once an appropriations bill is enacted, the President can proposed to rescind specific items of spending, and send Congress a rescission. But this rescission power is extremely limited. First, it does not apply to tax breaks. And, in the case of proposed rescissions to appropriations, Congress can simply ignore them. It seems to me, Mr. President, that it's worth trying to give the President additional powers to eliminate waste. But, as we move into these uncharted waters--fundamentally changing our form of government-- we should build in certain protections against abuse of executive power. Restraint of executive power has been a hallmark of our Constitution and guided our Founding Fathers in its creation. We can strengthen the President's rescission power by making sure the Congress considers all Presidential rescission proposals, and does so on an expedited basis. That would be a significant step forward in the fight against waste. Currently, if the President sends rescissions to us to eliminate wasteful spending, we can just ignore them. And we usually do. Forcing review of wasteful expenditures, in the glare of public debate, would be a healthy antidote to our current way of doing business. We can also build in protections against abuse of this expanded executive power by retaining the democratic practice of majority rule. The pending legislation would permit the President to kill any increases in spending or changes to entitlement programs if he can convince just one-third of one house of Congress to support him. That's an enormous expansion of executive power. It would permit the President to nullify what a majority of the people's representatives have already approved. Finally, we can guard against abuse of power by the Executive by requiring the Congress to review the line item veto after a prescribed trial period. Initially, I think the shorter this trial the better. If the line item veto works as its authors intend, it will have a salutary effect on our government and there will be no problem extending it. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the proposal before us fails to protect against executive branch abuses. It also puts power in the hands of a small minority, undermining majority rule. It lets one-third of Congress rule with the President, controlling Federal policy on virtually all new spending and entitlement programs. The legislation also could unintentionally hurt smaller States, with smaller congressional delegations, like my State of New Jersey. The proposal would load the deck in favor of bigger States which have a leg up on building the necessary two-thirds vote to override a Presidential line-item veto. In my view, that's unwise. Mr. President, the case for a line item veto rests largely on the need to eliminate narrowly targeted pork-barrel spending. But the majority leader's amendment goes much further than that. It would allow a President to unilaterally eliminate funding for entire programs. This would give a single individual the power to kill major initiatives in education, law enforcement, health care, veterans, mass transit, immigration enforcement, housing, you name it. All would be at risk. It would also put Medicare, veterans benefits, and other entitlement programs under the control of a small minority of Congress aligned with a President. Mr. President, I'm not suggesting that President Clinton or any future President would abuse this new power. But we really don't know. That's not a Democratic concern or a Republican concern. It's a nonpartisan concern. That's not a liberal concern or a conservative concern. It's a democratic--with a small `d'--concern. It has nothing to do with party or ideology. It has everything to do with the potential for abuse of power and rule by a congressional minority. Let's take one example, Mr. President, of a President of my own party, Lyndon Baines Johnson. President Johnson was a strong leader who excelled at cajoling and pressing Members of Congress into voting with him. I never experienced it myself, but the ``Johnson treatment'' was something that is legendary. Lyndon Johnson used every tool in his arsenal to win. Looking to the future, a President with strong leadership skills and strong convictions would gain enormously in power. With just one-third of one House of Congress, he could wipe out essential benefits for ordinary Americans and a majority in Congress could do nothing to stop him. Mr. President, I'd urge against giving the President that virtually unbridled power. I'm not willing to risk that a future President would be able to overrule a majority in Congress and eliminate all school lunches. Or deny middle-class students the opportunity to go to college. Or deny working families assistance with child care. Or take police officers off the streets. Or force young children to go hungry. Or increase the number of the homeless on our streets. Or deny veterans the benefits they've earned by serving our country. Or deny senior citizens needed benefits under Medicare. Mr. President, these expenditures and these benefits are not pork. But they all would be vulnerable to the line-item veto under this amendment. And a President bent on eliminating them could wield this new tool as a meat ax against ordinary Americans. There need to be some real protections against that if we are to have a line-item veto. Mr. President, I also am concerned that a line-item veto could open the door to what some have called ``political extortion''. I use that term to convey how a President would be able, in effect, to hold a gun to the head of Members of Congress. This is what could happen. A President could go to a Member of Congress and say this: ``I need your support for my favorite new initiative. If you don't agree to support it, I'm going to rescind that bridge, or highway, that's so important to your district.'' Mr. President, that kind of political pressure occurs in some States that have a line-item veto. And it can lead to more wasteful spending, not less. Mr. President, to limit the possibility that a line-item veto will be abused, it's important to keep the Executive on a short leash. One way is to require Congress to reauthorize the line-item veto on a routine basis. Another is to allow a majority in Congress to overrule the President. These protections would preserve the constitutional principle of balance of power and avoid shifting power extraordinary power to the executive branch, or to larger States at the expense of medium sized or smaller States. They would make it less likely that a future occupant of the White House would ride roughshod over the people and Congress. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the pending proposal doesn't include adequate protections. It's a serious flaw in the legislation. I'm also concerned about the provisions in the pending amendment related to tax expenditures. Those provisions, though drafted ambiguously, apparently are intended to provide a ``loophole for loopholes'' that will protect many special interest tax breaks from rescission. Mr. President, we all know the many special tax breaks that have been included in tax bills over the years. There are special rules for the timber industry. For the oil and gas industry. For cruise liners. In fact, a few years ago we even tried to enact a special loophole for the tuxedo industry. Once enacted, Mr. President, most tax breaks enjoy a special status that even the most popular spending programs would envy. They never have to be appropriated. They never have to be reauthorized. They never have to compete for scarce budgetary resources. Instead, they simply nestle quietly and Code, never to be seen or heard from again. But, they lose substantial revenue, and their costs are made up by ordinary taxpayers. Mr. President, unwarranted tax loopholes go to the heart of what bothers so many Americans today. Loopholes generally are provided only to special interests and wealthy individuals who either have special connections, or enough money to hire a lobbyist with access to Members of Congress. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans don't have these connections. They don't have personal relationships with powerful Senators. And they don't have lobbyists working for them. So when ordinary Americans see the clients of lobbyists getting special treatment in the Tax Code, they resent it. And they resent it very, very deeply. Mr. President, the pending amendment includes some ambiguous language on targeted tax benefits. But, according to statements made on this floor, that language is intended to be very narrow. Apparently, if a tax break benefits a particular company, it may be subject to a rescission. But if the loophole benefits two companies, or an entire industry, it will get special protection. Mr. President, that's a loophole for loopholes, and I cannot support it. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me again emphasize that we're talking about the basic structure of Government that was established over 200 years ago, and we should proceed with caution. To help eliminate waste in Government, it's worth trying a line-item veto. But, we should not support proposals that are vulnerable to abuse, that fail to adequately protect the public interest and our constituents, or that provide a loophole for special interest tax loopholes. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act of 1995. This legislation, which Senator Bradley and I are introducing today, is based upon recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board as a result of its investigation into the Edison pipeline exposition. It was 1 year ago today that residents of the Durham Woods Apartments in Edison, NJ, ran for their lives to escape a ball of fire that lit up the night sky. The heat of the fire was so intense that it burned the clothes off people's backs and singed their bare feet as they escaped over the hot pavement. On this painful anniversary, people in New Jersey are reflecting on the horror of a year ago. All too often, disasters get just 15 minutes in the news and are forgotten. But for New Jersey, the Edison explosion lives on. We are not prepared to rest until we can guarantee that this tragedy will not be repeated. Mr. President, today Senator Bradley and I are introducing legislation to significantly increase pipeline safety. This is the third bill that we have introduced in the last year to protect the thousands of Americans who live, work, or go to school in the vicinity of a pipeline. The Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act would: Direct the Department of Transportation to develop toughness standards for new pipes installed in gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, particularly in urban areas; Establish standards for permanent markings that identify the location of high-pressure natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines in urban, industrial and commercial areas; Establish minimum safety standards for pipeline operators, including a protocol for periodic inspection and appropriate tests for pipeline damage; Assess and improve public education programs concerning pipeline leak detection; and Require that ongoing studies on the safety risks associated with pipeline siting be expedited and that the analysis also include the effect of building standards on risk. Over the last year, we have taken positive steps to increase pipeline safety. However, I will not rest in my efforts to improve pipeline safety until I can personally vouch for the safety of every American who lives or works near a pipeline, and until we can promise the children of Edison that there will never again be an explosion like the one they endured at Durham Woods. Since last March, I have seen and heard the devastation that followed this explosion. I have met with families who lost everything but the clothes on their back. I have heard from children who continue to wake up sweating in the middle of the night--still on the run a year later from that fiery ball of smoke. I have learned about residents who lost their lives' work, like the scientist who was struggling to support his wife, his mother and two small children--and then saw his dissertation, his dream of a better life for his family, disappear in the tangled plastic of a melted computer. For New Jersey, the Edison pipeline explosion was an unparalleled tragedy. But the truth is that this was no isolated event. There were pipeline problems in other places before March 23. And there have been pipeline problems since. I want to put these events deep into the recesses of history. Senator Bradley and I believe that the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Act would do just that. If this bill and other bills Senator Bradley and I have introduced on this subject had been the law before March 23, 1994, life at Durham Woods would not have taken such a tragic turn. Mr. President, today, we all should reflect on the 1-year anniversary of the Edison explosion. I pray for the victims who still suffer from the fallout of this disaster. I hope that Congress has learned an important lesson. And I pledge to continue to fight for improvements in pipeline safety so no other community will ever be doomed to undergo the trauma of a pipeline explosion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as all know, the Senate is debating a truly fundamental change to our system of Government. We have before us legislation which proposes to reconsider some of the most basic principles of our democracy. For over 200 years the Federal Government has maintained a careful balance between the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. That balance has stood the test of time and has helped sustain our Nation's cherished liberties for generations. Given that remarkable record, I think we need to be very cautious before altering this historic balance of powers. And it is not something we should do lightly. It is not something we should rush through. We do, however, have to be prepared to respond to changing conditions and to make needed changes in the way we do business. Despite all that is good about our democratic system we also face some real problems and one of the most important is Government waste and the deep public anger that it provokes. Almost more than any time in our history, it is critical to reduce waste in Government. We are continuing to load debt on our children and grandchildren. The tax burden is heavy. Americans are losing faith in Government as they are repeatedly bombarded with examples of unnecessary spending from fraud in Government programs to the Lawrence Welk center. Taxpayers are infuriated, and they have a right to be. They also have a right to demand that we do something about it. And there is broad public support for trying some form of line-item veto. Yet we ought not to exaggerate what a line-item veto can accomplish. It will not eliminate all Government waste nor will it balance the budget. It may result in eliminating unnecessary pork-barrel projects and special- interest loopholes. That is not to say that all narrowly targeted spending or tax provisions are wasteful. We all know that many are. And the most egregious examples get the most publicity and erode public confidence in the Congress and in our Government. Surely that is one reason why the public is so angry with Washington. We need to look for ways to address this problem and the line-item veto might help by giving the President power to eliminate items that are truly indefensible. Under current law, when the Congress sends the President a broad spending or tax bill, the President's options are pretty limited. He can sign the whole bill into law or he can veto the entire package. Once an appropriation bill is enacted, the President can propose to rescind specific items of spending and send Congress a rescission, a reduction in the original proposal--specifically eliminating one recommendation. But this rescission power is extremely limited. First of all, it does not apply to tax breaks, those breaks that are given to special interests that cost us money because we lose those revenues. And, in the case of proposed rescissions to appropriations, Congress presently can simply ignore them. It seems to me that it is worth trying to give the President of the United States additional powers to eliminate waste. But as we move into these uncharted waters, fundamentally changing our form of government, we should build in certain protections against abuse of Executive power. Restraint of Executive power has been the hallmark of our Constitution and has guided our Founding Fathers in its creation. We can strengthen the President's rescission power by making sure that Congress considers all Presidential rescission proposals and does so on an expedited basis. Once again, that Congress reviews and considers all Presidential rescission proposals would be a significant step forward in the fight against waste. Currently, if the President sends rescissions to us to eliminate wasteful spending we can simply ignore them, and we often do. Forcing review of wasteful projects is not something that is taken up very readily. And in the glare of public debate, it would be a healthy antidote to our current way of doing business. We can also build in protections against abuse of this expanded Executive power by retaining the democratic process of majority rule. The pending legislation would permit the President to kill any increases in spending or changes to entitlement programs if he can convince just one-third of one House of the Congress to support him. That is an enormous expansion of Executive power. It would permit the President to nullify what a majority of the people's representatives have already approved. Finally, we would guard against abuse of power by the executive by requiring the Congress to review the line-item veto of a proscribed trial period. Initially, I think the shorter this trial the better. If the line-item veto works as its authors intend, it will have a salutary affect on our Government, and there will be no problem in extending it. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the proposal before us fails to protect against Executive branch abuses. It undermining majority rule by demanding a two-thirds vote to override the President's rescission recommendation. It lets one-third of Congress rule and the President controlling Federal policy on virtually all new spending and entitlement programs. Our Constitution was not written that way. It was not intended that way. Legislation could also unintentionally hurt smaller States with smaller congressional delegations like mine, like the State of New Jersey. The proposal would lower the deck in favor of bigger States which have a leg up on building the necessary two-thirds vote to override a Presidential line-item veto. In my view, it is unwise. Mr. President, the case for a line-item veto rests largely on the need to eliminate narrowly targeted pork-barrel spending. But the majority leader's amendment goes much further than that. It would allow the President to unilaterally eliminate funding for entire programs. This would give a single individual the power to kill major initiatives in education, law enforcement, health care, veterans programs, mass transit, immigration enforcement, housing, and you name it. All could be at risk. It would also put Medicare, veterans benefits, and other entitlement programs under the control of a small minority of Congress aligned with the President. I am not suggesting, Mr. President, that President Clinton or any future President would abuse this new power. But we do not really know and we have to guard against it. That is not a Democratic concern or a Republican concern. It is a nonpartisan concern. It is not a liberal concern. It is not a conservative concern. It is a democratic with a small ``d'' concern. It has nothing to do with party or ideology. It has everything to do with the potential for abuse of power and rule by a congressional minority. Let us take one example of a President of my own party, President Lyndon Baines Johnson. President Johnson was a strong leader who excelled at cajoling and pressing Members of Congress into voting with him. I never experienced it. But the Johnson treatment was something that is legendary. Lyndon Johnson used every tool in his arsenal to make his case, to win his recommendation. Looking to future, a President with strong leadership skills and strong convictions he could gain enormously in power. With just one- third of one House of Congress he could wipe out essential benefits for ordinary Americans, and a majority in Congress could do nothing to stop him. Mr. President, I urge against giving a President that unbridled power. I am not willing to risk that. A future President would be able to override a majority in the Congress, and perhaps eliminate all school lunches, or deny middle-class students the opportunity to go to college, or deny working families a chance for child care, or take police officers off the street, or force young children to go hungry, or increase the number of homeless on our streets, or deny veterans the benefits they earned while serving our country, or deny senior citizens needed benefits required under Medicare. Mr. President, these expenditures and these benefits are not pork. But they would all be vulnerable to the line-item veto under the proposed majority leader's amendment. A President bent on eliminating them could wield a new tool like a meat ax against ordinary Americans. There needs to be some real protections against that, if we are to have a line-item veto. I am also concerned that a line-item veto could open the door to what some have called political extortion. I use that term to convey how a President would be able in effect hold the gun to the heads of the Members of Congress. This could happen. A President could go to a Member of Congress and say, ``I need support for my favorite new initiative, and, if you do not agree to support it, it is goodbye for that new highway or special program that is so important in your district.'' Mr. President, that kind of political pressure occurs in many States that have a line-item veto, and it can lead to more wasteful spending--not less. Mr. President, to limit the possibility that a line-item veto will be abused, it is important to keep the Executive on a relatively short leash. One way is to require Congress to reauthorize the line-item veto on a routine basis. Another is to allow a majority in the Congress to overrule the President. These protections would preserve the constitutional principle of a balance of power and avoid shifting power, extraordinary power, to the executive branch or to larger States at the expense of the medium-sized or smaller States. It would make it less likely that a future occupant of the White House would ride roughshod over the people in the Congress. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the pending proposal does not include adequate protections. It is a serious flaw in the legislation. I am also concerned about the provisions in the pending amendment related to tax instructions. Those provisions, though drafted ambiguously apparently are intended to provide a loophole that will protect many special interest tax breaks from rescission. Mr. President, we all know that many special tax breaks that have been included in tax bills over the years exist. There are special rules for the timber industry, for the oil and gas industry, even for cruise liners. In fact, a few years ago we tried to enact a special loophole for the tuxedo industry. Once enacted, most tax breaks enjoy a special status that even the most popular spending programs would emulate. They never have to be appropriated. They never have to be reauthorized. They never have to compete for scarce budgetary resources. Instead, they simply nestle quietly and unobtrusively in the nooks and the crannies of the Tax Code never to be seen nor heard from again. But they cost us substantial revenues, and their costs are made up by imposing extra burdens on ordinary taxpayers. Mr. President, unwarranted tax loopholes go to the heart of what bothers so many Americans today. Loopholes generally are provided only to special interests and wealthy individuals who have either special connections or enough money to hire a high-priced lobbyist with access to Members of Congress. We have seen a lot of stories on lobbying influence in these recent days and weeks. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans do not have those things. They do not have personal relationships with powerful Senators, and they do not have the lobbyists working for them. So when an ordinary American sees clients of lobbyists getting special treatment in the Tax Code, they really resent it. They resent it very, very deeply. Mr. President, the pending amendment of the majority leader includes ambiguous language on targeted tax benefits. But according to statements made on this floor, that language is intended to be very narrow. Apparently, if a tax break benefits a particular company, it may be subject to a rescission. But if the loophole benefits two companies or an entire industry, it will get special protection. Mr. President, that is a loophole law that I cannot support. In conclusion, let me again emphasize that we are talking about the basic structure of Government that was established over 200 years ago, and we ought to proceed with caution. To help eliminate waste in Government, it is worth trying a line-item veto. But we should not support proposals that are vulnerable to abuse, that fail to adequately protect the public interest and our constituents or that provide for special interest tax loopholes. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator believe that the only ones who know how to manage an enterprise are Governors? Or does the Senator believe that business experience is of value as well, business experience that developed an entire industry known as the computing industry, which I modestly had a hand in and am a member of the Hall of Fame of Information and Processing. I ran a terrific company with an excellent record, one of the best in the country. I assume the Senator would yield to the fact that someone who has other experience besides Governors can make a contribution; is that not so?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare/Medicaid Solvency Act of 1995. This legislation will require the tobacco industry to reimburse the Federal Government for Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care program costs for diseases attributable to tobacco products. Deliberations on the budget will soon begin and it looks like the Congress is serious about undertaking real, meaningful, and significant deficit reduction. My bill will do just that. Any serious attempt at deficit reduction must consider health care, particularly the Medicare, Medicaid, and the other Federal health care programs. Federal expenditures for these programs have skyrocketed in recent years and current HCFA projections indicate that the Medicare trust fund, which pays for Medicare part A costs, will become insolvent shortly after the turn of the century. Medicare part B, Medicaid, and other Federal health programs have no dedicated trust fund and contribute with increasing severity each year to the deficit spending about which we here in Congress complain so vehemently. It is now clear to everyone that changes in our Federal health care programs are inevitable if we wish to control and reduce the deficit. My Republican colleagues have proposed to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $255-$275 billion over the next 5 years. As much as I admire the Republicans' commitment to reducing Government waste and inefficiency, I do not believe we should seek to reduce the deficit by cutting health care for our most vulnerable citizens: seniors, children, and the disabled. And so I now proposed a better idea. The Centers for Disease Control tell us that Federal health care expenditures for diseases attributable to tobacco products are currently about $20 billion per year. While tobacco companies receive approximately $100 billion in annual revenues and earn huge profits from the sale of their deadly products, taxpayers are forced to pay the health care bills for the diseases those products cause. This is outrageous and is exactly backwards from what logic and justice tell us it ought to be. We need to turn this system on its head. We should be sending the Federal health care bills for tobacco- related diseases to the tobacco companies rather than to the taxpayers. It is time to get serious about reducing the deficit. And the right way to reduce the deficit is not to reduce health care programs for people in need; rather it is to insist that the tobacco industry accept financial responsibility for the problems it knowingly causes. My bill does this. My message to the Republican leadership is simple: The tobacco industry must be a part of any deficit reduction package. Much has been said in this Chamber about the need to reduce the Federal deficit, and the need for individuals to take responsibility for their actions. Now it is time for the tobacco industry to accept responsibility for its actions. No member of this body who wishes to remain credible on deficit reduction can continue to ignore the extraordinary impact of this one industry on Government spending. There is no choice: either we vote to make the tobacco industry part of the solution to the deficit problem, or we abandon any pretense of being serious on this issue. My bill will reduce the deficit by $100 billion over 5 years. That is approximately $1,000 for every taxpayer in the country. It does this by directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to annually determine the amount of Federal health care expenditures for diseases attributable to tobacco products and then authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to bill each tobacco company for its share of those expenditures, based on each company's share of the market for tobacco products. My bill does not penalize smokers nor does it restrict smoking in any way. It simply demands that those tobacco companies whose products are the direct and immediate cause of many billions of dollars of Federal health care costs pay their fair share of those costs. The real question is: Who will pay for the Federal health care costs for diseases attributable to tobacco products? Will it be the American taxpayers who are drowning in our national debt, or will it be the tobacco companies who are swimming in profits? With this legislation, I choose to side with the taxpayers and I hope my Senate colleagues will do so as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this bill, a fact sheet, and a letter of support from the Coalition or Smoking or Health printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nebraska for yielding the time, and particularly the distinguished Senator from Indiana for interrupting the flow of the discussion, because there are matters of great importance that are under review. But I would like to talk for a minute about an incident that took place in the last couple of days that has been across the newspapers in this country and through all means of communication--television, radio, and so forth. It is about an incident in Montclair, NJ, which is where my home has been since 1968. My children were brought up in this community, all four of them, and there is still a Lautenberg house in the town. The community is shocked by the turn of events--four people killed, four innocent people, two who worked in the post office, long- time employees, and two residents of the community, one I am told, 38 years of age, and one 59 years of age, customers of the post office. They were on an innocent piece of business, and suddenly carnage broke out. It is established that a 9 mm weapon was used, and the culprit has been captured and is now in custody. This afternoon, the U.S. attorney and other law enforcement people will be making a full statement. Mr. President, we have seen violence all over this country ourselves, gun violence, people shot randomly. As a matter of fact, unless it gets to be in your neighborhood or your community, or you know someone who is the victim, it is almost greeted with a yawn. We watch the incredible spectacle of Colin Ferguson, the man who murdered and assaulted people on the Long Island Railroad, make a fool out of the system, and he is ready now perhaps this day for sentencing. But I watched in shock as some of the victims' families addressed this individual, trying to describe their pain and their anguish, including one person that I know, also from New Jersey, a man named Jake LaCicero, who lost his daughter, Amy, on that train. She was in her late twenties, innocently traveling back and forth to work from where she then lived, and she died needlessly. And not too long ago, at a post office in Richwood, NJ, a quiet, high-income community, principally commuters, people who took pride in their community and people who believed so deeply in America and the American way--the town that I am talking about now, Montclair, NJ, is a fairly high-income minority African-American portion, about 30 percent, living side by side, house to house, and everybody getting along well. Mr. President, last weekend, we heard about an incident--and I had the occasion to visit the victim, a woman named Gilespie, 66 years old, who had her car hijacked by two young men who, as she described it to me, is an incredibly courageous woman, fighting back against all odds, because she was shot right almost in the middle of her face just at the eyebrow line. She had a black-and-blue mark. The bullet is still apparently lodged in her head. She will have lost the sight of one eye, but she is going to live. And she is remarkably strong. I was there to visit a trauma unit at our University Hospital and Medical School in Newark. She said she cannot understand why she was shot. She said, ``I was ready to surrender my car.'' It was in the evening. She went to visit her daughter in the suburbs. She said, ``I was ready to surrender my car. I was ready to surrender my pocketbook.'' She said, ``I did not want to fight with these two fellows.'' She said not a word was exchanged. The only thing that was exchanged was a gunshot, a gun pointed at her head, and the trigger pulled. And she had enough strength and enough courage to get to a telephone and the police, in quick response, from Montclair, NJ, were able to capture two young men. These men, by the way, Mr. President, had no previous record of criminality--young men; one was 17, one was 19. One already finished with high school; the other was in high school. These were not the traditional criminals. These were not the people who we talk about when we say, ``Guns do not kill people; people kill people.'' Mr. President, we are hearing ruminations on this floor about removing the ban that exists on assault weapons--a ban that was fought over day after day, hour after hour before it became essentially a part of the crime bill that was passed and signed last year by the President of the United States. We hear now that that bill is being reviewed, perhaps, with the purpose of removing the ban on assault weapons. It almost is shocking beyond belief that we, at this point in time, could be talking about removal, repeal of a ban on weapons that were designed to kill people, to be used by military and law enforcement people. And we are discussing it because the NRA has a gun at the head of this Congress. The NRA has a gun at the head of this Senate. The gun reaches into the pocketbook, Mr. President. That is where the power comes from. It is the power of the purse used to pervert and to twist the intentions of the American people, and to analyze the second amendment in such a way that it permits every loony in the world, in the States, and in this country of ours to get their hands on a gun. The Brady bill was fought against so hard here. I read in the paper recently, it stopped 45,000 applications for gun ownership from being executed. And we fought tooth and nail here. It was like a battle over whether or not we continue to operate as a democratic society. We fought over that, and--how many escaped we do not know, but 45,000 people were denied applications for gun ownership. Mr. President, I do not know what it is going to take to stop this gun mad necessary. I hope it does not visit families here. Though, we have had it. The Senator from North Dakota watched his wife being taken away by a man with a gun at her head, not far from the Capitol, where we have multiple police departments. He was powerless because the man had a gun and was able to blow his wife's head off. What is it going to take for our society to respond and say ``no'' to the NRA, that we are not going to let you own this country, we are not going to let you own this Congress. We ought to turn out every Congressman and Senator who supports the NRA, unless there is a change in their attitude. Mr. President, it is a terrible day, terrible occasion when we have to reminisce about those who lost their lives. Anybody who saw the victims talking to Colin Ferguson this morning, where one woman who lost her husband and her son was shot, to be permanently disabled, this young man weeping uncontrollably because his life had been torn apart. I hope that we do not have to recite in the years ahead those who are victims of gunfire--random gunfire, in many cases, and botched burglaries. Mr. President, people say that it is not guns, that it is people who do the killing. But if you look at the United Kingdom, look at Japan, countries westernized in their customs like ours, and you see that in our country 13.5 thousand people died from gunshots, and in the other countries just mentioned, the numbers are less than 100. One of those populations is two-thirds of ours--Japan. I believe they had less than 100 people die by gunshot. In the United Kingdom the numbers were less than 100. In Canada they were less than 50. But we here in the United States, who want to protect the rights under the second amendment for people to own guns, are not standing up for people to be able to live freely, to walk down the street. In Los Angeles, it is said that most of the gunshot damage done is done by drive-by, random shootings. If there are no guns around, I assure you that we would not see the damage, because it is awful hard to have a drive-by clubbing or a drive-by stabbing. It is time that we woke up to the problem that we have here and get rid of this menace for the safety and well-being of our children, our families, our homes, our stores, and our businesses, and get on with letting this democracy perform as it should. I thank the Senators from Nebraska and Indiana for giving me these few minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Agriculture Modernization Act. It would eliminate the Department of Agriculture, spinning off some programs to other parts of the Federal Government, and sell the two USDA buildings on the Mall. This legislation acknowledges what we all know: the Great Depression ended 50 years ago and it's 1995. Many USDA activities should go the way of the WPA and other programs which, like the USDA's commodity price programs, were set up to deal with the devastation caused by the Depression. With recovery, they were disbanded. House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole have proposed eliminating four departments of government as part of their deficit reduction plan: Committee, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. If we want to scale back government, and eliminate wasteful bureaucracies, the USDA is an excellent place to start. It is the most obsolete and bloated of all Cabinet departments. The USDA tops the list for personnel, budget, and subsidies to those who need them least. In scaling back Government, let's start with a department that provides pork for agribusinesses that don't need it before we eliminate one that helps our children get an education and start on life. In evaluating the Kasich-Dole proposal, it is important to understand that the USDA has 109,000 employees, more than the other four departments combined. Furthermore, USDA's $62 billion budget dwarfs the budgets of Commerce, Energy, Education and HUD. Indeed, it is almost as large as these four departments combined. The Agriculture Modernization Act will eliminate wasteful programs in USDA. It will transfer important programs to agencies better suited to administer them, like HHS taking over the Food Stamp Program. And it will put all the money spent on commodity programs into a block grant which will be phased out completely over 5 years. This will permit the States to help recipients of agricultural entitlement programs adjust to a scaling back, and then loss, of benefits. $25 billion over 5 years. The Republican leaders have laid out ambitious deficit reduction goals to slice $500 billion off the Federal budget in the next 5 years. They propose to accomplish this without touching Social Security. That's going to mean very deep cuts. I'd like to see us start on subsidies to agribusiness and waste at USDA before we cut the safety net out from under our Nation's families and children. The Department of Agriculture's time has come and gone. It began under President Abraham Lincoln. In the 1860's, 60 percent of Americans were farmers and the USDA had 9 employees. Now only 2 percent of Americans are farmers and USDA has 109,000 employees worldwide. That's one bureaucrat for every five farmers. The commodity programs began in the Great Depression, when we did not know if America could feed itself. When we didn't know if grocery stores would have food on their shelves. But American agriculture is much different today. Our stores are stocked with inexpensive foods. And our most competitive commodities are fruits, vegetables, meats, and poultry that don't receive any price subsidies. It's time to extend free market principles to agriculture. There are 75,000 farmers with incomes over $250,000 per year who get an average of $26,000 in agricultural subsidies. My small businesspeople in New Jersey making a lot less don't get subsidies. And, the Republicans want to reduce the school lunch program, nutrition programs, take away summer jobs from kids, cut assistance to seniors and others for heating bills, and cut housing aid to AIDS patients, among others. I say we should start with USDA. No more aid for dependent agribusinesses. I support entitlement programs for kids and other groups in need. I think we should have a social safety net. But, agribusiness is not on my list of deserving beneficiaries. This bill sets priorities for deficit reduction. We should start by cutting obsolete programs and programs that benefit those who don't need Government assistance. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an accompanying factsheet be inserted in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am joining with other members of the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee in sponsoring the pending amendment to relieve the remainder of Jordan's debt to the United States. I do so because this initiative is integral to the ongoing peace process in the Middle East. This action will make good on the promise President Clinton and the American people made to King Hussein--that the United States would support Jordan as it took risks for peace. In line with this commitment, last summer, President Clinton told King Hussein that he would ask the Congress to relieve Jordan's debt to the United States if Jordan took a bold step toward peace. As the first step on the road to peace, Jordan and Israel signed the Washington Declaration and King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin appeared for the first time together in public last July. It was a historic moment. Many of us sat in the Capitol and marveled as King Hussein and Prime Minister Rabin--two former enemies--stood together before the Congress and spoke publicly about strengthening ties between their nations, about moving toward a comprehensive peace treaty. We were inspired by their courage. We were moved that the two leaders were taking concrete steps to bring their nations together. That they were committing themselves publicly to waging a battle for peace. In response, and consistent with the President's commitment, the Congress forgave a portion--$220 million--of Jordan's debt to the United States. to relieve all of the debt at that time would have been premature. It was, after all, important to measure progress and to give the King an additional incentive to sign a formal peace treaty with Israel. Now, Mr. President, Jordan has signed a formal peace agreement with Israel. Jordan did not wait for other countries in the region to reach an agreement with Israel. It boldly moved forward and signed a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel on its own. Now that Jordan has done its part, the United States needs to make good on the President's commitment to relieve the remainder of its debt to our country. The Jordanian Government has exposed itself to those who would choose war rather than peace with Israel. The Government and the people of Jordan need to believe that they are being supported by the United States. They need to see that the fruits of peace are tangible. Madam President, the administration supports this amendment. Secretary of State Christopher believes it is important to build the confidence of promoters of peace in Jordan and throughout the Middle East. Last week, I spoke to Dennis Ross, the State Department's Middle East negotiator, who was in the Middle East with Secretary Christopher. He conveyed to me his strong belief that approving the remainder of Jordan's debt relief at this time was necessary to build momentum in the peace process and continue to strengthen American credibility in the region. Admittedly, this is a less than ideal solution. Approving this amendment will put additional pressure on our foreign aid spending bill. However, as we review spending cuts, we have to keep in mind long-term American foreign policy and security interests, and reflect on expenses that might be incurred, and lives that might be lost, if the peace process does not move forward in the Middle East. I hope this new commitment will be reflected in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 1996. Relieving Jordan's debt is important for the peace process. A successful conclusion to the peace process after decades of strife is important to U.S. security interests and, hopefully, will avoid the need for large defense expenditures or military involvement down the road. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. amendment no 343 Mr. INOUYE offered amendment No. 343 for Mr. McConnell.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Montana for allowing me just a few minutes to make some remarks, because I must say, because I come from New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, it does not mean that we have less of an interest about species that are in jeopardy, be they animal or flora fauna, than do they in the more remote parts of the country. And this debate, I think, ought to be taking place at a different pace and a different time. We just went through a hearing and a markup on Tuesday in the EPW Committee. It was carried and was going to be presented on the floor. Instead, I have to say that I am surprised that the Senator from Texas, after having won an agreement from the subcommittee to pass the amendment along, suddenly now it is attached to a rescission bill. What is the urgency, Mr. President, of moving this so quickly? Are we willing to say today that we do not want to continue preserving those species that may save lives, that may interest our children and our grandchildren in a particular type of fish, or a particular type of bird, or particular type of animal? I am on the Environment Committee, as is the Senator from Texas. One of the things that I did when we had the oil spill up in Alaska a few years ago was to get up there very quickly and talk to the people in the communities. They were heartbroken because of the threat to the abundant species that existed there, including bald eagles, including sea otters, including seals; grief stricken, Mr. President, grief stricken because it may be the end of a salmon run or a herring run or another bit of marine life around which whole cultures and whole communities were built. So the madness, the urge to get this done so quickly, is something, frankly, I do not understand. And to come along, after we have had a full discussion--and if not full enough, we can continue it--but to rush at this moment into a moratorium that says we cannot do anything, tie the hands behind your back--we had a $2 million rescission; no, let us increase it by another $1 million. I do not know exactly what the Senator from Texas has in mind, but I cannot believe that she or the proponents of this amendment would want to diminish the opportunity to protect a species that might, as we heard from the distinguished Senator from California, aid in fighting breast cancer or another type of disease. I know that there are trees that produce a bark that is used medicinally and very effectively. Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay and unhappiness with the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison to increase the rescission of Fish and Wildlife funding and to restrict any remaining appropriated funds for making any final determinations that a species is endangered or that its habitat is critical. The $2 million rescission already included in the bill will severely jeopardize the Fish and Wildlife Service's activities to administer the Endangered Species Act. It will diminish their ability to protect and recover species, to increase public involvement and to comply with existing court orders. But this amendment, Mr. President, would effectively paralyze them. I must say when I saw this amendment come to the floor, I was very surprised. Just 2 days ago, our subcommittee held an expedited hearing on S. 191, Senator Hutchison's bill, which would put a hold on administration of the Endangered Species Act until it is reauthorized. We expedited that hearing and agreed on holding a markup in good faith, even though some of us on the committee are philosophically opposed to this proposed legislation. Now it appears that the Senator has decided to bypass the committee, despite our willingness to work with her, and bring her proposal straight to the floor. I know that this act is not perfect. It has not been administered in the most effective manner. And we want to fix those problems. But Senator Hutchison's efforts to freeze the Agency in its tracks is no solution. The solution is to do what we began in committee on Tuesday: to seriously review what's right with the act, what's wrong, and what we can do to make it better. Mr. President, the American people support this act. A recent poll found that 77 percent of Americans want to maintain the ESA or even strengthen it. The American people understand that the ESA enables us to take proactive steps before the decline of a vulnerable species is irreversible. They want to save endangered species before key components of our ecosystem are relegated to the walls of natural history museums. we have a moral responsibility to make sure that does not happen. The listing of an imperiled species is necessary to ensure that it receives the protections of the ESA. Each time a species is listed, it sends out a warning signal that the ecosystem is in decline. There are currently 118 species that have been proposed for ESA listing. Senator Hutchison's amendment would render us powerless to protect the future of these 118 threatened species. And for those who might not care about that, I would point out that it also would effectively prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from meeting with landowners and resolving their concerns about the way current policies affect their lives. Mr. President, this amendment accomplishes nothing. Our endangered species will continue to be endangered. The costs of recovery will continue to mount. And the Fish and Wildlife Service will find itself paralyzed to effect any improvements in the administration of this act. Those of us who serve on the subcommittee want to work together in a bipartisan manner to implement real reforms in the Endangered Species Act. Every Member who spoke at our committee's recent hearing on the Endangered Species Act, including the Senator from Texas, said as much. The general consensus following that hearing was that we would try to accomplish that goal--in the spirit of good faith and cooperation. Mr. President, this amendment coming between the subcommittee's positive action on the Senator's bill and the full committee markup expected next Thursday, would make it very difficult--if not impossible--to operate in that spirit. I urge my colleagues to table this amendment, and to support the Environment Committee's efforts to craft a more effective endangered species program. Mr. President, I would have to say I am amused by good friends and colleagues who stand on the floor talking about rhetoric. As the decibels increase and the pace increases, we are talking about perhaps major changes in the ecology of our society. I would not treat this quite this lightly. I hope that we are able to defeat this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when the Senate considered the unfunded mandates bill earlier this year, I voted against it. I am prepared to vote against the final version of that bill now. My concerns about S. 1 were not addressed in conference and, in fact, one could argue that bill comes back to us in worse shape then it left. The conference made two substantive changes in the bill. First, judicial review has been added to an already unwieldy process and, second, the threshold above which CBO must provide cost estimates for private sector unfunded mandates has been reduced from $100 to $50 million. These changes only reinforce my criticism of S. 1 as passed by the Senate in January: The procedural hurdles created by this legislation will only add to the arsenal of dilatory tactics which already have the ability to nuke necessary legislation and destroy public faith in the Congress. Last year, I supported legislation that would have addressed the problem of unfunded mandates in an appropriate and effective manner. That bill, S. 993, would have required Congress to think carefully and critically about the mandates we were about to impose upon State and local governments. We would have to acknowledge the magnitude of the burden before we passed legislation. Congress could no longer hide behind ignorance. I believe this bipartisan effort would have remedied the problem of the Federal Government imposing mandates without thorough consideration of the financial burdens already faced by other levels of government. The pending legislation, however, goes well beyond that. Not only is S. 1 procedurally flawed, it also enshrines the misguided principle and the unjustified presumption that the Federal Government should not impose requirements on the States unless it pays them to carry out the mandate. Supporters of the bill will respond that a simple majority can waive the requirements of this bill; however, the politics of such a waiver make this an unlikely occurrence. Clearly, the presumption is that unfunded mandates are inherently bad. I don't agree with that premise. Many in Washington seem to have forgotten that State and local governments benefit from a clean environment and a healthy work force. I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to act when State and local government don't want to spend the money to prevent pollution or to immunize children. We should be there to stop gun- running across State lines or the spread of HIV-contaminated blood. We have a role in fighting the flood of illegal immigrants across our borders or the flow of people across State lines as a result of benefit shopping. I am proud to represent a State which has some of the toughest environmental laws in the country. New Jersey cares for its disabled. We have tough gun control laws and occupational safety regulations. But these strengths could become a disadvantage to us if Federal standards are weakened or eliminated. I'll provide an example which was only too true for my State just a few years ago. In the late 1980's, hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to New Jersey's economy because of another State's negligence. Raw sewage and medical waste originating from a neighboring State washed up on our beaches. This well-publicized problem not only tarnished by State's reputation--tourism is our largest employer--it cost us millions to clean it up. Federal Government intervention was necessary. An unfunded mandate was imposed upon the polluting State, but it was a necessary mandate and I believe it was proper that it was largely unfunded. Today we are institutionalizing a dangerous precedent: unless the Federal Government pays, States do not have to comply with Federal standards. Many States will have no incentive to try to prevent transborder pollution. Why should a State worry about its neighbors when it could spend that money on its own constituents. Would enough U.S. Senators look with sympathy on those States who are victims of another's pollution so that they would waive the requirements created under this legislation? I hope so, but I have enough doubts that I must vote against this conference report. Why has the Federal Government set standards to prevent States from cutting off food stamps to children or eliminating aid to legal immigrants? Because we know that some States, but for the Federal standards, would do exactly that. We created these standards because we did not want the kind of country where kids in one State would be denied nutritional assistance while the children of another jurisdiction received the benefits of such aid. We did not want a society that would cause some citizens to be disadvantaged merely because they had the misfortune of being born or raised in a State which did not place the same priority on pollution prevention or on caring for poor children. Mr. President, we do need to deal with the problem created when one level of government shifts the cost of programs to another level of government. But we have to do so in a way which is consistent with both the Federal structure of our society and the compassion which powers us as a people. I do not believe this bill is consistent with those characteristics of our country. And I fear that it is simply a precursor of efforts to develop no-strings block grants which could, in the name of flexibility, destroy the ability of all Americans--wherever they live--to count on their Government to provide certain levels of services and meet certain standards of conduct. For me, then, this is just the first step in what I suspect will be a long but ultimately triumphant fight to preserve the Federal nature of our system and the national character of the American experience.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from New Mexico. I would also like to commend my colleague for his strong leadership on this issue. At a time when we must be very prudent in allocating our resources, dual use defense programs, like TRP and Sematech can prove to be a good investment. These programs enable the Department of Defense to competitively leverage Federal dollars with private sector matching funds to better meet our defense--and domestic--needs. If we are serious about balancing the budget and getting our fiscal house in order, then we are going to need to find additional savings in all areas of the Federal budget, including the defense budget. As the defense budget declines, it will become cost prohibitive for the Department of Defense to sustain a separate defense industrial base, which in many cases might very well be duplicative. Programs like TRP and Sematech capitalize on presently available new commercial technologies to meet military needs. In an era of limited resources, these programs enable us to make better use of the funds that are available. The TRP has come under some scrutiny for ineffective management of late. And I would agree that, like most every other program in the Federal Government, TRP could be managed more efficiently. But that is not a reason to cut funding for what is on the whole a good program. Dual-use programs, like TRP and Sematech, allow the Department of Defense to maximize its research and development dollars. For its part, the Department of Defense gets technologies which are critical to our Nation's military needs. While the companies, on the other hand, get technology which will enable them to compete more effectively in the global marketplace.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment because it would ensure that the foreign aid spending reductions in this bill do not come entirely out of programs for Africa. Under the bill reported by Senate Appropriations Committee, $172 million in assistance for Africa was cut. No other region of the world was affected. Senator Leahy and I expressed concern about the reductions in assistance to Africa during the Senate Appropriations Committee consideration of this bill because we thought it was unwise to target all the cuts at one region. During the full committee markup, the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee agreed to address our concern during full Senate consideration. The amendment before the Senate today would do just that. It would spread the burden of the rescissions in the foreign aid program across more regions of the world. It would still rescind $62 million for the African Development Fund. But instead of rescinding $110 million for the Development Fund for Africa--which funds child survival, basic education, health, and environmental programs--the amendment would rescind $110 million from a multitude of programs. It would reduce funding for the soft loan window of the World Bank by $70 million. It would reduce funding for the former Soviet Union--mostly from Russia-- by $18 million. It would reduce $13 million in development assistance. And it would reduce $9 million in aid to the countries of Eastern Europe. While all cuts are painful, the reductions proposed in this amendment are a sound alternative to rescinding $172 million from one of the poorest, most vulnerable regions of the world. Through our foreign aid program, the United States currently spends approximately $1 per person in Africa, far less than we spend on other regions of the world. That is a small investment in the future of democracy and regional stability. It is small amount of assistance to support fast growing export markets. It is small amount to spend to reduce disease, end poverty and human misery, and help create opportunities for the people of Africa. Madam President, it would be unwise to reduce aid only to Africa, and I am glad we have reached an agreement with the chairman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that the 172 million rescissions in foreign aid spending do not target Africa exclusively. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are obviously getting close to closing up business for the day. Over the weekend, I am sure we are going to hear a lot about what took place in these Chambers these last few days, about who was right, who was wrong, who was accused of deception, who was taking the unique responsibility for being the one or the ones who wanted to tell the truth, who wanted to be honest with the American people. The words will fly, Mr. President, at a fairly rapid pace. I think one thing ought to be said, because I have been here now a dozen years. I came out of the business community, and I do not remember the people in the boardrooms where I spent some time, or people in business conferences where I spent a lot of time, or people who shared in the responsibilities in these companies--I very seldom heard a business leader, a CEO, a chairman of the board saying, ``I have been fleecing my customers and I have been doing it for a long time, but we do not have to do anything else.'' Around here, in these last days, I heard people suggest that we ought to tell the American people the truth, that we ought to stop the deception, that we ought to come straight. I do not know who they were talking about. I can tell you I resent it if the accusation includes me and some of the finest people I have ever known who worked hard here trying to do their best, trying to always level with the public. Yes, we could have a difference on either side of the aisle. We could have a difference in the way the information is presented. We could have a difference in the way the slant is tilted. But I do not remember, in my angriest moment with someone with whom I disagreed, saying that they are lying, or saying that they are telling untruths because they disagreed with a position that I took. I have heard rhetoric from the House that says we have been picking the pockets of the American citizens way too long. I do not know who does that, Mr. President. Occasionally, there is someone in this Congress of ours who does commit a dishonest act or who breaks the rules. That is true. But it is wrong to suggest we collectively are doing this purposefully to take advantage of the public. Many are here at wages far less than they might earn in the outside world, and take abuse far more than they might take in the outside world. It is far more disruptive to family life than it would be in the outside world, when you know you can get home for dinner and review your kids' lessons or say hello to your spouse and enjoy some moments of relaxation. It is not possible here. We all talk about the quality of life and how we would like to Minnesota or New Jersey or New York or Idaho, to be sitting here in Washington, which is our workplace for the most part, not our home State and not our house where family exists. So there is always that kind of thing to consider. Therefore, Mr. President, those who serve here are not looking for some particular advantage. I believe that, even, again, with those with whom I most disagree, they are here because they believe that we have a purpose; that this country of ours is such a valuable asset and we are so lucky to live in this Nation that they want to serve and serve honestly. Sometimes the rhetoric escapes and we start talking about things that are nonsense, about how we have been tricking the American people. It is not true. We just had a vote on the balanced budget amendment that lost temporarily, a balanced budget amendment to change our Constitution. There are many who voted against the balanced budget amendment--almost every one--who would like to see life made easier on our citizens and on ourselves by balancing the budget, by getting our House in order. Mr. President, we heard references so many times to the way individuals, businesses, and States conduct their affairs. They say they balance their budgets. Those who suggest that willy-nilly do not know what they are talking about, because the average family is far more in debt because they try to own a house or a piece of property that they feel will be an asset to pass on to future generations, and they leave far more debt when they pass on in a situation like that than is being suggested as laid out in front because of the way we conduct business here. Businesses borrow money constantly. I do not know of any company of size--and I am a student of business, as well as a former business leader. I am considered a pioneer in the computing industry, one whose name is listed in the Data Processing Hall of Fame. It does not compare to my colleague, Bill Bradley's, identification with the Hall of Fame of Basketball, but it is a hall of fame, as small as it may be. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that there were many times when I discussed business problems with leaders and they talked about their borrowing and they talked about their indebtedness and they talked about what they had to do now to plan for the future. State after State, including my own that has a balanced budget requirement, nevertheless, has the opportunity to borrow for capital investments and either put it up as collateral or go to the marketplace for bonds to be paid off over a period of years. We do not have that sensible structure in Federal Government. And that is a point, I think, though discussed many times, that is still not clear. If we in the U.S. Government make the decision to build a building that has a 50-year life and we can build it in 1 year and it costs $1 billion, we charge off $1 billion in that fiscal year. If it were in the business world, it would be written off at the rate of about $20,000 a year. Excuse me, I have not been doing arithmetic enough since I have been out of the business world. But the fact of the matter is, it would be written off over a period of time. We do not do that here. In many ways, our financial house is in far better condition than many here would admit. Mr. President, we were looking for responses from those who supported the balanced budget amendment in relation to Social Security and Medicare. What would happen if we did not use the Social Security trust fund to force a better balance on our books than we have? We asked for those proponents to lay out a budget that would balance; let them do the arithmetic. It never happened, Mr. President, because we pretended that by force feeding the process, that we could achieve something that we would not do on our own even though our constituents sent us here specifically for the purpose of watching out for their interests. I can tell you, Mr. President, that the balanced budget amendment, had it gone into place or if it goes into place, would severely impair life and the economy in the State of New Jersey. We could be looking at tax increases of 17.5 percent to make up for the funds that we would not be getting from the Federal Government. We would lose $2.1 billion a year in funding for Medicaid. We would lose almost $200 million a year in highway trust fund grants. We would lose almost $1 billion a year in lost funding for education, job training, the environment, housing, and other areas. To restate, New Jersey would have to increase State taxes by 17.5 percent across the board to make up for losses in grants. On the jobs side of things, the most critical index, according to the Treasury, by forcing Congress to raise taxes and/or cut spending in a recession, the balanced budget amendment would substantially worsen the effects of economic downturn. During the recession of 1990 to 1992, the unemployment rate in my State of New Jersey rose from 4.9 percent to a peak of 9 percent. Had the balanced budget been in effect, unemployment in New Jersey would have peaked at a much higher level, somewhere, it is estimated, between 9.9 percent and 11.8 percent. Had the balanced budget been in effect, the unemployment rate in New Jersey would have been punitive. Thus, Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment would not have done my State any good. What will do my State good is if all of us get together and work to balance the budget, whether it is in the year 2002 or 2010. The fact is if we put this on an ever-decreasing glidepath from where we are, we will be substantially better off, better off than having a law that would force feed our economy into an unnatural structure that could be the most painful decision that this country has seen, perhaps, in its history. Mr. President, I close by asking the question, where's the beef? Where is the interest by those who propose the balanced budget amendment, into presenting a budget that will, in fact, balance itself, reduce the deficit, ultimately wind up in a zero annual deficit. Let them produce it. I am on the Budget Committee, Mr. President. I am more than willing to work with the distinguished leader of the Budget Committee and the ranking member to try and devise a budget that answers that need. Right now, I do not see a willingness to tackle the problem. I see an intent, rather, to do the politically satisfying or advantageous thing. It is regrettable, Mr. President, that we had the kind of bitter rhetoric that permeated this place in these last couple of weeks. I do not think it does the Congress any good. I do not think it does the institution any good. I do not think it does the country any good. Right now there is chaos in the currency markets across the world. The dollar is dropping rapidly. I think much of it is due to the fact that there was such dire forecasts made here that unless we balance the budget, unless we took this artificial means of dealing with our fiscal responsibilities that catastrophe would fall. I hope that that is not true, Mr. President. As I said earlier, I often disagree with colleagues on the other side, sometimes with colleagues on this side. I really believe that in this body, in this institution, there are people whose will is good, who want to do the right thing. I would not accuse any of those who take a different position of lying to the public, of trying to deceive the citizens of the country. No, Mr. President, I think we ought to cool the rhetoric and get on with our responsibilities. I hope that in the next weeks we will do just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support Senate Resolution 79, the resolution designating March 25, 1995, as Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy. The resolution also asks the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the designated day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. March 25, 1995, marks the 174th anniversary of the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek people from the Ottoman Empire. It is fitting that we celebrate this day together with Greece in order to reaffirm the common democratic heritage of Americans and Greeks. The ancient Greeks forged the very notion of democracy, placing the ultimate power to govern in the people. As Aristotle said, ``If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will best be attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.'' Because the concept of democracy was born in the age of the ancient Greeks, all Americans, whether or not of Greek ancestry, are kinsmen of a kind to the ancient Greeks. America's Founding Fathers drew heavily upon the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our Government. For that contribution alone, we owe a heavy debt to the Greeks. The common heritage which we share has forged a close bond between Greece and the United States, and between our peoples. And it is reflected in the numerous contributions made by present-day Greek- Americans in New Jersey and across the country to our American culture. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution as a tribute to these contributions, past and present, which have greatly enriched American life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to Chief Richard E. Riley who recently retired from the Morris County Prosecutor's Office. Chief Riley retired after a long career in public service. He began his service in 1963 as a patrolman in the Dover Police Department. In 1968, he was appointed as an investigator with the Morris County Prosecutor's Office. In 1980, he was promoted to sergeant, and finally in 1990, he was appointed chief of investigations. Throughout his long and distinguished career, Chief Riley was always known as a scrupulous investigator and a man of great integrity. He was best known for his work in the area of investigations, and received statewide respect for his diligent work in investigating the 1992 murder of Exxon executive Sidney Reso. Chief Riley approached that very public investigation in the same way he approached all his work--with care, with compassion, and with meticulous concern for details. Over the years, Chief Riley has been recognized repeatedly for his hard work and his tireless commitment to the safety of Morris County residents. In 1974, he received a Prosecutor's Citation for Armed Robbery Investigation. In 1981, he received a Unit Command Citation for Gambling Investigation. In 1982, he received a Prosecutor's Command Citation for Narcotics Investigation. He has also been honored with a Good Conduct Award, a Chief's Achievement Award and a Distinguished Service Award. And in 1985, Chief Riley was named Officer of the Year. Mr. President, the retirement of Chief Riley will leave a great void in the Morris County Prosecutor's Office. But I know that his legacy of investigative excellence will live on in the office and throughout Morris County for many years to come. We in New Jersey are very proud to count among our midst men and women like Chief Riley, who are committed to public service, to public safety and to the quality of life in our State. I wish Chief Riley a very restful and exciting retirement, and I personally thank him for all he has done for the people of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for House Concurrent Resolution 20, which would permit the use of the Capitol rotunda to commemorate the Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust. It has now been more than 50 years since Adolf Hitler mounted his systematic effort to destroy the Jewish people. Today, many survivors of the Holocaust are aging or have died. Soon, they will no longer be able to share their first-hand accounts of Hitler's savagery. Now more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to remember the terror of the Third Reich, and to teach our children important lessons about the need for tolerance and the dangers of intimidation. The Days of Remembrance is a week-long commemoration of the Holocaust. On April 27, an international day of commemoration, there will be a ceremony on the Capitol rotunda consisting of speeches, readings, and musical presentations, to honor and remember the 6 million innocent victims of the Holocaust. As a humane and tolerant society, we must stamp on our souls the haunting memories of these victims: men and women, young and old, who were tortured and killed not because of something they did, but simply because of who they were. Mr. President, we are all familiar with the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Our duty to those who died on the trains, in the fields and in the gas chambers, is to make sure that their story is told from generation to generation. We must study and reflect on the atrocities of the Nazis, in order to make sure that this dark chapter of history is never repeated. It is a painful study, Mr. President, but it is the only way we can sanctify the memory of the victims and make sure that their suffering is never forgotten. Mr. President, there is often a temptation to obscure the dark passages to humanity, but we know that we cannot be true to history unless we reveal them. The Days of Remembrance are a time for us to undergo this painful reflection and I laud my colleagues for passing this important resolution.