Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this morning to review and comment on action taken this week by the House of Representatives during consideration of the defense supplemental. I am deeply concerned by the legislation that the House is sending us. It is, in my view, deficient in at least three respects. First, it spends too much money. The administration asked for a $2.6 billion in emergency defense spending to pay for operations already undertaken in the past in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Southwest Asia, Haiti, and Cuba. The House approved that, but it also added an extra $680 million that neither the administration nor the Pentagon requested. Even Defense Secretary Perry has said the Pentagon, and I quote him, ``has higher priority bills that should be funded first,'' and that the Pentagon would seek to reallocate money from existing defense funds in the spring to pay some of the $680 million worth of bills that the House wants to fund immediately. Since there is no urgent need for these unrequested funds, I see no reason to provide them in a supplemental. My first point then, Mr. President, is simply the additional $680 million should be stricken out when the Appropriations Committee considers this legislation. Second, I am not yet persuaded--and I sit on the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee--that all of the $2.6 billion that the administration did ask for ought to be funded necessarily in the supplemental. A supplemental request is supposed to be reserved for unexpected and unanticipated exigencies. However, at least some of the administration's request appears to be for normal or routine or expected expenses, like the no-fly zone over Bosnia and Iraq, which has been underway for years. If we are to really reform the budget process, we have to prevent agencies from low-balling their initial requests because they believe they can always come back and ask for more later in a supplemental. It is kind of a habit that we have gotten into, and I do not think it is a particularly good one. We need to insist that the military, like every other agency, submit budget requests sufficient to cover predictable expenses. And third, I am concerned about the offsets the House used to pay for this supplemental. Now, I agree that we should offset expenditures whenever emergency, which would allow the spending to be added to the deficit, it makes sense to offset as much as we can. It makes sense to cancel or cut programs that are wasteful or lack merit, but I strongly object to some of the cuts that the House made. To begin with, the House of Representatives got about half of its offsets from nondefense programs at a time when it is already moving to make deep cuts in domestic programs. We read about them every day now. The House intends to rescind about $17 billion from nondefense spending in the next few weeks. The domestic side of the budget is getting slaughtered, and I cannot justify taking money from already depleted domestic accounts to pay for defense spending when the defense budget is the only one being protected. We ought not cut domestic programs to provide funding for defense especially when we have not examined carefully every Pentagon program. We ought to, to the extent we can, fund this internally, find the offsets within the Pentagon's own budget. Mr. President, for many years, the defense budget was protected by a wall that prevented the Congress from raiding defense to pay for underfunded domestic programs, and some of the strongest defenders of the so-called budget wall when it protected defense now want to rip it down rather than allow it to protect domestic programs. Members of Congress who supported such a wall must recognize that it works both ways. Just as it kept money from going out of defense to the domestic budget, it should keep funds from being transferred out of domestic and into the defense budget. So I am profoundly bothered by the notion of paying for any of this defense supplemental with cuts in nondefense spending. If offsets are necessary, the Senate ought to examine the Pentagon's budget, make tough decisions and cut funding for lower priority defense programs. Now, I think there are plenty of low-priority programs that exist there, but if the Pentagon does not agree then the threat of internal cuts might give it an incentive to explore other alternatives, and I will give you an example. One is to have our allies pay their fair share of our costs of being represented in those countries where we help provide a defense mechanism for them as well as for the world at large. The bill already contains over $300 million in such contributions. We can and we should get more. That is what happened in the Persian Gulf conflict, and that is what ought to happen here now as well. But, Mr. President, if in the end we cannot find enough outside contributions or internal defense cuts to fully pay for this supplemental, then we ought to declare the remainder an emergency as the law allows. Under the rules of the budget process and common sense, we can, if we must, say that emergency spending should be added to the deficit, and that is what the American public does when they face an emergency in their own lives; when a family member gets sick, they do not deny themselves medical care just because it has to go on a credit card. The same reasoning ought to apply to the Federal Government. And I see no reason to insist on fiscal purity in dealing with this supplemental especially when it is already mathematically unbalanced. As Congressman Obey, the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, pointed out, the supplemental the House passed is balanced only in terms of budget authority. Now, the distinguished occupant of the chair sits on the Budget Committee with me, and we clearly know the difference between outlays and budget authority. In terms of outlays--the actual money that we spend--this supplemental adds $282 million to the deficit this year and $644 million to the deficit each year over 5 years. In terms of fiscal purity, this bill is already sullied, so that no ideological argument can be properly raised against overtly declaring some of this bill an emergency. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the House-passed supplemental, I hope we are going to modify it in ways that I have suggested. I think it is important that the public be aware of what happens when we rely on domestic programs to fund some of the Defense Department's needs-- not that each should not get its fair consideration. But too often the term ``domestic programs'' obscures the real mission that we undertake. When we see these days that child nutrition programs are being either cut or withdrawn, when we see programs for education in our country, a vital part of our development, our competitive opportunities in the future and to stabilize our society, are being cut, in many ways, Mr. President, I think the domestic programs offer us as much by way of defense of what we care about in our country as does the military budget. So as we review this, I do not believe the argument that says we are going to weaken our defenses, we are going to reduce our strength applies. We need to build our strength in our domestic programs as well as our military programs. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to look at this, modify our view on whether or not the House of Representatives supplemental as it is being offered is something that we should accept as is. We ought to make the changes we feel are necessary to provide for both major parts of our budget. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the Concerned Citizens of Bayonne [CCB] on the organization's 25th anniversary. I also want to call special attention to the contributions that Mr. Frank Perrucci has made to the organization and the community. In 1970, Frank and Jean Perrucci, Vinnie Perrucci, Joseph Brache, Sal Covella, Penny Covella, Pete Capitano, John Baccarella, Jean McMahon, and Nicholas Mangelli met at Frank and Jean's home in Bayonne. It was here that they agreed unanimously to form the Concerned Citizens of Bayonne, so that citizens could participate in decisions which affect Bayonne, Hudson County, and New Jersey. No time was wasted. They immediately became involved in the upgrading of the jury system, led the opposition to the taxation of Social Security of pornography, and called attention to the location of a toxic waste facility in Newark Bay. The CCB continuously reaffirms its belief that a strong and vibrant community exists only where its citizens get involved and stay involved. They accomplish this by initiating community efforts to support projects such as building an indoor ice skating rink, keeping parks clean, and supporting programs like Toys for Tots and Pennies for Miss Liberty. They have participated in and led fundraising drives to assist the Bayonne Hospital, the high school football team, Italian earthquake victims, and the starving millions in Ethiopia. Mr. Frank Perrucci, while carving out his own career as a leader with the Laborers' International Union of North America, always found time for others. He served as an aide to Congressmen Dominick Daniels and Joseph LeFante and is a former director of community development in Bayonne. Over the years, as captain of the Catholic War Veterans color guard, he has travelled extensively throughout New Jersey, participating in veterans events and parades. Frank, himself a member of the merchant marine and a soldier during WWII, made sure that his organization always remembered to support American military troops during peacetime and war. During Desert Storm, CCB members regularly corresponded with military personnel overseas, as well as conducted drives to send ``goodies'' and necessities to those supporting democracy so far from home. Aside from being the proud husband of Jean, the father of four wonderful children and seven grandchildren, Frank Perrucci is quoted as saying that the proudest part of his life is serving others through the committed, loyal, and hard-working members of the Concerned Citizens of Bayonne. Therefore, Mr. President, I take special pleasure in standing before you today to thank and congratulate Mr. Frank Perrucci and the members of the Concerned Citizens of Bayonne. They are a special group of people who know what it takes to make a strong community. They have unselfishly committed themselves time after time to keeping Bayonne one of the safest, cleanest, and proudest cities in the United States.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will talk fast.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his courtesy. I also want to commend my senior colleague from New Jersey because, though our arguments are going to be essentially the same, I thought he did his very well. I want to talk about this, the notion of separating the Federal budget into capital and operating budgets, and only requiring that the operating budget be balanced, which is what I hear being said here. I come out of the business community. I served as CEO of a major American corporation and got my financial experience there. So as I approach this problem, I see it, perhaps, from a moderately different perspective than some. Mr. President, I strongly support cutting wasteful spending and reducing the deficit, but I have serious concerns about putting rigid rules for fiscal policy into the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution should be defeated. However, if we are to have such a constitutional requirement, it should at least establish rules that recognize simple and practical realities. House Joint Resolution 1, unfortunately, does not do this. By continuing commingling of capital and operating budgets, it would incorporate budgetary procedures in our Constitution--the permanent law of the land--that no aware businessperson would ever think about adopting for their business. It flies in the face of common sense and standard business practice. Mr. President, how many times have we heard the same argument: If ordinary Americans can balance their family budgets, if State governments can balance their budgets, and if businesses can balance their budgets, why can not the Federal Government? It sounds good, Mr. President. And the real answer is that, yes, families, States and businesses balance their budgets, principally because they are able to borrow for long-term investments and spread that investment over a period of time so it is accounted for in relation to the life of the asset as it is used. Families borrow money to buy a house or a car. For most families the achievement of an asset base is almost exclusively because they are able to mortgage a piece of property, pay it off over a period of time, and accumulate some capital. States borrow for capital projects that will provide long-term benefits, like roads and bridges. And, every day, businesses borrow to invest in plant and equipment to make them more competitive. If they did not, most would have no future, especially in today's increasingly technological age. They know they need to make investments in the future. That is why they do not balance all receipts and expenditures-- they balance only their operating budgets. By contrast, Mr. President, House Joint Resolution 1 in its current form lumps the capital and operating budgets together, and makes no distinction between investments and operational expenses. As a former CEO of a major cooperation, I can attest that this approach violates the most basic principles of budgeting in the private sector. Virtually no major business in America commingles their capital and operating budgets. Nor do State governments, and for good reason. Mr. President, too much borrowing is a dangerous thing, that is clear. But borrowing per se is not an evil thing. In fact, it is often the most appropriate way to finance long-term investments. To illustrate the point, let us consider a town that is trying to attract investment by high technology companies, but which lacks the schools needed to support such companies. If the town cannot afford to build new schools, its only option would be to borrow. By doing so, and building those schools, the town would promote economic growth, improve the quality of life for years, and spread the costs among all the generations who would benefit. In other words, it would be a win-win situation for everybody. But now let us assume that this town must live under House Joint Resolution 1. What would happen? The answer is: absolutely nothing. The town could not afford the new schools. It would not attract high technology investment. Jobs would be lost. And the town's long-term future could be threatened. All in all, it would be a lose-lose situation for everybody. Well, Mr. President, the fate of that town is really a metaphor for what could happen to our country under a balanced budget amendment. Any item that cannot be paid for by today's taxpayers will never be built-- even if any borrowed funds would be repaid many times over, and even if the economy would benefit substantially by the investment. Mr. President, such a constitutional bias against long-term investment is especially troubling since our nation has long underinvested in our infrastructure. History has shown that investment in infrastructure is directly related to productivity. That is an economic reality that our competitors well understand, but which we have been ignoring. In fact, of the G-7 nations, the United States ranks at the bottom for infrastructure investment as a percentage of GNP. Japan spends three times more on infrastructure investment than the United States. The Japanese recognize that to stay competitive they need an efficient transportation system. To match Japan's investment level for just 1 year, we would need to invest over $250 billion in infrastructure. Mr. President, as we meet here today, almost one-fourth of America's highways are in poor or mediocre condition. Another 36 percent are rated only fair. One in five of the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient, meaning that weight restrictions have been set to limit truck traffic. There are unacceptable flight delays at 23 of the Nation's major airports. If no capacity improvements are made, 33 of the Nation's major airports will experience unacceptable delays by the year 2002. The effects of poor roads and limited air traffic capacity cost our economy $45 billion annually. As we move into the 21st century, which will demand substantial infrastructure investment, we are laying the groundwork for economic disaster. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have been arguing recently that we ought to shift power from Washington, and rely more on State governments to set policy. So it's instructive to see how State governments budget their resources. And the answer is: They borrow to invest. Take my State of New Jersey. Some of our Governors have pointed to our State's balanced budget requirement, and said the Federal Government should adopt a similar limitation. But operating budget. It does not prohibit borrowing for investments. In fact, between 1960 and 1992, State debt increased from $914 million to almost $20 billion. That works out to over $2,500 for each State resident. Mr. President, balanced budget requirements in other States contain similar provisions for capital budgeting. So those of my colleagues who routinely proclaim the superior wisdom of the States should not have to think twice about voting for this amendment. It is entirely consistent with State practices. Mr. President, investments in our infrastructure are critical to our ability to compete in the global economy and to maintain our country's standard of living. But that investment would be impossible under this balanced budget amendment, which requires today's taxpayers to pay for benefits that only future generations will receive. That does not make sense. And to put this kind of misguided policy into the Constitution, where it would handcuff our economy in perpetuity, would be irresponsible. Mr. President, we are talking about the long-term future of our economy. We are talking about the future of our children and grandchildren. I am thinking of my new granddaughter, Mollie, who was born just a couple of weeks ago--and all the children born in New Jersey this year. I want them to have as good a life as they possibly can. And I want our Nation to make the investments necessary to make that happen. That is not going to be possible if the Constitution establishes budget rules that create a bias against long-term investment and fly in the face of common sense, established business practices, and State budgetary practices. Mr. President, capital budgeting works for America's businesses. It works for America's families. It works for State governments. It should be incorporated into this balanced budget amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to vote against the motion to table the Johnston amendment. Mr. President, in my view, courts should not be allowed to enforce the balanced budget amendment by raising taxes, cutting benefits, or otherwise involving themselves in Federal budgetary policy. We live in a democracy. And the power to tax and spend should be granted only to those who are accountable to the public. Our Nation was founded on the principle of no taxation without representation. It is not time to turn back now. Unfortunately, Mr. President, unless amended, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that is before us today threatens to give the courts unlimited power to raise taxes and cut The Johnston amendment would ensure that this power could be exercised only if explicitly authorized by the Congress. Frankly, Mr. President, I do not even think that Congress should be allowed to give courts the power to increase taxes as a means of enforcing this constitutional amendment. Decisions about taxing and spending should be made by elected officials, and those officials should not be allowed to avoid accountability for those decisions by delegating that power to the judiciary. So, Mr. President, I seriously considered voting to table the Johnston amendment because it does not go far enough to limit judicial power, and I suspect that some of my colleagues will vote to table the Johnston amendment on that basis. However, I have decided to vote against the motion to table since, although the Johnston amendment does not go far enough, it at least would put some limits on the judiciary's taxing and spending powers under the proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Flow Control Act. The Flow Control Act will overturn a 1994 Supreme Court decision and give State and local governments the authority to control the flow of solid waste under specific circumstances. The Supreme Court decision, if allowed to stand, could result in chaos in communities in virtually all of the States where flow control authority is currently in place and constitutes a critical component of strategies to manage waste. My legislation provides that State and local governments, not the Federal Government, will decide whether to use flow control authority. The bill I am introducing today contains the provisions of title II of S. 2345 which were negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee and passed the House. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Senate floor because of concerns regarding another issue in the bill on the last day of the Congress last October. It was endorsed last year by all those parties faced with the responsibility of disposing of solid waste. While there are technical problems with the bill, it incorporates the bulk of the agreement worked out last year. I intend to work with all of the parties to address these remaining technical issues. On May 16, 1994, in a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Carbone versus Clarkstown that a New York municipality could not require that garbage generated in the locality be sent to a designated waste management facility. The Court held that a Clarkstown, NY, flow control ordinance interfered with interstate commerce and deprived out-of-State firms access to the local trash market. The Constitution provides that only the Federal Government may regulate commerce among the States unless it specifically delegates this authority to them. The court's ruling held that this power had not been granted by Congress to the States. If not reversed, this decision will have a significant effect on the ability of State and local governments to manage garbage. Historically, State and local governments have had the responsibility for municipal solid waste management. This is recognized in the Nation's solid waste management law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA. In RCRA, the Congress found that collection and disposal of garbage is primarily a function for State and local governments. To foster this function, RCRA requires EPA to provide assistance in the development and implementation of State solid waste management plans. States are encouraged to develop statewide solid waste management plans. Before EPA approves a plan, it must find that the plan identifies the responsibilities of State, regional, and local governments and has provided for the establishment of such State regulatory powers as is necessary to implement the plan. It's clear from RCRA that Congress intended that State and local governments have the authority necessary to manage solid waste. My bill authorizes, but doesn't require, State and local governments to use flow control authority. According to the Congressional Research Service, 43 States, including New Jersey, either utilize flow control authority or have authorized local governments to use flow control for waste management. Flow control laws have been in place in New Jersey since 1979 and control all of the nonhazardous solid waste in the State's 567 municipalities and 21 counties. Flow control has been a significant part of New Jersey's ability to build an infrastructure to handle the 14 million tons of solid waste requiring disposal annually. Collectively, this infrastructure represents a capital investment of over $2 billion. New Jersey's recycling programs also are dependent on revenues received for use of New Jersey waste management facilities. The Supreme Court decision threatens this authority, undercuts the roles of State and local governments in solid waste management and negates the planning process contemplated by the Congress in RCRA. It would impose a radical change in the way solid waste is managed in the United States. The Carbone decision could hamper solid waste management efforts in three ways. First, the decision makes it impossible for cities to guarantee a steady stream of waste to waste disposal and processing facilities. Without this guaranteed steady stream of garbage, communities will be unable to secure financing to build solid waste management facilities. This threatens New Jersey's program to become solid waste self-sufficient by the end of the decade. It also threatens New Jersey's existing program to restrict exports of garbage without approval by the State. In addition, localities would lose the revenue generated by garbage disposal at municipal facilities as garbage flowed to other facilities. This would nonprofitable waste management activities such as recycling and household hazardous waste programs. We need to increase recycling efforts. But the loss of flow control authority threatens existing efforts and makes an expansion of recycling programs less likely. Local governments will be forced to increase taxes to pay for the costs of these imported solid waste programs. Finally, existing bonds used to finance waste management facilities are at risk if localities cannot send an adequate level of garbage to the facility to generate revenues to pay off the bonds. If localities cannot send an adequate level of garbage to a facility to generate the revenue needed to pay off the bonds, they face default and the affected communities face higher taxes. The Supreme Court decision already is having an adverse effect on local governments. Moody's Investors Services, a bond rating service, is reviewing the bond rating for 100 solid waste facilities dependent on flow control. Facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, and Wisconsin where flow control ordinances are facing court challenges are at particular risk of having their bonds devalued or degraded. The bond rating for the Lancaster County Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Authority has been lowered and the rating for the Camden County Pollution Control Authority was placed on a credit watch. A number of solid waste facilities already have been cancelled or stalled because Congress has failed to act to authorize flow control. The flow control provision takes a balanced approach to addressing the concerns raised by the Supreme Court decision. It is intended to give State and local governments flow control authority under certain circumstances while requiring that local communities use a competitive designation process in making flow control decisions to ensure that free market competition is a component of flow control efforts. The provision has four major components. First, it protects all existing flow control arrangements where flow control had been used to designate solid waste management facilities prior to May 15, 1994. Second, it grants authority to States and local governments to institute additional flow control authority for: recyclables which have been voluntarily surrendered to the government, and municipal solid waste generated from household, commercial, industrial and institutional sources, as well as incinerator ash and construction and demolition debris if such waste had been flow controlled under a State or local law, ordinance, solid waste management plan or legally binding provision prior to May 15, 1994 or the local government had committed to the designation of one or more waste management facilities for the transportation, management or disposal of waste and had made a designation within 5 years of the enactment of this section. Third, it provides that flow control authority can only be used if the community has a program to remove recyclables from the solid waste stream in accordance with State law or a local solid waste management plan. Recyclable materials are materials which have been separated, or diverted at the point of generation, from municipal solid waste. This language does not require materials to be separated at the point of generation because some recycling operations have multiple sorting arrangements some of which may occur after the point of generation. The language in this bill ensures that such multiple sorting operations will be considered recycling. Fourth, it requires that when a local government decides to implement flow control authority, it undertake a competitive designation process which considers the facilities and services which the private sector can provide. Local governments in states other than New Jersey would also have to undertake a determination regarding whether they needed flow control to manage their waste. This competitive designation process requires the government to establish specific criteria to be used to select facilities and also compare alternatives when designating a facility for flow control. The process also provides for public participation during the selection process. At the same time, it allows State and local governments to retain final decision making authority over most waste disposal decisions. A process is established which allows a Governor to certify that the State has a competitive process which satisfies this requirement. Mr. President, I know some have expressed concern that flow control legislation will allow local governments to establish uneconomical monopolies on solid waste management. I believe that market competition can reduce the costs of solid waste management and, in turn, individual property taxes. That's why my legislation requires a competitive designation process. Municipal solid waste is a State and local government responsibility but doesn't have to be carried out by these governments. There are numerous examples of successful efforts to privatize government operations. This bill will bring the pressure of the free market to bear on solid waste decisions and hopefully lead to the most efficient operation providing relief to local taxpayers. I want to make clear what this bill does not do. It does not tell State and local governments how to manage waste. Decisions on how to manage garbage and where to cite management facilities are not Federal responsibilities. These decisions have been and continue to be issues for local governments to decide, subject to State permits. The provision does not require State and local governments to use flow control authority. Again, this decision is left to these governments. The provision leaves State and local governments with the same authority they've had other than dealing with flow control to address solid waste. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed concern about the effect that unfunded mandates can have on State and local governments. I share this concern. But if we fail to act to overturn this Supreme Court decision, we could significantly increase the costs to local governments of solid waste management just as if the Congress had imposed a costly unfunded mandate on these governments. We should be giving State and local governments wide latitude to address solid waste management, particularly because the Federal Government does not provide assistance for State and local solid waste management programs. The legislation I have developed has been endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, and hundreds of local communities across the country. Mr. President, we cannot expect State and local governments to manage solid waste as contemplated by RCRA if we fail to provide those governments with the tools to ensure that properly sized facilities to manage the waste are constructed. My legislation merely overturns the Supreme Court decision and provides State and local governments with the tools they need to manage solid waste. It maintains the status quo and avoids the radical change in solid waste management which would result from the Supreme Court decision. The Congress must deal with the ambiguities that flow from the Supreme Court decision soon. State and local governments need to discharge their responsibilities for solid waste disposal. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of the Flow Control Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, an October 7, 1994 letter signed by all parties in support of the bill, and a number of articles discussing the adverse effect the Supreme Court decision is having on local communities be included in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize February as Black History Month and to honor the rich cultural heritage of African-Americans in my State of New Jersey. In the arts or letters, history or politics, business or education, New Jersey's African- American community has made a strong and lasting impact on our Nation's culture. We in New Jersey are very proud that so many great figures in history have called our State home. This morning, in honor of Black History Month, I would like to call the Senate's attention to four distinguished African-Americans who made major contributions to my State and our country. First, Mr. President, I would call your attention to Jessie Redmon Fauset, the seventh child born to Redmon Fauset, an African Methodist Episcopal minister in Camden, NJ. Jessie grew up in poor circumstances, but her family made education a top priority, and in 1905 she went on to become the first black woman in the country elected to Phi Beta Kappa. After graduating, Ms. Fauset taught high school French for many years, before becoming literary editor of the Crisis, an NAACP publication that played a central role in the Harlem renaissance. In addition to her work as an editor, Ms. Fauset was also a successful novelist. Her initial motivation for becoming a novelist was her belief that African-Americans were not being portrayed accurately in black fiction. Her work did paint a more accurate picture, and as a result, she is still read by those who want to understand African- American life. Second, Mr. President, while many do not know it, the great actress and singer Melba Moore is a New Jersey native and a product of New Jersey schools. Ms. Moore grew up in Newark, where she attended Arts High School and majored in music, following in the footsteps of other prominent musicians, including Sarah Vaughan. After high school, Melba Moore attended Montclair State Teachers College and worked as an elementary school music teacher. She loved her students, but her heart was on the stage. Ms. Moore soon left teaching and began wowing Broadway crowds with her amazing voice and her brilliant sense of humor. Ms. Moore made her Broadway debut in ``Hair,'' where she attracted widespread attention as the first black lead of any of the Broadway ``Hair'' companies around the world--and in many people's opinion, the best. Melba Moore once said, ``I want to give black people something to look up to, an image they can be proud of and kids can emulate.'' She certainly has done that. Third, Mr. President, we in New Jersey are very proud to include abolition leader William Still as one of our own. William Still was the son of two former slaves who escaped from the Eastern Shore of Maryland to Burlington County, NJ, in the early 19th century. As a young married man, Mr. Still found a job at the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery. He soon became a leader in the underground railroad and began to aid fugitives from slavery, offering many of them room and board in his home. One of the former slaves passing through to Canada turned out to be William Still's own brother. Mr. Still was so affected by that discovery that he began to keep careful records of all the former slaves who passed through Philadelphia and New Jersey. In 1872, Mr. Still turned these records into a thorough and compelling book, which continues to be one of the most influential records of the underground railroad movement. William Still's legacy was not just the many lives he saved through the underground railroad; it is also the timeless chronicle he left of his efforts and those of others who helped fugitive slaves escape to Canada. Finally, Mr. President, a spirit of social activism also drove Paul Robeson, a Princeton, NJ, native, who achieved fame as an all-American football player at Rutgers University and later attained worldwide recognition as an actor and singer. In an interview, Paul Robeson once described his goals this way: If I can teach my audience who know almost nothing about [my people], to know [them] through my songs and through my roles . . . then I will feel that I am an artist, and that I am using my act for myself, for my race, for the world. Anyone who had the fortune to hear Paul Robeson sing a spiritual, anyone who saw his unparalleled performance of ``Othello,'' anyone who heard him speak so passionately about the ills of segregation and of poverty, knows that in his long and fulfilling life, Paul Robeson, the son of a former slave, changed all of us, black and white alike, by sharing his passion for justice and for equality. Mr. President, there are countless other African-American heroes who hail from New Jersey: poets and scientists, entertainers and political activist. And there are uncounted others who may never be known beyond their families or their neighborhoods, but who have lived their lives with dignity and contributed a basic decency and distinction to our State. Let me just say in closing, that Black History Month should be a time for reflection; a time to reflect on the accomplishments of African- Americans throughout this country and throughout our history, accomplishments that often were made in the face of racism, of poverty, and unequal opportunity. It should be a time to increase our understanding of African-American history and culture, and a time to reaffirm our understanding of our cultural diversity, our commitment to equality, and our support of racial justice.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of cutting wasteful spending and closing tax loopholes. I also rise in opposition to this balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I rise in strong support of fiscal discipline, but in opposition to a fiscal straitjacket that could cripple our economy and possibly even cause a depression. I rise in strong support of balancing our operating budget, but in opposition to using the Social Security trust fund to do it. I rise in support of a pay-as-you-go approach to the Government's operating expenses, but in opposition to an amendment that ignores the fundamental principles of capital budgeting under which virtually all businesses and States operate. And I rise in strong support of holding Congress accountable for deficit spending, but in opposition to giving unelected judges the power to raise taxes and to cut Social Security benefits. Mr. President, I know that very deep public concerns have led to the consideration of this amendment. The American people have made it quite clear that they want to do more to cut wasteful spending, and I agree. We have made some progress, but there is still far too much waste from top-heavy Government bureaucracies to farm subsidies, the B-2 bomber, star wars, the space station, and a variety of special interest tax loopholes. We should do better. Americans have every right to be angry about the deficits and the waste that contributes to it. Unfortunately, the balanced budget amendment is not a magic bullet that is going to kill the deficit. I only wish it were. We must be frank with the American people. This amendment will not cut a dime of spending or close a single tax loophole. As many of my colleagues have urged on this floor, it is critical that before this amendment is approved, its proponents should tell the American people how this is going to get the job done. Unfortunately, so far, we have seen very little inclination to do so. Proponents do not want to tell the people that taxes for ordinary Americans could skyrocket. They do not want to tell the people that Social Security benefits could be slashed. They do not want to tell the people about lost Medicare services or fewer FBI agents or fewer border guards, or weakening of immigration enforcement. Mr. President, are these kinds of drastic consequences really likely? Let us just take a look at the numbers. Proponents of this amendment claim that they can balance the budget while increasing military spending and cutting taxes for the very wealthy. But according to an analysis by the staff of the Budget Committee, to accomplish that and meet the Government's existing commitments to retirees and Medicare, you would have to cut everything else literally 50-percent. Think about that for a moment, Mr. President: A 50-percent cut in law enforcement, a 50-percent cut in education, a 50-percent cut in immigration enforcement, a 50-percent cut in job training. The people in my State of New Jersey would pay a very high price for this amendment, especially if it is adopted in conjunction with other items in the so-called Contract With America. According to a study by the Department of Treasury, New Jersey would lose almost $1 billion annually for programs like education, job training, environmental protection, and housing. We would lose another $200 million for highways. And to make up for these and other cuts, State taxes would have to increase by 17.5 percent across the board, 17.5 percent. Our Governor has been working very hard to reduce the tax burden on the citizens within our State. Her target is 30 percent. And with this change, we could be looking at a 17.5 percent increase in taxes. The balanced budget amendment also could wreak havoc on our State's economy. There is a study by a well-respected organization, the Wharton econometrics group, or WEFA, as they are known, which analyzed how the amendment would affect the economy in the year 2003. According to WEFA, the amendment would mean that more than 178,000 people would lose their jobs and the unemployment rate would increase by almost 5 percent and personal incomes would decline by about 12 percent. Again, Mr. President, these are figures from a well-respected, nonpartisan research organization and they should at least give us serious pause. I wonder if the American people have any idea that we are talking about these kinds of drastic steps. I doubt it. And one reason is that amendment proponents have kept the public in the dark. They refuse to say what will be necessary if this amendment passes. Why? Because the public would turn it down and it would remove this kind of hide-and-seek cover that is being used to present this deception, to suggest that the way we are going to solve our problems is by some formula change to our Constitution which has as its structure the separation of powers and the responsibility for each one of those divisions of Government. No, Mr. President, what we are trying to do is escape by this the responsibility that each of us took when we took our oath under the Constitution to protect our public and the Constitution of the United States. What we are doing is we are seeing a duck-for-cover tactic that I do not think, in the final analysis is, A, going to work and, B, going to answer the problems. Unfortunately, by the time the public learns what this amendment will really do, it may be too late. That, in fact, is the admitted strategy of its proponents, and it is outrageous and abhorrent as a way to debate an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We should be honest not only about the cuts and tax increases that are likely to result from this amendment, but also about the way the amendment would hamstring critical efforts to stimulate the economy during serious recessions. When the economy suffers a cyclical downturn, tax revenues go down, and spending for unemployment benefits and other items go up. So the deficit increases. Under this amendment, Congress would then have to make up the difference with measures that will stifle the economy even further. That is not good economic policy, and it will have extremely serious consequences for ordinary Americans. It will mean lost jobs and lost wages and, quite possibly, could send us into another Great Depression before we would know what hit us. Having lived through the Depression as a child, I can tell you, that is something to avoid like the plague. Let me discuss another aspect of this amendment that will take us backward. The amendment proposes to balance the budget by raiding the Social Security trust fund. Social Security represents a sacred trust between the Government and our citizens. Often, it is the mainstay of retirees. We have made a commitment, virtually a contract, with the men and women who critical that we keep it off budget. If Congress spends too much on welfare or the military or farm programs, or if we give too many tax breaks to the wealthy, why should Social Security beneficiaries have to suffer as a result? They earned their benefits. They paid into that fund, and it is wrong to make them pay for Congress' overspending. Just as it is wrong to include Social Security in the budget, it is also wrong to commingle the capital and operating budgets. Mr. President, how many times have we heard the same line: ``If ordinary Americans can balance their family budgets, if State governments can balance their budgets, and if businesses can balance their budgets, why can't the Federal Government?'' It is a good question. The real answer is that families, States, and businesses balance their operating budgets most of the time. But they also borrow for long-term investments. Families borrow to buy a house. They borrow to buy a car. States borrow for capital projects that will benefit future generations. Every day, individuals borrow to invest in their future by taking student loans. Every day, if they did not, most would have no future, especially in today's increasingly technological age. That is why they do not balance all receipts and expenditures. They balance only their operating budgets. By contrast, Mr. President, this amendment lumps the capital and operating budgets together and makes no distinction between investments and operational expenses. This ignores the basic standards of budgeting under which virtually every business in America operates. As a former CEO of a major public corporation, Mr. President, I can attest to that. Commingling the capital and operating budgets threatens to rob us of investments that are critical to our Nation's future. Mr. President, investments are necessary in our Nation's roads, in our bridges, in our airports, in our air traffic control systems, investments in the information superhighway, and the technology of tomorrow. To ignore these kinds of investments is to ignore our own future. We hear it said many times that if we do not have the balanced budget amendment, we are delegating to our children and future generations huge obligations to repay debt, interest, and principal. Mr. President, as all know, if you do not make investments in tomorrow, that really deprives our children and our grandchildren of opportunities to learn, to earn, to work, to develop. That is when the real penalty to our children and grandchildren is going to come into place. And we can do something about it. We can reduce our spending, and we can proceed to a closer balance of our budgets. We have seen in the last few years, with the President's leadership, we have been able to substantially cut our annual deficit, somewhere around a half-trillion dollars over the 3-year period as contemplated. This amendment also violates a fundamental principle upon which our Nation was founded, and that is the principle of no taxation without representation. The balanced budget amendment is intended to encourage the Congress and the President to agree on measures to eliminate the deficit, but what happens if the two branches disagree? What happens if notwithstanding the amendment the budget is still not in balance? The answer most likely at least as presently designed is that the courts eventually would step in to implement the constitutional requirement. That could mean not only cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and other Federal benefits but substantial tax increases. Some proponents of a balanced budget amendment may say that that is not their intent, but the courts will not be able to rely on such claims. First, there is real disagreement among amendment proponents, and some insist the courts must enforce the amendment. More importantly, there is nothing in the amendment itself that seeks to preclude the courts from enforcing the amendment's provisions. This contrasts starkly with other versions of a balanced budget amendment. And so the obvious question for the courts will be if the amendment is not intended to preclude judicial enforcement, why does it not include an explicit statement to that effect? Mr. President, the court's power to interpret and enforce the Constitution has been well established since the famed case of Marbury versus Madison. That long established power is not likely to be relinquished. So, Mr. President, the threat of judicial taxation under a balanced budget amendment is not hypothetical; it is very real. And that is not just my opinion. Legal experts of all political stripes agree. For example, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has testified that ``Judicial enforcement of the proposed balanced budget amendment would necessarily plunge judges into the heart of the taxing, spending and budgetary process.'' Similarly, the conservative former Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, who also opposes the balanced budget amendment, has warned that the amendment could lead to tax increases mandated by unelected, lifetime-tenured judges. In his words, ``The judiciary would have effectively assumed a considerable degree of control over the fiscal affairs of the United States. That outcome cannot be desired by anyone, including the courts.'' Mr. President, over 200 years ago, this country was born after citizens were burdened with stiff tax increases imposed by distant elite rulers who did not represent the people and who were unaccountable to them. The rallying cry of our oppressed forefathers was clear and compelling, and that same rallying cry applies to this amendment--no taxation without representation. I say it again: No taxation without representation. It is permanently embedded in the earliest of our schoolchildren. They know about that episode in American history. They know the impact that had in the creation of this wonderful democracy of ours. Mr. President, it is bad enough that ordinary Americans are now paying an unfair portion of the tax burden, but that burden may get a lot heavier when judges inherit the task of balancing the budget. After all, the judiciary is the branch of Government that by design is most insulated from the public. In fact, judges are supposed to ignore public opinion. Mr. President, if we think the American people are angry today, just wait. Wait until they get hit with a huge tax increase by a district court judge who they have never heard of, never voted for, and they will never be able to vote out of office. The reaction will make the famous Boston insurrection look really like a tea party. I know that some amendment proponents are convinced that the courts will not intervene to enforce this amendment. Some have pointed to the doctrines of standing or justiciability and conveniently assume that these old doctrines would apply to a newly adopted constitutional amendment. But supporters of the amendment cannot have it both ways. If this amendment really will force Congress to reduce the deficit, who is going to force us if not the courts? After all, Congress has already passed laws to force itself to balance the budget, but without an effective enforcement mechanism we simply sidestepped our own law. And now amendment proponents assure us that the same evasion will not be possible under a constitutional amendment. But just as prohibition did not stop drinking because it was unenforceable, a balanced budget will not stop spending if courts are impotent to enforce it. I find it absolutely astounding to hear amendment proponents argue that the courts would never enforce this amendment. We are talking about an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, not a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. Can the proponents really believe that the balanced budget amendment is nothing more than a meaningless scrap of paper that cannot be enforced? Could they really be that cynical? I do not think so, Mr. President. And I do not think the courts will either. As Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork concluded, the courts will not presume that this is a meaningless and utterly unenforceable scrap of paper. To the contrary. And that is why the threat of judicial taxation is so real. Mr. President, there is no need to rely on the judiciary to reduce the deficit. Congress could do it. We could already made significant progress which I have talked about earlier. Consider what happened over the past 15 years. In 1981, the deficit was $79 billion, but then President Reagan's huge military buildup, combined with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, led to massive borrowing on an unprecedented scale. By 1992, Republican policies had increased the deficit from $79 billion to $290 billion. Since President Clinton began to reverse those policies, however, there has been a dramatic improvement. The deficit this year will be about 40 percent smaller than in President Bush's last year. For the first time in a decade we will have reduced the deficit for 3 consecutive years. The number of Federal employees is the lowest since the Kennedy administration. And though much remains to be done, we have shown that it does not take a constitutional amendment to reduce the deficit in a meaningful way. The irony, Mr. President, is that passing the balanced budget amendment actually will make it far less likely that Congress will balance the budget any time soon. This amendment does not require a balanced budget until the year 2002. Meanwhile, Members who vote for the amendment will be able to point to their vote as evidence of their supposed commitment to fiscal discipline. I called it a coverup, and I use the same term now. What do you want from me? I voted for a balanced budget. Yes; I did not do my share by cutting expenses properly or balancing revenues with expenses, but I did vote after all for a balanced budget amendment. It is hide and seek. Hide the mission and seek the culprit. Meanwhile, Members who will have voted for the amendment can draw a degree of satisfaction, not for the job done but for escaping responsibility. If you can say that you voted for a balanced budget, why bother to antagonize constituents by cutting their benefit programs or raising taxes? There is far less incentive to make those hard choices. Mr. President, we should not play games with the American people. We do not want to shift, or should not shift, the burden of our responsibilities to the judiciary. Let us not put off the hard decisions for another 7 years. Let us take personal responsibility for the problem and make those tough choices now. In conclusion, Mr. President, I strongly support cutting wasteful spending and reducing our deficit. I want to work with my colleagues to actually cut the spending and close tax loopholes. This balanced budget proposal does not help reach that goal. Its proponents refuse to spell out what steps they would actually take to reduce spending. Whose benefits will be cut and whose taxes will go up? But one thing we do know for sure. The impact on our Nation could be disastrous. It could hamstring our ability to respond to economic and other emergencies, undermine our entire Social Security system, rob us of investments for our future, and allow unelected and unaccountable judges to impose huge tax increases on ordinary Americans. Mr. President, this amendment could go down as one of the most tragic mistakes ever made by this Nation. I hope that my colleagues will face up to the reality of the situation. As has been said before, you can run but you cannot hide. That is what happens if we pass this amendment without detailing how it is that we are going to balance their budget and how it is that we are going to deal with the responsibility and maintain it where it belongs, in the House and in the Senate. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reject it. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Frank E. Rodgers, who may well have set a record that will stand forever as the longest serving mayor in the history of the United States. Mayor Rodgers has 58 years of experience in public service. He served for 48 years as the mayor of Harrison, NJ. a mayor in the history of the United States. That would be impressive enough by itself. But even while he was serving as mayor, Frank Rodgers also found the time to hold several other pubic service appointments. He served as secretary to the New Jersey Racing Commission between 1963 and 1964. He served as clerk to the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County from 1964 to 1982. And he served as a member of the New Jersey Highway Authority from 1976 to 1978. In 1978, he was elected to the New Jersey State Senate where he served until 1983. And from 1984 to 1994, Mayor Rodgers served as a commissioner of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority. Mr. President, who could help but be in awe of this committed public servant? Who could help but wonder how he stayed so popular for so long? The answer is actually quite simple. Mayor Rodgers has devoted his life to the people of New Jersey. He has doggedly pursued our vital interests, although in the time he served as mayor, those interests have changed dramatically. When Mayor Rodgers was first elected in 1946, America had just won World War II. Mayor Rodgers was swept into office on a veteran's ticket, and he focused, in his first term, on post-war concerns. Over the years, Mayor Rodgers continued to respond to the needs of his constituents, whether they were young or old, veterans or new immigrants. More recently, he has proved adept at tackling more contemporary issues, including transportation, crime, and economic development. Mr. President, I believe that we can all learn a great lesson from Mayor Rodgers, a gracious statesman who faced Harrison voters 29 times without a defeat. Over the last five decades, Mayor Rodgers has developed a close working relationship with the people of Harrison. He did so by listening to their concerns, responding to their needs, and always sticking to his word. Those are characteristics that all of us, in the private and public sectors, could learn a lot from. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last year I cosponsored the Kempthorne-Glenn legislation, S. 993, to deal with the unfunded mandates problem. Today, I will vote against the pending legislation, S. 1, but I want to reiterate my support for the sensible, workable proposal offered by Senator Levin. Had it been adopted, the Levin substitute would have forced the Congress to review any imposition of new, unfunded costs on the States and localities, but would not have tied us up in a procedural nightmare when we needed to address important national interests. Last year's bill was built on a bipartisan consensus. It was rooted in the realization that the Federal Government had mistreated States in two fundamental ways. First, the Federal Government had, too causally and too often, imposed mandates without thorough consideration of the financial burdens State and local governments already face. And, second, the Federal Government had too frequently told the States what to do without giving them the resources and the flexibility to do it. No one denies that problems resulted. No one denies that solutions need to be found. But if I were to characterize last year's bill, I would say it was designed to sensitize us to the problem. To require us to think carefully and critically about what kind of burdens we were imposing before we imposed them. Under the terms of last year's bill, we would know how much of burden we were creating. We would have to acknowledge the magnitude of the burden before we passed legislation. We would no longer be able to hide behind ignorance. We would have to acknowledge the consequences of our decisions on our own States and our own constituents. If, on the other hand, I were to characterize this year's bill, I would say it was designed to paralyze us, to prevent us from requiring States to do anything unless we fully paid them to do it. That, I suspect, is not how the proponents of the legislation would characterize it. They would point out that the bill allows us to impose unfunded mandates if, by a majority vote, we choose to do so. But, Mr. President, I believe that even the proponents would agree that the bill enshrines the principle and the presumption that the Federal Government should not impose requirements on the States unless it pays them to carry out the mandate. I believe, Mr. President, that the legislative history of this bill demonstrates that point. Several amendments were offered to exempt some class or group of activities from the strictures of this legislation. Time after time those amendments were defeated. And the justification for that was, in essence, that we ought to protect the principle that there would be no unfunded mandates. While the Senate might, on a case- by-case basis, waive that principle, the presumption is that it ought to be protected. Mr. President, on a philosophic level, I do not agree. And on a practical level, I do not believe the bill we are passing is workable. Let me explain. While I believe we need to be sensitive to the burdens the Federal Government imposes on States, I also believe the Federal Government can--and in some cases should--impose those burdens. The odds ought not be stacked against a Federal mandate by the legislative roadblocks contained in this bill. Philosophically, the Federal Government has a fundamental responsibility to set the tone and framework for our national life, to set minimum standards to protect the health and safety of our people, to protect our national security and welfare, and to deal with issues that are interstate in nature and can't be effectively tackled by the States. Periodically, as a people, we have sought to limit national power. Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun advanced the notion of nullification, allowing States to ignore Federal laws they didn't agree with. And just a few decades ago, southerners called for increased States rights in the face of Federal civil rights legislation. We rejected those ideas because ours is a Federal system of government. And in that system, the Federal Government has certain obligations. When States suffer from a disaster, they turn to the Federal Government for help. When California was plagued by floods and earthquakes and fires, they turned to Washington to help them clean up. And when our shore was ravaged by nor'easters, New Jersey also sought similar assistance. But the Federal Government's role is not just limited to acts of God. We must also respond to acts of indifference. The Federal Government should act when local and State governments 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 say that New Jersey, my home State, is relatively affluent. It is also compassionate and progressive. We have some of the toughest environmental laws in the country. We care for our disabled. We have tough gun control laws and occupational safety regulations. But those strengths could disadvantage us if Federal standards are weakened or eliminated. Let's take a few examples. In the late 1980's, we had to close our beaches when raw sewage and medical dollars and was a major setback to our State's economy, image, and quality of life. But it was a problem we could not solve alone. The Federal Government had to step in and require New York to treat its wastes, to regulate disposal of medical wastes, and to cover its garbage barges. Mayor Koch still complains to me about this unfunded mandate. But that mandate helped us manage a crisis. And the standards imposed on New York were necessary. Federal standards do more than help us correct problems. They help prevent them. Let me give you an example: Many people in New Jersey say that biggest fear is gun violence. But without the Brady bill--an unfunded mandate that requires background checks by local police when purchasing a gun--we really could not stop the gun violence from coming into New Jersey. That happened right before the Brady bill went into effect, when a former New Jersey resident bought a gun in Arizona, bypassing a background check that would have been required in our State, and shot four people at close range, in cold blood, at a motel in Saddle Brook. We need the Brady bill. Our first try at a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had to be scrapped after a few years because they put too much power in the States and they encouraged disunity and divisiveness. States, by their very nature, are insular. Their goal is to take care of their own. But we are one nation, and in the words of Alexander Hamilton, ``a nation without a national government is an awful spectacle.'' We need to approach national problems with national solutions. We need to establish Federal policies to tackle issues with interstate effects. And we need to promote a national government motivated by a concern for decency, equity, and compassion. That is why the Federal Government has set standards to prevent States from cutting off food stamps to children or eliminating aid to legal immigrants. As a nation, we agree that we need to reform welfare; as a U.S. Senator, I am not prepared to allow States to abolish it. Philosophically, then, I am troubled by this bill. Practically, I am appalled by it. Despite significant improvements made in the mechanics of the bill by Senator Levin and others, it still presents us with a legislative maze. It imposes an unacceptable burden on the Congressional Budget Office, which is tasked with the responsibility of providing us with cost estimates on literally hundreds of bills and amendments--a task which, in some cases, will be impossible. It creates at least two points of order which can be raised against any bill or amendment and will, in some cases, prevent the Senate from dealing efficiently with what should be routine matters. Despite the fact that the American people have told us that they have had quite enough of delay and procedural ploys and gridlock, this bill will give any individual Senator an opportunity to impede progress on any legislation. The Senate will, I am convinced, rue the day that it created the procedure contained in this bill. Mr. President, I believe that the bipartisan work we did last year should have been ratified this year. Instead, blown by changing political winds, some Members decided we should go further than they had last year. The net result is a bill which superficially claims to be similar to last year's effort but is, in reality, a mandate for gridlock and an expression of unfounded fear of a federal system of government. It is also, unfortunately, a bill that I cannot support.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need, and in the interest of trying to reduce this debate to its shortest possible period I want to respond to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky by just saying that I understand why he is raising those questions. Certainly there is a lot there that can be questioned. In this case, Mr. President, I, too, have a letter and I assume it is not the same letter that the Senator from Kentucky submitted for the Record because he ascribed a June date to that and this letter is January issue. It is addressed to me from Miss Browner, who is the Administrator of the EPA, and she says--and I will put the full letter in the Record: Group A carcinogens are, as explained at length in EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines, those which have, in fact, caused cancer in humans. Group A classification does not derive from laboratory studies and inferences, assumptions or other uncertainties. These are instances which have resulted in cancer. That is a pretty specific statement. When actions are needed to effectively limit exposure to these substances, EPA should be able to move expeditiously to do so. She goes on further to say, ``Your amendment would provide an exemption from the procedural and other requirements of S. 1 that could delay or prevent congressional or other actions to limit exposure to known human carcinogens,'' signed Carol M. Browner, Administrator for EPA. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill whether he is going to ask for the yeas and nays for the purpose of tabling the motion. If that is the end of the discussion, I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I just say this to the distinguished minority whip, and that is that chlorine is now under question review. Despite its omnipresence, we know the material is used effectively all over. But we do not know the full health effects. It is, I think, appropriate to review it. I think back to the days when asbestos was used for installation in every conceivable type of product: Wallboard, ceilings, pipes, et cetera. Then one day a terrible discovery was made. That was that asbestos is, in fact, cancer-causing material. There have been lawsuits that confirm that. Lots of people whose health was injured and, as a matter of fact, their lives terminated. So the fact that something has been used extensively does not mean, of course, that it is, therefore, acceptable from a science or health- based review. I conclude, Mr. President, and would yield the floor at this moment. If there is no further discussion I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time, but that depends on what happens with the opponents' statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the manager of the bill at this point whether there are additional speakers?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will not object, but I must note that the time that I used was because I was here and prepared to speak on the amendment. I hope that my colleague from Kentucky is ready to speak. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My view is that protecting our citizens from avoidable risks is an essential responsibility of government. It is an obligation which State and local government must accept and discharge-- even if the Federal Government does not pay all the costs of doing so. On another level, though, I recognize that States and cities are often unable to afford the cost of Federal mandates. They need the flexibility to set their own priorities and implement Federal mandates efficiently. There is a commonsense appeal to this statement. But we must also recognize that problems which cross State borders can only be effectively addressed at the Federal level. Pollution, for example, knows no State borders. If each State develops its own pollution policy, some States will adopt stricter laws than others. As a result, a State with strong environmental laws, such as New Jersey, might fall victim to pollution from a nearby State with weaker standards. The cost of dealing with this foreign pollution would be unfairly borne by New Jersey taxpayers. During the last few weeks, I have discussed the problem of State shopping that might result from this bill. With a patchwork of differing standards across the States, why wouldn't companies build factories in States with the least stringent environmental standards? In order to remain competitive, why wouldn't States with higher standards, lower them? This dangerous race to the bottom would lower the quality of life for all Americans. And I believe the Federal Government has a moral responsibility to discourage it. The cancer-causing group A substances identified in my amendment are so deadly, and the Federal role in efforts to reduce our exposure to them are so important that I believe efforts to restrict human exposure to them should be exempt from the points of order in S. 1. I commend the Senator from Idaho for his tenacity which ensured unfunded mandates would be a priority. I also want to commend the Senator from Ohio for his hard work in committee and on the floor to improve this bill. Together, they have forged a bill that would create better intergovernmental relations. But central to this bill is the recognition that certain laws are so important to our Nation's welfare that they must be enacted and enforced--regardless of whether State and local governments will have to pay to implement them. Mr. President, I think legislation to control known human carcinogens is so important that it warrants special consideration. Certainly, protection from deadly exposure to cancer-causing substances is as critical as any of the exclusions currently found in S. 1. Those who have lost loved ones to this disease can tell you that. I believe this bill, as currently drafted, could hamper congressional efforts to protect the public from cancer-causing agents. Let me explain why. Some of my colleagues might say that once the EPA determines something to be a group A carcinogen, there would be a broad consensus to protect children from it. But that is not the case at all. Consider the case of radon. Radon, an invisible, toxic gas, is very threatening. Radon is one of the most serious environmental health risks facing the country. In my State, radon is the most prevalent environmental cause of cancer. Nationwide studies show elevated radon levels in 25 percent of our homes and in 20 percent of our schools. Radon testing and mitigation are relatively inexpensive. Still, because this problem is so widespread, a mandate to test for and reduce radon levels in schools would certainly pass the $50 million threshold contained in S. 1. Last year, I offered, and the Environment and Public Works Committee reported, a bill to do radon testing in schools. It was never considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate. And one of the reasons is was not, was because some objected to the cost that would have to be assumed if tests revealed unacceptable levels of radon. S. 1 would institutionalize those concerns and roadblocks. It would tie our hands and prevent us from passing legislation that requires radon testing and mitigation in schools. Someone would argue that radon is just a medium-risk hazard. And, as a result, progress in the fight against radon-related disease would be threatened. After smoking, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Is not protecting our children from this risk important enough to support Federal legislation? Again, I ask my colleagues: Are we prepared to surrender to all the different States the basic obligation of protecting the health--and in this case, the lives--of American citizens? Are we prepared to allow thousands of American children to be exposed to proven carcinogens? Is it a defense--or even an excuse--to say we are leaving this up to the States? I hope not. I will conclude my remarks, Mr. President, to allow others to speak about my amendment. But I would ask my colleagues to think about the children whose health might be affected if we are unable to effectively regulate group A carcinogens. My youngest daughter is about to give birth to my second grandchild and I cannot help wondering how this bill, as written, might affect his or her health. I feel that it is my obligation to protect that child with all of the might and the power that I can muster. I am sure that everyone else feels similarly about their children and grandchildren and the generations that follow. As a consequence of that, I hope that we will have the support to amend S. 1 to include this very important exemption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bradley from New Jersey and Senator Boxer from California be listed as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I felt like a spectator as I was watching this debate occur. The majority leader knew that he had my good will as part of his dialog here. Since I was not asked, I just kind of shook my head. I was glad to be here. Obviously, those of us without a sense of humor are here because tonight is the funny night down there. It may be funnier here. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Ohio and the distinguished Senator from Idaho, for their interest in moving this legislation. I marvel at their patience and their good temperament, because it has not been easy, especially when there are those of us who think that the legislation is appropriate, but at the same time want to amend it to make it as good as we can in our own views and our own perspectives. So I rise to speak for the fourth time on the subject of unfunded mandates. I understand I have 20 minutes, and I do not know whether I will use it all--probably not. But I will use sufficient time to discuss the subject now. I offer this amendment which is as simple as it is compelling. I offer it because I believe that some laws are so important to the well- being of our citizens that regardless of whether the Federal Government fully pays for them, State and local governments should be required to implement them. The authors of this bill recognized this fundamental truth, and that is why they created exclusions to S. 1. Federal legislation designed to enforce the constitutional rights of individuals are exempt from the strictures of the unfunded mandate law. So is legislation designed to protect statutory rights when they are threatened by discrimination. So is legislation deemed to be necessary to protect our national security. Mr. President, my amendment would expand the list of exemptions to S. 1 to include limits of or on exposure to known human carcinogens. The Environmental Protection Agency has a list of substances which are believed to be causally connected to cancer in human beings. Evidence from human studies confirms a relationship between exposure to these substances and cancer. benzene, nickel, radon, and environmental tobacco smoke. I ask unanimous consent that EPA's complete list of Group A carcinogens be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to turn to the consideration of my amendment No. 199 at this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Robert H. Grasmere, former mayor of Maplewood Township in New Jersey. Robert Grasmere has served the Maplewood community for 34 years. He was first elected to the township committee in 1960 and was subsequently reelected for 11 more 3 year terms. His contributions, however, do not end there. Mr. Grasmere also served Maplewood Township as mayor for 23 years from 1970 until 1993. from the citizens of Maplewood and the State of New Jersey. The New Jersey State League of Municipalities awarded Mayor Grasmere the Presidential Citation for Extraordinary Service in 1988 and in 1991, he was the recipient of Elected Official Award from the American Public Works Association for his outstanding public works. Mr. Grasmere's dedication to the Maplewood community led him to be a founding member of the Durand-Hedden House and Garden Association, an organization who's many causes concluded the restoration of a prerevolutionary property in Maplewood. It has since been designated as Grasmere Park in honor of this outstanding person. Robert H. Grasmere is an exceptional citizen who has dedicated his life to the people of Maplewood and the State of New Jersey. I congratulate him on his numerous past successes and what I am sure will be many more successes yet to come.