Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to make sure that as we pursue the objective of S. 1, one that I think almost all share here, which is to get rid of assigning States tasks that cost them lots of money without having a good and sufficient reason, that we take important national matters into consideration. One issue that I have mentioned in previous statements is interstate pollution. I am concerned about my ability to persuade the citizens of New York to take on an extra tax so that beaches in my State could remain free of pollution. Yet that is exactly what may happen, because under S. 1, States would not have to comply with Federal mandates unless we pay them to--or unless I am able to persuade a majority of my colleagues to help my State. As I examined this bill, I came to the conclusion that, while in concept and principle it is an excellent idea, there are certain national interests that are so important that they ought not to be subject to the S. 1 point of order. I commend the Senator from California, whose always thoughtful review of legislation enables her to have a certain uniqueness about finding that one spot or a place in a bill that really calls out for unique or special attention. In this case she is absolutely right. These exemptions, such as the one that is being proposed by the Senator from California, include Federal mandates relating to national security, discrimination, and international agreements. So today, I am trying to help secure support for the amendment of the Senator from California, to add the protections of children, pregnant women, and the frail elderly to the list of vital national interests. Mr. President, I cannot believe that any of my colleagues would act in a way to endanger the welfare of already vulnerable Americans. Yet, this bill, as it now stands, would do just that. Mr. President, if we leave Federal environmental laws to the States, we risk a situation where some States will enact much stricter legislation than others and in that situation, by way of example, our Nation's children could be placed at terrible risk. Scientific studies have shown that children, pregnant to environmental threats. The overall incidence of childhood cancer, which induced, frankly, the review of the Superfund statutes that are on our books, has increased 10.8 percent over the last decade. Noting that, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased 10.8 percent over the last decade. Cancer now is the No. 1 disease killer of children from late infancy through early adulthood. Unlike legislators and regulators, the disease of cancer does not know State lines. If just one State were to loosen its environmental laws, the fallout could lead to even higher rates of childhood cancer, both in that State and throughout the region. In his State of the Union Address, the President cautioned that we must maintain our sense of responsibility and compassion as we move to trim the Federal Government. As it now stands, S. 1 would allow States to decide whether or not, on their own, to protect citizens from serious environmental threats. I am concerned that passing this bill in its current form might be neither compassionate nor responsible. The Federal Government has a moral responsibility to protect American citizens--especially our most sensitive populations--from grave dangers to their health and well-being. We have a moral responsibility to tackle national problems with national solutions. And we have a moral responsibility to make sure that our national environment is habitable and safe. Later this afternoon, I plan to offer another amendment that addresses concerns not dissimilar to those raised by the Senator from California. My amendment would exempt from the requirements of this bill, legislation seeking to limit exposure to group A carcinogens. In other words, very simply, if a mandate was issued that one State had to rid itself of the emission of carcinogens to protect another State's interest as well as its own, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that polluting State to pay for it, particularly if the effects, like the wind blowing or currents flowing, would be in another State. Mr. President, I am particularly sensitized now to the well-being of children, as I expect a phone call any minute from my youngest daughter, who is ready to deliver my second grandchild. It is an exciting time, as all know. Also, it is a daunting one. I want to make sure that my children and your grandchildren, Mr. President--you are young and do not have them yet, but you will get them, God willing--and all the children in this land grow up in a safe healthy environment. I want to make sure that they can breathe in the air without also breathing in toxins of death, that they can drink the water without imbibing lead, and that they can grow up as healthy, productive adults, free from scars of serious birth defects and childhood diseases. That is why I am here and joining the Senator from California to support this amendment. It is thoughtful, purposeful, and it belongs in this piece of legislation as an exemption. Otherwise, Mr. President, we are going to be putting the children of America and the elderly at dangerous risk. There is nothing more beautiful, in my mind, than my pregnant daughter. We ought to be concerned about pregnant daughters across the face of this Nation. We all instinctively want to protect and admire that cycle of life. So, Mr. President, I hope this is an amendment that is going to carry by weight of its value and by the persuasive presentation from the Senator from California. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be the most that I would need.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. I hope the Senator from Texas will excuse my taking advantage of the time offered now. I will not be long.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senators and friends who are on the floor to wish me well on my birthday. It is one of those things, a time we would like to pass without notice, but, on the other hand, being here to recall it is something of value as well. Amendment No. 199 (Purpose: To exclude from the application of the Act, provisions limiting known human (Group A) carcinogens defined by the Environmental Protection Agency)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment to meet the terms of the unanimous-consent agreement. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the President and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I want to take this opportunity to talk on behalf of the support for this amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, which will exempt from S. 1 all legislation that affects the private and public sectors. Equally knowing that this amendment is recommended and authored by the Senator from Connecticut comes as no surprise. He is thoughtful. He recognizes from his own experience on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and the things that we have attempted to do for some time now, the need to go to the private sector wherever possible to get the job done, whatever that may be, most efficiently. So I think this is an appropriate amendment. I am not sure where the controversy lies between the two parties because this amendment by any count really makes sense and it is consistent with the review over the last couple of years, the last several years, to turn, as I said before, to the private sector whenever we can do so. Just last week, we passed the congressional coverage bill because we said that Congress should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. It would be absurd if only a week later we passed legislation which exempted State and local governments from the laws which applied to the private sector. But that is exactly what S. 1 as currently written does. Under this legislation, the presumption is that States and local governments will be exempt from requirements that apply to the private sector unless the Federal Government foots the bill for compliance. At the same time firms operating in the private sector--and there is example after example--I mean private water treatment facilities versus public water treatment facilities, sewage facilities, privately and publicly, but firms operating in the private sector would have to comply with these requirements, with these standards that are set by perhaps the Federal or the State government even though no one would be helping them to pay the costs of compliance, setting a competitive condition that is contrary to the mission that all of us have these days--that is, to get the job done in the best way possible for the least cost, in the most efficient manner. This is not just a theoretical inequity, it can have real and serious consequences. For example, in many jurisdictions, waste treatment facilities, as I said, are operated by government entities as well as private firms, each with the same obligation. Under S. 1, the State-owned facility would not have to comply with any new laws designed to reduce pollution, unless the Federal Government pays the cost. The private-sector competitor, however, would not have any choice. They would have to comply, and they would have to pay. Consider the case of a research facility in a State university and a private-sector firm conducting similar research. S. 1, as currently drafted, institutionalizes a competitive advantage for the State-run facility and punishes the private-sector enterprise. That is not, I am sure, what the authors intended. But it is the result. Madam President, many of those who support this legislation recognize the problem and want to fix it. Indeed, earlier in our consideration of this bill, an amendment was adopted which will require committees to consider the disparate impact of mandates and mandate relief on public and private concerns. But while recognizing the problem, that language does nothing to correct it. It does not provide the kind of assurance or consistency which is needed to deal with the problem. The amendment of Senator Lieberman, however, addresses the problem we all seem to recognize in a meaningful way. Under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, State and local officials would have to follow the same Federal laws as everyone else. Our workers and our environment [[Page S1170]] would be protected similarly, and private businesses would have a level playing field. So I believe this amendment is essential to a fair and equitable unfunded mandates bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I have 1 more minute, or if my colleague is out of time, I will conclude.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to say this. If we are going to talk against violence, it has to start when people violate the law, the law very clearly stated. I implore the President and the Attorney General to stand up and protect those institutions that offer people a choice in how they want to conduct their lives. It is very simple. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from California for her courage and for letting me participate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the sense- of-the-Senate amendment introduced by Senator Boxer. Since 1984, there have been more than 1,500 acts of violence near abortion critics. In the last 22 months, five innocent people have been shot to death at abortion clinics. Five men and women heartlessly slain by murderers who call themselves pro-life. In the past year, we have already seen two tragedies at abortion clinics. Less than 6 months ago, a doctor and his escort were shot to death on their way to work in Pensacola, FL. Most recently, a 22-year-old man allegedly went on a violent spree, attacking abortion clinics in Massachusetts and Virginia, and killing two clinic workers in the process. Mr. President, how many more innocent people must die before we as a society put a stop to this terror? How many doctors will be gunned down for performing a legal medical procedure? How many receptionists will lose their lives simply because they work in the line of extremist gunfire? Last year, President Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as FACE. This law made it a Federal crime to block, obstruct or intimidate a woman seeking reproductive health services, or a doctor trying to perform them. But it is now clear that the clinic access law alone will not be enough to protect our Nation's doctors and women. Attorney General Reno announced in August that she would post U.S. marshals outside of threatened clinics. That is also a step in the right direction, and I urge the Justice Department to review its efforts in this area. I applaud the President's announcement earlier this month directing all U.S. attorneys around the country to form an immediate task force of Federal, State, and local officials to coordinate plans for security at all clinics in their jurisdictions. And I applaud the President's efforts to improve communication between U.S. marshals and reproductive clinics to make sure they are prepared to inform the authorities of any potential threats. But I ask the administration to continue pursuing a hard line against the purveyors of violence and to take further protective measures until each safe for doctors, for employees, and for patients. The women of this country deserve to go to the doctor without fearing that they may never come home. They deserve to receive reproductive services without harassment, intimidation or even worse, bodily harm. And they have a right to undergo legal medical procedures without putting themselves, their families or their doctors in such unfair jeopardy. Let us send a strong message to all those who would use guns to express their views, a message that we are going to stand up for the women, doctors, escorts, and health care workers across the country until all Americans are safe, and all murderers are behind bars. Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes to summarize what, I sense, is an attitudinal problem. We can talk all we want about standing up against violence. But very often, the people who talk most about violence and getting rid of it are those who support the proliferation of guns across our society. It is pretty hard to do away with violence when there is almost a gun everyplace that you look, and a failure to register those things. When we talk about standing up against violence, there is an intimation that those who have the right to choose under our Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court, are themselves committing an act of violence, and that is where the process starts. The process, not just of killing and assault, but intimidation, is one designed to threaten people who decide that they want to make a different decision than those on the other side. In New Jersey, we have a doctor who offers abortion as part of his obstetrical practice, offers abortion if people want it. He has been shot at. He has been threatened. His family is constantly under threat. He is so frightened by doing what he feels is right professionally, and yet he is unable to offer the kinds of services for which he has been licensed by the State and by the profession.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the original order be extended to include the comments from the Senator from Nebraska for as much time as he needs, which I hope will be brief, to be included.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to yield the floor and that the Chair will recognize the Senator from New Mexico for a period up to 7 minutes, without my losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. My purpose in rising is not to engage in the current debate but obviously one needs always to be reminded in this body about the fact that we are a body of rules and process that at all times has to be observed, and in particular when the senior Senator from West Virginia takes the floor there are always significant lessons to be learned. Since we have such a large number of new Members in this Congress as Members of the Senate, it is not only a functionally good experience but a good learning experience as well to hear the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. He is without peer when it comes to knowledge of the rules. I would also, Mr. President, note for the record that the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is someone whom I have worked with over my years here in more than one committee and have always found the Senator from New Mexico, even if we disagree on a particular policy or program, to be a man inscrutably honest and always willing to play by the rules. So what we saw was a challenge but a good interchange, and I commend my colleagues for highlighting the process so clearly. I want to talk about something else, Mr. President. I wish to talk about the general proposition of the legislation that is now under consideration. I wish to commend the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne, and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, for bringing this issue finally to the floor so we can make decisions about it and get on with the business. I certainly share that view. However, I want to challenge all of us to consider as we review the bill and amendments to look very carefully at what is in them. This is the first day to begin this debate on the several bills that propose some very sweeping changes in the relationship of the Federal and State government and could drastically alter the role of the Federal Government in our Nation's life. We will make some needed changes during this Congress, but as we move to be smarter and smaller, we must remain compassionate and committed to equity, tolerance, opportunity and fairness in our national policy. Despite overwhelming public cynicism, I have enormous respect for our democratic institutions, and I intend to fight to restore faith in American government and let our people know that their voices are being heard in Washington. I am certain that every Member who will speak in the Senate today will focus on the need for Congress to be more sensitive to the financial burdens that we place on both the public and private sectors in our society. The American people feel overtaxed and that too much of their tax money goes to programs structured of little value. I understand those feelings, and we should be more careful before we decide to increase Federal spending or pass requirements on to the States which result in raising State or local taxes. mandates on the States, there are a few things we must acknowledge that are problems which require national solutions and national policies. This is true particularly where there is more than one State involved or where there are legitimate and broad national interests at stake. It is especially striking in addressing environmental concerns but also holds true for economic, health, immigration, welfare, and educational policy, to mention just some of the issues that have been of concern to the Congress. In today's political climate, this premise has become controversial and may even sound backward. And coming from a business background, I know as well as any Member of the Senate that Federal requirements can create very heavy financial burdens for business. But even if Members would dismiss the premise that we have a fundamental responsibility to set the tone and framework for our national life--to keep opportunity alive, to set minimum standards of decency and economic security, or to prevent discrepancies in State policies that result in so-called ``State shopping'' behavior, where people might wander or travel from State to State looking for a State that has better programs because there are more funds available to finance them--it is incontestable that certain issues are interstate in nature and can only be effectively addressed at the Federal level. Further, I would argue that in our Federal system of Government, and in a society which is complex and closely integrated, we cannot address certain problems, like spiraling violence and gunrunning, or the spread of HIV-contaminated blood, or illegal immigration, or pollution which is interstate in nature, without a national policy. And some of these policies will necessarily involve unfunded mandates. At last week's Budget Committee hearing, I cited an example from my State of New Jersey which clearly illustrates the need for Federal mandates. Tourism is New Jersey's largest employer, and our seashore represents a major recreational resource for our citizens. The great majority of tourists in New Jersey go to our beaches, and we rely on our shore for our economic health and our way of life. But just a few years ago, in the late 1980's, New Jersey had to close many of its beaches when raw sewage and medical wastes were washing up on our shores. This problem, which could not be remedied within New Jersey's boarders, resulted in the loss of billions of dollars and was a major setback to the State's economy, image and our quality of life. Under Federal law, the Federal Government stepped in to require the State of New York to install a wastewater treatment facility, to regulate the disposal of hospital and medical wastes and to require cover for barges that transported garbage from Manhattan to Staten Island. This created a mandate, an unfunded mandate. Under S. 1, it would not have been permitted without a majority of the Senators agreeing to waive its application. Now, I wish to make the point very clearly that this action could not have been taken if we pass the present bill in its current form. Now let us assume S. 1 becomes law in its current structure. Let us also assume that the problems New Jersey had in the 1980's recur. Would enough Senators come to the defense of New Jersey or any other State to provide full Federal funding to prohibit one State suffering from another's inaction or negligence? Would 51 Senators vote to waive the procedural requirements of this bill to remedy a problem potentially affecting only one State? Halting interstate pollution is an important responsibility of the Federal Government. And I am concerned that this act may have a chilling effect on future Federal environmental legislation. Another issue that may get loss in this debate is the benefit that States and their citizens derive from Federal mandates--even those not fully funded. States may say, we know how best to care for our citizens; a program that may be good for New Jersey, may not be good for Idaho or Ohio. But, I would argue that there is a broader national interest in some very fundamental issues which transcend that premise. I would argue that historically, not all States have provided a floor of satisfactory minimum decency standards for their citizens and that, as a democratic and fair society, we should worry about that. Further, as a practical matter, I would argue that the policies of one State in a society such as ours will certainly affect citizens and taxpayers of another State just as certainly as unfunded mandates can. Let us look at our welfare system. There has been a lot of discussion about turning welfare over to the States, with few or virtually no Federal guidelines or requirements. What would happen if we do that? Would we see a movement of the disadvantaged between States, putting a heavier burden on the citizens of a State that provides more generous benefits? Let us look at occupational safety, or environmental regulation. With a patchwork of differing standards across the States, would we see a migration of factories and jobs to States with lower standards? I think so. But by mandating floors in environmental and workplace conditions, the Federal Government ensures that States will comply with minimal standards befitting a complex, interrelated, and decent society. Or let us look at gun control. My State of New Jersey generally has strong controls on guns. But New Jerseyans still suffer from an epidemic of gun violence--in no small measure because firearms come into New Jersey from other States. Without strong national controls, this will remain a problem. That is why we passed a ban on all assault weapons and why we passed the Brady bill. Currently the Federal Government discourages a scenario whereby a given State decides not to enforce some worker health and safety laws as a way of lowering costs and attracting industry. A State right next door might feel compelled to lower its standards in order to remain competitive. In the absence of a Federal Standard, we would likely see a bidding war that lowers the quality of life for all Americans. These are some of a host of very fundamental, very basic, and even profound questions raised by the notion that we should never have unfunded mandates. These are questions each Member of the Senate should consider long and hard, before moving to drastically curtail--or make impossible--any unfunded mandates. During the course of this debate, some important amendments will be suggested to this bill. First, I understand the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] will seek to add a sunset provision to S. 1. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment because it will guarantee that we revisit this issue in a few years to assess the consequences of our actions. Some of us have spent years working to enact laws that protect our environment and the health and safety of our workers. If this bill does lead to an unwelcome reduction in that protection, or inequitable differences between the States, we will need to make a mid-course correction. The Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, will be offering an amendment to exempt from this bill legislation that affects the public and private sectors equally. I support this amendment because I do not believe the Federal Government should be promoting anticompetitive behavior between the public and private sectors. As a corollary, we need to examine the impact of this bill on the longstanding concept, particularly in matters affecting superfund, of polluter pays, a premise on which much of our environmental legislation rests. In cases where a State or local government is the polluter, the notion that a polluter should pay the costs of cleaning up the mess amounts to an unfunded mandate. Under S. 1, if the polluter is a State government, the Federal Government will have to pay to clean up that pollution. This would subvert the policy and effectiveness of polluter pays, which aims to discourage would-be polluters. Why would a State not pollute if it knows someone else is picking up the tab? Why should the taxpayers of one State pick up the tab for lax practices in another? What is the incentive? This legislation addresses important issues. It strives to increase our sensitivity to imposing Federal mandates without providing resources to pay for to a time of wanton pollution and unsafe workplaces, and aggravate our social problems and rising crime rate. I hope we will have a thoughtful debate, refine the bill to address some of the very real problems that have surfaced with S. 1 as it is being rushed through the Congress, and that we will resist amendments that have the potential to deal real damage to the fabric of our Nation. I salute the notion of not imposing further burdens on States. I do not want to see my State put in a position where it has to raise taxes, has to raise revenues to carry on responsibilities assigned to it by the Federal Government, unless there is a national interest. Unless of course we affect the well-being and the condition of those who reside in neighboring States. Those are the things, I think, that we have to be aware of, that we have to address here. Because it will be very, very tough for many of us to be able to explain why it is that we are not intervening when one State's lifestyle, when one State's business is being damaged by another State's practice. I am sure the discussion will be long, perhaps even arduous, but it is worth doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield until this part of the debate concludes, and I ask unanimous consent to confirm that and I still have possession of the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois will forgive me, I do not want to extend the unanimous consent request beyond that which the Budget Committee chairman has asked for in response to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Bill Bradley in introducing legislation that would authorize the Federal Government to provide up to $17.5 million to purchase land in the Sterling Forest area of the New York/New Jersey Highlands region. These funds are critical to preserving the largest pristine private land area in the most densely populated metropolitan region of the United States. The Sterling Forest is located in the highlands region on the New Jersey and New York border, within a 2-hour drive of more than 20 million people; 2,000 acres on the New Jersey side were acquired by the State by eminent domain. However, the tract of land on the New York side, some 17,500 acres, is owned by a private corporation and is under constant threat of development. The current owners of the land have mapped out an ambitious plan that, if implemented, would be the largest real estate venture in the United States. The plan calls for 14,200 houses and over 8 million square feet of commercial and light industrial space. The development would include schools, shopping malls, sewage plants, and residential areas. The proposed development would also harm the environment: 5 million gallons of treated sewage effluent would be discharged daily into streams, and road salts, petroleum products, pesticides, and other contaminants would result in substantial nonpoint source pollution. As damaging as that would be, I am most concerned about the potential effects on New Jersey's water supply. Sterling Forest is an important watershed for New Jerseyans. The forest provides 18 percent of the clean water flow into the Wanaque/Monksville Reservoir System. The Wanaque system delivers drinking water to over 80 cities and towns in northern New Jersey, which represent 25 percent of the State's population. Mr. President, we ought not allow such desecration. Sterling Forest is worth preserving. It is nothing short of beautiful. Its rugged topography is good for wildlife, many threatened or endangered species, for hikers and naturalists and for the watershed--not for development. That is why we need to do all we can to protect this resource. This bill authorizes up to $17.5 million to be provided to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission for the purchase of Sterling Forest. The commission has played a critical role in negotiating among private and public parties to strike a compromise with the current owners of Sterling Forest. A compromise is possible. But we need the backing of these Federal funds to make it happen. Mr. President, we need this bill to preserve not just an environmentally pristine tract of land, but also to ensure that one- quarter of New Jersey's residents' water supply is protected.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. Amendment No. 15 (Purpose: To reduce the pay of Members of Congress by the same percentage as other spending is reduced in any sequester caused by the failure of Congress to meet budget limitations on spending, or the budget deficit)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If a quorum call is put in place, how is the time charged?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I have pledged to the majority leader that he will have 5 minutes, I think it is, to make his remarks. We will have the time run on our side of the clock.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is fairly simple. It would include Members of Congress in actions that result from missing budget targets that have been set forth under the Budget Act. It would say that if we miss the targets specified and a sequester takes place, reductions in accounts across-the-board, or on a specific account, that we would also include Members' salaries; that we would therefore cut, on a like proportion basis, the salaries of Senators and Congresspersons if the Congress failed to achieve its budgetary targets of limits on Government spending. The amendment would eliminate a defect in current law that excludes congressional pay from across-the-board cuts or sequesters when spending limits are exceeded. Mr. President, the central purpose of the pending bill, the congressional responsibility bill, is to create the same standards for Members of Congress as those applying to other citizens. The bill says that if we are going to impose laws on ordinary Americans, we are going to have to live up to those laws we in the Congress, we in the Senate, the same laws as we ask our constituents to obey. That is an important principle, Mr. President, and it is why I strongly support the underlying bill. Unfortunately, the pending legislation does not put Congress and the public on even par, at least in one very important respect. In fact, one double standard in place would absolutely surprise the American people if they were more aware of it. And I will take a moment to explain. Under the Budget Act, if Congress exceeds certain limits on spending or fails to meet legally-established deficit targets, then the act may mandate automatic across-the-board spending cuts to assure that we maintain fiscal discipline. These across-the-board cuts are known as sequesters and they can apply to a very broad range of Federal programs and benefits. Let us make no mistake. If Congress overspends under the Budget Act, ordinary Americans get hurt in the process--veterans can lose benefits they earned while fighting for our country; senior citizens with health problems can lose services under Medicare; middle-class students can lose the opportunities that student loans afford; and citizens living constantly these days in fear can lose the protection of additional law-enforcement personnel. And yet, while ordinary Americans' programs are put on the chopping block, when their health, their security, and their educations are put at risk, guess who it is that gets off scot-free? That is right. Members of Congress. Their pay is protected, no matter what happens. Mr. President, there is something wrong with saying that, if Congress violates the Budget Act, benefits for ordinary citizens should be cut, veterans' services should be cut, senior citizens' Medicare should be cut, student loans should be cut; the unemployed job training should be cut, but congressional salaries, those are sacrosanct, not to be touched. It is not right. If the public knew more about it, they would perhaps be even angrier than they already are.Mr. President, I have been bothered by this double standard for some time. In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to eliminate this double standard. I called it the Congressional Overspending Pay Accountability Act. It was designed to do what its name suggested: Hold Members of Congress accountable if they overspend and if they violate their own budget rules. This amendment is based generally on that earlier bill. I offer it today because the Congressional Accountability Act is the ideal vehicle for solving this problem. After all, this bill is about eliminating double standards. And the loophole that protects Members' salaries from spending cuts is the ultimate double standard. Unfortunately, in its current form, this bill does nothing about it unless this amendment is adopted. So the amendment is very simple. It says that if Congress overspends, the pay of each Member of Congress shall be reduced by the same amount as all other affected spending. For example, if we exceed discretionary spending targets and trigger a sequester of 5 percent, Member pay for that next year will be cut 5 percent, as well. If the sequester cuts other programs by 1 percent, then the pay of Members of Congress will be reduced by 1 percent. I think it is important that if a target is missed, the pain be distributed equally. When cuts are made in programs, opportunities for education or health care are reduced. I think, somehow or other, we in the United States Congress ought to feel it some way other than putting a pencil to the paper. We are recommending this amendment. I hope all of my colleagues will support it. I think it is a show of good faith. I think, otherwise, it smacks a little bit of hypocrisy to say we do not want our pay cuts, but we want everybody else's programs cut. I think it does not ring a very true signal for the American people. This amendment proposes to treat Members of Congress just like all other ordinary Americans who get hurt when the Budget Act mandates across-the-board cuts. I believe that is only fair. We have not heard a lot about sequesters lately, Mr. President. In the past, we have seen sequesters as high as 5 percent, such as the one that reduced the military budget by that amount in 1986. Recently, Congress has complied with the Budget Act and has made a lot of tough choices. The threat of sequester has now increased substantially. Many in this town are intent on both increasing military spending and providing huge tax breaks to the wealthy at the same time we have heard promises of huge cuts in total Government spending. Apart from a few small symbolic programs proposed for elimination, we have not heard much of the details. We do not know whose benefits will be cut. We do not know whose programs will be eliminated. Mr. President, if Congress locks itself in too tightly in overall spending caps, and then refuses to make the tough decisions to cut specific programs, what will happen? Well, one likely result will be a sequester. That possibility looms larger now than it has in many years. Mr. President, there is a lot of debate now going on about a balanced budget amendment. The reason that that has developed is because all of us, whether one is a supporter of the balanced budget amendment or not, are anxious to bring this budget of ours under control. So we are resorting to techniques, we are resorting to programs instead of thoughtful planning on how to do it. What we are saying is let us pass the balancing on to an amorphous structure, something that says if we cannot do it--and I think it is a blink of the eye, because we can do it--if we cannot do it, let them do it. The case of the balanced budget amendment obviously, at one point along the line, falls to the courts to pick up the responsibilities. So I want to establish the fact--and I think my colleagues will agree-- that we, too, are at risk in some way if we fail to do what we tell the public we want to do. Mr. President, there will be handouts to the rich. They will be paid for in the end. There is a good chance that they will be paid for by ordinary Americans, whose Medicare and other benefits are subject to significant across-the-board cuts. The question I ask is, will Members of Congress feel their pain? Under the present structure, it does not look that way. The meat ax may fall, but our heads will not be in the guillotine. The blood on the floor will be the blood of lots of ordinary folks who have worked hard, played by the rules, and tried to make ends meet; but, once again, they will be asked to make or told that they are the ones who will make the sacrifice. Mr. President, I am hopeful the reason we will prevail and we will avoid that kind of fiscal irresponsibility is the threat is real. If the ax falls, Members of Congress should risk their necks, as well. Mr. President, even if we never have another sequester, we should eliminate the loophole for Members' pay. It is a matter of principle. It is the exact same principle, the principle that motivates this bill. Members of Congress are citizens, like everybody else. When we violate our own budget rules, we should not give ourselves any special exemptions. The staff that joins us here in this room, that supports Senators in their offices and supports Senators in their job and get a decent day's pay--wants to know that their pensions are secure when it comes time to retire. If there is a sequester, they feel it in their paychecks when the legislative budgets are reduced. That risk ought to be applied to those who are writing the bills. We ought to cut our pay to the same extent that anyone else who works for the Government might get cut if a sequester takes place. Mr. President, if we are serious about reform, this amendment should pass overwhelmingly. I think that as each of the Members comes up to the well and announces their vote, that it is important the public be aware of the fact that if they vote ``no,'' or vote against this amendment, that what they are saying is the old expression that kicks around here, ``Do not tax you and do not tax me, tax the guy behind the tree.'' That is what we are saying if this amendment fails to pass. I am hopeful that we will see it pass, because I think it is an important declaration of principle to the American people. I think it says to them that we are in the same boat as they are. It is a privilege to serve in this body. We are privileged and honored to have the responsibility of writing the laws that make this country a better place to live. We will be able to put our imprimatur, our signature on this, if we adopt this amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.