Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for the generous offer he has made to let me have time to describe this very important amendment. As I said, I will offer this amendment for myself and Senators Boxer, Jeffords, and Corzine. Other cosponsors include Senators Lieberman, Biden, Durbin, Clinton, Leahy, Cantwell, Feingold, and Kennedy. My amendment would readjust the budget resolution so we can reauthorize the Superfund corporate fee. There are many reasons why this is an urgent matter and the right thing to do. When Congress created Superfund, the operating principle was the polluter should pay. I ask that the Chair remind me when 10 minutes of my time have been used, please. The Superfund program was created because of a number of blighted toxic sites that were located in cities and towns across the country, places in Montana and Nebraska and Maine and New Jersey. New Jersey had over 100 sites listed on the Superfund list. Today 900 sites have been cleaned up, turned over to practical use in these communities where often land is precious. To be able to get space that was occupied by nothing but toxic materials can create quite a difference in the health and the well-being of a community. We started off by saying the people who polluted the area should pay for its cleanup. It was reviewed in the courts and it was challenged and debated all over the place. The fact is, it worked. In 1980, Superfund was authorized. In 1986, we reauthorized the collection of corporate fees paid by polluters that would be placed in the Superfund trust fund to pay for the cleanup of these so-called orphan or abandoned sites. These are the sites for which an actual polluter can be found. That way, all the taxpayers would not be stuck with the bill for a mess caused by corporate polluters. Editorials and polls nationwide repeatedly showed that Americans want the polluting corporations, not the taxpayers, to pay for the cleanup of properties contaminated with dangerous chemicals. In a March 9 editorial, this week, the Philadelphia Inquirer said: The Senate should put the burden back where it belongs: on polluters. Unfortunately, now the trust fund is flat broke and our citizens are feeling the impact. They are discouraged by the fact these toxic sites are going to continue to be in the middle of their communities and unusable for any productive purpose. Some sites, which should be cleaned up in 3 or 4 years, are instead now taking 9 or 10 years because the funding isn't there. That means youngsters living next to a toxic wastesite could be graduated from high school by the time the site is decontaminated. There are children and families in America living around the corner from toxic dump sites all over the place. It is inexcusable. As my colleagues know, such exposure to toxic chemicals cannot be undone. EPA scientists report that small children are 10 times more likely than adults to develop cancer when exposed to chemicals. Our children are the most vulnerable among us. They are especially susceptible to dioxin, arsenic, DDT, and brain-damaging heavy metals such as lead and mercury, which are often found in the soil and ground water at these Superfund sites. Across the country, each site we clean up--and so far, we successfully cleaned up more than 900 sites--reduces the health risks to our children and families. Parents don't want to raise their kids under the shadow of a toxic waste site, only to worry about the high risk for cancer, birth defects, and other diseases. The Superfund Program needs additional revenues now. Just as our mounting debt is slowing the economy, our failure to adequately fund Superfund is slowing toxic cleanups to a crawl. The administration claims that it supports the ``polluter-pays'' principle and ``aggressively'' cleans up Superfund sites, but the facts speak otherwise. This year taxpayers will be asked to bear virtually the entire cost of cleaning up abandoned Superfund sites. In the President's fiscal year 2005 budget, the Superfund trust fund column shows a zero--the tank is empty. As we look at the timeframe, we can see from 1996, when we had over $3 billion available in the Superfund treasury, almost $4 billion, now, because we have not replenished it, we have used it, slowed the process of cleanups, finally in 2003 the fund is down to zero. If the people in the communities want those sites cleaned up, they are going to have to pay for it. All the taxpayers will have to pay. Superfund is not even a fund anymore. There is nothing in it. It is shameful what the President and this Congress have done to the Superfund. They have emptied it and told polluters: Don't worry, we will make everyone else pay for the mess our friendly contributors and political allies created. In 1986, taxpayers paid only a small portion, 8 percent, of orphan site cleanups. In 1995, only 17 percent of these costs came from general revenues. Today, the number is almost 100 percent. All taxpayers have taken on the burden of paying for what polluters should be paying. The GAO recently reported that funding for the Superfund Program has fallen by 35 percent in the last decade. It was underfunded by at least $175 million in 2003. What does that say? It says that whatever work is not going on, because it is underfunded, the taxpayers are going to pay for it. It is outrageous to suggest that the taxpayers ought to pay for the misdeeds of the corporations that polluted the area. If they pollute it, they ought to clean it up and pay for it. What we are talking about is a fee that spreads across business lines, where chemicals are manufactured, and oil and gasoline products are handled. Yet one of four Americans, and 10 million children, still live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. That statistic does not include the 40,000 hazardous waste sites which have not made it onto the Nation's priority list. The National Priorities List has something like 1,300 listings. These are the especially toxic and dangerous sites--large sites typically. Fewer sites are being listed, and many of those listed are not receiving sufficient funding. One Superfund manager in my State of New Jersey said this: EPA is strangling the program. Here are the facts: The rate of site cleanup has fallen by 50 percent under this administration. In other words, they allowed, deliberately, these sites to rot where they are and that threatens the people who live in the nearby vicinities. The listing of new sites on the National Priorities List has fallen by 23 percent. There is no action there. We cannot pay our bills. A lot of the people who are with the EPA doing that kind of work have seen the end of their jobs in sight and they don't want to stay there. They want to look to see what else is a prospect for them and their family.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I say to my colleague, since I am on the floor, I will allot myself another 3 or 4 minutes before I turn the microphone over to the Senator from Vermont. Even when a site finally makes it onto the NPL, it will take 11 years, on average, to actually decontaminate this site. My State, unfortunately, has the second highest number of Superfund sites, second only to California. We have 113 Superfund sites, and more sites are waiting to be listed. My amendment would be the first step toward a solution. It would also reduce the budget deficit by $8.3 billion over 5 years. If you spread the cost around, it becomes infinitesimally small. It has been calculated that two-tenths of a cent on a gallon of gas would be the cost to taxpayers generally. It is a small, but appropriate, step for us to take for fiscal sanity. Reinstating the polluter-pays principle is fair. It has a proven track record. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains of the time that was given to me?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we are looking at is a way to relieve the taxpayers of having to come up with $8.3 billion, relieving pressure on the budget to the extent of the $8.3 billion. We have so many sites in so many places, as I earlier discussed, in States such as Montana, Nebraska, and Maine. Some of these sites are huge. We see the same situation in Utah. I cannot believe that in this body at this time we would not say the communities across the country are being burdened by all kinds of discontinued programs, by all kinds of reductions in grants that went to the communities. A lot of the programs have been absorbed into grants, single grants, and let the communities use whatever they can for whatever they choose to but always at a diminished rate. This is a chance to set the record straight and let the public know this administration does not really care about what happens in these communities; that this administration would rather say to their friends, the polluters, many of which are listed on the contributors list for the campaign: Listen, we excuse you big companies from the dirt and the mess you made in these communities; we forgive you, but we will not pay it any other way except through the taxpayers' pockets. This is a chance to set the record straight. I submit that every Senator who casts a vote against this amendment is saying to the people in his or her State: It is too bad you have those polluted sites. So what. Our friends, the companies that created this pollution, are closer to us than you, the citizens, the constituents in our States and in our country. It is time we face up to the reality. We had a program that was excellent. It began in 1980. I came to the Senate in 1982. I followed it very closely and worked very hard on its reauthorization, which took place a couple of times. The program was going well. Cleanups were being done faster. People felt more secure about their jobs, those who worked to effect these cleanups, because they could see something ahead of them in terms of their own family security and their own needs. When these people leave, it will be very hard to find the skills and the specialities that are required to continue this work. They will go, and I do not blame them for going. I am sure if it came to my own family and I had to support them through my job in my profession, I would say that is my first obligation. It is not to take care of the cleanup of the polluted sites. The President does not care about it. Our friends on the other side of the aisle do not care about it. One wonders how cynical people have become about voting, about putting their trust in politicians, their trust diminishes considerably, except now when people are beginning to feel the pressure of job scarcity, of termination of health plans, and retirement plans at risk. It is a whole different world. I submit that when the vote finally comes on this amendment, the people who are going to vote against it have to examine their conscience very closely to make sure they are doing the right thing for their communities and for their States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be sequenced following the Dorgan amendment No. 2793, and that there be 2 minutes remaining for debate at that time with respect to the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call my amendment up, which was debated earlier. It is amendment No. 2703.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have an amendment to reinstate the Superfund tax that was in place for so many years and produced a very successful program. It has been said that I want to tax people. Don't believe that this is a tax-free exchange, as we heard from the Senator from Oklahoma before when he accused me of loving taxes. He loves taxes, but he wants to put it on the average citizen. He does not want the polluters to pay. He said that very directly. He raised a question rhetorically, I guess, that asked: Who among those who are accused of polluting did not pay their fair share? I will tell you one. Halliburton. Halliburton never pays their fair share where they can get it and owes the Defense Department $61 million in overcharges; Halliburton which manages to put their business offshore so they escape taxes. Is that the example we want to look at, not whether the people who have been paying the taxes, the average working person, will pay two- tenths of a cent more per gallon?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am.

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 the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to make clear to the American people what it is we do here tonight. It is far from certain all the Members of the Senate are totally familiar with everything that is enmeshed in the arcane language and complicated processes in this budget resolution. Our amendment says as we see deficits hemorrhaging and the debt limit stretched to $7.4 trillion, we want to be certain it is known this budget bill carries hidden in its mystical language an increase of $664 billion with instruction to the Senate and the House to go up to a total of $8 trillion on the debt limit; therefore, virtually automatically permitting more borrowing to take place without review and direct approval. Can my colleagues imagine how the American people will feel if tonight we add $2,400 worth of debt to each and every one of them and give them in exchange an average of $200 in tax relief? Imagine, $2,400 worth of debt and $200 worth of cash. It makes Shylock look like an amateur. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can defer any attempt to increase our debt limit unless it is clear to all what we are going to do by taking our debt limit through the roof. I hope we can get support for this so we can have an intelligent debate specifically on the debt limit at a later time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my good friend from South Carolina, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, has been a tireless and influential advocate for passenger rail, and his leadership is unparalleled on this issue. Although my friend Senator Conrad, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, has pointed out that this budget does not explicitly provide for adequate funding for Amtrak, I am hopeful that Senator Hollings' efforts will lead to a long-term funding source for the railroad so that it may finally take advantage of efficient, multi-year planning and realize additional efficiencies on its system. The attacks on 9/11 taught us a valuable lesson concerning transportation options, and we need to heed that lesson so we do not find ourselves in a situation again where options for travelers are severely limited and our economy suffers because of it. Last year, the Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for Amtrak--the highest amount ever. Also last year, Amtrak carried over 24 million passengers--their highest amount ever. I am quite certain this is no coincidence. It is also no coincidence that this record was achieved during the first full year under the leadership of Mr. Gunn. He is doing a remarkable job of improving the reliability of the railroad, and his success is a success shared by our Nation as a whole. In the meantime, given the funding levels we are finally providing to Amtrak, I am pleased that my colleagues are seeing that we can no longer nickel-and-dime our national passenger railroad. I hope that we can do the right thing to continue to ensure that Amtrak is given the resources it needs to continue on its path to a state-of-good-repair. yucca mountain

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate that the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Commission should issue a postage stamp honoring Diwali. Diwali, known colloquially as the ``festival of light,'' is celebrated annually in Indian communities worldwide. Diwali marks the beginning of the Hindu New Year and signifies the renewal of life for all. Traditionally lasting five days, it is common practice for celebrants to light small oil lamps, called diyas, and place them around the home and pray for health, knowledge, and peace. Light represents the triumph of good over evil, and signifies optimism for the future. Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and Eid have already been recognized on United States postage stamps. It would be appropriate to add Diwali to this distinguished list. It is a holiday about community, family, and hope for the future--qualities the Senate should highlight and embrace. S. Res. 318 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) a postage stamp should be issued by the United States Postal Service in commemoration of Diwali, a festival celebrated by people of Indian origin; and (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like about 20 minutes, if I may.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with interest. Frankly, if this were a theater, which it often is, I would still be looking for the direction that this play is going to take. When we look at the budget resolution before us, I think what we are seeing is downright deception. I think it is fair to say that those who look at this budget resolution with favor and try to make the case for it are doing it, but I think it has a hollow ring to it. There are a number of games being played, as our friends on the other side present their picture of this new budget. By way of example, there is 1 year of relief from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, included in their calculation. This AMT will cost something over $650 billion to fix for a 10-year-period. There is only $23 billion included for this year. There is only 1 year of funding for continued military operations in the war against terrorism. All Members know we speculate about where we will be going with our needs in Iraq. It hardly seems reasonable to put out a $30 billion figure that represents a single year when over a 10-year-period it is believed it will cost $280 billion. The question is, What kind of accounting are we seeing in this budgeting? Is the Bush administration following the practices we are seeing in the corporate world? The practices getting so much criticism, the audit reports on Enron and Tyco and WorldCom, are we following their example? Or perhaps they learned their accounting from the actions of our Government, which is making promises that are so outrageous they will never be kept--cannot be met? If we had a stock issued, I would say they were trying to push the stock price; perhaps they are, but it is called electioneering. It cannot be done. The people on their way to prosecution, the leadership in Tyco, Enron, or WorldCom, who are now being punished for their deception, have learned you can say all you want but when it comes time to evaluating, it has to be in practical terms. What happened? I served as the ranking member of the Budget Committee during the period we moved from deficits to surpluses. I and so many others were proud of our accomplishments. That is why it is so disturbing for me to see all of our hard work undone. I tip my hat to our colleague from North Dakota who is now the ranking member of the Budget Committee for his hard work. It is never an easy assignment. It is fair to say that we feel compelled on our side to tell it like it is. What is going on is shameful. Consideration of this budget resolution also provides a much needed opportunity to review the economic record of this administration. Unfortunately, the report card does not show a passing grade. We see it in the confidence that is lost by the public across this country. Why has the confidence been lost? Because over 2 million jobs have been lost and people feel that. Last Thursday or Friday we had a hearing at the Democratic Policy Committee where we had unemployed workers talk about what life is like after losing a job. They talked about a small company in Michigan where some 2,700 people were employed in a town of about 9,000. The company, Electrolux, is packing their bags and going to Mexico. The man who worked there for 23 years described the personal impact it had on him. He said: I have a daughter in college. I have two kids following. I had health care taken care of. I paid my mortgage. I did everything I could for my family, held my head high, walked with dignity. Now my life has retreated into a shameful morass. He could barely talk at one point because he was choking with tears. He asked: What has happened? He said if a cyclone hit, the damage would not be any less than closing this factory. Everything, the infrastructure, the storekeepers, the gasoline station, everyone is going to feel this impact. That does not affect what is happening in this administration. President Bush will be the first President to preside over a net job loss since Herbert Hoover was in office during the Depression. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am one of those people who lived through Herbert Hoover's presidency. You have to live a long time because Herbert Hoover was President at the end of the 1920s. He brought panic and havoc to our society, our country. It is astonishing, but there are fewer people at work today than when George W. Bush was sworn in. Yet the country has grown substantially; the population has increased. To make matters worse, President Bush was given a 10-year surplus estimate of $5.6 trillion. Now CBO is projecting--and we do not hear anyone challenging it--CBO is projecting a $3.5 trillion Bush deficit for the same period. That is a reversal of fortune of almost $9 trillion. That change in direction is so gigantic, it cannot be happenstance. It cannot be attributed to carelessness. It can only be due to recklessness or by plan. The plan is a grand scheme to shift the size of Government--this has been pledged by this administration--and the functioning of our Government while effecting a transfer of wealth hardly seen in contemporary times, in a way often seen in the days of monarchies or revolution, the transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the wealthy. I saw a statistic the other day in the newspaper that said in 1977, the top 1 percent of the wage earners of this country earned as much as the 49 percent at the lower end of the wage scale. In reverse terms, if you took accumulated earnings of 49 percent of our people and put it in a pot, it would have to be a giant pot, it would equal the 1 percent of the people on the top end, people who had all of the means they needed. Worse, after 22 years, in 1999, that ratio shifted to 1 percent earning what 55 percent of the people earn; 55 percent all lumping their wages all together equals what 1 percent of our population is earning. Substantial reductions in programs will directly affect people's incomes. If they cannot afford to get the babysitters, if they cannot afford to educate their children, if they cannot afford to take care of their wellness, if they cannot afford to see their health care needs are taken care of, that is a cut in income. It is deliberate. Otherwise, we would not have had a debate on whether overtime ought to be stripped away from people who work hard and who depend on overtime as part of their ordinary compensation. But, no, we lost that debate here because the Republicans in the House did not want to go along with it. When we look at the budget, we cannot look at this budget out of the context of where we are as a society. Jobs are necessary. It is important we stop outsourcing our opportunity to create more jobs and more income. It is not a happy picture. Republican irresponsibility with regard to the Federal budget is threatening the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, right as the first cohort of baby boomers gets close to retirement age. Everybody knows if your expenses are higher than your income, there is only one way to meet your obligations, and that is, to borrow it. That is what we have done. What we are saying to people across the country is: Don't watch your spending. Just go ahead and borrow it. Does that sound like good advice to kids who are growing up and learning? I do not think so. Borrow it. Borrow it from Social Security. Borrow it from Medicare. That is what you do. The fact that it could totally obliterate the ability of these programs to carry on in future years does not seem to strike home, not as long as we can give tax cuts to ``fat cats.'' I speak as someone who has had the good fortune of having been in business and having had a success. I am going to get a tax break, I am told, of substantial proportion. I do not want to be a showoff. I do not want that tax cut because that is hardly a legacy that means anything to my children. I have 10 grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 10. So their lives are way out in front of them. What would I want to do, more than anything, for those grandchildren of mine? It is to have a country that is stable, that is harmonious, where people are getting along, where everybody has a chance, where jobs are available, where when they get to retirement age they know Social Security will be there for them, where they know their health care and their children's health care can be taken care of. That, to me, is the legacy I would best and all of us would best leave our children. For me to take a tax cut, for others here who have been financially successful to take a tax cut, while the country is bleeding financially, while we steal it from Social Security and Medicare and other programs, while only half the 1.6 million kids who are eligible for Head Start are enrolled--I took a minute today to learn a little more about Head Start. Head Start is for little kids who do not have the chance to understand what learning is about, maybe because they come from poverty-stricken homes, or perhaps they have a single parent, or maybe there is not even a parent in the house, maybe they live with grandparents. It is a program that teaches them there is more ahead in life than they see in their own homes. It teaches them it is good to learn. It teaches them when they get to school--and these are kids who are 3, 4, 5 years old--learning is a good objective. It teaches them something else, that there is a place where they can get some nutrition, get a meal or two, while they are in the care of those who are running the Head Start Program. It also says something else to them: If you feel sick, you can see a nurse or a doctor. But even as you grow, what else can happen is you can get care for your wellness. We can see things that might attack you physically, diseases that are threatening. You can get injections or inoculations, and you can get a medication that will help the child grow and develop. Mr. President, hundreds of thousands of those kids are going to lose their programs because ``fat cats,'' people who earn, on average, $1,000,000 a year, or the top asset holders in this country of ours, will get a $100,000 tax cut. And it does not mean anything. When you are worth $10 million, $100,000 is not a difference in your life. So to do that and take away care for hundreds of thousands of children in Head Start is outrageous. We have other silly things going on. We decided in the budget we would get rid of 2,000 meat inspectors, when we have mad cow running around and chickens dying of disease. Yes, cut down on the number of people who are doing meat inspections. Take 25,000 cops off the street who are now in the COPS Program. I was in communities in New Jersey talking about what it means for a community with a small police department to lose two, three, five, six cops who are there on the Federal program, to lose them and their law enforcement efforts as we try to fight crime and be on the alert for terrorism. It says over 20,000 veterans, as a result of that tax cut for that ``fat cat''--it almost has a rhyme, but there is no reason to it--it means 20,000-plus veterans will lose their health care. I had the good fortune to serve in the Army in World War II a long time ago in the European theater, and I know this: The people who count the most on the Government's promises are those who serve us so gallantly in the military. We had a visit the other night to Walter Reed Hospital and talked to people who have been severely wounded, some with the loss of a limb, or even the loss of two limbs. One young man I spoke to was 23 years old. What is the prospect for his life? He will get a prosthesis that will help him get along, but we have to make sure the Medicare we give him is the best we can possibly do. But in this budget, there are cuts in VA health programs. The administration will not take responsibility for the problems I have just outlined. They do not even acknowledge these problems exist. The Republican solution is to hide the direction and the cuts in vital programs and hope no one is going to notice or deceive people with sleight-of-hand tricks, like starting a purportedly good----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, can I have 10 more minutes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. We take a program such as the Medicare program that belted its way through this House, that made empty promises to people--but they are going to pay more. Everybody knows it. It is going to cost more, and they are going to get less. There is a battle about whether the administration can send out circulars that purport to describe the benefits of this health care program. It is an election campaign distribution. We understand 36 million copies of a pretty circular, showing someone healthy and praising Medicare, are going out across the country. But they do not start the program until 2006. Why is 2006 a magic number? Because in 2004, as we all know, there is a big-time election, and we do not want to have an election after the new Medicare program has started because when people see it in action, they are going to be angry, they are going to be sore. They will not want to vote for anybody who is responsible for that program being put in place. We keep hearing that jobs are coming back. But the cold, hard facts contradict this claim. The President trumpets the fact that 364,000 jobs have been created since August. He says it is great news. But the economy would have had to create over 1 million jobs just to keep pace with new entrants into the labor force. The President says this trickle of new jobs, which includes just 21,000 in February--by the way, 20,000 of those are Government jobs--is proof that his tax cuts are working. They are not working. In May of 2003, the President's Council of Economic Advisers, the CEA, said the economy would create more than 2 million jobs in the first 7 months after the tax cut was enacted. We happen to be short, just missed a little. We are only 1.7 million jobs short. The tax cuts are not creating jobs. They are creating record budget deficits. What is the solution? Some of my Republican colleagues wish to recreate reality. They now say we have been using the wrong employment statistics. They want to use the so-called household survey, not the payroll survey, which most economists, including Alan Greenspan, agree is the proper measure. He said: Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data . . . which you have to follow. As our friend and former colleague, Pat Moynihan, used to say: Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not entitled to their own facts. We all would be better off if this administration and its allies in Congress would stop playing games to make the employment situation seem better than it really is. The bottom line is, 8 million Americans want to work but can't find a job. Another example of the Republicans' utter inability to look at the facts squarely: Budget deficits. Putting President Bush and fiscal responsibility into the same sentence, frankly, is a challenge. President Bush has broken his father's dubious record by racking up the biggest deficits in our country's history. Initially he told us in 2001: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. What a statement that is. Then he said in 2002: Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short- term. Now the President boldly says: Well, we will halve the budget deficit in the next 5 years. There are not a lot of believers about to support that. In 2003, he had the audacity to say: We will not pass our problems on to future generations. Boy, if that was coming from a company with listed stock, I wouldn't buy that stock, I will tell you. If we were depending on those kinds of statements to make our way, we would be sitting with Martha Stewart someplace, suffering the same consequence. Not a single forecaster sees a surplus anywhere in our future. In fact, as baby boomers begin to retire, the Bush budget deficit is set to skyrocket to 10 percent of gross domestic product and more over the next few decades. This deficit is huge by any standard, and it is growing by more than $2 billion each and every day, which explains why our outstanding public debt has soared above $7 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history. Some are saying deficits are due to the war on terror. The only problem with that argument is we could eliminate the entire Defense Department and the entire Homeland Security Department and we still wouldn't get rid of the deficit. Other Republicans are saying the deficit is due to rising discretionary spending. That is wrong. Even if we eliminated every penny of domestic discretionary spending--that is virtually the entire Government--we still would not get rid of the budget deficit. For the most part, the deficits have been caused by massive tax breaks skewed to the wealthiest Americans, pure and simple. The most cynical tactic this administration has used is their repeated attempt to blame the economic mess they have created on the previous administration. Again and again and again, we hear them say: President Bush inherited the recession. They say this knowing full well the recession began in March of 2001. That is according to the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of when recessions begin and end. As the saying goes: Facts are stubborn things. The Republicans also argue that 9/11 caused the recession. Of course, claiming that the recession began under President Clinton and that 9/11 caused it are mutually contradictory and flat out wrong. These are some of the strategies of the present President, administration officials, and Republicans in Congress to mislead the American people, to disguise the facts, to distort reality, to pretend they are not responsible for the worst economy in years. The American people are smarter than to believe the administration's propaganda machine. They know they can't find jobs. They know deficits will hurt the economy. They know their Social Security is in jeopardy. Here is some truth: America simply cannot afford these ruinous economic and fiscal policies any longer. We need a drastic change of course, and we need it soon. This budget resolution would be a good place to start. I urge adoption of the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota. I think we ought to have a 60-vote requirement for any more deficit-increasing tax cuts that are to be made. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware of the fact that when President Roosevelt took over, we had a 22-percent unemployment problem in 1933? He succeeded in bringing unemployment down through Government programs, through all kinds of programs. But the fact is, he wanted to get people back to work. I happen to remember my father was one of those people who had to resort shamefully to a Government program. He was embarrassed by it, but he had to feed his family. That was more important. The fact is, I believe, the Senator would agree, that while the portrayal may not be to the Senator's liking, this is the administration that has lost more jobs since the term of Herbert Hoover. Does the Senator dispute that point?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides who support this gun show loophole amendment. We have just heard Senator McCain make a case to close this loophole. There doesn't seem to be any reason on Earth that this loophole should exist. We are talking about allowing felons, criminals generally, and terrorists to buy guns without any identification. It is hard to understand why something such as this can occur. Back in 1999, I authored the original gun show loophole closure to require that sales at gun shows require the same background checks that licensed gun dealers are required to perform under the Brady law. The bill passed in 1999 after Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote to break a 50-50 vote on the measure. Unfortunately, those who want to buy guns--who might be criminals, and again terrorists--decided to kill this bill in conference. This loophole has continued to exist. I am sure the American people will not be able to understand in general what this loophole is about. Why do we want to protect the rights of those who would evade the law to get guns? As long as this loophole is around, our other gun laws mean virtually nothing. Does it matter if there are background checks by licensed gun dealers if the convicted felon can walk into a gun show and get a weapon with no questions asked? Right now, gun shows are cash and carry for firearms. Terrorists, criminals, and the mentally unstable can get anything they want at a gun show from one of these unlicensed dealers. It has to stop. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who want to see guns generally available under their interpretation of what the second amendment means would resist this. It is not understandable by any measure. We know the people who got the guns for the Columbine massacre got a weapon which was a measure of an assault weapon illegally from a nonlicensed dealer. When firearms are available to terrorists with instructions from their headquarters in Afghanistan to go to the United States; you can buy guns at a gun show; never tell who you are and never identify yourself, doesn't make any sense at all. I hope my colleagues will take a second look at this and say: OK, this one we have got to patch up. But we do not hear that from those who would defend this arcane and ridiculous process. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. This bill, which has been in place since 1994, held back on the availability of assault weapons, those holding more than 10 rounds in their cartridge holder. The assault weapons ban amendment would simply extend the current ban on these deadly weapons for another 10 years, with no other changes in current law. It is hard to understand why we would not go ahead and simply extend this. The President of the United States said at one point that this ban should continue to exist. Assault weapons are intended for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. We should never forget that ill-fated day of April 20, 1999, in Littleton, CO, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire on teachers and fellow students at Columbine High School. They were armed with a TEC-DC9 assault weapon. When the shooting was over, 15 people, including the gunmen, were dead and 23 wounded. We can never forget the picture of those youngsters hanging out the window, pleading for help, pleading for safety, trying to protect themselves. These assault weapons have no place in a civilized society. According to FBI data, one in five law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault weapons. Even terrorists have identified our gun laws as a point of vulnerability. Found among the rubble at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan was a manual called ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.'' The manual stipulates that terrorists living in the United States should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorists on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms. It defies logic to understand why it is that we have to protect those who want to have assault weapons. I was in the Army during the war. I carried a carbine. Assault weapons were available for those in the infantry--sometimes--so they could kill as many of the enemy as possible. Who is the enemy here?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, who would be the enemy in this case? More law enforcement officers? More kids in a school? More people in an office where a disgruntled employee took out his rage by pointing a rapid-fire weapon at fellow workers? No, this amendment makes all the sense in the world. Ban these weapons. Don't let them continue to be available in our society-- assault weapons, weapons of war. Why is it necessary to ensure that the rights of those who would carry that lethal a weapon be protected? I see no sense in it, and I hope my colleagues will take a second look. I hope those who support the gun immunity bill will take a second look and say: You know what, this is not a fight worth having. We don't need these weapons in our society, and we ought to continue this ban as it is. I would have preferred something stronger, and I think people here know that, but let's at least continue the ban as it exists, as the Senator from California presented it. I thank my colleague from Nevada and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't know what we are talking about when I listen to the speeches. I hear it said that these aren't necessarily the guns of criminals. By the way, I asked the question whether the two kids who killed their classmates and others in Columbine High School, were they criminals before they started to shoot that gun? I don't think so. The question is, how does the gun get into their hands? It was an assault weapon, and we ought to ban these weapons. The President of the United States even said so. I heard reference to the fact there were organizations that said this ban should be removed. I want to talk about those who want to support the ban. For instance, the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the Major Cities Chiefs of Police; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association--and the list goes on. Let us listen to what the people are saying. Who are we protecting? Are we protecting the average citizen? Are we protecting the worker who has a disgruntled fellow employee pull the trigger? I don't think so. We ought to continue this ban.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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