Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I concur with my colleague and support the request. This project is an important investment not only for Atlanta, but for the national air transportation system.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also would be willing to work with the chairman and both Senators from Georgia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that S. 1085, introduced earlier by Senator Wellstone, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading under rule XIV.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We like it in the summer and we like it in the winter. We want to help the State of Rhode Island, the important State that it is despite its tiny size. My State is only a wisp larger, and we have about eight times the number of people. But we know that the good Senator from Rhode Island will remember Alabama and New Jersey and how we all work together to get things done. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I want to say thank you to my colleague from Alabama, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of Appropriations, for the manner in which we have been able to work together to resolve problems on this bill. I support the leadership he has provided in getting us to this point where we are able to present the Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal 1998. This bill was reported by the Appropriations Committee just this past Tuesday, a week ago. I don't believe that we give sufficient importance to our investment in transportation infrastructure in this country. There is hardly a State, that I am aware of as I talk to my colleagues, that is satisfied with its ability to deal with congestion, its ability to move people and goods from place-to-place efficiently. But I will say this. In view of the sparseness of budget dollars, this bill went quite well. It is the culmination of a very long and arduous effort to reestablish transportation as a priority in our Federal budget. As the senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, I, along with Senator Domenici and several other members, spent a great deal of time and energy trying to ensure that transportation would be treated as we like to see it, as a priority under the budget resolution. That is where it all starts, the allocation of funds in the budget resolution to the various functions of Government. Transportation was not one of the priorities that the administration brought to the table. It was a congressional priority. The Congress decided we needed more money for transportation, and we have succeeded in getting it. We are interested in a balanced transportation network. I think the bill now before the Senate does exactly that. Our efforts on the budget resolution are well reflected in the sizable funding increases contained in this bill for critical transportation infrastructure programs. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens for the funding allocation he granted to this subcommittee. He is serving as chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the first time this year and he is doing an excellent job. He and Senator Byrd, the ranking Democrat, worked hard to grant the Transportation Subcommittee an allocation that was consistent with the priority that was placed on transportation when we did the budget resolution. Mr. President, this bill has gone through a steady series of improvements as it moved through the process. In the view of this Senator, the bill that was presented to the subcommittee on July 15 just did not go far enough in reflecting the needs of all transportation modes as well as the needs of all regions of the country. The bill had very sizable increases for important national programs such as the Federal-aid highway obligation ceiling and airport grants. However, the bill also provided a freeze on formula funding for mass transit and included insufficient funding for Amtrak's operating subsidy. This funding shortfall in Amtrak could have rapidly brought about the bankruptcy of the railroad very early in the coming fiscal year. There are very few countries that have, frankly, as insufficient intercity rail service as does the United States. When you look at the major developed countries of the world other than the United States, all of them, without a doubt, whether it be Japan's bullet train or the French TGV or trains in Germany or other parts of the world that zip along at 180 miles an hour--all of them depend on sizeable operating subsidies from the government. I am not sure, nor is the chairman, whether everybody would want to get to Washington in an hour and a half from New York, but we at least ought to make it possible. We could certainly do that and save time waiting at airports. But we must continue to invest, in Amtrak to make that happen. They have new equipment ordered that will accelerate the pace at which passengers can go from Boston to Washington. But we needed the cooperation of the chairman, Senator Shelby, and we were able to work together to boost Amtrak's operating subsidy by $154 million above the level originally presented to the subcommittee. The funding level now stands at the level that was requested by the administration. We were also able to provide an additional $200 million in transit formula grants at full committee markup so the percentage boost for transit formula assistance would begin to approach the percentage increases provide for highway formula assistance and for airport grants. What we are saying with these important adjustments is that we salute a balanced transportation system in this country that includes highways, includes aviation, includes rail, includes all of the modes of mass transit so we can have the kind of efficiency in our transportation system that we need. These adjustments in the bill were made through careful negotiations between Chairman Shelby and myself. They were made without the need for a rollcall vote in either the subcommittee or the full committee. That fact is indicative of the cooperation and fair-minded spirit that the chairman has brought to this bill. With these changes now included in the transportation funding bill, I am pleased to recommend this bill to the entire Senate. It is a balanced bill that provides desperately needed funds to our States and communities to address the crushing problem of congestion in our cities and towns. As a matter of fact, in our region they are about to celebrate the initiation of another technological improvement in the collection of tolls. Some people do not support the rapid collection of tolls. They want to hang onto their money as long as possible. But the choice, Mr. President, is to sit in traffic for 15 minutes, 20 minutes, or a half hour at the toll gate. I drove, on Sunday, through one of what they call the easy pass tollgates. I want to tell you, it was a pleasure. They had a little thing on the windshield and when we got to the gate, up went the gate, down went my $4. But the fact of the matter is, it does improve the way we move ahead. That is the kind of improvements that we need. We have to continue to present technological innovation to improve the way our highways, our airports, and our railroads function. So, I think it is fair to say that this funding will accelerate our efforts to address improvements in our transportation infrastructure, which is deteriorating faster, frankly, than we can replace it. The bill will also provide critically needed funding, as you heard from the chairman, to maintain safety in all our transportation modes. I want to point out, there is still one significant hole in this bill, and that is the funding for Amtrak's capital account. Those are the investments necessary to build the infrastructure, buy the equipment, update the rail signals, to upgrade the trackage that we have down there. We need more investment in the capital account so that we can operate more efficiently. The bill does not include any funding for Amtrak's capital needs because we believe the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, is currently seeking to provide for these needs through the reconciliation process. I know the chairman and I have a commitment that this is going to be taking place. I would only point out Senator Shelby's decision not to put any more capital funding in this bill was because he, as I said earlier, believed that Senator Roth was going to take care of it in the finance package. I hope that that ultimately gets to be the case, because that would provide Amtrak with a stable source of funding to address their capital needs over a period of several years, get that railroad up to the level that it ought to be in a country as great as ours. Last, Mr. President, I commend my colleague and friend, Senator Shelby, for his excellent work in his first year as chairman of this subcommittee. He quickly gained a great deal of knowledge about how the committee functions. I offered to take over the chairmanship temporarily to show him how, but he said, no, he would take care of it. We worked together, with our fine staff--the names of whom Senator Shelby mentioned--to get it done. When it comes to the distribution of funds for the Member-specific projects, those projects they put forward as being critical in nature to their States, Senator Shelby has been fairminded in his allocation of funds. He sought to accommodate Members' priorities to the best of the subcommittee's ability, and he has continued to operate that way. I must say, I tip my hat to the fact that he is determined and has shown in this first chairmanship year that he can deal in a bipartisan fashion, and everybody got along. We occasionally had to face up to some tough discussions, but we always did it in an amicable way and we got a good bill. That has been the tradition with the Transportation Subcommittee, and that is do it in a bipartisan way. The American people don't want to see us bickering. They want to see us getting things done. They want to see us function as we are supposed to function. Disagree, if you will, make the points you have to make, but get the job done. I think it is fair to say that the Appropriations Committee, on which both of us have sat for some time, is maintaining almost a revolutionary pace in terms of getting the job done this year, and I am proud to be part of it and proud to work with my colleagues on the committee. With that, Mr. President, I hope we can move this bill with expediency. I yield the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased also, Mr. President, to support this project. And I have reviewed the plans several times over these last couple of years. It increases the ability of that port to function and to expedite the movement of freight from the port into the main line system. Otherwise, there are some problems with heights and of the cars that can pass underneath the bridges, so it needs some work. And we hope that Rhode Island will get this completed. We all know that essential to our economic development is the capacity to get people and goods to and from the business opportunities that either exist or want to be developed. So this one sounds like a pretty good idea. Senator Shelby said it. He said we have heard from Senator Chafee periodically, regularly. We have heard from the Governor of the State who, if I remember, is about 6' 4'', something of that nature. They made sure they brought him in. We got the message, Mr. President. Senator Reed was also involved. So it is a unified delegation. And they are working hard to get it done. And we want to help wherever we can. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I may say to my colleague, the chairman, I will just take the floor for a couple minutes and say that we have now been here 2 hours. It was the understanding when we left last week that the Transportation Subcommittee's bill would be up this evening with an opportunity to offer amendments and consider the business of the bill. We have had hardly a response. I do not have to lecture my colleagues, certainly, but this is the last week before we adjourn for August and get home to do the things we have to do with our constituents. I hope we can help move the process along. We ask our colleagues to join in to get the business of the people done, to get those amendments up here as quickly as we can tomorrow. We intend--and I discussed this with Senator Shelby--to be here long enough to get the work done, but we cannot do it unless people offer their amendments and take advantage of the opportunity to make those suggestions that they think improve the bill. So I send out this plea, Mr. President, probably to those who are just turning off their TV sets around the Capitol and say that we hope you will remember the bill will be open again tomorrow after the votes which are now listed and that we can get to work on passing the appropriations bill for 1998, one that we can send over to the House and get a conference on. We are moving along at a very good pace with our appropriations bills for next year, and we ought to continue to help that pace, get done, and let the people across the country know the appropriate investments are going to be made in the things that are included in this bill. With that simple admonition, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we can't let this opportunity go without saying that we know that the Senator from Rhode Island is very much engaged in discussions of ISTEA. And New Jersey likes ISTEA.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am submitting legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the Postal Service should issue a postage stamp should be issued to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America. I am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania and chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Specter. The Jewish War Veterans of the United States was founded in 1896, earning it the distinction of being the oldest veterans organization in the United States. The goal of its founders was to counter criticism in some of the major national publications of the day that suggested that Jewish Americans were unpatriotic and had not served in the Civil War. Not only did many Jews serve with distinction in the Civil War, but thousands have honorably served their country in subsequent military conflicts. More than 250,000 Jews served in World War I. During World War II, approximately 11,000 Jews were killed and 40,000 were wounded. Today, the Jewish War Veterans organization continues its mission of fighting anti-Semitism, promoting religious tolerance and defending the first amendment. Moreover, through its National Museum of American Jewish Military History and other activities, it educates the public about the contributions Jews have made to the defense of our Nation. The organization also serves a vital role of advocating on behalf of adequate treatment of all war veterans. My legislation is identical to legislation submitted to the 103d Congress. Senate Concurrent Resolution 60, which I was proud to cosponsor along with 62 of my colleagues. This legislation overwhelmingly passed the Senate on August 11, 1994. Unfortunately, despite the Senate's wishes, the Postal Service has refused to issue a commemorative stamp honoring this worthy organization. Thus, I believe that it is time to reaffirm the Senate's position of this important matter. I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is with a sad and heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to a great American and New Jerseyan, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who passed away yesterday at age 91. The thoughts and prayers of all the people of our State and country are with his wife Mary, his three children William J., III, Hugh, and Nancy, as well as his seven grandchildren. Mr. President, during nearly 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan had an enormous impact on this Nation's constitutional jurisprudence. Justice Brennan was a consistent champion of freedom of expression, of strict separation of church and state, and of equality for the poor, racial minorities, and women. In fact, he was a life-long defender of the freedoms of all Americans. William Brennan's life was truly the epitome of the American Dream. He was born in Newark, NJ, on April 25, 1906, the second oldest of the eight children of an Irish immigrant who started as a laborer but rose through the ranks to become an important labor leader and the city's commissioner of public safety. ``Everything I am,'' the justice later wrote, ``I am because of my father.'' He was an outstanding student at Barringer High School in Newark. He then went on to study at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. He was graduated with honors and won a scholarship to the Harvard Law School, from which he received a degree in 1931. Upon graduation, Bill Brennan embarked upon a successful and distinguished career in private legal practice. He later served his country by entering active military service in 1942, eventually becoming a colonel and troubleshooter for Army procurement. After returning from the war, he quickly emerged as a leader of the New Jersey bar, particularly his involvement in New Jersey's court reform movement under a nationally renowned Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt. His talents were widely recognized in the legal community, leading to his appointment to the New Jersey trial bench, from which he rapidly ascended to the State supreme court. Mr. President, it was during this tenure on the New Jersey court that Justice Brennan first gained national attention. He was one of the first public figures to take on the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy and the excesses of the McCarthy-era. Specifically, in one famous speech at the Monmouth County Rotary Club, he boldly referred to certain congressional inquiries as modern counterparts to the Salem witch trials, sentiments very much ahead of his time. After 8 years as a State judge, 4 on the State supreme court, Bill Brennan was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Brennan served on the Nation's highest court for 34 years before poor health forced him, at age 84, to retire in 1990. His tenure spanned those of eight Presidents. In the High Court's history, only William O. Douglas wrote more opinions. In fact, Justice Brennan's own confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court was opposed by some because of views that he had expressed about McCarthyism--the speeches that later caused Senator McCarthy to be the lone dissenting vote to President Eisenhower's nomination of Brennan to our Nation's High Court. Mr. President, it is not his remarkable life or long tenure on the bench that made William Brennan a towering figure in our Nation's history. Rather, his true legacy is the preservation and expansion of the individual rights all Americans enjoy today. He was, in short, our country's strongest champion of the individual. A recent survey of 96 scholars listed Justice Brennan as fifth in the list of all-time great Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Ahead of him ranked only John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Earl Warren, and Louis Brandeis. Justice Brennan crafted many landmark decisions associated with the Warren Court of the late 1950's and 1960's. His ruling led to the one- person, one-vote principle of political reapportionment, and empowered everyday citizens to use the courts to fight city hall. In more than 1,200 opinions, Justice Brennan defined obscenity and broadened the rights of any person--including the poor, mentally handicapped, or imprisoned--to seek redress against the Government through the courts. He also gave news organizations first amendment protections in libel lawsuits. During the Berger and Rehnquist years, he continued to champion the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. In all of his opinions and dissents, liberty and equality were his bywords. Historian David Halberstam described the source of Justice Brennan's greatness. William Brennan, he wrote, never forgot where he came from. He never forgot his immigrant father shoveling coal for a living, courageously joining a union in an era when to do so could cost a man his livelihood, if not his life. Brennan grew up on a house that knew the meaning of layoffs and discrimination. He instinctively identified with the disadvantaged and the dispossessed. Justice Brennan himself revealed the secret of his unfailing humanity, compassion and passion for individual freedom. He wrote that he always focused on the people behind the cases, always aware that the case before the Court was there because of ``a person who cried out for nothing more than common human dignity. In each case, our Constitution intervened to provide the cloak of dignity.'' Mr. President, through it all, Justice Brennan remained universally liked, even adored, by colleagues, law clerks, Court personnel, and virtually everyone who came in contact with him. He was always described as warm, gracious, and utterly without pretense. I had the privilege and the honor to get to know Bill Brennan on a personal level. Although it was late in his tenure on the bench, he was remarkably alert, witty and warm, and I greatly enjoyed our conversations. Mr. President, Bill Brennan's character, personality, and intellect were perfectly matched, each so unique so as to be totally unforgettable. Despite the brevity of our personal relationship, every meeting that we had--perhaps a half-dozen in all--left me feeling like I had just seen a lifelong friend. He stood for so much that he helped me stand taller for those I serve. Knowing him was one of my life's most treasured experiences. I deeply regret that our paths will not cross again. In a tribute to Justice Brennan, his colleague Justice Byron White once remembered that Bill Brennan's creed was that a judge should proceed with ``a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual.'' Mr. President, that majestic statement is a fitting tribute to the life and work of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased that today the Senate will recognize the contributions of my dear friend and former colleague, Howard Metzenbaum, by approving this bill designating the Federal Building Courthouse in Cleveland, OH as the ``Howard M. Metzenbaum United States Courthouse.'' Ohio's two Senators, Senator Glenn and Senator DeWine, were original cosponsors of this legislation, along with Senator Hatch, when I introduced on June 5, 1997. Mr. President, I proposed naming a courthouse after Howard because a courthouse is a symbol of justice where all people can come and be treated equally under the law. Howard Metzenbaum deserves this honor because he was a dedicated public servant, who served his home State of Ohio for 18 years in the U.S. Senate. Howard's sense of fairness and equality for all Americans led one of his former colleagues to suggest that Howard would have made an exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice when he retired from the Senate in 1994. Mr. President, naming a courthouse after Howard is only a small gesture in attempting to remember a man so committed to justice and fairness. Howard's contributions to the Senate are extraordinary, and we commemorate his unique contribution by passing this bill in celebration of his 80th year, his 18 years in the U.S. Senate, and also the special character he brought to our body. I pay tribute today to a man who always stood up for what he believed was right, fighting hard to preserve opportunity for those for those yet to come. As a Senator, Howard had a broad range of interests and he pursued them with dogged perseverance, sincerity and clarity. Howard and I worked on many issues together during our time in the Senate. Individual rights and environmental preservation were major concerns. He poured his energy into clean air protection, nuclear regulation, cleaning up superfund sites and recycling. Howard provided strong leadership on antitrust issues as chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights on the Judiciary Committee. He was a persistent gun control advocate, taking the lead on many antigun initiatives in the Senate. He was one of the lead sponsors of the Brady bill handgun purchase waiting period, as well as the bans on assault weapons and plastic explosives. But Howard's true passions lay with America's underprivileged and needy communities, which never had a bolder champion. His work on behalf of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly reflect his remarkable compassion for those members of society who face challenges that many of us cannot fully appreciate. He tirelessly defended their interests and fought for their protection. He was dedicated to eradicating discrimination, ensuring adequate health care to those in need and boosting public education. It has been said many times, but for good reason, that Howard brought not only his conscience to the Senate, but also the courage to act on his convictions. Howard remains a good friend to me, but was also a mentor and a teacher during his years in the Senate. He gave me good advice and plenty of it. And, I might add, he continues to do so today, which I welcome! But more than that, his dedication to the office of United States Senator is an example by which to live. He stood tall for the little people. Some will affectionately remember Howard as determined, argumentative, and even irascible. I cannot deny that those words come to my mind every now and then when describing Howard. He was always at his best then, and for good reason. I heard it said by one Senator, and not a good friend: ``If there wasn't a Metzenbaum here, we'd have to invent one to keep us alert.'' I have missed working with Howard Metzenbaum in this great institution, a place that has been truly enhanced by his presence. I salute him on celebrating his 80th year. The bill (S. 833) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed; as follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to express my support for Cooper Hospital's Trauma Reduction Initiative. Cooper Hospital is located in Camden, NJ, one of the most troubled cities in the Nation. Between 1994 and 1995, the number of violent crimes declined 4 percent nationwide, while in Camden they rose 8.6 percent. Homicides in Camden rose 28.88 percent, while homicides declined 6 percent nationally. With an estimated population of 82,000, Camden ranks as the sixth most violent city in the country when compared to all cities and towns. Cooper Hospital's Trauma Reduction Initiative links hospital staff, community leaders, and churches throughout Camden as the frontline of crisis intervention. The Trauma Reduction Initiative represents a community-based approach to deal with the types of violence that disrupt our neighborhoods and burden our health care system. According to Government research, by 2003, firearms will have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury death in the United States. But unlike victims of car accidents, who are almost always privately insured, four out of five firearm victims are receiving public assistance or are uninsured. Thus, taxpayers bear the brunt of medical costs that have grown to $4.5 billion a year in the past decade. Cooper Hospital's violence prevention program is designed to help stop the spiral of violent crime and retaliation in Camden. This program could serve as a model for other cities to follow. The Trauma Reduction Initiative has received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. I ask my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, if they agree that the Trauma Reduction Initiative is worthy of BJA's continued support?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to express my support for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's [UMDNJ] Violence Institute, which provides valuable assistance to our efforts to curb violent behavior in all aspects of our society. The Violence Institute's programs are not directed solely at violent behavior of a criminal nature, but also focus on issues of domestic violence, and violence against women and children. I want to note that the Violence Institute was one of only a handful of projects recommended for special funding in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I ask my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Gregg and Hollings, if they agree that the Violence Institute's initiatives to curb violent behavior are consistent with the Department of Justice's objectives and that such programs are worthy of the Department's support?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, for his persistence on this issue and on issues of fairness altogether. His leadership on so many issues has been, frankly, the motivator for many here to take up causes that he so ably leads. And in this case, once again, he has indicated how important it is for us to be a fair society. Mr. President, I was one of those privileged to be part of the negotiating team. I say ``privileged''--some days I am not sure-- because the decisions were tough ones. But as we review the tax cuts that are going to be made in the reconciliation bill, the bill to put into place the elements of the budget that we prescribed as a direction, I want to talk about the importance of ensuring that any tax cuts that we make be principally targeted to ordinary middle-class families and that we not permit an explosion of the deficit in the future as a result of tax cuts. Mr. President, we are coming off of a really good period for America. The economy is strong. People are working, inflation is down, and we are assured by the comments yesterday of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve that inflation still looks like it is going to stay down. It is the kind of scene that almost a writer could produce in terms of what you would like to see in an ideal world. Our deficit was $290 billion when President Clinton took over, now predicted to be $45 billion for this fiscal year ending September 30. And it is believed that in the year 1998, if things continue as they are, that we will actually be at a zero deficit or perhaps even have a surplus in the 1998 year. That is a wonderful thing to be able to think about because one of the things that we want to do is relieve the burden from our children, our grandchildren in the future to have to pay off debts and to pay the debt service that incurs with deficits. But, Mr. President, despite all of the good news--and I come out of the corporate world. I spent 30 years of my life building a business. And I know lots of people who have been successful in business, and I still talk to them. And I have learned in my informal polling that lots of people who have been successful, corporate leaders, CEO's, chief operating officers, chief financial officers, marketing managers, they will say to me in public, ``Frank, I don't need a tax cut. What I need is an America that's going in the direction that it is going, that people can count on jobs, where people can believe that inflation and that deficit growth will not be a burden to their children.'' That is hardly the legacy that we want to leave. As I heard one CEO I had occasion to meet over this weekend describe, who runs a giant, giant company, with over 30,000 employees, he said, ``I don't need a capital gains tax cut and I don't need an income tax cut. We don't pay enough,'' he said--this is a corporate executive-- ``We don't pay enough in this country for the benefits we get out of this Nation of ours.'' And so as we talk about our tax cut, we know where we have to direct it. It has to go to the middle-class families. It has to go to the people who find that two of them have to work in order to do what one was able to do in the past, that they pay the price in many ways for their two-job requirements. They neglect their children, not intentionally, not the kind of neglect that comes with abuse, but they just do not have the time or the energy to put into their families when mother works and dad works and they meet only as they pass through the door. I had occasion to meet with one of the service organizations across this country that does mentoring where they tie an adult and child and make sure that child has someone to answer to, someone to converse with. And I asked them about the profile of the children that they see. A lot of them are obviously from poor families, but not all. They said to me a lot of the kids that they are seeing are kids whose families are so beset with the need to earn a living that they do not have time for them. And the kids resort to strangers' encouragement to just get a lift and to get some attention. So as we discuss these tax cuts, I plead with my colleagues, make sure that we put them in the hands of the middle class so people can talk to their kids about their education in the future and know very well that they have a chance to get out of the economic difficulties that they may see their parents in, that they can get the education they need, they can get the skills that they need. These families love their children. They do not see them much. And they want to plan for their future. And we can help them, Mr. President. We can help them by directing these tax cuts primarily to the middle class so that they can help their kids with their education and provide for their own retirement. These are the people who need the tax relief. But, unfortunately, these are not the people who are going to get the bulk of the relief in the House and the Senate tax bills. Those bills provide roughly 45 percent of their tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners in the country. And it is just not right. There is a better way, Mr. President. And President Clinton has shown us how. His plan provides many of the same types of tax cuts that are included in the Republican plan, and the total amount of tax relief is roughly the same but the provisions in the President's plan are structured differently to give most of the benefits to ordinary hard-working Americans. Under the President's plan, the middle 60 percent of income earners receive two-thirds of the tax cuts, the middle 60 percent get two- thirds of the tax cuts. By contrast, under the Senate and House plans, the middle-income working families receive only one-third of the benefits--one-third. The President's plan provides a $500 tax credit for children, but unlike the Senate and the House plans, it makes the credit available for working families with little or no tax liability. In fact, the Senate and the House plans deny the child tax credit to millions of hard-working families who pay taxes and earn less than $30,000 a year, the subject that the Senator from North Dakota was addressing just moments ago. Some in Congress are claiming that providing tax breaks to teachers and police officers, firefighters somehow amounts to welfare. It is ridiculous and it is an insult to millions of hard-working American families. The President's plan cuts capital gains taxes. It cuts estate taxes, and it provides new incentives for savings. But the President does it in a fair way that benefits primarily the middle class. And that is the key difference. Another advantage of the President's tax plan is its costs do not explode in the outyears, the years after those that we are talking about with our budget prescription now. The Senate and House bills include several provisions with costs that increase substantially in the future. Why should we give a tax break today and have to pay for it doubly in the 5- to 10-year period after this? Yesterday, the Treasury Department released an analysis showing that the House's capital gains rates balloon from $35 billion in the first 10 years to almost $200 billion in the subsequent 10 years--from $35 to $200 billion. And that is an exploding tax cut if there ever was one. There is no way for us to function. Mr. President, I have heard it argued there is no way to cut taxes without disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. Some serious people make that argument, but it is an absurd argument. Surely, if we can plan to get to Mars and do all the great things that this country has the capacity to do, we can find a way to target tax cuts to the middle class. It does not take a rocket science. It is much simpler. It does take, however, a commitment not only from the head but from the heart as well. And President Clinton's plan proves it can be done. So, Mr. President, I want to continue working with all of my colleagues to make the tax bill as fair as possible. I would like to cut the taxes for the middle class and working Americans, the people who need it the most. And I would like to see it done in a fiscally responsible way that does not burden future generations with the exploding deficits in the future. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Worldwide Tobacco Disclosure Act of 1997. I am joined by Senators Wyden, Durbin, and Harkin. Our bill will address a loophole in current law that enables packages of cigarettes to be exported from this country without warning labels and to prevent the executive branch from undermining other countries' restrictions on tobacco. Within a few decades, the World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will die annually from tobacco-related disease, up from 3 million per year. An astonishing 70 percent of those deaths will be in developing countries. To give my colleagues a basis for comparison, in America, today, approximately 400,000 die a year from tobacco. While smoking has declined 10 percent since 1990 in developed countries, the WHO concludes it has risen an alarming 67 percent in developing countries during that same period. American tobacco exports have increased by almost 340 percent since the mid-1970's, and these exports now account for more than half of our tobacco companies' sales. America is rightfully proud of its exports and the standards it upholds in international trade. But with tobacco, we're exporting death. We are the largest exporter of a product we know kills, and that is not something about which we should be proud. With marketing savvy and millions of dollars, American tobacco companies have significantly increased cigarette consumption in developing countries. It is estimated that cigarette consumption increased by 10 percent as a direct result of American tobacco companies entering the markets of Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan. Why should Congress care if hundreds of thousands of teenage boys and girls in China become addicted to nicotine? Why not let their government deal with this matter? Mr. President, morally, we are obligated to warn them, to the extent we know of tobacco's dangers. We are obligated to support the efforts of our trading partners to protect the health of their citizens. Mr. President, cigarettes kill and the label should clearly state that. One component of the proposed tobacco settlement between the State attorneys general and the tobacco industry was stronger warning labels on cigarette packages, similar to those I included in legislation introduced earlier this year. While we are taking additional steps to make our citizens more aware of the dangers of tobacco, my colleagues may be surprised to know that our Government requires no warning on exported cigarette packages. We know that smoking is addictive and can kill, but you would never guess that by looking at a pack of Camels exported from this country into Africa or Eastern Europe. When we enacted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, we may have thought that other countries would require their own warning labels and these would be adequate. We know, Mr. President, that this is simply not the case. Too many countries, especially in the developing world, have no warning labels on cigarette packages, and those that do, are inadequate to fully alert their citizens to the dangers of tobacco. Coupled with a poor national health system, citizens in these countries have no chance against tobacco promotional giveaways or slick advertising. Not knowing of the health risks associated with cigarettes, they are easily addicted and a significant percentage of them will die from this product. Mr. President, barring further steps, a health crisis resulting from tobacco will occur in the developing world within the next few decades. Our country alone spends $50 billion a year more on health care as a result of tobacco. Imagine what the worldwide cost of tobacco related illness will be in 20 years. Today limited funds are spent combating hunger, AIDS and other infectious diseases, and infant mortality worldwide. In about 10 years, we can add tobacco related illnesses to the list. One part of this legislation, Mr. President, requires exported packages of cigarettes to have warning labels in the language of the country where the cigarette will be consumed. Before exporting hazardous materials, Congress requires exports to alert our Government prior to export so that we might warn the government of the importing country that a certain product is being shipped to its borders. Cigarettes are a hazardous product and should be treated differently than an exported widget. Foreign subsidiaries of American tobacco companies will also be required to comply with this legislation because we do not want to put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. This is a global problem that must be addressed by whatever means we have available. Should a country require more stringent labels than ours, the administration could grant a waiver of this provision for that country. Mr. President, the success tobacco companies have had selling death overseas is not solely due to their own own efforts. In the past, the U.S. Government assisted U.S. tobacco companies in hooking foreigners by using trade policy to dismantle foreign tobacco regulations, such as advertising bans, in several key markets. While most of this assistance occurred in the 1980's, its effects are felt today. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan were on the other side of this dispute with our Government over their antitobacco laws. They lost, their citizens lost, and the U.S. tobacco companies won. Smoking in those countries is higher as a result of past action by the U.S. Trade Representative. Our bill will prevent the USTR from undermining another country's tobacco restrictions if those restrictions are applied to both foreign and domestic products in the same manner. If a country has an advertising ban on tobacco products, our Government should not be spending money trying to dismantle that law if it equally affects foreign and domestic companies. This legislation is consistent with a GATT decision from 1990, which held that member nations can use various policies to protect health as long as they are applied evenly to domestic and foreign products, and with statements made by our current U.S. Trade Representative. Charlene Barshefsky stated last year that the U.S. Government should not object when foreign government take steps to protect their citizens by adopting health measures to restrict the consumption of tobacco. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues would agree that we should not, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to the untold suffering caused by U.S. exports of this deadly product. We know too much about tobacco to sit idly by while our companies poison tens of millions throughout the world. And if foreign governments do not warn their citizens of tobacco's dangers, enacting this legislation is the very least we can and should do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be printed in the Congressional Record along with letters of support for this legislation from the American Lung Association, the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Heart Association, and two articles from the Washington Post documenting our Government's actions in Asia in the 1980's and how U.S. tobacco companies are targeting overseas markets.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Worldwide Tobacco Disclosure Act of 1997. I am joined by Senators Wyden, Durbin, and Harkin. Our bill will address a loophole in current law that enables packages of cigarettes to be exported from this country without warning labels and to prevent the executive branch from undermining other countries' restrictions on tobacco. Within a few decades, the World Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will die annually from tobacco-related disease, up from 3 million per year. An astonishing 70 percent of those deaths will be in developing countries. To give my colleagues a basis for comparison, in America, today, approximately 400,000 die a year from tobacco. While smoking has declined 10 percent since 1990 in developed countries, the WHO concludes it has risen an alarming 67 percent in developing countries during that same period. American tobacco exports have increased by almost 340 percent since the mid-1970's, and these exports now account for more than half of our tobacco companies' sales. America is rightfully proud of its exports and the standards it upholds in international trade. But with tobacco, we're exporting death. We are the largest exporter of a product we know kills, and that is not something about which we should be proud. With marketing savvy and millions of dollars, American tobacco companies have significantly increased cigarette consumption in developing countries. It is estimated that cigarette consumption increased by 10 percent as a direct result of American tobacco companies entering the markets of Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan. Why should Congress care if hundreds of thousands of teenage boys and girls in China become addicted to nicotine? Why not let their government deal with this matter? Mr. President, morally, we are obligated to warn them, to the extent we know of tobacco's dangers. We are obligated to support the efforts of our trading partners to protect the health of their citizens. Mr. President, cigarettes kill and the label should clearly state that. One component of the proposed tobacco settlement between the State attorneys general and the tobacco industry was stronger warning labels on cigarette packages, similar to those I included in legislation introduced earlier this year. While we are taking additional steps to make our citizens more aware of the dangers of tobacco, my colleagues may be surprised to know that our Government requires no warning on exported cigarette packages. We know that smoking is addictive and can kill, but you would never guess that by looking at a pack of Camels exported from this country into Africa or Eastern Europe. When we enacted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, we may have thought that other countries would require their own warning labels and these would be adequate. We know, Mr. President, that this is simply not the case. Too many countries, especially in the developing world, have no warning labels on cigarette packages, and those that do, are inadequate to fully alert their citizens to the dangers of tobacco. Coupled with a poor national health system, citizens in these countries have no chance against tobacco promotional giveaways or slick advertising. Not knowing of the health risks associated with cigarettes, they are easily addicted and a significant percentage of them will die from this product. Mr. President, barring further steps, a health crisis resulting from tobacco will occur in the developing world within the next few decades. Our country alone spends $50 billion a year more on health care as a result of tobacco. Imagine what the worldwide cost of tobacco related illness will be in 20 years. Today limited funds are spent combating hunger, AIDS and other infectious diseases, and infant mortality worldwide. In about 10 years, we can add tobacco related illnesses to the list. One part of this legislation, Mr. President, requires exported packages of cigarettes to have warning labels in the language of the country where the cigarette will be consumed. Before exporting hazardous materials, Congress requires exports to alert our Government prior to export so that we might warn the government of the importing country that a certain product is being shipped to its borders. Cigarettes are a hazardous product and should be treated differently than an exported widget. Foreign subsidiaries of American tobacco companies will also be required to comply with this legislation because we do not want to put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. This is a global problem that must be addressed by whatever means we have available. Should a country require more stringent labels than ours, the administration could grant a waiver of this provision for that country. Mr. President, the success tobacco companies have had selling death overseas is not solely due to their own own efforts. In the past, the U.S. Government assisted U.S. tobacco companies in hooking foreigners by using trade policy to dismantle foreign tobacco regulations, such as advertising bans, in several key markets. While most of this assistance occurred in the 1980's, its effects are felt today. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and Taiwan were on the other side of this dispute with our Government over their antitobacco laws. They lost, their citizens lost, and the U.S. tobacco companies won. Smoking in those countries is higher as a result of past action by the U.S. Trade Representative. Our bill will prevent the USTR from undermining another country's tobacco restrictions if those restrictions are applied to both foreign and domestic products in the same manner. If a country has an advertising ban on tobacco products, our Government should not be spending money trying to dismantle that law if it equally affects foreign and domestic companies. This legislation is consistent with a GATT decision from 1990, which held that member nations can use various policies to protect health as long as they are applied evenly to domestic and foreign products, and with statements made by our current U.S. Trade Representative. Charlene Barshefsky stated last year that the U.S. Government should not object when foreign government take steps to protect their citizens by adopting health measures to restrict the consumption of tobacco. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues would agree that we should not, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to the untold suffering caused by U.S. exports of this deadly product. We know too much about tobacco to sit idly by while our companies poison tens of millions throughout the world. And if foreign governments do not warn their citizens of tobacco's dangers, enacting this legislation is the very least we can and should do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my legislation be printed in the Congressional Record along with letters of support for this legislation from the American Lung Association, the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Heart Association, and two articles from the Washington Post documenting our Government's actions in Asia in the 1980's and how U.S. tobacco companies are targeting overseas markets.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support this amendment and am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this effort to require the General Accounting Office [GAO] to report to Congress on the effects of the VA's veterans equitable resource allocation [VERA] system. I support the effort to fund all veterans health care networks at least at the fiscal year 1996 level until this report is complete. As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I voted against the implementation of VERA because I believe it would unfairly shift veterans health care resources away from New Jersey at a time when our aging veterans population has an increasing need for VA health care services. New Jersey's veterans fought hard for our country and they deserve direct access to quality medical care. I share the concern of many of my Northeastern colleagues that the VERA system may disproportionally affect our veterans access to quality health care services. This amendment makes sense. It requires the GAO to report to Congress on the effects of VERA. It allows for a pause in the shifting of resources, which began in April, until Congress is certain that VERA will not hurt veterans in the Northeast. If the study shows that VERA will disrupt health care services to veterans in New Jersey and other Northeastern States, Congress will have the information necessary to ensure that these services are not compromised. Until Congress has this information, services should be provided at the pre-VERA levels. We should pause and assess the impact before moving forward with VERA. I hope the chairman and ranking member will include this provision, or one similar to it, in the final version of this bill. veterans equitable resource allocation program

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill presents an all too common dilemma--inadequate funds and very deserving programs--and the choices we must make are very difficult indeed. I appreciate the difficult job the chairman and ranking member had in dealing with an insufficient Section 602(b) allocation. However, as a strong advocate for our environment, and as ranking on the Budget Committee, I am very disappointed at the level of funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's operating budget. The mark for EPA's operation is $200 million below the President's request and the budget agreement. I am specifically concerned that we are continuing to add duties to EPA without the accompanying resources. This budget does not provide the funding needed to meet Congress's demands that EPA carry out more cost-benefit analysis in its regulations, for additional outreach to small businesses, and for fuller consideration of stakeholders in the regulatory process. Nor does it provide adequate funding to combat global warming. Indeed, at a recent Environment and Public Works Committee hearing the only issue on which all the witnesses agreed was the need for more funding for critical climate change research. I am also disappointed that the mark does not include any funding increase for superfund. I understand the chairman believes that superfund must be reauthorized before that money is appropriated. I disagree with that assessment. However, I am working closely with Senators Smith, Baucus, and Chafee and I expect we soon will have a bipartisan bill. If that bill comes after this appropriations cycle, I will urge my colleagues to support a supplemental that funds hazardous waste clean up to the level in the budget agreement. The millions of people living near superfund sites deserve our efforts to fully fund this program. I am also disappointed that the chairman's mark zeros-out Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFI. One hundred twenty-five million dollars was included in the budget agreement. I understand the House included full funding for this important program and I look forward for a better outcome during the conference. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Appropriations Committee, the members unanimously agreed to my amendment to transfer money for investigations of chemical accidents from EPA and OSHA to the Chemical Safety Board. An independent Chemical Safety Board, with its expertise and objectivity, is the proper body to investigate and identify steps needed to prevent future accidents. In 1990, Congress established the independent Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to do just that. The board was modeled on the respected and influential National Transportation Safety Board. As part of its reinventing government program, the administration cut funding for the chemical board and tried to transfer its authority to EPA and OSHA. Subsequent events, including an investigation in New Jersey, show that this reorganization was ill-advised. By reviving the board, Congress is reasserting its authority and protecting the workers and communities around chemical industrial sites. I want to thank those who helped revive this board. First, I want to acknowledge the help of Senator Bond and Mikulski. I also want to thank the public interest groups, the oil, chemical, and atomic workers, and the companies that have publicly recognized the advantage of having this board. I want to single out for acknowledgment Marathon Oil and the Rohm & Haas Corp. in that regard. Mr. President, I ask that a letter signed by 19 public interest groups in support of the Lautenberg amendment to fund the Chemical Safety Board be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for a provision in the House version of the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill to provide $21.1 million in funding for the construction of an ambulatory care addition at the Lyons, NJ, VA Medical Center. This facility is sorely needed by the veterans in New Jersey, and I hope the Senate will recede to the House on this issue during the conference. The Lyons VA Medical Center serves nearly 75 percent of New Jersey's veterans, and this funding will provide vital medical care for veterans who receive care on an outpatient basis. It will provide for necessary construction and renovations to enhance Lyons' clinics, diagnostic and treatment services, emergency department, and support functions. The funding will make a significant contribution to improving the access to quality medical care by New Jersey's veterans. At a time when New Jersey's aging veteran population has an increasing need for VA health care services, we have an obligation to ensure that their health care needs are met. As a member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues on the committee to include this funding in the conference agreement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to mark a special anniversary. This year is the 25th anniversary of the restoration of the Permanent Diaconate in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, NJ. In the Catholic faith, a deacon is a layman who willingly gives his time, talent and treasure to help not only his own church community but, through his work, the entire community. His is a life of service. Mr. President, I deeply admire the commitment of these lay people to serve others. They bring to mind the words of the great humanitarian, Albert Schweitzer, ``The greatest gift we can give to another, is the gift of ourselves.'' The work done by the 146 deacons of Paterson's Diocese also reminds me of the long tradition of service which communities of faith have in America. Whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other religion, these communities not only minister to individuals' spiritual needs, but to all of their needs. They may provide tangible support like food and shelter, or simply compassion, counseling, and concern. Mr. President, I offer my congratulations to the Diaconate of the Diocese of Paterson, and to Msgr. Ken Lasch who, 25 years ago, laid the cornerstone upon which the Diaconate's success has been built. As a native of Paterson, I am pleased that we have these dedicated men in our midst who are serving both their church and our community.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for several New Jersey projects included in the Senate's version of the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations, as well as several New Jersey projects included in the House version of this legislation. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I hope all of these projects will be included in the final version of the bill. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman and ranking member to include $1.3 million in design funding for a new software engineering facility at Picatinny Arsenal. This funding will allow the Picatinny to consolidate the design, development, testing, configuration control, field release and maintenance of weapon systems, simulators, and trainers. It will result in reduced cost for the Army and will improve efficiency in the software engineering process. I also appreciate the willingness of the Senate subcommittee to provide funding for two important projects at McGuire Air Force Base. The Senate's bill includes $9.954 million for an air mobility operations group warehouse, which will increase the efficiency of the base's mobility operations. Additionally, it includes $35.217 million for an ambulatory health care center replacement. This new facility will house a full-service outpatient operation and provide adequate space for clinics, ambulatory surgery, ancillary services, storage, offices, and administration. It will improve the quality of care provided to our military personnel. In addition, the House version of this bill provides $9.03 million for an ammunition supply point at Fort Dix, $8.8 million for a fire station at McGuire Air Force Base, $2.05 million for a fire station at Fort Monmouth, and $7.3 million to build 35 units of family housing at Picatinny Arsenal. These are meritorious projects that deserve the support of the conferees. I hope the conferees to this bill will agree to include these projects to improve the quality of life and to support the missions at New Jersey's military installations in the final version of this legislation. These projects are vital to New Jersey's defense infrastructure, and to those who work on these bases. I hope the chairman and ranking member will support these important New Jersey projects in the conference agreement to the fiscal year 1998 military construction bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Kennedy is an original cosponsor of this amendment along with Senators Moynihan, D'Amato, and Torricelli. This amendment would withhold 5 percent of funds made available in this bill to any country that the President determines violates United Nations sanctions against Libya. The amendment exempts development assistance and humanitarian assistance. As my colleagues know, the United Nations imposed sanctions against Libya in 1992 in response to the Libyan Government's failure to extradite to the United States or Scotland two Libyan intelligence agents indicted for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. One hundred and eighty-nine Americans were killed in that terrorist bombing. The families of those innocent victims are still waiting for justice. Among other things, the U.N. sanctions prohibit international flights into and out of Libya. They also prohibit supply to Libya of aircraft and aircraft components. Nonetheless, some countries in the international community continue to help Libya's Khadaffi violate the sanctions. For example, five countries have allowed Libyan airlines to land on their soil in violation of the sanctions. These countries include Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Ghana. The amendment we are offering today would force countries that help Libya violate U.N. sanctions to choose between 5 percent of their foreign assistance and their support of a terrorist state. The amendment is forward looking. It does not penalize any country for past actions. Let me repeat that. It does not penalize any country for past actions. Nor does it single out any country. Rather, it lays down a marker and sends a signal that in the future violating the international sanctions against Libya will have a financial cost. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation reauthorizing the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is the crown jewel of the Jersey Shore and my bill will provide the necessary funding to complete the trail and preserve it for future generations of New Jersey residents and visitors. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route was first authorized in 1988 through Public Law 100-515, legislation authored by former Senator Bill Bradley. I was proud to cosponsor. The legislation allowed the Secretary of the Interior to design a vehicular route that would enable the public to appreciate, enjoy, and work to protect, the nationally significant natural and cultural sites along the New Jersey coastline and the Delaware Bay. When completed, the trail system will include five self-discovery theme trails which travel along the coast of New Jersey. The 275 miles of the trail which will travel through eight counties, will begin north in Perth Amboy, continue down the Atlantic Coast to Cape May in the south, and head northwest along the Delaware Bay shoreline to Deepwater. The trail will be accessible from the Garden State Parkway and Route 49, and well-marked routes will lead from the corridors to regional welcome centers which will include interpretative information. The National Park Service, through a partnership with the State of New Jersey, the Pinelands Commission, and local communities, recorded nearly 400 sites and developed alternative concepts for trail protection and interpretation. These activities were documented in the ``Resource Inventory and Study of Alternatives'', released in November 1990. In April 1991, after public review and comment of this document, the Park Service established an overall trail concept. The Maritime History Trail, which opened in 1993, celebrates and explores the coastal trade, defense of the Nation, and the fishing and ship building industries. Visitors to this trail can stop, for example, at the Belford Seafood Co-op, a cooperative commercial fishing operation located on the shores of Sandy Hook Bay. The community of Belford is over 200 years old and is reported to be the oldest fishing port on the east coast, with many third- and fourth-generation fishers. The Coastal Habitats Trail, which opens this year, explores barrier islands, wetlands, estuaries, and other habitats from sandy beaches to maritime forests that provide homes to many plants and animals. Also opening this year is the Wildlife Migrations Trail, which explores places along the Atlantic Flyway, a critical nesting and feeding area for many species of birds. It also celebrates the habitat of the horseshoe crab along the Delaware Bay. The Historic Settlements Trail explores historic communities whose economies were based on local natural resources such as the bog iron community at Allaire State Park, the cranberry and timber industry located at Double Trouble State Park, and the glassmaking communities in Cumberland and Salem Counties. The Relaxation and Inspiration Trail will explore how people used their leisure time, and includes the religious retreats of Ocean Grove and Cape May's historic district and boardwalks, and visits the artists who were inspired by the Jersey shore. Mr. President, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route exemplifies how successful the National Park Service has been in forging partnerships with State and local governments, and private individuals and organizations. Since its beginning in 1988, the Park Service has received less than $1 million in Federal assistance. The authorizing legislation appropriately called upon the Park Service to match 50 percent with non-federal funds. The Park Service has gone well beyond that target, raising over $818,000 in non-federal funds. Yet in fiscal year 1998, the authorization ceiling of $1.25 million will have been reached. My bill would increase the authorization level for the trail to $4 million, and extend the authorization to the year 2004, which would give the Park Service the additional time it needs to complete the trail. This is a small investment, I believe, to preserve the richness of New Jersey's and the Nation's history. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route has brought national recognition and stature to many of New Jersey's special places, and helps to contribute to New Jersey's second largest industry, tourism. I invite my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation which will ensure that many more of these gems of New Jersey and the Nation are understood, celebrated, and protected. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation reauthorizing the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is the crown jewel of the Jersey Shore and my bill will provide the necessary funding to complete the trail and preserve it for future generations of New Jersey residents and visitors. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route was first authorized in 1988 through Public Law 100-515, legislation authored by former Senator Bill Bradley. I was proud to cosponsor. The legislation allowed the Secretary of the Interior to design a vehicular route that would enable the public to appreciate, enjoy, and work to protect, the nationally significant natural and cultural sites along the New Jersey coastline and the Delaware Bay. When completed, the trail system will include five self-discovery theme trails which travel along the coast of New Jersey. The 275 miles of the trail which will travel through eight counties, will begin north in Perth Amboy, continue down the Atlantic Coast to Cape May in the south, and head northwest along the Delaware Bay shoreline to Deepwater. The trail will be accessible from the Garden State Parkway and Route 49, and well-marked routes will lead from the corridors to regional welcome centers which will include interpretative information. The National Park Service, through a partnership with the State of New Jersey, the Pinelands Commission, and local communities, recorded nearly 400 sites and developed alternative concepts for trail protection and interpretation. These activities were documented in the ``Resource Inventory and Study of Alternatives'', released in November 1990. In April 1991, after public review and comment of this document, the Park Service established an overall trail concept. The Maritime History Trail, which opened in 1993, celebrates and explores the coastal trade, defense of the Nation, and the fishing and ship building industries. Visitors to this trail can stop, for example, at the Belford Seafood Co-op, a cooperative commercial fishing operation located on the shores of Sandy Hook Bay. The community of Belford is over 200 years old and is reported to be the oldest fishing port on the east coast, with many third- and fourth-generation fishers. The Coastal Habitats Trail, which opens this year, explores barrier islands, wetlands, estuaries, and other habitats from sandy beaches to maritime forests that provide homes to many plants and animals. Also opening this year is the Wildlife Migrations Trail, which explores places along the Atlantic Flyway, a critical nesting and feeding area for many species of birds. It also celebrates the habitat of the horseshoe crab along the Delaware Bay. The Historic Settlements Trail explores historic communities whose economies were based on local natural resources such as the bog iron community at Allaire State Park, the cranberry and timber industry located at Double Trouble State Park, and the glassmaking communities in Cumberland and Salem Counties. The Relaxation and Inspiration Trail will explore how people used their leisure time, and includes the religious retreats of Ocean Grove and Cape May's historic district and boardwalks, and visits the artists who were inspired by the Jersey shore. Mr. President, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route exemplifies how successful the National Park Service has been in forging partnerships with State and local governments, and private individuals and organizations. Since its beginning in 1988, the Park Service has received less than $1 million in Federal assistance. The authorizing legislation appropriately called upon the Park Service to match 50 percent with non-federal funds. The Park Service has gone well beyond that target, raising over $818,000 in non-federal funds. Yet in fiscal year 1998, the authorization ceiling of $1.25 million will have been reached. My bill would increase the authorization level for the trail to $4 million, and extend the authorization to the year 2004, which would give the Park Service the additional time it needs to complete the trail. This is a small investment, I believe, to preserve the richness of New Jersey's and the Nation's history. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route has brought national recognition and stature to many of New Jersey's special places, and helps to contribute to New Jersey's second largest industry, tourism. I invite my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation which will ensure that many more of these gems of New Jersey and the Nation are understood, celebrated, and protected. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.