Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1680

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. stevenson expressway/wacker drive rehabilitation

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in deference to my friend and colleague from Virginia, I am going to decline to answer the question that he puts to frame my speech. After I deliver my message, then I will be happy to respond. Perhaps I will have covered the turnaround the Senator describes. I will wait until I get the floor before I take a question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I hope the Senator has a glass of water there. I am going to deliver my missive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to deliver a short statement, because I know there are other matters pending that we would like to hear fairly promptly. While on the subject of the CAFE standards, I will register my support for the position outlined by the senior Senator from California and the Senator from Washington. For the last 4 years, the Senate has accepted the House's CAFE freeze rider. The result has been serious consequences for the environment, for employment and for the health of people across the country. There is a myth floating around that CAFE standards hurt consumers. The truth is, good CAFE standards help consumers. It's a simple concept. If your car or SUV uses less gas, you save money. Between 1975 and 1980, when the fuel economy of cars doubled, consumers with fuel- efficient cars saved $3,000 over the lifetime of the car. And that translated into $30 billion of savings in annual consumer spending. Another benefit of CAFE standards is reduced pollution. Air pollution from cars has been a major environmental problem. In fact, gas-guzzling cars and light trucks are responsible for 25 percent of this country's output of emissions that cause global climate change. Few can hear those words, ``climate change,'' and not be concerned about the impact of the severity of storms and poor air quality we are seeing, such as the current hurricane threat, one of massive proportions, which seems to have mitigated a little bit. The fact is, there is concern that changes in our climate, changes that are created in the atmosphere as a result of pollution, are in some way responsible. We have to take a serious look at this, as we consider the question in front of us at the moment. A Congressional study by the House Government Reform minority staff found that, from 1995 to 1998, exposure to the hazardous air pollutants measured in Los Angeles' air quality caused as many as 426 additional cancer cases per million exposed individuals. When CAFE standards were first passed in the late 1970s, light trucks made up only 20 percent of the market. Back then, light trucks were used mainly for hauling. They didn't often travel through congested urban and suburban areas. All that has changed. Today, light trucks--a category that includes SUV's and minivans--represent half of all vehicles sold. They produce 47 percent more smog-forming exhaust and 43 percent more global-warming pollution than cars. And each light truck goes through an average of 702 gallons of gas per year. Compare that to 492 gallons per year for cars, more than 200 gallons per year. Mr. President, if CAFE standards for light trucks were increased from 20.5 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon--the standard for cars-- then carbon dioxide emissions would drop by 200 million tons by the year 2010. Jobs are also an important part of this discussion. The other side keeps insisting that CAFE standards will hurt employment, especially in the auto industry. However, a study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy says that money saved at the gas pump, and reinvested throughout the economy, would create 244,000 jobs in this country--that includes 47,000 in the automobile industry. These statistics support the Feinstein-Gorton amendment. I think in the interest of our society, the one thing we can do is make sure we are treating the environment for human habitation in as friendly a fashion as we can. We know it is an accomplishable feat, and we ought to get on with it. I urge my colleagues to join in favor of this sense of the Senate resolution. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Who has the floor?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what we are seeing is much more a question of interpretation rather than a violation of the rule. Because the distinguished Senator from Virginia says we had agreed to a specific 10 percent, I think more accurately, in all due respect, is that we agreed to sums of money that added up to approximately 10 percent of the total funding. The programs that were detailed in the list that was going to be supported have grown, by the way. They have grown as the appropriations have grown for highway funding. The one thing to which I want to return, and I am sorry our colleague from Alabama is not here because I want him to know I agree fully with what he has said thus far and the proposition that we are considering, and that is extra moneys that are found in the surplus go directly to the States to finance their programs as they see them. It is funny because so often we have a debate about States rights and Big Brother Government and that kind of thing. But here we are, some of us find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate. The fact of the matter is that each State--and I want my colleagues to know this--is going to get more money. They are going to decide where the highway needs are in their States. They are going to decide what is critical, and they are going to decide it in a year in which the whole country is burdened with congestion. Those States will have those moneys to use for highway construction or as they see fit under their programs. The fact we agreed to a series of programs at the time TEA 21 was developed, and though there was a lot of hard work--and I respect the work the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Montana did on TEA 21--I disagreed with them. They knew it. I voted finally for the bill because they had some compromises thrown in. My State went from one level of funding in the formula to a lower level, when my State sends more money to this Federal Government than any State in the country. They said: Frank, agree with us because we will take care of you in this program or that program to try to get a compromise. Believe me, if I had the 50 other votes, I would not have agreed, but I did not have them. So I went along. It was not a happy day. It wasn't a happy day for New Jersey or this Senator who serves, by the way, on both the EPW Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee. What we are seeing is a nuclear explosion in the middle of a chance to dynamite a new hole for a new road. I understand how jurisdictions want to be preserved, and I support that. But the fact is, I agree with the chairman of the subcommittee that this is our interpretation of how that money, how that surplus should be spent. I point out to our colleagues who may be listening who are going to vote on this, every one of your States get more money directly for the programs on what your transportation commissioners, your Governors want to spend money. I do not know that we have heard from any Governors who have called up and said: Listen, don't give us that extra money, put it into those Federal programs. I do not think that message goes particularly well out there. The message that does go well out there is your States get more money. All of the programs that were detailed in TEA 21 are fully financed as outlined in the original TEA 21 legislation, and each one of them has gotten more money as a result of the expanded funding available. So we are not cheating anybody. What we are saying is that as we see it, these funds should be distributed directly to the States, simplify it rather than winding up with I do not know how small the smallest change would be on the list of programs, but it would get down to relatively tiny sums of money. We give it to the States. It is done clearly and everybody understands it. My friend from Virginia--this is my closing remark--talked about the ITS program that I worked so hard on, intelligent vehicles. Notice I never said intelligent drivers. Intelligent vehicles was a program I worked very hard to get. New Jersey, I am told, gets $5 million, I say to the Senator from Virginia, out of that $211 million that we are devoting to intelligent transportation systems. New Jersey, though it deserves far more, only has a very small percentage of that. It was not New Jersey based. That was a program I felt strongly about for my country and for the benefit of those who drive across the highways and the byways of this great Nation, including reducing congestion wherever we can and expediting traffic flow. That is what that was. That was not a ``New Jersey special,'' I can assure the Senator. I hope when all is said and done, and very often more is said than is done, we will have our colleagues' support and carry this bill. Let's get done with it. Yes, the debate was worthwhile having because our colleagues wanted it and we respect our colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Montana, but we differ with them. We have a job of getting this bill out and into the hands of those who are going to be using it for their construction needs in the next year, and we ought to move along with it as quickly as we can.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, I think what the Senator from Oregon is doing this morning is offering some help for sat-upon air passengers--people who are totally discouraged by the treatment they get from our airlines. I am not saying the airlines are not a good, effective part of our communications system or that they don't care. Not at all. But they have to be a little more sensitive to what the passengers need. The passengers need to know whether or not reservations they have made are going to be honored. They have to know whether or not they are buying right. If you go into a department store, you see signs telling you how much an article costs. When you call up an airline for reservations, you never know whether you have three seats in L class, or two seats in Y class, or six seats in E class, and you don't know whether you are getting what you are getting. I think there is an expression that is used commonly around here--``a right to know.'' The passengers have a right to know. They have a right to know that when they get to that airport, the seat they have reserved which they paid for is going to be available for them. There is no one whom I like less to disagree with than my friend from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. But the airlines may know, to use his expression, ``how wide a seat is.'' But they don't want to tell you how wide the seating spaces are in their airplanes compared to others. I fly, as most here do, at least twice a week--once up and once back from my home district in my State. I find that the space gets narrower and narrower. I think we ought to let people know. Give them a choice. Give them a right to know. We are not telling them the seat size. I don't want to do that. I have found one thing. Sometimes if you offer enough carrots as an incentive, you wind up with carrot soup. You don't wind up with a satisfied user. That is what we are talking about. The airlines have voluntarily agreed to do some things; that is, if you can find out, and if you understand what they are talking about when they do it. I see nothing wrong in the sense-of-the-Senate resolutions the Senator from Oregon is introducing. I think he is doing us all a favor, and that is highlighting what the problem is. It is not law that he is proposing. What he is suggesting is something for us to all think about as we consider legislation, or recommending rules to the FAA that the FAA ought to take up. We are focusing. I must say this to the Senator from West Virginia. In my opening remarks and in the remarks of the chairman of the subcommittee, what we are talking about is the shortages that we are seeing in funding for FAA. I know I heard it repeated by the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I said we are underfunding the FAA. That is because the whole transportation budget is inadequate for the things we have to do. It shouldn't be. But the system is safe. People do get there most of the time now--late. But the fact is we are concerned about funding the FAA and the overcrowding of the skies. We want the air traffic control system to operate well. I sit lots of times in the second seat in a small airplane. I hear what is going on. It is not always what you like to hear--that you have to wait a half hour to take off, that you have to wait a half hour or divert to land because it is too crowded. We are concerned about that. But also I make mention of a cause of mine--to make sure that we have high-speed rail in this country to take care of the 200-mile trip, or the 250-mile trip from New York to Washington, or Boston to New York, or Boston to Washington--relatively short trips--to relieve some of the pressure in the skies at the same time that we build the system. I yield the time. I thank the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are dealing with two sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that the Senator from Oregon has offered now, a substitute for an earlier amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Shelby, for having managed a very difficult problem with, frankly, less money than the amount we think transportation in this country deserves. We are entering a new century. It is hoped that we are going to be able to continue the prosperous and vigorous economy we now see. I think if there is one place where our funding allocations are deficient--and I believe they are deficient in many--transportation heads the list. It is necessary to have the kind of infrastructure that will propel us into continuing leadership in the 21st century, starting with transportation. We see crowding in every mode of transportation--aviation; the skies are jammed. The highways are congested. They are spewing contaminated air all over the place, and our transit systems are operating well above capacity. So I approach this bill with less than total satisfaction because we, frankly, could have used more funds. I will discuss those for a minute. I have served on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for more than 14 years. As they say, time flies when you are having fun. I chaired the subcommittee for 8 years, and I have also had the pleasure of serving under other subcommittee chairmen including Mark Andrews, Mark Hatfield, who was a dear friend and inspired leader, and, most recently, Richard Shelby. Senator Shelby, as his predecessors, has been attentive to the issues. He has consulted carefully with the minority members of the subcommittee. When it comes to funding levels included in this bill, Senator Shelby has done the best he could, given the very limited resources allocated to this subcommittee. And though I wish we had more money, I am supporting this bill, even with the limitations placed upon us, because of the efforts by Senator Shelby. When you consider the fact that this appropriations bill is going to usher in our national transportation agenda in the next century, it is clear that we are still not making the kind of investments we have to make to ensure continued leadership, economically and functionally, in the next millennium. That is not the fault of the chairman. Rather, it is the fault of our overall budgeting process--and I say that both as the ranking member of this subcommittee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee. The bill before us is almost $700 million below the level requested by the President in his budget. The President's proposed transportation budget for fiscal year 2000, for the first time, exceeds $50 billion. This bill, however, is funded at less than $49.5 billion. While the dollar amount in this bill does exceed the total provided for in fiscal year 1999, the growth is to be found in the highway and transit programs that enjoy firewalled funding under TEA-21. The funding provided in this bill for other modal transportation which do not benefit from funding guarantees is severe. Funding for the Coast Guard is well below the President's request. Fortunately, we were able to include funding for the Coast Guard in the Kosovo supplemental appropriations bill. These funds will remain available and enable the Coast Guard to better meet its needs next year. Funding for the Federal Aviation Administration is more than 6.5 percent below the President's request. Funding for Amtrak: We are now approaching a time when Amtrak is about to step in, hopefully, to the 21st century, but it is at least starting to catch up in the 20th century even as we leave it. High- speed rail is around the corner--delayed, unfortunately, a little bit more than we expected it to be. But it is on its way. It is going to make an enormous difference. By way of example, if we didn't have the investment in Amtrak's Northeast Corridor to keep it going, we would need, as a substitute, 10,000 flights every year--10,000 new flights between the Boston area and the Washington area, including New York. That would be something beyond comprehension in terms of the crowded skies--200 new flights a week. Funding for the critical highway safety functions, or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is cut by more than $50 million, or 15 percent below the level requested by the administration. A large part of the problem is that, when we marked up appropriations bill in May, we were capped by the low authorization levels in TEA-21. Since that markup, the House and the Senate passed, and the President signed, a sizable increase in these authorization levels for highway safety. But now that the authorization levels have been increased, there is no funding in the subcommittee's allocation to fund even part of them. These are difficult funding cuts. But despite these cuts, I support this bill. Frankly, I am putting some hope in the fact that the bill as passed by the House of Representatives had an allocation that was more than $0.5 billion larger than the allocation granted to the Senate Transportation Subcommittee. As we approach conference on this bill, I expect to work closely with Chairman Shelby and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee with the goal of bringing back a transportation conference report that better meets the needs of the FAA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Coast Guard, and the other critical functions of the Department of Transportation. Mr. President, I emphasize once more that the reason this bill is so tight is not because Chairman Shelby doesn't want to fund the necessary parts of the transportation bill's requirements but, rather, we are caught by the funding caps that have controlled the Appropriations process. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend our colleague for this amendment and for the substance of the amendment. There has been constant pressure on the airlines to provide seats and make accommodations available. For those who think they are going on a journey--some emergencies, some recreational, some for routine work--it matters not. The fact of the matter is, when someone makes a reservation on an airplane, they ought to know whether or not there is a pretty good chance they will arrive at their chosen destination. We know there is not a way to positively predict this. However, the passengers who have paid for their tickets should have a pretty good chance of arriving when the flight is scheduled to arrive. I think this is positive amendment. It is pretty simple. The Senator from Oregon deals with the problem of airlines continuing to sell tickets on oversold flights and refusing to divulge that fact to their customers. I consider myself a friend of aviation. I have worked very hard with the FAA and the airlines to make sure we offer reliable and safe service. With all of the crowding, our system is still remarkably safe. It handles far more flights than we ever expected. Are we up to date in everything we can do? I say absolutely not; the requirements far exceed the capacity. The least we ought to do is tell passengers if there is a reasonable chance that they will get to their destination. The person who travels from Cincinnati to New York, perhaps to catch a flight overseas, arrives with their baggage. They have a 2-hour connection or an hour- and-a-half at Kennedy or Newark Airport on their way to Rome. The only problem is, they arrive 3 or 4 hours later because they were bumped off the flight and they miss their flight to Rome. I had an experience a couple of weeks ago. This is probably a good story for democracy. I got to the airport, and they said the flight was sold out. I had made a reservation, given a credit card number. I arrived at the airport, and they said the airplane was filled. I got there 15, 20 minutes before flight time. I said: What do you mean, it is filled? They said: Yes, that seat is sold. I said: The seat was sold twice, and the first one who got there got it. No one told me the rules, that a passenger had to beat the other guy to the starting line to guarantee the seat for which they paid. Needless to say, I was a little annoyed. I didn't jump over the counter and threaten anybody, but it was not a pleasant experience. Instead of taking one direct flight back home, I had to take two--first flying north before I could fly south. All I could get was, ``Sorry, we sold the seat.'' It is an unpleasant experience. When they took the reservation which I made personally and gave my credit card number, they said fine and gave me a confirmation number. When I got to the gate to get on this airplane, the clerk behind the desk said: This airplane has been sold out. But they took my money anyway. The Senator from Oregon is standing behind the passenger who is not getting a lot of attention these days. The airlines handle a lot more traffic than they expected. They are also making a lot more money and I'm glad that they are. But they must also provide the service in a manner that is respectful of their passengers. What the Senator from Oregon is asking for is simple: If you are going to sell a ticket to him, to me, to anybody, please tell them if the flight is oversold. Then passengers can plan for it or figure out a backup instead of being innocently led to a blind wall where they can't go farther. So I support this amendment. I support it enthusiastically. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Denise Matthews, a fellow on the staff of the Appropriations Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on H.R. 2084 and the conference report thereon.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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 thank the Senator from Oregon for his contribution in the form of these amendments. We work together on the Budget Committee, and on other matters. He is always thoughtful on the matters he brings to the Senate. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves the room, I want to say to him that one of the things he talked about, sort of indirectly, in terms of getting the FAA up to the point that it should be in order to take care of the volume of traffic we have--we must make air travel more user friendly. You do that by providing an infrastructure that can accommodate the volume of traffic we have. I commend the Senator from West Virginia. He works very hard on matters of aviation. We are grateful to him for his contribution. I would like to say this. One of the things that kind of pervades the discussion that has gone on here for the last while by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from West Virginia is that there has to be a change in attitude, in my view. The airlines have to understand that they have a precious commodity when they have license to offer the services that they do. They are not unlike the doctor who provides excellent service who uses the hospital operating room for his or her work. We provide airspace--limited airspace. We provide huge investment in technology to have a system operate better. We provide airports. We provide facilities. And all of this is not designed to punish. My conversation is not designed to punish the airlines but to make sure it is remembered that they are serving the public, with the permission of the Government indirectly, by providing the kinds of facilities that can accommodate the number of flights and the routes that are being used. It is user friendly. I recently proposed something in New Jersey that has some people in government a little nervous. I suggested that when someone has to wait to pay a toll and it gets beyond a certain point, the drivers be permitted to go through free. I call it a deadline, Don't Encumber Drivers--DED--because otherwise those toll road authorities just collect their money. It just takes them a little while longer. But the one who pays and gets less service is the driver. You sit there in all of that smog, fog, and congestion. You miss your appointment, you don't get to work, you don't get to school, you don't get to the doctor, and shopping is not done on time. Why is it that the user is the one always pays the price? You go into a well operated supermarket, and they open more lanes so you can pay your bills faster because they know you don't want to stand around there to have to give them your money. So it is also, I think, with the airlines. I don't want to see them punished. This isn't designed to be punitive. What we are suggesting here is designed to make it fairer for the traveling passenger. Rather than bumping people, there ought to be other ways to deal with it, so that if someone is bumped, the airline also feels the pressure--not just the passenger if the airline chose to oversell the seats. I don't want to see the airlines flying with empty seats. That is not a mission at all. Maybe they have to come up with a different scheme. Maybe there has to be a deposit when you make an airline reservation. I have talked to lots of people who would make two or three reservations on airplanes on different flights so they could do it at their convenience, which means that someone else could not fly because they have blocked these seats. Maybe there has to be a deposit when the reservation is made to be used either for a trip or as a cost for doing business. If you want to have furniture delivered to your house, you can't get it delivered without suffering some kind of a penalty if they deliver it and nobody is home and they have to turn around and take it back, or if you want to cancel midstream. Try buying a car without a deposit. They will tell you no. You can't have your wash done without having a laundry ticket. In any event, I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that I am offering with my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski. I would like to thank our broad range of bipartisan cosponsors: Senators Boxer, Chafee, Dodd, Roth, Sessions, Feingold, Kerry of Massachusetts, Leahy, Landrieu, Lincoln, Frist, Graham, Collins, Smith of New Hampshire, Gregg, Moynihan, Warner, Bayh, McCain, Akaka, Feinstein, Jeffords, and Hagel. Mr. President, this amendment would restore funds to a program that has helped protect open space in every State in the Nation through the State grants section of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This amendment restores $20 million in fiscal year 2000 for these matching grants to States. This ``Stateside'' program can be used to fund a variety of public open space efforts, including State and county parks, State forests, boating and swimming areas, and a variety of other recreational sites. Mr. President, the House of Representatives saw fit to include the program at $30 million in its Interior Appropriations bill. We hope to come to their level in conference after our initial funding at $20 million. Over the past 30 years, through the stateside program, over $3 billion has been provided to the States, and through them, to local governments, on a matching basis, to preserve approximately 37,000 park and recreation areas. Mr. President, the decision to fund open space programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the wisest investments we can make. Open spaces are more than just undeveloped land. We all know that protecting open spaces can guard sensitive drinking water supplies and preserve wildlife habitat. Open spaces are also a lasting legacy we pass on to our children and grandchildren. But there is another equally important benefit of open spaces. In my State of New Jersey--the most densely populated State in the Nation--open spaces provide working families of limited means a place to enjoy the outdoors at little or no cost. A day at the beach or a picnic in the park or a hike in the woods is a day well spent. Mr. President, open space is extremely valuable in my State. In a poll last year by Quinnipiac College published in the Newark Star- Ledger, 70 percent of New Jersey residents said that preserving open space and farmland is more important than commercial growth and development in rural areas. Mr. President, it is extremely gratifying when members of both parties can join together in support of a program that has provided untold benefits for millions of Americans. I want to thank Senator Murkowski and my other colleagues who support this amendment. I ask all of my colleagues to join us to preserve open space for America's families.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Maryanne Trump Barry to the United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit. I commend Senator Hatch for moving forward with this nomination. We must ensure that the federal bench is at full strength so that our citizens will receive justice promptly and fairly. The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee deserves thanks from all who believe that our court system is at the core of our precious democratic structure. Judge Barry's reputation is well known and she has excellent credentials. In 1983, she was nominated to a federal district court judgeship by President Reagan, and since being confirmed for that post she has compiled an impressive record and become a nationally recognized expert on a wide range of criminal and civil law matters. Her knowledge of criminal law led Chief Justice Rehnquist to appoint her to chair the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a position she held from 1993-1996. Additionally, the Federal Judicial Center asked her to make an instructional videotape called ``How to Try a Complex Criminal Case'' and that tape is played for all new district court judges at their orientation seminar. In the area of civil law, Judge Barry has issued many important rulings including a decision that Blue Cross was required to pay for a bone marrow transplant for a terminally ill young girl who would have died without the procedure. New Jersey residents are particularly proud of her decision holding New York City responsible and in contempt for failing to obey a court order designed to prevent garbage and medical waste from New York's Fresh Kills Landfill from drifting onto New Jersey's shore. Not only do her judicial colleagues hold her in high regard, Judge Barry is also well-respected by the many attorneys who have appeared before her. They praise her command of the law, her professional demeanor, and her razor-sharp wit. As a result of her tenure in the U.S. attorney's office, her 16 years of outstanding service at the district court level, and her legal expertise, Judge Barry is well-prepared for elevation to the circuit court. In fact, she has already sat on the Court of Appeals--by designation--and has written several opinions. Mr. President, I highly recommend Judge Barry for elevation to the third circuit. As some of my colleagues may know, the third circuit is currently facing a judicial emergency, and the appointment of Judge Barry will help. To further address this crisis, I hope that the Judiciary Committee will soon take up the nomination of another excellent candidate for the third circuit, Judge Julio Fuentes. I would also be remiss if I did not point out that the elevation of Judge Barry will create another vacancy on the District Court of New Jersey, and so it would be essential that the committee move forward with the nomination of Faith Hochberg to that court.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I join my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Domenci, in bidding farewell to Dr. Paul N. Van de Water--a longstanding and highly respected member of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff. Dr. Van de Water is leaving CBO at the end of this week after more than 18 years of service to the Congress. Paul will join the Social Security Administration as the Senior Advisor to the Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Dr. Van de Water's departure from CBO represents an enormous loss for the Congress. His ability to generate objective, timely, and unbiased analyses exemplifies the finest tradition of nonpartisan public service. Paul's work at CBO represents the essence of the agency's mission. He managed--during some very difficult years--to serve both political parties in a fair and effective manner. He leaves CBO with his reputation for impartial analysis intact and his integrity unquestioned and unblemished. During his tenure at CBO, Dr. Van de Water earned a reputation for building a first rate staff and for ensuring that CBO's work was analytically sound, unbiased, and clearly presented. During the dark decades of runaway budget deficits, Paul worked tirelessly with Members and staff on every major budget summit, budget plan, and budget process reform initiative. Like most public servants he rarely received the formal recognition and thanks he deserved. I hope in some small measure to communicate our thanks and appreciation for these contributions today. Dr. Van de Water began his career at CBO in 1981 as Chief of the Projections Unit. From there, he moved on to Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis and, in 1994, assumed his current position as Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. He is the author, coauthor, or editor of more than 50 articles and books on government finance and Social Security and has testified before Congressional committees on numerous occasions. Dr. Van de Water's accomplishments beyond CBO include a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and two daughters--the first a senior majoring in physics at the College of William and Mary (and former Valedictorian of T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria) and the second, an enthusiastic 7th grader. Clearly, Paul has managed to keep his work and home priorities straight during his tenure at CBO. Paul's first hand knowledge of the Congressional budget process as well as the operations and traditions of CBO cannot be replaced. However, we take some solace from the fact that his contributions to public policy will continue. In his new role with the Administration, I am certain that his work will inform and shape the debate on the future of the Social Security program. I know that all of my colleagues join with me in wishing Paul the best of luck in his new endeavor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I obviously oppose this Republican tax bill. I am going to explain why in a minute. But I would like to start off by using an expression that we heard kind of invented around here, and that is: There they go again. There they go again. Or: There you go again. The party that claims that its mission is fiscal responsibility has, once again, resorted to tax cuts to establish its role in fiscal management. I find it shocking. I must tell you that we suddenly wanted to distribute a tax cut, which everybody likes to do. Make no mistake about it. I heard the President this morning say: After we finish securing Social Security and securing some extra longevity for Medicare, then we ought to distribute some tax cuts to people. But if you ask anybody who has a mortgage--and most people I know have one--whether they would like to get rid of the mortgage before they do anything else, if they had a choice, they would take the mortgage relief. I will tell you that. They would say: Look, that is the one thing that bedevils us, and especially if the mortgage lives on beyond their existence on Earth, and it passes on to their children and their grandchildren. They would say: Look, let's get rid of that mortgage. That is what we are talking about. We are all mortgagees in common when it comes to the national debt. We owe it. My kids owe it. My grandchildren will owe it if we don't get rid of that debt. What is proposed by the Democrats is that we pay down the debt, that we have a target of 15 years to get rid of all the public debt. It would be unheard of in contemporary terms, and maybe in historical terms as well, because I don't think there is any country in the world that has any advancement that would find itself without significant debt outside the government. But that is what is being proposed. Here we are. We want to give a tax break. And it works like this: The top 1 percent of wage earners who average $800,000-plus a year would get a $45,000 tax cut--just under $46,000. The person who works hard and struggles to keep their family intact, who struggles to keep opportunity available for their children's education and training and earns $38,000 a year, is going to get about 40 cents a day in tax relief. This fellow who earns over $800,000 is going to get a $45,000 tax break. I have heard my colleagues on the other side say, well, they pay most of it; why shouldn't they get most of it? Why? Because what difference does it make in the life of someone earning $800,000 and some a year whether they get a $45,000 tax cut? I am not saying they shouldn't get anything, but it sure doesn't compare with the impact that it has when you take $157 and you give it to someone earning $38,000. It doesn't do much for them at all. It permits this guy to buy a new boat, maybe even to make a downpayment on a second home. But to the other people who are struggling, often two-wage earners in the family, struggling to manage the future, it is impossible if you make $38,000 a year and you have a couple of kids. The Republican plan is now stripped down to its bare essentials. It says to raid Social Security if we must to give this tax cut, and don't pay any attention to Medicare, while people all over this country worry about their health care. Over 40 million of them have no health insurance at all. We are talking about Medicare and the sensitivity of appropriate health care for people who are in their advanced years. Our Republican friends are saying: Don't worry about Medicare. Maybe we will find a way to take care of it one day. Or Social Security: Well, if it expires--I guess that is what they are saying--we will have to deal with it. Just think. With all of this robust economy and the surpluses that we have, the Republican tax plan says this: That in a mere 6 years we will be dipping into the Social Security surplus--6 years. With all the promises about the $2 trillion that is going to go into Social Security because it is earned there, it will start to be decimated within 6 years under the Republican tax plan. I hope the message that goes out of here is that we are two different philosophies on how we ought to treat our treasure trough because we have been smart but we also have been lucky. We are lucky that we live in a country that is as rich in resources and talent and opportunity as is America. But, at the same time, it took a lot of work to plan for this. It took President Clinton's leadership when he arrived in office. Deficits were $290 billion a year--much of that attributed to the leadership of President Reagan who made a decision, in all due respect, that tax cuts were the most important thing in the world and cut taxes all over the place while he borrowed from the public to finance it. What was the result? Inflation out of sight, and a lot of joblessness as well. We don't want to do that again. We should have learned. We are smart enough to have learned it the first time we saw it. What will happen now? Beginning 6 years hence in 2005, Social Security starts to decline at a time when a lot of baby boomers arrive at retirement age. It could force inflation upon us and cost more for borrowing. Whether for a house mortgage, an automobile, appliance, people would be paying more. One of the most astounding things I find, all Members hover around Alan Greenspan because he has been so clever in the way he has managed his share of the economic policy in this country. We listen to every word. I know him well. He used to be on the board of my company when I was chairman of the company. We would listen carefully to his advice because it was so profound, so deep, so insightful. The Republican message is, ignore what Alan Greenspan says about the timing not being right; forget that he has warned Members in the Budget Committee--and I am the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee--that tax cuts are not the best way to go. He said rather than having an outright spending binge, maybe tax cuts, the best thing to do is pay down the debt. The message rings loud and clear. I am shocked that the wise heads who exist on the other side of this aisle don't understand that the risk they are taking is our economy at large. When we look at the projections and we hear what the Republicans are using to finance this tax cut--almost $800 billion direct in higher costs as a result of the interest on the remaining debt--it just doesn't make economic sense. It is not fair to our citizens to see the guys at the top, the people at the top who make all the money, get these incredible bonuses in tax cuts while the person who struggles to keep food on the table and a roof over their head gets a measly 40 cents a day in their tax cut. What will happen? What will happen is, tax cuts will come along if things go as they are, unless the President has the courage to step up and say, no, the American people don't want this; that is not their preference. Everybody wants to pay less in tax, but they want a stable society, a stable economy. They don't want their kids saddled with obligations in the future. This tax cut will also mean we will cut deeply into programs. We will cut education by 40 percent. Will we cut veterans' programs? The veterans now are screaming in pain because they are not being taken care of as they should be or as we promised they would be when they were recruited. Cut the FBI by 40 percent? Thank goodness we have trained FBI people. It is hard enough to recruit. Now we are talking of cutting 40 percent while we still have a significant crime problem in our country, despite prosperity? I don't think so. Will they cut border guards? Are we going to try to hold back the tide of illegal immigration, with fewer people to do it? That is what the result will be. The truth of the matter is, they are talking about a surplus that is largely imaginary. It is forecasting; it is anticipated; it is hoped for. That, enacted into legislation, will make an enormous difference. Once the tax cut plan is in place, that is mandatory. However, the surpluses are hoped for, anticipated. We have to alert the public what is going on. It will be a tax cut that will be talked about as a Republican accomplishment. I make a prediction--and I wish we could look inside everybody's thinking--that the Republicans know very well that this tax cut cannot go through, but what they want to do is have a speaking platform. They want politics, not policy. They want everybody to believe they are the only ones who are thinking about the average working person. The fact is, they are thinking about themselves because they know the President is committed to veto this. They know the economy could not stand this kind of a cut. Imagine cutting those programs and saying to the American people: We have to take 40 percent from various programs, and we will not do a thing to extend the solvency of Social Security, not do a thing about Medicare; when it dries up, it dries up, friends, in 2015. If you are at an age when Medicare will be important to you, don't count on it. You had better save your money because you will have to take care of yourself on that score. In Medicare, the cuts would exceed $10 billion a year. Medicare cuts are squeezing many hospitals and other health care providers. In sum, the game is over. We will be voting at a later time today. We have the disadvantage of being in the minority. It is not my preferred position, but the facts are there. The President is our last hope because the Republicans have decided that no matter what, they are going to give a tax break. No matter what the advice is, no matter what the inequity is, no matter what programs are cut, no matter what we do to veterans' care, no matter what we do to Head Start, no matter what we do to education generally, it doesn't matter. They say a tax cut is the most important thing on our agenda. The numbers are there, and the votes are there. We will lose this one. I believe it is possible some of our Republican friends will see the light and say, this is no time to do a roughly $800 billion tax cut, but it is time to continue to pay down our debt, improve our financial condition, and help preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations. I yield the floor.