Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. By unanimous consent, Mr. President, I ask that Senator Hollings be given 5 minutes instead of 3 and a half to present his case.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Three and three-quarters.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment because it will prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending and instead will require that all new mandatory spending be offset with other mandatory cuts. It is a major change in law. If there is a mandatory expenditure, commonly called entitlement, the fact of the matter is that we ought not be changing it by restricting funding. We ought to change the law. Change the law and you have taken care of the problem. But I don't think this is an appropriate way to do it. Programs like Social Security and Medicare could be affected, and I think it is an inappropriate way to do it. How much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am willing to yield back the reminder.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I don't think this amendment is germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Are we ordering the yeas and nays now?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We neglected, when Senator Hollings presented his amendment No. 174, to ask for the yeas and nays. We ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 174.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator can spread it around, if he has any time left.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator from Illinois, and I point out that when we are talking about emergencies, we are talking about things like a volcanic eruption in the State of Washington, Mt. Saint Helens, or we are talking about an earthquake in California, or floods down the Mississippi, or storm damage in the Northeast. I don't know why it should take 60 votes to agree with maybe someone who has taken an unpopular political position earlier. I think we ought to let the majority rule. If we need changes in the emergency definition, I would certainly go along with that. Make sure that it is urgent. Make sure it is an emergency. But to suggest that simply because we don't have enough votes that the volcanic damage is worth cleaning up immediately, or some oil spill isn't worth dealing with immediately, frankly, I think is bad law. I think we ought to eliminate it from this budget resolution. I hope that the vote on the amendment by the Senator from Illinois will prevail. I yield the time. I ask the Republican leader, is there another amendment to be discussed?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I congratulate the Senator from Alabama for offering it. Therefore, to my colleague in the management of the budget, I think we ought to go ahead.

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, I reluctantly but strongly oppose the Crapo amendment. It would create a reserve fund, as I understand, to lock in any additional onbudget surplus in the outyears to be used only for tax breaks and debt reduction. Mr. President, the Democrats welcome the opportunity to lock away a portion of the surplus for debt reduction. We have offered amendments that would do just that. But this amendment would limit the use of future surpluses to debt reduction or tax breaks exclusively--only. So I have to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle the following question. Why is it OK to set aside the surplus to create a new special interest tax loophole but not OK to use the surplus for an increase in military pay? Why is it OK to set aside the surplus to give more tax breaks to the well off but not OK to use the surplus to hire more teachers and reduce class size? Mr. President, this amendment is not about fiscal responsibility. It is not about saving Social Security or Medicare. But it is about setting aside the surplus to give tax breaks particularly to the wealthiest among us. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I raise a point of order, Mr. President. The amendment is not germane, and I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act. Motion to Waive the Budget Act

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I can just add a note here, part of doing amendments is to fill the amendment tree. So I will say that now we want to shake the tree and see if we can drop some of those amendments that perhaps on reconsideration by the offeror, maybe there would be another time to achieve the goal he or she wants to attain. But I want to add this, Mr. President. I think it is an important observation. There could be as many as 50 votes. Now, if we are exact on the enforcement of the time limit, which I would urge we agree to, that 10 minutes is 10 minutes, it is not 11, 12, 13, that means everybody has to pay attention. If we have a 10- minute vote and a 2-minute debate, that is 12 minutes. And if you have 50 of those, we are looking at 600 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Ten hours. Senator Domenici and I will be here, perhaps with a glass of wine, at 3 o'clock in the morning or else we will have to go over to the next day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So I will forgo the glass of wine, but what I hope is----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, we weren't going to have it. I was kidding. It is for my friends in California I said that. I hope that our colleagues will be paying attention to this because a delay by one person is a delay for 99 people and we ought not to treat that casually. We are going to be here a long time. This could be expedited substantially. We hope that any Senators who have an amendment review that which has already been discussed and accepted so that we are not being redundant. If it has been heard, I would ask colleagues to perhaps rethink whether or not they are going to offer their amendment. So I guess we can--I don't know what the terminology is for letting the vote roll--let the skaters begin, or something of that nature, or let the pitcher pitch. Do we have our first?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, please; that is, how many votes do we have bracketed right now that we are certain of?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So is it fair to say that 15 votes, 10 minutes apiece, 150 minutes, 2 minutes for debate, another 30 minutes, we are looking at a few hours, wouldn't you say?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But if we can get the cooperation of the Members, we can finish this tonight. If we can't, we will be here tomorrow. I think I speak for the chairman; we will find out immediately, when I say that I am willing to be here as late as it takes, if we can finish tonight.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. We are ready to accept it here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could we have order, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am opposing this amendment. It would prohibit using revenues to offset new mandatory spending and instead require all new spending to be offset with other mandatory cuts. It would give special protection to special interest tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social Security or Medicare. I understand the Senator said ``new programs.'' It would prevent us from using the onbudget surplus for prescription drugs, new benefits, or any new mandatory spending. The onbudget surplus could be used only for tax breaks. Also, the amendment would prevent us from using the user fees, such as gas tax, to pay for new highways. If we are looking for a way to pay for a new benefit, why would we say that cutting Social Security is OK but closing a wasteful tax loophole is not? Why would we say that cutting Medicare is OK but eliminating a corporate tax subsidy is not? I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, Mr. President, and I make the budget point of order. I think this is not germane.

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