Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the upcoming 75th anniversary of Daughters of Miriam Center for the Aged in Clifton, NJ, a much beloved and honored institution that provides important health care services to New Jersey's elderly. Mr. President, Daughters of Miriam Center was founded as a shelter for aged persons and orphaned children in the city of Paterson, where I grew up. Since its establishment in 1921, DMC has been inspired by its founder, Nathan Barnert, a former mayor of Paterson, whose public spiritedness and concern for the most vulnerable in society shaped the philosophy that has long guided DMC's programs. Over 700 New Jersey residents each day benefit from the center's services. In addition to providing high quality medical care, Daughters of Miriam Center provides patients with a sense of community. The center's programs, such as medical day care for Alzheimer patients, congregate services, a respite program, and a sheltered workshop, bring warmth and purpose to participants' lives. On a personal note, I would note that my own mother, as a nursing home resident, benefited greatly from the friendship and care offered at the center. Mr. President, the anniversary of Daughters of Miriam Center is more than anything an opportunity to celebrate the people who have shaped this great institution--the doctors, nurses, staff, friends, and patients who have made the center what it is today. Their energy and commitment have helped make the center a leading facility for the care of the elderly on the east coast. I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Daughters of Miriam center for reaching an important milestone, and I wish the Center continued success in its valuable service to New Jersey and the Nation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I know the occupant of the chair is a very thoughtful Senator and reviews each situation that comes before him very carefully. We shared a trip to Croatia a couple years ago and had the opportunity to see just on the periphery what happens when the hatred and the venom is unleashed to deal with problems, as those who are there saw fit. We were shocked to learn about the murder of neighbors by other farm neighbors, using farm implements to do the killing and the maiming, and the story about the women locked in a gymnasium after they had been raped by then-renegade rogue Serbian soldiers and made to stay in that facility so they could not dispose of those pregnancies in any way but to deliver a child not of their choice, one that the enemy, their enemy, decided would be an appropriate way of fathering another race. It recalls for all of us a time just over 40 years ago when it was decided by another Fascist that there would be a super race put upon this Earth, and by artificial insemination, rape and coercion, women were made pregnant to carry members of that super race. It was intolerable. When we learned about it we were shocked and horrified. Now we saw similar things taking place. The world stood by--an unacceptable condition--in a world purportedly civilized, and thusly when we debate the issue here, Mr. President, about whether or not we have a national interest, we have a global interest, we have a human interest. Yes, it is true that America cannot be the police force around the world, and the questions are raised, why did we do it in this place and why did we not do it in that place? One of the reasons is we were not welcomed by anybody. We saw what happened when our young people were sent to Somalia with an indefinite engagement in front of them.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder if the Chair could outline the current situation in terms of time allocation so that I might speak for a few minutes if it is available.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Dole- McCain resolution. As each of us decides whether or not to support U.S. involvement in this military operation, we must consider that we are sending young soldiers overseas and that their lives are possibly on the line. As I evaluated our involvement in this effort, I reflected on my own situation during World War II. When I enlisted in the Army, my father was terminally ill and my mother was about to become a widow. I recall the letters that I wrote from Europe to my mother, who, like the parents of those soldiers being sent to Bosnia, prayed every day for my safe return. Those were not easy times. But I also recall the deep pride that I felt and the moral good that ultimately came from ending Hitler's fascist conquests. Mr. President, like many Americans, I have been troubled by the prospective costs in human lives of the war in Bosnia. With America's diplomatic support, the warring parties have negotiated a truce and are prepared to sign a peace agreement and are requesting the assistance of America's military to help monitor and enforce it. I do not agree with those who argue that our country has no national interest in helping to enforce a peace agreement. We must, if we possibly can, prevent the further spread of this tragic conflict, in part, because further conflict threatens the stability of, perhaps, the whole of Europe. If the war spreads, America runs the risk of being enveloped in a much larger conflict. By committing a small number of soldiers now, we may reduce the likelihood that more American troops could be required in Europe later on. As the architect of the peace agreement, and as the leader of NATO, only the United States can lead this effort and put an end to this senseless bloodshed that has taken 250,000 lives, torn that country apart, and displaced 2 million refugees. Mr. President, sending American troops seems to be the best option available to the United States to help guarantee peace in Europe. While the Dayton peace agreement is far from perfect, it is the only peace agreement that the parties in the conflict have agreed to implement. If successfully implemented and coupled with the arming and training of the Bosnian Moslems before IFOR departs, the agreement holds a promise, in the long run, of ending the violence that has terrorized the people of Bosnia. The alternative is unacceptable--to let the war resume. If the international community does not step in now, it is obvious that more lives will be lost and more refugees will be displaced, and there will be more bloodshed and carnage, and America's credibility as an international leader is also on the line. Our leadership brought the parties to the negotiating table, and our leadership was requested by those parties to help enforce the agreement. I understand the view that the Congress should have been consulted more closely before the decision to send troops was made. But forcing America to back away from the President's commitment is not the solution. To do so would undermine the morale of our fighting force. Even more, it would diminish our credibility in the international community and send a message to aggressors worldwide that they have nothing to fear from America. I know that U.S. participation in this endeavor is not risk-free. Passions run high in an area where weapons are plentiful. Millions of landmines lay just below the Earth's surface, and weather conditions are likely to be unfriendly. I am persuaded, however, that General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry have assiduously worked to minimize the risks, and they believe that the risk level has been reduced to its barest minimum level, and that the mission has clear objectives, a sufficiently potent force, an effective command and control structure under American leadership, no-nonsense rules of engagement, a clear time limit, and the cooperation of the various factions. American troops will have well-defined rules of engagement. They will, as President Clinton said, fight fire with fire, and then some. Our troops will have a clearly defined military mission and will not participate in nation-building tasks. Once again, they will be under American command. Our soldiers will have the firepower, training, explicit instructions, and authorization necessary to defend themselves and others. They have been trained to deal with every major threat, including landmines, civil disorder, and snipers. I have been assured by General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry that our troops have the appropriate level of training and are prepared and ready for this peace enforcement mission. Mr. President, though it is always painful to send American soldiers overseas, I believe the goals of this limited deployment are appropriate. While it is our solemn responsibility to make wise decisions about sending American troops abroad, I have been assured by our military leaders that the members of our All-Volunteer force are prepared for this mission. America can make a difference in securing the peace in Bosnia. We ought to remain engaged in that endeavor. I hope, Mr. President, that my colleagues will support the Dole-McCain resolution and our troops. I wish them well on this peace mission. Mr. President, I support America's troops as they head off to Bosnia to help enforce and implement the peace agreement. As each of us decides about whether or not to support U.S. involvement in this military operation, we need to be mindful of the fact that we are sending young soldiers overseas and that their lives are possibly on the line. As I evaluated America's involvement in the international effort to enforce a peace agreement in Bosnia, I have reflected on my own situation during the Second World War. When I enlisted in the Army, my father was terminally ill, and my mother was about to become a widow. While she tended to my father's minute-to-minute needs and also to see that my 12-year-old sister met her school and personal commitments, I was in uniform. As I considered America's involvement in this military operation in Bosnia, I recalled the letters I wrote from Europe to my mother in New Jersey, who like the parents of those soldiers being sent to Bosnia, prayed every day for my safe return. I recalled the deep pride I felt serving my country, and have reflected on the values American soldiers fought for during that conflict and the moral good that came from bringing an end to Hitler's fascist conquests. Like many Americans, I have been deeply troubled by the cost--in injury and human life--of the war that raged on in Bosnia for the last 3\1/2\ years. And I have been haunted by all-too-familiar photographs from the war in the Balkans. Terrified children left orphaned after slaughter. Moslem women raped by their Bosnian Serb captors. Innocents lying dead in the street. U.N. soldiers chained to poles as human shields. Reports of mass executions and graves. To their credit, the warring parties have agreed to end these atrocities and open a new chapter in their history. With America's diplomatic support,they have negotiated a peace agreement which holds the promise of ending the brutality that has inflicted so much pain on their people for so many years. Now that a peace agreement has been negotiated, the parties to the conflict are requesting the assistance of America's military to help monitor and enforce it. There are many reasons why I believe the Congress should support U.S. involvement in a NATO-led international peace enforcement operation. I do not agree, Mr. President, with those who argue that the United States has no national interest in intervening to enforce a peace agreement to end this conflict. The United States does have a national interest in supporting a peaceful end to the bloody conflict in Europe. We must prevent the further spread of this tragic conflict, not only because of its impact on the people of Bosnia, but because further conflict threatens the stability of Europe. If the war spreads and more countries are drawn into the conflict, America runs the risk of being enveloped in a much larger conflict. By committing 20,000 American soldiers to this international peace enforcement operation now, we may reduce the likelihood that more American troops could be required in Europe later. While I also understand the view of those who believe Bosnia is a European problem that the Europeans should enforce and monitor the peace agreement on their own, the reality is that without the leadership and direct participation of the United States in this international effort, the peace agreement would go nowhere. The Europeans, through NATO, will be engaged as our partner in this peace enforcement mission. But as the architect of the peace agreement and as the leader of NATO, only the United States can lead the effort to enforce the peace agreement and put an end to the senseless bloodshed and loss of innocent lives. Only our Nation can lead the way in enforcing the peace agreement which will stop the carnage that has taken 250,000 lives, torn the country apart, and displaced 2 million refugees. Sending American troops to help enforce and monitor this peace agreement is the best option available to the United States to help guarantee peace in Europe. While the Dayton peace agreement is far from perfect, it is the only peace agreement that the parties to the conflict have agreed to implement. It will not reunite Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it will, if given a chance to succeed, restore peace, calm, and civility to the region. It will not bring back the lives of those senselessly slaughtered by perpetrators of war crimes, but it will guard future atrocities and ensure that such perpetrators are prohibited from serving in government. If successfully implemented and coupled with the arming and training of the Bosnian Moslems before IFOR departs, it holds the promise, in the long run, of ending the bloodshed and violence that have terrorized the people of Bosnia for so long. Mr. President, the alternative to sending U.S. troops to help implement and enforce this peace agreement, is to let the war resume. If the international community does not step in now to enforce this peace agreement, more lives will be lost. More refugees will be displaced. More children will be orphaned. There will be more bloodshed and carnage. There will be a greater likelihood that the United States will need to intervene at a later time. America's credibility as an international leader is also on the line. Our leadership brought the parties to the negotiating table, and our leadership was requested by those parties to help enforce and monitor the peace agreement. I understand the view of many that the Congress should have been more closely consulted before the decision to send troops was made. But I do not believe that forcing America to back away from the President's commitment is the solution in this case. To do so would invite attacks on our troops by those opponents of peace who hope to force the international community out of the Balkans. It would undermine the morale of our troops. Even more, it would diminish our credibility in the International community. It would send a message to aggressors worldwide that they have little to fear from America. It could be perceived as a green light for the North Koreans to march south. It could be perceived as a green light for Sadaam Hussein to do the same. To be sure, it would also undermine America's role as NATO's leader. I know, Mr. President, that U.S. participation in this mission is not risk free. The parties to the conflict have been fighting for years, and passions run high in an area where weapons are plentiful. Millions of landmines lay just below the Earth's surface, and adverse weather conditions will, no doubt, create difficulties for our soldiers. But I do not believe these difficulties are insurmountable. Nor do I believe they should keep America from joining the international community in enforcing a peace agreement aimed at stopping the worst atrocities on European soil since the Second World War. I am persuaded that General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry have assiduously worked to minimize those risks. They believe the risk level has been minimized and that the mission has clear objectives, a sufficiently potent force, an effective command and control structure under American leadership, no-nonsense rules of engagement, a clear time limit, and the cooperation of the various factions. American troops participating in this international peace enforcement operation will have well defined rules of engagement. Unlike the lightly armed U.N. peacekeepers previously stationed in Bosnia, American soldiers will be permitted to use force--including deadly force--in cases of self-defense or to protect against a hostile act or hostile intent. They will, as President Clinton said, ``fight fire with fire, and then some.'' Out troops will have a clearly defined military mission. They will monitor the cease-fire line, the zones of separation, and, when needed, enforce withdrawal from the zones of separation. They will not participate in nation-building tasks. They will be under American command. Our soldiers will have the firepower, training, explicit instructions, and authorization necessary to defend themselves and others. They have been trained to deal with every major threat, including landmine, civil disorder, and snipers. I have been assured by General Shalikashvili and Secretary Perry that our troops are well trained, prepared, and ready for this peace enforcement mission. Though it is never easy to send American soldiers overseas, I believe the goals of this limited deployment are meritorious. While it is our solemn responsibility to make wise decisions about sending American troops, I have been assured by our military leaders that the members of our all volunteer force are prepared for this mission. America can make a difference in securing the peace in Bosnia, and we ought to remain engaged in that endeavor. I hope my colleagues will support the Dole-McCain resolution and our troops. I wish them well on this peace mission. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I see my colleague from Florida is here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of New Jersey's favorite sons, and one of America's great personalities who will be celebrating his 80th birthday today: Frank Sinatra. Mr. Sinatra hails from Hoboken, New Jersey and we are proud to call him one of our own. Mr. President, Frank Sinatra is one of the most recognized and revered artists in the world, admired not only for his unique style, but for his ability to reach people on a distinctly personal level. As a musician and actor, Mr. Sinatra has distinguished himself as one of the most notable figures in the history of entertainment. For more than five decades, Frank Sinatra has charmed people all over the world with his exceptional, distinctive voice. He began his impressive career in New Jersey, when he won an amateur singing concert. A few years later, he was the featured vocalist with the bands of Harry James and Tommy Dorsey. It was not long before Mr. Sinatra began to embark on a solo career. The sounds of Frank Sinatra played throughout the country while the Second World War was being fought abroad. Although he was unable to join the Armed Services, he was able to help the servicemen by entertaining them with his voice, known as the ``Voice That Thrilled Millions.'' Frank Sinatra made his acting debut in 1943, and he then went on to appear in more than 50 motion pictures, among them, ``The Manchurian Candidate,'' a classic thriller reflecting his versatility as an actor, ``The House I Live In,'' a sensitive documentary for which he received a special Oscar, and ``From Here to Eternity,'' the 1953 motion picture which brought him an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Today, Frank Sinatra maintains that same high visibility by singing and performing throughout the United States and the world. Over the years, he has received countless awards that attest to the greatness of his multifaceted career, including seven Grammies, a Peabody, an Emmy and an Oscar. Aside from his performing brilliance, Mr. President, Frank Sinatra should be recognized for his many selfless contributions. He played a key role in raising money for an AIDS program and a center for abused children during a special program taped last month in honor of his Eightieth Birthday Celebration. He also has earned awards for his humanitarian and social justice efforts, including; the Life Achievement Award from the NAACP, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Mr. President, we are fortunate that Frank Sinatra's music will live on forever, for he is truly one of a kind. His voice penetrated the hearts of many, and changed the face of popular music in 20th Century America. I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Frank Sinatra on this monumentous occasion and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first let me commend our colleague from Ohio. Few have a better right to discuss issues affecting attitudes about our Nation than Senator John Glenn. His history has been one of service in so many areas--as a pilot, as an astronaut, as a Senator. Now I know John Glenn very well. One area he is not so good in, we have gone skiing together, he is not very good there, but in matters of profession and decency and honor few have the credentials that John Glenn has. I am delighted to hear his comments. I share the views of my friend and colleague. Mr. President, this is a tough issue. It is tough because people of good will on both sides feel so differently about the issue. The veterans organizations that I belong to are very much supportive of taking good care of the flag, of not permitting the desecration, if that is possible. I am a life member of the VFW. I served overseas, World War II, and yet we come up with the kind of disagreements on this matter that we have. I regret it. I respect all the colleagues with whom there may be a difference in point of view--those who think we need an amendment. I disagree with the decision they made but I never questioned their patriotism nor do I expect them to question mine or Senator Glenn or Senator Kerrey or others who have served in uniform. Others need not have served in uniform to have a point view that has to be listened to and perhaps respected. I want to express my strong support, Mr. President, to the flag of the United States and my outrage at those who would desecrate the flag in any way. At the same time, I rise to express my deep concern about amending the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am not a lawyer, Mr. President, but as a private citizen and as a Senator I have always been vigilant about restrictions on the basic freedoms that make America unique in the world. Perhaps because I am the son of immigrant parents whose families fled tyranny for the promise of freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for me are not abstractions. I was raised to respect them as a sacred promise of freedom. Promises compelling enough to convince my grandparents as they carried my parents to travel halfway across the Earth to live under the protections of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They are protections that have drawn millions to our shores. I remember my dear grandmother, who was born in Russia--my mother was about a year old when she was brought here--talking about what a great country this is. With a thick accent she said, ``In this house''--it is funny, she drew her patriotic commitment along verbal lines--she said, with the heaviest accent you can imagine, ``In this house we speak only English.'' It was quite remarkable. It left an impression on me that has lasted all my life. This country has been so good to me and my family, beyond my wildest boyhood dreams; even more important, beyond my mother's most precious dreams. It has been that way for millions of us, and for that reason I volunteered to do my part in World War II. For that reason, although the private sector was a very comfortable arena for me, I sought public office as a U.S. Senator. I wanted to do whatever I could to give something back to our country, our country which continues to serve as a beacon of hope for millions seeking freedom and a better life around the world. One of the reasons I left the private sector to come here was I wanted to leave my children, and now my grandchildren, an inheritance that went far beyond the value of money and other assets, and that is a strong America, an America where all people could enjoy their freedom as long as they did not encroach upon others. That is the way I feel about our Nation. That is the way I feel about the symbol of our flag. For that reason, just as I revere the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I love the flag, which we at my home fly regularly, which embodies our ideals, our liberties, our history and our sacrifices. In that, I know I stand virtually with all Americans. In my mind, I contrast those patriotic Americans with the image of the flag burner, whether on our shores or anyplace else; pictures on the front pages of the paper, having our flag burned by some in Bosnia. It angers me. We are not there to hurt. We are there to help. But the thousands of patriotic Americans I know, who have been touched by the tragedy of war or sacrifice for this country, are shocked and angered by the view, the image of someone destroying the flag, burning the flag. They are showing their contempt for this incredible Nation in which we live. The flag is a unique national symbol. I have a special, personal affection for it, as I said, along with all Americans. It is the one great symbol that unites our Nation. The flag represents more than 200 years of our history and our culture. As a veteran, as a Senator, and as an American, son of immigrants, the flag [[Page S 18281]] represents noble things to me. And flag burning is an ugly, despicable, and cowardly act. When I have seen it, though I have not seen it directly--when I have seen pictures of it, it sickens me and it saddens me. Those who burn the flag are ingrates. They lack the courage and the character to fight for change through a well-established and fair and just process. Instead, their mission is different. They want to infuriate and enrage and offend, more than they want to achieve their goals through their attacks on this precious symbol. They are misguided and they deserve the contempt of all of us. But I am not prepared to sacrifice the principle of freedom of expression embodied in the first amendment to protect a symbol. I worry about compromising the Bill of Rights. I am unwilling to risk, for the first time in our history, narrowing the freedoms expressed in the first amendment. Desecration of our flag is outrageous and my anger at such incidents wants me to seek vengeance, to strike back and to punish those who commit these acts. However, when I think about how this offensive dissent might be choked off, I conclude that in the process we run the terrible risk of trampling on a fundamental right of our democracy, the right to disagree, the right to speak out freely, to exercise dissent no matter how disagreeable. There is no right more fundamental to our democracy than the right of free speech, the right to assemble, the right to express ourselves on the issues of importance as citizens. That is why the first step of a despot is to squelch free speech. Silence the people and you cut the throat of democracy. Our first amendment protects everyone's right to speak out. It is the citizen's shield against tyranny. It is what makes America special. It is what makes America a model for those aspiring to freedom around the world. The right of the individual American to be free is the right to do what one wishes short of violating the rights of others, and that includes the right to do or say what is popular, certainly--but it also includes the right to do or say the unpopular. For it is then, when actions give offense, that our freedom is put to the test. It is then, precisely then, that we learn whether or not we are free. To defend the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, is quite different from defending the speech that flows from the exercise of that right. It is perfectly consistent to condemn flag burning, as most Americans do, while defending the right, as unpleasant as it is, for someone to abuse it. The flag is a symbol of our freedom. Desecrating it is offensive because it desecrates every one of us. But what would be even more offensive than the desecration of the symbol would be the desecration of the principle that it symbolizes. In the end, symbols are only symbols. If we desecrate the real thing, the principles our founders fought so hard to secure and that so many since have sacrificed their lives to preserve, we will lose something far more valuable, far more difficult to restore. I have heard it argued that flag burning is not speech but rather conduct, and thus is not protected by the first amendment. But that argument reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. All speech, in a sense, is conduct. When one vocalizes, or uses a printing press, or types into a computer, that is conduct. But it is generally protected conduct if it expresses a political idea. Flag burning is despicable precisely because it expresses a despicable political idea. Flag burning insults the United States of America. It insults the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth. And that is a disgusting idea. Just about every American is outraged by that idea. But the whole point of the first amendment is to protect the expression of ideas, no matter how despicable. Throughout the history of our Nation, we have never banned the expression of an idea solely because others have found it offensive; never. We have never sanctioned speech that hurts others, like yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. But we have never banned speech just because it made others uncomfortable. And I feel that this amendment would do just that for the first time. This is a very, very dangerous precedent, as we heard from Senator Glenn a few minutes ago. A little opening often transfers into a giant hole. Once we ban one idea because it offends some people, other ideas will be threatened as well. Where do you draw the line? It is a dangerous and slippery slope, and ultimately can lead to tyranny. No doubt, those who are proposing this constitutional amendment are entirely well meaning, but I am reminded of something that the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said. He said, ``The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.'' By no means do I intend to suggest that those who feel differently on this amendment are without understanding. But I think this expression, this sense, embraces the concerns that we have to have, that our greatest danger to liberty often lies within our society. I would add, Mr. President, that if freedom is lost, it is most likely to be lost not in some cataclysmic war. Americans are too patriotic, too willing, too dedicated a country for that to happen. It is most likely to be lost a word at a time, a phrase at a time, a sentence at a time, an amendment at a time. We saw that happen in one of the great--formerly great--nations of the world before World War II in Germany. One of the first things they did was start to ban speech, ban expression, and the rest is one of man's darkest hours, or periods, in history. Mr. President, I think it is dangerous to tinker with the Bill of Rights, and especially with the first amendment. I hope my colleagues will stand by the first amendment and support our laws for the flag by working to make our democracy even stronger. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to go on record opposing a last minute addition to the statement of managers in the conference report on the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill, to which I object strenuously. On page 127 of the statement of managers there is a provision to have a deep ocean isolation study. This report language would have NOAA conduct an analysis of a particular patented technology that would be used for the disposal of dredge soil to the deep ocean. Mr. President, I strongly object to this direction to NOAA. First, there was no mention of this issue in the House bill, the Senate bill, the Senate report or the House report. But, it is in the conference report. Second, this is special interest legislation of the most egregious kind--it is intended to help one and only one company at the expense of the environment. Third, the company had, in the past, a similar study provision in a Defense appropriations bill. In January, the Navy released its study that this technology was determined to be ``unacceptable from both production rate capability and because of handling systems problems.'' I objected strenuously against this study in 1993 because it would be a waste of Federal resources and because it was intended to lead to renewed disposal of sewage sludge in the ocean. Mr. President, the study has been completed, and the Navy determined the technology was not feasible. The money was wasted and yet, in these difficult budget times, a request is being made to do a similar study by a different agency of the Federal Government! When is enough enough? Mr. President, our oceans are too valuable to be used as a garbage dump. Our oceans include diverse species that rival the tropical rain forests. Because of the rich environmental heritage of the oceans and the tremendous economic vitality of our coasts that are dependent on a clean ocean environment, I have worked to end the ocean dumping of sewage sludge and the proper handling of contaminated sediments. That is why I sponsored legislation to ban ocean dumping of sewage sludge and sponsored provisions in water resources development legislation that will help develop technologies to decontaminate dredged sediments. Mr. President, this study is not just a study of whether a technology will work. It is a study about the feasibility of a technology that is designed to facilitate illegal activities. The intent of this technology is to dispose of contaminated dredge materials. Clean dredged disposal is used beneficially on golf courses and other uses. However, the disposal of contaminants in the ocean that this technology contemplates is illegal above trace amounts under the Marine Protection Act and several international conventions. Mr. President, the tourism industry in my state, the water recreation industry and users, and numerous environmental groups have rejected additional disposal of contaminated sediments as contemplated by this language. The public has spoken out forcefully and repeatedly against the ocean dumping of pollutants. And, the Navy has determined that this technology is not feasible and will lead to the release of contaminated toxic sediments into the water column. Mr. President, I know that this report language is not binding on the Agency. Based on the fact a similar study has just recently been carried out, I strongly urge the Agency to ignore this ill-conceived and ill-considered language.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As a member of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, State, Justice, and Judiciary, I wish to express my support for the work of the task forces on gender and racial bias in the courts. I concur with my colleagues as to the importance of the task forces and I join my colleague, Senator Bradley, in noting that New Jersey has been a leader in the effort to ensure gender and racial fairness in the courts. I firmly believe that funding for this important work is provided for in this appropriations bill and I join my colleagues in encouraging the judiciary to continue this work.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Mr. President, before I discuss my views on the conference report, let me begin by commending the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Hollings, for their hard work on this legislation. Senator Gregg in particular has managed to get up to speed on the intricacies of this legislation after Senator Gramm left the subcommittee. That's not an easy thing to do, and he deserves real credit for his efforts. Similarly, Senator Hollings, as always, has demonstrated his expertise on the programs covered in this legislation, and he also deserves credit for his work. Mr. President, given the hard work of these two Senators, I rise to oppose the conference report with some reluctance. However, I have serious concerns with the final product, and so I am left with little choice. I am especially concerned about the complete elimination of funding for the Community Policing Program. Mr. President, this body previously voted to fully fund the COPS Program reaffirming our commitment to putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets. Unfortunately, we apparently have now backed down in the fact of opposition from the House. And this conference report would completely eliminate the COPS Program. Mr. President, the Community Policing Program is a program that works. I can attest to that because I've seen it first hand. A few months ago, I was in Plainfield, NJ, and I saw what the Community Policing Program has meant for that town. The results have been dramatic. Crime has been reduced. The relations between the police and the community have improved. And the whole city has benefited. I've seen similar results in several New Jersey cities. Mr. President, community policing works largely by preventing crime before it happens. Under the program, officers are encouraged to get out of their cars and onto the streets. There, they go to know the people of the community and their problems. In the process, they also gain citizens' trust and confidence. The improved relationship between the police and their community has several payoffs. Perhaps most importantly, officers are able to identify and resolve conflicts early on--before they erupt into violence. Community police officers often know when tensions are building between rival gangs, or between a husband and a wife. And they can take steps to defuse these tensions in a constructive way. By contrast, officers who don't get out of their patrol car may have no idea that violence is about to erupt until it's too late to do anything about it--or after the fact. Community policing also makes citizens feel more safe. People tell me that it's very reassuring to see an officer walking the beat, available to help out if a problem arises. This increased sense of security can make a huge difference in the quality of peoples' lives. It allows them to go out at night, to take their kids for a walk in the park, to get to know their neighbors. These are the kind of things that Americans should be able to take for granted. But they can't in today's climate of fear. Another benefit of community policing is that it helps to involve the police in the daily lives of young people. As you know, Mr. President, many teenagers today are growing up without fathers, and without responsible adults who can set them on the right course. Community policing officers can help fill that void. Although no policeman can substitute for a father, officers can help instill a sense of values, and can lead young people away from lives of crime and drugs. But they can't do that if they're just sitting in their patrol cars, isolated from the community. Mr. President, a broad range of law enforcement officials have recognized the value of community policing. In fact, a national poll found that a clear majority of chiefs and sheriffs surveyed called community policing the most cost-effective strategy for fighting crime. In addition, national law enforcement organizations, including the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Fraternal Order of Police, [[Page S 18168]] all have come out strongly in support of the COPS Program. These are the people at the front lines in the battle against crime. And they know what works. Mr. President, it would be a serious mistake to eliminate the Community Policing Program in favor of a whole new bureaucratic mechanism that does not now exist, and has no track record of success. Unlike the Community Policing Program, which was worked out in lengthy negotiations during last year's crime bill debate, the new block grant program in this bill hasn't been subject to serious review. We don't know whether it will work. There also are serious questions about how State politicians will use this money. Under the terms of the block grant, Governors could choose to fund building code inspectors, parking meters, bullhorns, or even carpets for courthouses. They wouldn't have to hire a single new police officer. Mr. President, there is no need to deal with these kind of questions, and the variety of other problems that are involved in creating a whole new program. The Community Policing Program has an established track record. It's been up and running for some time. And we know it works. I've seen the results myself. And I am sure many of my colleagues have seen similar successes. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will not abandon our national commitment to providing 100,000 new police officers. Community policing will make a real difference in reducing crime, if we stick to it. Yet this conference report proposes to eliminate the program altogether. And that would be a serious mistake. Mr. President, another serious problem with this conference report is that it virtually eliminates crime prevention programs. Mr. President, it's a cliche, but it's also true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And there has never been a more urgent need to help ensure that young people, especially, are given positive alternatives to lives of crime. Arrest rates for violent crimes by juveniles have risen by nearly 100 percent in the last decade. And these arrest rates are expected to double again in the next 15 years. We need to do more to reverse these trends. And yet the conference report largely ignores this need. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, let me commend my colleague from California for speaking so forthrightly about an issue that does not belong in the kind of debate that we have heard from the other side from the proponents of this amendment. Strangely enough, and I speak now as a father and a grandfather, as a father of four. We lost a couple because of health problems with my wife, and every one of those pregnancies that was lost was a terrible experience for us. When my youngest daughter lost a fetus, lost a pregnancy that was in its 7th month because the baby was entangled in the cord, it was very painful, very painful. We did not know whether we had a healthy baby or not, but we were torn by this experience, to have her go to the hospital, spend 8 hours in labor to deliver the fetus. The interesting thing to me, Mr. President, is I have not heard one woman speak for that side. It is the men who speak on what women ought to do, tell them how to conduct their lives, tell them what to do with their bodies, describe the pain that they will never feel. It is quite interesting. They want to tell everybody what the moral right is. I just heard one of our Senators say something that to me is so preposterous. He says those who will vote to send troops to Bosnia will never serve in combat. Who is he that knows all this information? What a silly thing to say. It is the same thing we are talking about here. What this is is license for the Government to participate in the operating room when a doctor does a procedure, when a doctor decides to perform a procedure that the woman carrying the fetus wants to have done because she feels that it is essential or the doctor feels it is essential for her health. These abortions, these procedures are rarely done when someone was making that choice simply to rid themselves of that pregnancy. This is a sad day, I think, Mr. President. Mr. President, the bill before us is extremely dangerous and I strongly oppose it. This bill is poorly titled for many reasons. It would more appropriately be called The Big Government Intrusion into the Doctor- Patient Relationship Act. Under this bill, we will literally have FBI agents snooping around examining rooms. Let me repeat this. This legislation authorizes the FBI to go wandering around doctors' offices looking at patients and what doctors are doing to them. Furthermore, this bill does not include a life and health of the mother exemption. This bill will send a chilling signal to doctors in this country. And they will leave the practice of reproductive health care in droves. And women could die in waiting rooms while doctors are on the phone, consulting with defense and constitutional lawyers, about what they can or cannot do to treat their patients. Mr. President, one reason I am opposing this bill is because I believe doctors and patients can make proper decisions about which health care treatment is most appropriate. Mr. President, one of the most extreme elements of this bill is its failure to include an exception to deal with situations in which the life or health of the mother is at risk. The pending Boxer amendment seeks to make this bill a little less extreme. The Boxer amendment would create a real health and life-of-the-mother exception. Under the bill, as originally presented, if a doctor thought it likely that a woman would become permanently disabled if she carried a fetus to term, the doctor would still be prohibited from performing this procedure. Can you imagine that? A doctor would have to feel certain that carrying a fetus to term would endanger the life of the mother in order to do what is medically required for treatment. Otherwise, the doctor could not perform this procedure even though the woman could suffer severe, permanent health damage without the procedure. Mr. President, this bill will affect real people. Real women and families who have had to go through this procedure. One such woman is Viki Wilson, a nurse, who 18 months ago was expecting her first child. Early tests showed the child to be normal but an 8-month ultrasound revealed that the fetus had a fatal condition--two thirds of the brain had formed outside the skull. Carrying the pregnancy to term would have imperiled Viki's life and health. In consultation with her doctor, Viki and her husband Bill made the heartbreaking decision to undergo this procedure. This bill would make this practice illegal. [[Page S 18198]] Mr. President, I would like to quote Viki at this point. She stated ``I strongly believe that this decision should be left within the intimacy of the family unit.'' So do I Mr. President. While this bill is really extreme, the Boxer amendment would make it a little less extreme. At a minimum, we ought to adopt the amendment, which would establish a meaningful exception in cases where the life and health of the mother is at stake. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Boxer amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor and hope that my colleagues will support the amendment that is proposed by Senator Boxer.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I too would like to congratulate President Clinton on his visit to Ireland and the United Kingdom. His visit reminds us all of the important role that the United States can play, and is playing, in bringing peace around the world. During his visit, the President visited Derry where he spoke to thousands of people who gathered at the Guild Hall. He also joined the American Ireland Fund and the family of the late Speaker of the House of Representatives in inaugurating the Thomas P. O'Neill Chair for the Study of Peace and Conflict Resolution at Ulster University. The President also paid tribute to ``Ireland's most tireless champion for civil rights and its most eloquent voice of non-violence, John Hume.'' And he spoke of reconciliation and hope. I am sure he was right when he said that Tip was smiling down on Derry that day. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's addresses in Derry may be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to vote against this conference report. Mr. President, the legislation before us is described as a bill to protect investors and to maintain confidence in our capital markets. In my view, however, it does neither. Instead, the legislation would shield too many wrongdoers from being held accountable for their misdeeds, and it could ultimately reduce investor confidence in our markets. When this bill was before the Senate, Mr. President, I expressed special concern about the so-called safe harbor provision of the bill. This provision has been improved in the conference report, but it is still problematic. For example, it eliminates any duty to update forward-looking statements. This means that if a business projects earnings of a certain amount and 1 month after making this statement, it becomes apparent that the projected earnings will be significantly less, or perhaps the company will even lose money, the company is not obligated to correct those statements. I do not understand why we would want to encourage this behavior. [[Page S 17986]] As some of my colleagues know, prior to coming to the U.S. Senate, I worked in the private sector. I co-founded a company with two others that today employs over 20,000 people. After the company went public in 1961, I filed countless statements with the SEC as its CEO. As the CEO, I believe it was important for investors to have as much information as possible. Each year, I made it a practice to project earnings for the following year. And if those projections needed modification due to a changed circumstances, I quickly went to the public to alert them to any revision. This process had significant rewards because investor confidence in my former company caused our stock, which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, to sell at among the highest price- earnings ratios of all listed securities on any exchange. Mr. President, I recognize that there are abuses in securities litigation, and I believe those abuses should be addressed. That is why I supported amendments to improve the legislation when it was before the Senate. Among other things, these amendments would have provided aiding and abetting liability in private implied actions; inserted a safety net to ensure that small investors are able to fully recover their losses; and extended the status of limitations period on these claims, thus making it more difficult for bad actors to hide their fraud. In opposing these amendments, the sponsors of the bill cited some of the more egregious practices of professional plaintiffs and certain lawyers. What they do not mention is that this behavior would have been curbed by less controversial provisions contained in this bill, such as prohibitions against referral fees and attorney conflicts of interest; requirements that the share of the settlement awarded to the name plaintiffs be calculated in the same manner as the shares awarded to all other members of the class and that the name plaintiff certify that he did not purchase the security at the direction of his attorney; a prohibition against excessive attorney's fees; and an assurance that all members of the class have access to information held by counsel of the name plaintiff. The sponsors of this legislation cite compelling anecdotal evidence of abuse by the so-called professional plaintiffs and their unscrupulous attorneys. I agree there are abusive securities class actions suits filed every year. I also agree that we need to protect companies, and even other shareholders, from these people. But in our zeal to tackle this problem, we should take care not to stifle legitimate claims and to harm our markets, which are the strongest they have ever been in our history. Mr. President, I would like to support legislation to curb frivolous securities lawsuits because I believe there are problems. However, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that I believe will insulate fraudulent conduct, prevent investors injured by fraud from fully recovering damages, and chill meritorious litigation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The first misstatement that our Republican friends make is we need $270 billion to save Medicare. That is simply untrue. The Republicans are using this $270 billion, as I said before, to finance their $245 billion in tax breaks for the rich folk. It is no coincidence that Medicare cuts are $270 billion and the tax breaks for the wealthy total $245 billion. These figures are remarkably similar because one is being used to finance the other. They are taking from our senior citizens who paid the bills, signed the contract, worked hard and weathered the storm, and they are giving it back to the wealthy and the special interests. The second Republican falsehood is that we need to cut $270 billion to make Medicare solvent. Not true. The chief Health and Human Services Medicare actuary has said that we only need $89 billion in savings to make Medicare solvent until the end of the year 2006. Let me give some examples of what kind of tax breaks these Medicare cuts are paying for: Under this bill, approximately 2,000 large corporations will get a tax break of $2 million apiece because of changes in the alternative minimum tax calculations; the bill also gives an $800,000 tax break to people with estates over $2.5 million to be able to pass on to their heirs an additional $800,000 tax break. It is not fair. It is not right. Additionally, this bill contains hundreds of millions of dollars in giveaways to the oil companies. Finally, the capital gains tax cut included in this bill is a tax break for the superrich. Anyone can claim this tax break. We saw that in a vote here. Even those who make more than $1 million a year can get this tax break. Mr. President, I tried to draw a line in the tax sand, to use the expression, and put the money back into Medicare and Medicaid. I offered an amendment when we discussed our reconciliation bill that would have precluded the tax breaks from going to those who make over $1 million in a single year. That is one-tenth of 1 percent of all our taxpayers. This small group, I felt, did not need a tax break--making $1 million a year, that is a lot of money. I thought this amendment could pass substantially. Maybe even unanimously. I thought that people here would finally say, ``No, we think that is fair, that people who make over $1 million a year ought not to get an additional tax break.'' I thought we could all agree that millionaires, billionaires, do not need a break when we are cutting Medicare, especially when 75 percent of all the Medicare recipients earn under $25,000 each year. However, 52 of 53 of the Republican Senators voted against my amendment. In essence, they said their preference is cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, and we will keep on giving tax breaks to those millionaires and the billionaires--show them what good guys we are. Mr. President, Medicare is not just a health insurance program. Medicare is a contract. It is a commitment we made to our citizens. It is a promise for those who worked hard for their entire lives that your health care needs will be taken care of when you retire. They paid for it. This Republican budget uses the Medicare Program as a slush fund for the tax breaks for the wealthy. Mr. President, I hope that the Republican leadership will give up their plan to cut Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the rich, give up deep cuts in Medicaid, give up tax increases on working families, give up the destruction of the safety net that will put millions of children into poverty, give up the huge cuts in education and the environment. It is time to start over. If the Republicans are serious about moving towards the balanced budget, they will give up on these draconian cuts, those cuts that hurt so much. They will honor a basic principle that declares whose side Government is on, that no Medicare cuts will be used to pay for tax breaks for the rich, that they will confirm that the Government is here to help give assistance to those who need help the most. Those who are wealthy do not need special assistance from the Government. It is time to start over, Mr. President, and put together a budget that protects Medicare and Medicaid and working families, poor children, provide education to help get the population to lead our country into the next century, to provide the kind of leadership that can make us more competitive, to continue the kind of position that the United States of America has had for so many years, and to provide our future generations with a decent and clean environment. I hope that will get consideration, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the Democrat and Republican negotiators sit down and try to work out a final budget, I want to urge the negotiators to begin their discussions by agreeing on a fundamental principle. The principle is critical to Democrats like me and to the overwhelming majority of Americans. The principle is this: Congress should not cut Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Mr. President, the current Republican budget, which has yet to be sent to President Clinton, violates this basic principle because the heart of the Republican plan cuts Medicare by $270 billion, and it is going to be used to pay for $245 billion in tax breaks. The President has made it quite clear that these Medicare cuts for tax breaks are a quid pro quo and totally unacceptable. It is a basic matter of principle. I also want to remind my colleagues about some of the other objectionable provisions in the Republican reconciliation bill. The budget proposed by the Republicans also cuts Medicaid by $163 billion. This will mean huge cuts in nursing home care for seniors and care for the disabled. The bill includes a $23 billion cut in the earned income tax credit, and this means that 17 million working families, who make less than $30,000 a year, will have to pay more in taxes. They will get a tax increase because the earned income tax credit, which helped them sustain themselves, will no longer be available. At the same time, the top 1 percent, who make over $350,000 a year, will get an $8,400 tax break. It is unnecessary and, frankly, it is unconscionable. The bill also tears apart the safety net for poor children. Under the Republican so-called welfare reform provisions, between 1.2 and 2.1 million children will be thrust into poverty, potentially going hungry. Mr. President, the basic thrust of this legislation is to balance the budget on the backs of working families and senior citizens, while handing out billions in tax breaks for the rich and powerful. It is an extreme approach. I know that Speaker Gingrich and his followers believe in it strongly, but, in my view, it is fundamentally wrong. Mr. President, when you get right down to it, the Republican budget forces all of us to answer a simple question, one that I have discussed many times here. It is very directly saying: ``Whose side are you on?'' That is the question being asked. Are you on the side of the rich and the powerful and the special interests? Or are you on the side of those who go to work every day worrying about how they will pay their bills, get their kids to college, sustain a lifestyle they have worked so hard to get, and worry about what happens in their later years? Or are you on the side of those who do not need help, but who have influence down here, who get to talk to a lot of people in Government, those who make the decisions? That is the fundamental question that we are discussing as we consider the budget. The Republican reconciliation bill is pay dirt for the rich and the special interests, while senior citizens and working class families get stuck footing higher bills. This is an outrage. We Democrats are going to continue to resist it as a basic matter of principle. We saw what happened with the continuing resolution when the public caught on to this scheme. Under the spotlight, our friends on the Republican side blinked. They retreated. They ran away. They wanted to escape the public wrath and quickly abandoned their deep principles for political cover. They quickly backed off their large increases in Medicare part B premiums. Mr. President, the Republican budget makes the biggest cuts in the history of Medicare. I have heard the case made, ``No, we are not making cuts. What we are doing is increasing the pot.'' Yes, but there are a lot more people who are aging and who will be part of the Medicare population, and on a per capita basis they get hit very, very hard. Republicans build their case around a false premise. They argue that in order to save Medicare they want to destroy its fundamental mission. That is not true. They ought to be frank with the American people about two major Republican misstatements.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk just a few minutes now. I understand that the unanimous-consent agreement that has been propounded and accepted limits Senators to 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to extend that to 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is not an unfair response. Perhaps at the end of that time, I will call on using leader time, which I understand has been made available to me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I rise in support of this legislation to authorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. I want to commend my colleague and my friend from Idaho for his hard work on this, and to express at the same time my appreciation to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which we both serve, Senator Chafee, for the open process that he and Senator Kempthorne established for drafting this bill. It has not been a lightning experience, though it has been an enlightening experience. I say it has not been lightning because it has taken a fair amount of time to get this to this point. As a matter of fact, the committee has been meeting since February, both Democrats and Republicans, to try to get this legislation into shape so that it could meet the bipartisan test and pass. They have been meeting almost constantly over the year, and into September and October, to reach the consensus that exists now on this legislation. The process has produced a bill that, though imperfect, does substantially improve the Safe Drinking Water Act. When I say, ``though imperfect,'' I do not remember a time when there was a bill that involved a complicated process that had been produced here that was perfect. There is always a point of view that something could be better. It was often said by a former majority leader, George Mitchell, that the perfect is the enemy of the good. And what we have is we have a good bill. This committee, Mr. President, the Environment and Public Works Committee, has a good history of working in a bipartisan fashion. The environmental legislation has been a joint enterprise, going back to at least 1969. This bipartisanship continued when Democrats chaired the committee from 1969 to 1980 and then through Senator Robert Stafford's tenure as chairman in the early 1980's. That spirit continues today, as demonstrated by this bill. The legacy of this process has been a system of environmental protection that, frankly, is a model for the industrial world. More importantly, the process has led to cleaner water, cleaner air, and a safer disposal of waste. It has led to a better world. But that should not be surprising. There has been strong bipartisan support across the country for effective environmental standards. Poll after poll shows support not only for EPA but for toughening of standards to protect the air, the water and our land. Although some special interests have taken the recent election results as a repudiation of the environment agenda over the last 25 years, I hope that this bill demonstrates that we, in a bipartisan fashion, can make progress, evidenced by this joint, bipartisan commitment to protect our environment. Time will tell if an optimistic view will prevail when Congress deals with other environmental issues. Mr. President, in any compromise, especially in this second generation of environmental statutes, agreement does not please everyone. Reaching a consensus requires both sides to accept provisions that they would rather not have. There are provisions in this bill that I would like to strengthen and I am sure others might want to weaken. However, the overall view is that this is a good bill. It is critical to ensure that drinking water is safe. Guaranteeing that safety is an important responsibility of Government, and it cannot be delegated entirely to the States or to the private market. At the same time, some State and local flexibility is essential to ensure efficient regulation. This legislation seeks to strike a balance between the critical need to guarantee public safety and the need to provide for reasonable regulatory flexibility. Once again, not a perfect balance, but a definite improvement over current law. For example, we have attempted to add additional cost-benefit and risk-assessment tests before we regulate chemical contaminants. These tests will apply to arsenic and sulfates and chlorinated byproducts. They are a reasonable compromise between provisions in the regulatory reform proposal and present law. As we debate this legislation, it is important to do what we can to strengthen public confidence in the water supply. Unfortunately, Americans now have little confidence in the safety of their drinking water. They worry about it, for their families. That is one of the reasons why 42 million Americans, one out of six, regularly drink bottled water. When I was a child, Mr. President--it was not a century ago, I assure you--I never heard of anybody drinking bottled water. Seltzer water or soda water, or something like that, but plain old bottled water? Never heard of it and never had the money for it even if we had heard of it. In the Washington area, Safeway or Giant Food stores, generic bottled water--and I am not talking about the highly advertised designer shaped bottles--in these places, water costs about $1.35 a gallon. It is 1,000 percent more than tap water--1,000 percent. Despite these high costs, sales of nonsparkling bottled water increased 100 percent between 1986 and 1994. To be sure, some people drink bottled water because of the notion it provides. It is kind of a cachet of things that people do, but many simply do not trust local water supplies and are willing to pay a stiff premium for alternatives to tap water. I personally believe that the tap water provided by public and private systems in New Jersey, my State, are safe. But given the widespread distrust of our water supplies, it is essential that in our deregulatory zeal, we do not further undermine public confidence in tap water. This bill should move us closer to the goal of safe, drinkable water at affordable prices. I have been pleased to cosponsor the bill, and I urge its support. I add, Mr. President, that an amendment of mine that is included in the bill is there to guarantee the safety of bottled water, because this amendment requires that bottled water meet the same safety standards set for tap water. There is an anomaly out there that tap water is tested rather rigorously, and water that is paid for out of one's pocket has not had the same requirements. We want to make them the same. People ought to know simply because it is in a bottle and thought to be pure that there should be a test that applies to this water. The amendment is supported by the International Bottled Water Association, and it will assure consumers that bottled water is at least as safe as the water they receive at the tap. The public needs to know that all their drinking water is safe, whether it comes out of the tap or out of a bottle. So, Mr. President, I am supporting this bill and reserve, however, the right to change my mind if there are amendments offered that do not have direct relationship to the Safe Drinking Water Act changes as we propose them. We have heard other subjects being discussed on the floor, and I hope they will not be offered as amendments to this bill. Barring that, I am 100 percent behind it and will do whatever I can to help make it turn into law. Once again, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his good, hard work which he continually shows in the committee and on the floor. We try to get things done, as I suggested earlier, in a bipartisan manner. It always is easier when we do, Mr. President. There are a few things that are on tap, to use the expression, a few things that we are working on in the Environment and Public Works Committee that I hope we will be able to use this effort as a model to move along. I have particular interest in Superfund and some other environmental legislation, and we just need to get together to make it happen. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, as the author the community right- to-know law that requires notification of the public of releases of toxics into the environment, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. This amendment requires local water providers to notify their customers at least annually of the quality of their drinking water so they can properly monitor the water for possible health effects. Madam President, shining the light on the behavior of corporations and governments has repeatedly led to significant environmental advances. When accidents, or discharges, or violations must be reported to the customers, quality improves. This has been proven dramatically in the case of the community right-to-know legislation. The right-to-know law does not require a company to lower its use or emissions of any chemical one ounce. The right-to-know law was intended to notify neighbors about chemicals that were being discharged. Companies did not like the bad publicity. In addition, the law brought to the attention of corporate executives the fact that expensive chemicals were leaving their facilities as waste, not product. In response to these reports, companies voluntarily instituted pollution prevention measures that have lowered toxic releases tremendously. Emissions from facilities have decreased 42 percent nationwide since 1989; a reduction of two billion pounds. Virtually none of those reductions were required by federal law; they were voluntarily done by companies who found a better way to do business, encouraged by this law. Senator Boxer's amendment is likely to have similar, positive effects. It will mean cleaner drinking water for consumers. It also will give individual Americans complete information about the quality and safety of their drinking water. This will allow consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to buy bottled water, or take other steps to protect themselves from unhealthy drinking water. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Private Investment Act. This bill will remove an impediment to private investment in municipal wastewater treatment facilities and in doing so, will improve water quality, provide increased fiscal flexibility to local governments, and create jobs. Mr. President, our Nation's waters are a priceless resource. They provide recreational opportunities, habitat for fish and wildlife, and drinking water among other uses. But we cannot assure our citizens that our waterways will be clean unless we have adequate wastewater treatment facilities. And our wastewater treatment needs are staggering. According to the 1992 EPA National Needs Survey, it will cost the United States $112 billion to build necessary wastewater treatment facilities. My State of New Jersey's wastewater treatment needs alone are $4.759 billion. This includes close to $2 billion for wastewater treatment plants necessary for compliance with the Clean Water Act and an estimated $1.29 billion to reduce discharges of bacteria, garbage and other floatable debris, and other untreated waste from combined sewer overflows. The remaining needs are to construct new sewers and repair existing sewers. Federal dollars are necessary but insufficient to build these facilities. The [[Page S 17781]] Senate VA/HUD appropriations bill includes $1.5 billion for State revolving loan funds. This funding level alone is insufficient to pay the costs local communities will have to bear to comply with the Clean Water Act. In addition, State revolving loan assistance will have to address other water quality needs such as storm water and nonpoint source pollution. Local communities are looking increasingly to privatization of local governmental programs as a way to pay for these programs. This is an obvious way for them to minimize the costs associated with Federal requirements, which are eating into their budgets. And the Federal Government should do everything possible to assist these efforts. In 1992, President Bush issued Executive Order 12803, which made it easier for local governments to privatize facilities that have received Federal financing--including wastewater treatment facilities. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has expressed her support to continue these efforts. In a letter she wrote to Mr. Edward Limbach, vice president of the American Water Works Co. in Voorhees, NJ, Ms. Browner said: [W]e need to provide communities the opportunity to work more closely with the private sector in financing environmental infrastructure. Local officials are in the best position to develop capital financing structures that meet their particular needs. We find that communities throughout the Nation are taking the lead in ``reinventing government'' and acknowledging the ability of private capital to enhance public investment. The EPA is committed to supporting these communities and allowing them flexibility in financing the infrastructure systems needed to achieve the environmental protection our citizens demand. EPA has an initiative underway to encourage private investment in wastewater treatment facilities. I urge the Congress to join with the administration in providing flexibility to local officials struggling to address the wastewater needs of this country. One problem identified by EPA which requires legislation concerns the phrase ``publicly owned treatment works'' or [POTWs]. This is the phrase used in the Clean Water act to identify what we all know to be municipal sewage facilities. Under the act, POTWs, treating municipal waste, are required to provide a level of treatment known as secondary treatment. However, if a private company offered to provide the same municipal waste services to the same community, it would have to meet a different treatment standard only because it is not a publicly owned treatment work. Mr. President, the level of waste- water treatment should be based on the quality of the receiving water, or a national technology standard-- it should not turn on the tax status of the owner of the sewer pipe. My bill would define publicly owned treatment works to include waste- water facilities which are privatized or jointly owned by public and private partners. The legislation would remove the uncertainty regarding the environmental standards governing privately owned wastewater treatment facilities providing municipal wastewater services. It would require the same environmental standards for municipal wastewater treatment facilities owned in whole or in part by private investors as would apply to publicly owned treatment works. Communities and their citizens should not face an additional burden imposed by the Federal Government simply because they are developing innovative means to pay for a clean environment. This bill would have numerous positive benefits. Perhaps most importantly, it would lead to more construction of wastewater treatment facilities. According to a report done by NatWest Washington Analysis, potential private investment in municipal wastewater treatment facilities could reach $2 billion a year. This would double the Federal investment in wastewater facilities. To the extent that this investment is in new facilities, there will be more treatment facilities and cleaner water. The legislation also would help private capital flow into wastewater systems facing upgrades, expansions and new requirements. Under the legislation, private and public/private facilities would have to comply with all of the same requirements that publicly owned facilities must comply with. Industrial facilities discharging into sewers and treatment plants, whether public or private, would continue to be subject to the pretreatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. The legislation also will lead to additional jobs. According to a study prepared by Apogee Research, every $1 billion spent on wastewater facility investment generates 34,200 to 57,400 jobs. The bill also would mean more capital investment to protect and prolong the extensive Federal investment in existing structures. Privatization gives local governments which must comply with the Clean Water Act an additional fiscal tool for construction and maintenance of these facilities. It provides equitable treatment of communities that choose to pursue alternative financing on their own rather than depending on limited Federal funds. Mr. President, this bill will help the private sector provide the infrastructure financing which is essential for economic growth. It will give local governments with limited financial resources another tool to address their budgetary problems. It will generate jobs. And it will improve the quality of the Nation's waters. This proposal is endorsed by the National Association of Water Companies, the National Council for Public-Private Partnership, the Utility and Transportation Contractors Association of New Jersey, the National Utility Contractors Association, and the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Private Investment Act. This bill will remove an impediment to private investment in municipal wastewater treatment facilities and in doing so, will improve water quality, provide increased fiscal flexibility to local governments, and create jobs. Mr. President, our Nation's waters are a priceless resource. They provide recreational opportunities, habitat for fish and wildlife, and drinking water among other uses. But we cannot assure our citizens that our waterways will be clean unless we have adequate wastewater treatment facilities. And our wastewater treatment needs are staggering. According to the 1992 EPA National Needs Survey, it will cost the United States $112 billion to build necessary wastewater treatment facilities. My State of New Jersey's wastewater treatment needs alone are $4.759 billion. This includes close to $2 billion for wastewater treatment plants necessary for compliance with the Clean Water Act and an estimated $1.29 billion to reduce discharges of bacteria, garbage and other floatable debris, and other untreated waste from combined sewer overflows. The remaining needs are to construct new sewers and repair existing sewers. Federal dollars are necessary but insufficient to build these facilities. The [[Page S 17781]] Senate VA/HUD appropriations bill includes $1.5 billion for State revolving loan funds. This funding level alone is insufficient to pay the costs local communities will have to bear to comply with the Clean Water Act. In addition, State revolving loan assistance will have to address other water quality needs such as storm water and nonpoint source pollution. Local communities are looking increasingly to privatization of local governmental programs as a way to pay for these programs. This is an obvious way for them to minimize the costs associated with Federal requirements, which are eating into their budgets. And the Federal Government should do everything possible to assist these efforts. In 1992, President Bush issued Executive Order 12803, which made it easier for local governments to privatize facilities that have received Federal financing--including wastewater treatment facilities. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has expressed her support to continue these efforts. In a letter she wrote to Mr. Edward Limbach, vice president of the American Water Works Co. in Voorhees, NJ, Ms. Browner said: [W]e need to provide communities the opportunity to work more closely with the private sector in financing environmental infrastructure. Local officials are in the best position to develop capital financing structures that meet their particular needs. We find that communities throughout the Nation are taking the lead in ``reinventing government'' and acknowledging the ability of private capital to enhance public investment. The EPA is committed to supporting these communities and allowing them flexibility in financing the infrastructure systems needed to achieve the environmental protection our citizens demand. EPA has an initiative underway to encourage private investment in wastewater treatment facilities. I urge the Congress to join with the administration in providing flexibility to local officials struggling to address the wastewater needs of this country. One problem identified by EPA which requires legislation concerns the phrase ``publicly owned treatment works'' or [POTWs]. This is the phrase used in the Clean Water act to identify what we all know to be municipal sewage facilities. Under the act, POTWs, treating municipal waste, are required to provide a level of treatment known as secondary treatment. However, if a private company offered to provide the same municipal waste services to the same community, it would have to meet a different treatment standard only because it is not a publicly owned treatment work. Mr. President, the level of waste- water treatment should be based on the quality of the receiving water, or a national technology standard-- it should not turn on the tax status of the owner of the sewer pipe. My bill would define publicly owned treatment works to include waste- water facilities which are privatized or jointly owned by public and private partners. The legislation would remove the uncertainty regarding the environmental standards governing privately owned wastewater treatment facilities providing municipal wastewater services. It would require the same environmental standards for municipal wastewater treatment facilities owned in whole or in part by private investors as would apply to publicly owned treatment works. Communities and their citizens should not face an additional burden imposed by the Federal Government simply because they are developing innovative means to pay for a clean environment. This bill would have numerous positive benefits. Perhaps most importantly, it would lead to more construction of wastewater treatment facilities. According to a report done by NatWest Washington Analysis, potential private investment in municipal wastewater treatment facilities could reach $2 billion a year. This would double the Federal investment in wastewater facilities. To the extent that this investment is in new facilities, there will be more treatment facilities and cleaner water. The legislation also would help private capital flow into wastewater systems facing upgrades, expansions and new requirements. Under the legislation, private and public/private facilities would have to comply with all of the same requirements that publicly owned facilities must comply with. Industrial facilities discharging into sewers and treatment plants, whether public or private, would continue to be subject to the pretreatment requirements of the Clean Water Act. The legislation also will lead to additional jobs. According to a study prepared by Apogee Research, every $1 billion spent on wastewater facility investment generates 34,200 to 57,400 jobs. The bill also would mean more capital investment to protect and prolong the extensive Federal investment in existing structures. Privatization gives local governments which must comply with the Clean Water Act an additional fiscal tool for construction and maintenance of these facilities. It provides equitable treatment of communities that choose to pursue alternative financing on their own rather than depending on limited Federal funds. Mr. President, this bill will help the private sector provide the infrastructure financing which is essential for economic growth. It will give local governments with limited financial resources another tool to address their budgetary problems. It will generate jobs. And it will improve the quality of the Nation's waters. This proposal is endorsed by the National Association of Water Companies, the National Council for Public-Private Partnership, the Utility and Transportation Contractors Association of New Jersey, the National Utility Contractors Association, and the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.