Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to save lives on our highways the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999. Every year over 5000 people die due to truck and bus accidents. Since 1992, violent truck crash fatalities have increased more than 18 percent. Large trucks are only three percent of the total national vehicle fleet--but 22 percent of all passenger vehicle deaths in multiple-vehicle crashes involve trucks. Whether we share the road with a truck or ride on an interstate bus, Americans need to be sure their nation's roads are safe. Last December in New Jersey, three intercity buses crashed in five days. That accident rate is unacceptable. We can and must prevent these accidents with stronger oversight of commercial drivers' licenses and the carriers that operate both bus and truck companies. Mr. President, my legislation addresses our commercial vehicle death epidemic with a multi-faceted approach to combating this problem. First, my legislation institutes a strong Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. All convictions for moving violations, whether in a commercial vehicle or not, are put on the truck or bus drivers' record. A new applicant must have a alcohol and drug free driving record for 3 years before receiving a CDL. All new drivers would be required to have in-vehicle training. It would authorize up to a 5 percent transfer of state's Federal highway funds to motor carrier safety programs if a state does not institute the new CDL program. Second, the legislation focuses on the carriers. All new carriers are required to have training on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations before they receive authority to operate. To close unsafe carriers, they are required to submit information to target high-risk operations and the definition of a hazardous carrier is strengthened. Third, the installation of on-board recorders or other technologies to manage drivers' hours-of-service will be required. Fourth, the legislation supports improve data collection and research for safety issues including vehicle safety and driver performance, (2) improved crash data, and (3) driver compensation and safety. Fifth, the legislation funds grassroots safety campaigns to raise public awareness of the importance of motor carrier safety and discourage drivers from taking safety risks. Finally, the legislation has both incentives for the states to implement motor carrier safety improvements and rewards to the states who improve motor carrier safety fatalities by five percent of the previous year. Mr. President, we must do more to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by the lack of oversight of commercial vehicles. With this legislation, citizens will feel more secure about driving on our roads and highways. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest that he go first.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask whether or not the Senator from South Dakota would like to go first.

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.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to save lives on our highways the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999. Every year over 5000 people die due to truck and bus accidents. Since 1992, violent truck crash fatalities have increased more than 18 percent. Large trucks are only three percent of the total national vehicle fleet--but 22 percent of all passenger vehicle deaths in multiple-vehicle crashes involve trucks. Whether we share the road with a truck or ride on an interstate bus, Americans need to be sure their nation's roads are safe. Last December in New Jersey, three intercity buses crashed in five days. That accident rate is unacceptable. We can and must prevent these accidents with stronger oversight of commercial drivers' licenses and the carriers that operate both bus and truck companies. Mr. President, my legislation addresses our commercial vehicle death epidemic with a multi-faceted approach to combating this problem. First, my legislation institutes a strong Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. All convictions for moving violations, whether in a commercial vehicle or not, are put on the truck or bus drivers' record. A new applicant must have a alcohol and drug free driving record for 3 years before receiving a CDL. All new drivers would be required to have in-vehicle training. It would authorize up to a 5 percent transfer of state's Federal highway funds to motor carrier safety programs if a state does not institute the new CDL program. Second, the legislation focuses on the carriers. All new carriers are required to have training on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations before they receive authority to operate. To close unsafe carriers, they are required to submit information to target high-risk operations and the definition of a hazardous carrier is strengthened. Third, the installation of on-board recorders or other technologies to manage drivers' hours-of-service will be required. Fourth, the legislation supports improve data collection and research for safety issues including vehicle safety and driver performance, (2) improved crash data, and (3) driver compensation and safety. Fifth, the legislation funds grassroots safety campaigns to raise public awareness of the importance of motor carrier safety and discourage drivers from taking safety risks. Finally, the legislation has both incentives for the states to implement motor carrier safety improvements and rewards to the states who improve motor carrier safety fatalities by five percent of the previous year. Mr. President, we must do more to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by the lack of oversight of commercial vehicles. With this legislation, citizens will feel more secure about driving on our roads and highways. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of legislation the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, is introducing today, the ``International Tuberculosis Act of 1999.'' This bill seeks to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis. Mr. President, we cannot stand idly by while tuberculosis kills more people worldwide than AIDS and malaria combined, and yet still receives substantially less attention and aid dollars. Although the introduction of antibiotics in the 1950's led to the near eradication of tuberculosis, it still plagues many nations throughout the world. In 1993 the World Health Organization declared tuberculosis to be a public health emergency, with an estimated 1,700 million people, or nearly one third of the world's population, infected with the tubercle bacillus. The World Health Organization estimates that eight million people get TB every year, and an estimated 3 million die from the disease annually. Mr. President, the registered number of new cases of TB worldwide roughly correlates with economic conditions: the highest incidences are seen in those countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America with the lowest gross national products. We must now face the realization that without much needed aid, most of the countries with a high burden of TB will not be able to reach the targets for TB control established by the World Health Assembly for the year 2000. In human terms, this means that each year millions of lives could be lost due to a preventable and curable disease. Thankfully, Mr. President, efforts to combat this terrible disease have been largely successful inside U.S. borders. In my own State of New Jersey, the number of people with active tuberculosis has declined each year for the past six years. But the problem still persists. Each year over 25,000 people in the United States contract TB. The treat of infection here in America still looms large for anyone who travels abroad or comes into contact with those who have recently traveled outside the United States. This disease does not discriminate: People of all ages, all nationalities and all incomes can get tuberculosis. An airborne disease that can be spread through a simple cough, TB can be carried around the world in a matter of hours on a transcontinental flight. Nearly 40 percent of TB cases in the U.S. are attributable to foreign-born persons. Until TB is eradicated worldwide, no person--no American--will ever be safe from its affliction. Only small steps have been taken to eradicate TB outside the United States. Medical experts estimate that over $1 billion is necessary to control TB. This money will allow scientists and doctors to take the necessary steps to wipe out this disease, much like the world community has already done with malaria and small pox. The longer we wait, the larger the TB population will be. This translates into higher costs to eradicate this debilitating disease. International organizations note that for every dollar spent on prevention, a nation saves between three and four dollars in treatment. Mr. President, TB control efforts have received approximately $12 million a year for the last two fiscal years under USAID's Infectious Disease Initiative to create a TB Global Action Plan. However, this is not enough; an increase in funding is critical if tuberculosis is to be vanquished. The U.S. must do its part. An increase in funding to $60 million for TB would help expedite global action, and give aid officials the necessary resources to develop and implement country specific plans for control programs for nations with a high prevalence of TB. Once a plan is implemented, it is necessary to formulate a systematic program to avoid increases of drug resistant strains of TB. A plan, coordinated with the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations, will expand and provide a framework for enhanced direction and coordination of worldwide tuberculosis research activities, translate research results into efficient and effective TB control practices which are applicable to all environments, and engage society and government control programs more quickly and widely. The American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society and International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and other renowed organizations support an increase in funding for TB prevention. Mr. President, a global TB prevention effort makes sense. The benefits outweigh the costs. Given the importance of a global plan to eradicate TB, and its potential in saving lives, I urge the Senate to approve this bill. Mr. President, tuberculosis is a global problem. We will never control TB in this country until we control it worldwide, since infectious diseases do not stop at the border. I commend the Senator from California for introducing this important and timely legislation to address tuberculosis effectively now. I hope and believe this bill will gain the support of the full Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a proud cosponsor of legislation the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, is introducing today, the ``International Tuberculosis Act of 1999.'' This bill seeks to control the growing international problem of tuberculosis. Mr. President, we cannot stand idly by while tuberculosis kills more people worldwide than AIDS and malaria combined, and yet still receives substantially less attention and aid dollars. Although the introduction of antibiotics in the 1950's led to the near eradication of tuberculosis, it still plagues many nations throughout the world. In 1993 the World Health Organization declared tuberculosis to be a public health emergency, with an estimated 1,700 million people, or nearly one third of the world's population, infected with the tubercle bacillus. The World Health Organization estimates that eight million people get TB every year, and an estimated 3 million die from the disease annually. Mr. President, the registered number of new cases of TB worldwide roughly correlates with economic conditions: the highest incidences are seen in those countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America with the lowest gross national products. We must now face the realization that without much needed aid, most of the countries with a high burden of TB will not be able to reach the targets for TB control established by the World Health Assembly for the year 2000. In human terms, this means that each year millions of lives could be lost due to a preventable and curable disease. Thankfully, Mr. President, efforts to combat this terrible disease have been largely successful inside U.S. borders. In my own State of New Jersey, the number of people with active tuberculosis has declined each year for the past six years. But the problem still persists. Each year over 25,000 people in the United States contract TB. The treat of infection here in America still looms large for anyone who travels abroad or comes into contact with those who have recently traveled outside the United States. This disease does not discriminate: People of all ages, all nationalities and all incomes can get tuberculosis. An airborne disease that can be spread through a simple cough, TB can be carried around the world in a matter of hours on a transcontinental flight. Nearly 40 percent of TB cases in the U.S. are attributable to foreign-born persons. Until TB is eradicated worldwide, no person--no American--will ever be safe from its affliction. Only small steps have been taken to eradicate TB outside the United States. Medical experts estimate that over $1 billion is necessary to control TB. This money will allow scientists and doctors to take the necessary steps to wipe out this disease, much like the world community has already done with malaria and small pox. The longer we wait, the larger the TB population will be. This translates into higher costs to eradicate this debilitating disease. International organizations note that for every dollar spent on prevention, a nation saves between three and four dollars in treatment. Mr. President, TB control efforts have received approximately $12 million a year for the last two fiscal years under USAID's Infectious Disease Initiative to create a TB Global Action Plan. However, this is not enough; an increase in funding is critical if tuberculosis is to be vanquished. The U.S. must do its part. An increase in funding to $60 million for TB would help expedite global action, and give aid officials the necessary resources to develop and implement country specific plans for control programs for nations with a high prevalence of TB. Once a plan is implemented, it is necessary to formulate a systematic program to avoid increases of drug resistant strains of TB. A plan, coordinated with the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations, will expand and provide a framework for enhanced direction and coordination of worldwide tuberculosis research activities, translate research results into efficient and effective TB control practices which are applicable to all environments, and engage society and government control programs more quickly and widely. The American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society and International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease and other renowed organizations support an increase in funding for TB prevention. Mr. President, a global TB prevention effort makes sense. The benefits outweigh the costs. Given the importance of a global plan to eradicate TB, and its potential in saving lives, I urge the Senate to approve this bill. Mr. President, tuberculosis is a global problem. We will never control TB in this country until we control it worldwide, since infectious diseases do not stop at the border. I commend the Senator from California for introducing this important and timely legislation to address tuberculosis effectively now. I hope and believe this bill will gain the support of the full Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I was heavily involved in the negotiations over the manager's amendment to S. 880 as passed by the Senate by unanimous consent on June 23, and have carefully studied the House's amendments to S. 880, which we accept today. I rise to clarify the congressional intent with respect to S. 880, the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act of 1999, as we pass it and send it to the President. Balance between the right-to-know effect and risks of criminal activity (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii)): The amendment directs the President to promulgate regulations governing the disclosure of the off-site Consequence Analysis (OCA) information in a way that minimizes the likelihood of releases of the regulated chemicals, whether these releases are accidental or the result of criminal activity. In other words, the amendment calls for a balancing of the risk-reducing effect of public disclosure (the ``Right-to-Know Effect'') against the potential of increased risk of criminal activity associated with the posting of the OCA information on the Internet. Most importantly, reducing the threat of criminal activity is not the sole or even primary focus of the rule-making. Rather the objective is to minimize the release of regulated chemicals, which requires a balanced approach, and nothing in this Act necessarily precludes the eventual electronic dissemination of the information. Off-site consequence analysis information (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(i)(IV) and (V), and (xii)): The amendment defines ``off- site consequence analysis information'' (OCA information) as a portion of a ``risk management plan,'' which is in turn defined as referring only to information ``submitted to the Administrator by an owner or operator of a stationary source under subparagraph (B)'' of section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, the amendment makes clear that its restrictions apply only to OCA information in the form submitted to the Administrator (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(xii)). In other words, no information, except OCA information submitted to the Administrator, in the form in which it was submitted, is affected by the amendment. Even identical information that is made available to members of the public (unless there is a legally-binding restriction) or that is submitted to state or local agencies is not affected by the constraints on disclosure established by the Act. Official use (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(i)(III) and (vi)): The amendment defines ``official use'' broadly--``an action . . . intended to carry out a function relevant to preventing, planning for or responding to accidental releases or criminal releases''--to reflect the sense that there are a broad range of official uses to which the OCA information may appropriately be put, so long as its public availability is constrained in accord with the regulations developed under the amendment. The bill does not authorize the Administrator to establish restrictions on such official use. State and local official access to all OCA information (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii)(II)(ee)): The amendment requires that any covered State and local official be provided, upon request, OCA information on any facility in the country, not just on facilities in the individual's State or community. This reflects, among other things, the fact that a comprehensive evaluation of the facility next door should include comparison with other facilities, including those owned by the same company or its competitors. Similarly, a comprehensive evaluation of the hazard reduction programs of Community A requires a comparison of the hazards presented by facilities in Community A with those presented in Community B. Public access to OCA information regardless of geographic location (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii)(II)(aa)): The amendment makes clear that the regulations shall allow any member of the public access to the OCA information for a limited number of facilities regardless of geographic location. This reflects the fact that the need to compare the neighborhood facility with facilities in other locations, or to compare one's community with others, is just as important and appropriate for the public as it is for officials. Voluntary disclosure of OCA information: New section 112(r)(7)(H)(v)(III): The amendment directs any facility that chooses to provide its OCA information to the public without legally-binding restriction to inform the public, through EPA, of that voluntary disclosure. Qualified researchers (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(vii)): The amendment directs the Administrator, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop a system for providing access to OCA information for ``qualified researchers.'' The Administrator is given authority to determine whether researchers are ``qualified,'' but is otherwise given no authority to screen researchers nor to deny them access to OCA information on the basis of political persuasion, likely findings, purpose to which findings would be put, or any other such factor. Interaction with State law (New section 112(r)(7)H)(x)(II)): The amendment makes clear that States with existing or new laws that collect even data that is identical to OCA information are not precluded from making the State- or local-gathered data available. Reports on vulnerability to criminal activity (New section 112(r)(7)(H)(xi)): The amendment directs the Attorney General to submit a preliminary report in one year and a final report in three years on the extent to which the Risk Management Program regulations have resulted in actions, by stationary sources among others, that are effective in detecting, preventing, and minimizing the consequences of releases caused by criminal activity. The Comptroller General is specifically directed to study the ``design and maintenance of safe facilities'' so that Congress may learn the extent to which the best protection against criminal activity is to maintain a facility that is inherently safe. Reevaluation of disclosure regulations (Section 3(c)): The Act directs the President to reevaluate the regulations governing disclosure within six years. This reevaluation should be made on the same basis used to promulgate the regulations--i.e. the President should perform two separate assessments: (1) an assessment of the increased risk of criminal activity associated with the internet posting of OCA information, and (2) an assessment of the incentives created by public disclosure of OCA information for reduction in the risk of accidental releases. Written documentation of the two assessments and all information and data the President utilizes in preparation of the assessments should be a part of the administrative record associated with any determination the President makes regarding the regulations, or any modification of the regulations. General duty; Finally, the Act leaves the general duty clause of section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act unchanged, in recognition of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency believes that the general duty clause applies to releases caused by criminal or terrorist activities.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up a motion we have at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is very simple. It directs the Finance Committee to correct the bill so that it does not raid Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax cuts. In its current form, this bill would use Social Security surpluses in each of the second 5 years after enactment. Altogether, $75 billion of Social Security money will be used to pay for the broad-based tax rebates that are largely for special interests and for the very wealthy. That is the intent, and it is inconsistent with the Social Security lockbox that the Republicans claim to support. If my colleagues are serious about stopping Congress from raiding these surpluses, they will support my motion. The Finance Committee can correct the problem very quickly, and then we can proceed to consider the bill within only a few days.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Chemical Security Act of 1999, a bill which will address the threat of criminal attack on chemical facilities. The FBI and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have warned us that the possibility of terrorist and criminal attacks on chemical plants is a serious threat to public safety. The scenarios they describe are truly chilling. The concerns about criminal attack on chemical plants were initially raised in the context of Internet access to chemical accident information. Some were concerned that criminals could use chemical accident information, gained through the Internet, to target their attacks. In response, we will soon send a bill to the President that will balance the benefits of public access to chemical accident information against the threat of criminal attack. However, Mr. President, the underlying issue is not Internet access to such information--no resourceful criminal needs the Internet to find a chemical plant to attack. A chemical plant target can be found by driving through neighborhood, reading a city map, or accessing information already available from government and business sources. The real issue is the vulnerability of chemical facilities to attack--a vulnerability which can arise from a lack of adequate security at chemical facilities, as well as the use of inherently hazardous chemical operations, even when safer technologies are available. The Chemical Security Act of 1999 will directly address the potential danger of criminal attack on chemical facilities. First, the Act will clarify that it is the general duty of chemical facilities under the Clean Air Act to reduce their own vulnerability to criminal attack. Second, it will require the Attorney General, within one year, to determine whether chemical facilities are taking adequate measures to reduce their vulnerability to criminal attacks that could cause substantial harm to public health, safety, and environment. Third, if the Attorney General finds that chemical facilities are not taking such actions, the Act will require the Attorney General, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, within two years, to promulgate regulations requiring appropriate measures to detect, prevent, and minimize the consequences of such criminal attack. Mr. President, the American public has the right to chemical facilities that are safe from criminal attack. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Chemical Security Act of 1999, a bill which will address the threat of criminal attack on chemical facilities. The FBI and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have warned us that the possibility of terrorist and criminal attacks on chemical plants is a serious threat to public safety. The scenarios they describe are truly chilling. The concerns about criminal attack on chemical plants were initially raised in the context of Internet access to chemical accident information. Some were concerned that criminals could use chemical accident information, gained through the Internet, to target their attacks. In response, we will soon send a bill to the President that will balance the benefits of public access to chemical accident information against the threat of criminal attack. However, Mr. President, the underlying issue is not Internet access to such information--no resourceful criminal needs the Internet to find a chemical plant to attack. A chemical plant target can be found by driving through neighborhood, reading a city map, or accessing information already available from government and business sources. The real issue is the vulnerability of chemical facilities to attack--a vulnerability which can arise from a lack of adequate security at chemical facilities, as well as the use of inherently hazardous chemical operations, even when safer technologies are available. The Chemical Security Act of 1999 will directly address the potential danger of criminal attack on chemical facilities. First, the Act will clarify that it is the general duty of chemical facilities under the Clean Air Act to reduce their own vulnerability to criminal attack. Second, it will require the Attorney General, within one year, to determine whether chemical facilities are taking adequate measures to reduce their vulnerability to criminal attacks that could cause substantial harm to public health, safety, and environment. Third, if the Attorney General finds that chemical facilities are not taking such actions, the Act will require the Attorney General, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, within two years, to promulgate regulations requiring appropriate measures to detect, prevent, and minimize the consequences of such criminal attack. Mr. President, the American public has the right to chemical facilities that are safe from criminal attack. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is less time than I thought I would have to speak on this subject. I have waited patiently. I guess I will try to wrap it up now. The projected surplus is truly a mirage. If Congress were to maintain basic Government functions at this year's level, it would be a $1 trillion non-Social Security surplus, yes, but it would be more like one-tenth of that, or $100 billion, by the time we finish with this tax cut. We are slashing prospectively important domestic programs such as VA and other programs, trying to find trick ways to satisfy our obligation to the Veterans' Administration and to the Census, which is clearly identified in our Constitution as an obligation, now calling it ``emergency'' spending. What we are observing, I think, is some sleight-of-hand work. I hate to use that term, but that is what I see, ``cooking the books,'' making sure we take whatever forecasts suit the situation the best. There is no way to do what we want to do, what we are obliged to do, if we are going to give away $500 billion in tax cuts. There are better ways to deal with our financial or fiscal condition. Alan Greenspan confirms that. I hope this Senate will respond to the American people's desire. Get rid of the mortgage, pay down the debt, and then talk about tax cuts that are targeted specifically to modest-income people.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the class of 1982. You are looking at the entire class here, Senator Bingaman and me. The Senator and I are the remainder of the class of 1982. We thought we were a small class then, but we have gotten smaller and we have hung on tenaciously. One of the things we agree on is the need to provide the kinds of services to our country that we are pledged to, not only morally but by law, by laws established over a period of many years, including such services as our commitments to the veterans who fought to keep this country free, for the schoolchildren who need to get a start in life and get on with their own opportunities. What we see today in the discussion we have just had, frankly, comes as a surprise to me, a surprise because I serve on the Budget Committee as the senior Democrat. I looked at the figures. We worked together to try to establish a plausible base, a parameter within which to work. But what I have heard is we just discovered gold. We found $500 billion just laying around. No one else knew it, but it was found. Since arithmetic is a relatively pure science and everything has to add up, one scratches one's head and says: How did we find roughly $500 billion more? The distinguished chairman, a very wise Member of the Senate, an outstanding expert on the budget, found $500 billion that could be used to support the tax cut that is proposed at some $790 billion. Then there are interest costs on that. What I come up with, what the numbers say, is that we wind up with a budget surplus of $32 billion--$32 billion. That is at the end of 10 years--$32 billion. The elderly, the baby boomers who are going to be retiring at that time, ought to rest easy because they have $32 billion that is going to go into helping Social Security stay a little more solvent--$32 billion that can be used for other purposes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is absolutely right. It would take a cut of 50 percent. So that is how we get there. It is a poor way to do business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from Montana. Mr. President, tomorrow I will be offering an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Feingold. This amendment is very simple. It directs the Finance Committee to change the bill so that it does not raid Social Security surpluses in any year to pay for tax breaks. The motion stands for a very simple proposition. Social Security surpluses should be used for Social Security, not for broad-scale tax breaks that primarily benefit special interests and wealthy individuals, not for tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, not for anything that would make it more difficult for baby boomers and other Americans to enjoy a secure retirement. This ought not to be a controversial proposition. After all, both parties have been arguing along the same lines for most of this year. Democrats created a lockbox to prevent Social Security surpluses from being used for other purposes and to protect Medicare, and the Republicans vowed to support that concept. But actually, the lockbox proposal that was introduced by the Republicans has a huge loophole and does nothing for Medicare. Medicare is perhaps the most important program that exists in this country. Medicare is for the elderly. Medicare is the one program that people have to have standing by in case an illness strikes, which is an occurrence that is not infrequent when one reaches 65 or retirement age. Medicare can prevent a catastrophic illness, but also can prevent a catastrophic financial problem. So we support extending Medicare for as long as we possibly can, and the projection now is that though Medicare would be insolvent in 2015, we see an opportunity to extend it to 2027. There did seem to be broad agreement from both parties that Social Security surpluses should not be touched for any other purpose, that they should be used only to reduce publicly held debt. I was surprised, to put it mildly, to discover that the Republican tax bill before us actually spends Social Security surpluses. Deny it they might--and one need not be a mathematician; the arithmetic is pretty simple to see-- but, in fact, the bill before us spends Social Security surpluses in each of the second 5 years after the bill's enactment. It starts in 2005. This chart explains the problems. Consider, for example, what happens beginning in 2005 under this legislation. The non-Social Security surplus that year will be $88.6 billion. But this bill, the way it is laid out, would cost $89.9 billion. In other words, this bill would use $1.3 billion in Social Security surpluses that very year, 2005, not a long way away. But the damage doesn't stop there. This legislation would increase debt, and that would lead to higher interest costs. In 2005 alone, these additional interest costs would eat up another $10.9 billion of Social Security surpluses. So the raid on Social Security that year would equal $12.3 billion. This is after the promise that Social Security is sacred: Touch not a hair on that Social Security reserve that we are saving for the elderly, which we promised them would be theirs. When we finally have a chance to guarantee its solvency, that promise, frankly, was an empty promise. Look at the numbers. If you consider both the direct revenue losses and the additional interest costs, this bill would raid Social Security surpluses in each of the second 5 years after enactment. We are talking about 10 years from now. The raid in 2006 would take $5.7 billion. That would increase to $10.2 billion in 2007, to $24 billion in 2008, and $23.4 billion in the year 2009. This is inconsistent with the Republicans' own lockbox. It would violate a principle that is meant to protect all Americans who are depending on Social Security for their retirement. These are people who spend their lives working hard, playing by the rules, contributing their FICA taxes to the Social Security trust fund. In fact, millions of seniors depend on Social Security just to make ends meet, no luxury included there. Many of these people have high medical expenses. It is a natural phenomenon. Thank goodness we are living longer, but in that living illnesses do occur. Some have trouble getting around; they are physically impaired. Many are really struggling. It is Social Security that keeps them out of poverty. For these people, saving Social Security is not just an abstract principle, a slogan; it is critical to their very existence. That is important to remember. It is important to remember that the number of Social Security beneficiaries will grow by 37 percent between now and 2015. By 2014, Social Security taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly expenses. So we need to prepare. At a minimum, that means not using Social Security surpluses for anything else. I know how my friends on the Republican side will react to this. When confronted with these numbers, they will have to admit that this bill spends Social Security surpluses. But that is not really a problem, they will say, because years and years down the road Congress will somehow or other cut programs such as education and the environment to make up the difference. That is an empty promise, an empty lockbox, it is completely unenforceable, and it has zero credibility. Consider how deep these cuts would have to be. Let's assume the Republican Congress funds defense programs only at the levels proposed by President Clinton. After 10 years, domestic needs--everything from education, to environmental protection, to the FBI--would have to be cut by roughly 40 percent. Is that credible? A 40-percent cut in student aid? A 40- percent cut in health research? A 40-percent cut in veterans' programs? That always gets to me because the promises made when they are recruiting, when people sign up, are that we will make sure you have medical care through the rest of your life--except they cut the funding. There may be a few Republicans who would support cuts such as that. But there is no way cuts that size would ever win a majority. It would be foolish to assume otherwise. My motion is simple. It tells the Finance Committee to go back and fix this bill so that it doesn't use Social Security surpluses in any year, bring it back to the Senate within 3 days, and then let's consider it. I don't think it is asking much. It is not going to hurt anybody if the Senate waits another 3 days before resuming work on this bill. But lots of people will be hurt if the Senate abandons its principles and uses Social Security surpluses for tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and special interests. That would be a serious mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this motion when it is in front of you. Let's fix this bill and protect Social Security surpluses. Let's keep the promise we made to the baby boomers, those who will be retiring, that Social Security will be extended as far as we are physically able to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The baseline that was originally proposed by CBO was to have the caps in place until the year 2002, 3 years hence. Then it was assumed by the presentations that we have seen and that are here on the chart, that now the baseline will decline by virtue of no inflation allowable for those years after it--none, zero.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Please.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is right. If you do that, you take over $400 billion out of reality, out of the need to provide programs--$419 billion below CBO's capped baseline. If you want to play with a figment of imagination, you can imagine maybe it will be less than that. Maybe we will be able to cut out the programs for veterans and the other programs that are necessary, just cut them and play pretend.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to state my opposition to the Chafee-Breaux amendment, which would provide a $500 billion tax cut. The proposal is being put forward by some of the moderate Members of this body, and I have tremendous respect for Senators Chafee, Breaux, and the other cosponsors. Its sponsors may be moderate, but this amendment is not. If you really look at the numbers, I would say it is fiscally irresponsible. It is always tempting to believe the best solution to a conflict is to split the difference. But that is not true when one side is taking an extreme position. That is what is happening. In this case, splitting the difference would be terrible policy. It would force either unreasonable cuts in education, defense, and other priorities or, more likely, it would eventually force excessive cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Supporters of large tax cuts have been coming to the floor arguing that we have a $3 trillion surplus to divide up. But that is wrong. I have even heard the arguments being made about how well regarded the original Finance Committee bill of $792 billion was, and claiming that it is the only fair thing to do--to give it back to the people who paid the bills in the first place. The fact of the matter is, we are all on a mortgage; all of our citizens share a mortgage, all of us in this room and outside in the countryside. It is our national debt. I don't know any family that, given a chance to get a couple of bucks in their pockets--less than $150 in the tax cut for modest-income earners of $38,000--would not rather have their mortgage paid off for them. That is the condition we ought to be in--paying off our mortgage and paying off our national debt, not giving it back in forms that produce most of the benefits for people in the highest share of the income strata. We were talking about people who are wealthy, who make $800,000 a year--by any judgment, they are pretty well off in this country--getting $23,000 a year worth of tax cuts in the original bill. Now we are in the compromise stage, and we are down at a level that still, frankly, doesn't make economic sense. It is expected that we are talking about a surplus. Well, first, I want to point out it is a projected surplus. There is a big difference. Hardly anybody who has looked at CBO's projections truly believes that they are without question. To be fair to CBO, even they have acknowledged their estimates are uncertain. They depend not only on guesses about our economy, but they depend on assumptions that the Congress will make drastic cuts in a broad range of popular programs from veterans' health care, to education, to law enforcement. If Congress merely maintains defense spending at the levels requested by President Clinton, all of these other programs would have to be cut about 40 percent. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, who is really the most esteemed spokesman on the economic condition in our country, has said: Hey, be careful. The Fed Chairman told the Banking Committee in an article from the Washington Post this very day: It would be unwise to cut taxes now altogether on the basis of surplus forecasts that could be far off the mark. If Congress goes ahead with a major tax cut, I think it also has to be prepared to cut spending significantly in the event that the forecasts on which they are based are wrong.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought I had 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a man who was a good friend and an extraordinary political mentor. I will miss the opportunity to consult with him on matters important to governing. His contribution to me was a valuable one and it is deep in my thought and functioning as a U.S. Senator. He was a superb role model for public service and I followed his judgement often. I am honored to offer this tribute to former New Jersey Assembly Speaker Alan Karcher, his indomitable spirit, his unshakeable conviction, his widespread talents, his love for politics in the widest sense, and his devotion to the people of New Jersey. Alan's death on July 27 at too young an age, was not totally unexpected--he had been battling cancer for several years--but the reality of it shocks all of us who knew him. And there are a lot of us who fought in the trenches of New Jersey politics alongside him, as well as those who fought in opposition. Alan used his considerable wit, intellect and spirit to master New Jersey politics, and all of us respected him as the consummate politician. Alan was political in the most classical sense of that word, with all of its ties to the Greek concepts of the body politic, the people and citizenship, and he was political in the most modern sense of the word--sagacious, prudent, shrewd, and artful. Alan saw elected office as public service and an honored and honorable family tradition. Both his father, Joseph Karcher, and a great-uncle, John Quaid, also served in the New Jersey Assembly. When Alan followed them in 1974, he honed the practice of legislating to a fine art, serving as both Assembly Majority Leader and as Speaker during his sixteen-year career. He was a master of strategy in the service of the principal of the common good. He was articulate, passionate, and so often right, that more times than not he was able to convince both natural allies and skeptics alike. Alan was a fiercely proud Democrat who believed wholeheartedly that ``government'' and ``the people'' were virtually synonymous concepts. He knew how to keep his ``eye on the prize,'' and he understood that ``the prize'' was responsive, responsible government. Alan did nothing by halves and when he believed in something it was with total engagement. His interests and his talents spanned an extraordinary range. This most political of men was also a sensitive and accomplished musician, a cellist and an opera-lover who could sing Italian arias perhaps not as well as Pavarotti, but certainly as energetically. He was also, of course, a compelling lawyer nationally known for his insight into Constitutional issues and a respected author who examined controversial matters with perception and conviction. He has left a splendid legacy for us and for those he loved most, his wife Peggy, children Timothy, Elizabeth and Ellen, and his five grandchildren, who have his mark and his stature as enduring memories. We will miss him, but not his spirit, for that will continue to guide us. We will miss him, but not his idealism, for that will continue to inspire us. We will miss him, but not his passion, for that will continue to make us strive.