Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the chairman and ranking member are aware, I have requested that the committee include provisions to facilitate conveyances to two New Jersey communities in the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization bill. However, I have been told that since my requests concern properties closed under the BRAC which are already in the midst of the statutory closure process, the committee could not support these requests. Accordingly, if any provisions for conveyances of properties, facilities, or installations closed or realigned by BRAC that would intervene in the statutory BRAC disposal process are included in the conference agreement to the Defense authorization bill, I request that provisions also be included to convey the Naval Reserve Center in Perth Amboy, NJ, to the city of Perth Amboy, for economic development purposes, and the Nike Battery 80 family housing site, East Hanover Township, NJ, to the township council of East Hanover, for low and moderate income housing.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to ask the senior Senator from South Carolina, and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, and the senior Senator from Michigan, and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, to clarify the committee's position on land conveyance provisions in the Defense authorization Bill. It is my understanding that the chairman and ranking member oppose special legislation for the conveyance, at other than fair market value, of any properties, facilities, or installations which have been closed or realigned under the jurisdiction of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission [BRAC] if such legislation would interfere with the statutory disposal process for BRAC properties. Thus, the committee has not included any such conveyances in the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill. Further, it is my understanding that the Senate conferees to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization bill will oppose any conveyances of properties, facilities, or installations closed or realigned in the BRAC process if those conveyances would interfere with the BRAC disposal process contained in current law.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senators' recognition of the importance of these conveyances to the economic well-being of these New Jersey communities, and thank the Senators for their agreement to my request. twrs privatization funding

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 50 years ago this week, a young 22- year-old rookie named Larry Doby took the baseball field for the first time as a Cleveland Indian. Although Larry did not make a hit during that first at bat, he did something more: he made history. On that day, July 5, 1947, Larry Doby became the first African-American to play in the American League. I have had the great privilege of knowing Larry since our days growing up together in the streets of Paterson, NJ. I have developed a deep admiration for him. I ask that the text of an article that appeared recently in the Washington Post that captures Larry's character be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, July 8, 1997] Neither a Myth Nor a Legend--Larry Doby Crossed Baseball's Color Barrier After Robinson (By David Maraniss) There is only one person alive who knows what it was like to be a black ballplayer integrating the white world of the major leagues during the historic summer of 1947. If you are young or only a casual follower of baseball, perhaps you have not heard of him. Larry Doby is 72 years old now, and his calm manner seems out of style in this unsporting age of self-obsession. He is neither a celebrity nor the stuff of myth, simply a quiet hero with an incomparable story to tell. This season, as the national pastime commemorates the 50th anniversary of the breaking of the color line, the attention has focused inevitably on the first black player of the modern era, Jackie Robinson, who shines alone in baseball history as the symbol of pride against prejudice. But Doby was there, too, blazing his own trail later that same year. He was brought up by the Cleveland Indians on July 5, 1947, three months after Robinson broke in with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Some of the strange and awful things that happened to No. 42 in the National League happened to No. 14 in the American League as well. ``I think I'm ahead of a lot of people because I don't hate and I'm not bitter,'' Doby says softly now. He has spent a lifetime ``turning negatives into positives,'' but he is also sharp and direct in pointing out what he considers to be myths surrounding the events of a half-century ago. Jackie Robinson in death has gone the way of most American martyrs, transformed from an outsider struggling against the prevailing culture into a legend embraced by it. In the retelling of his legend it sometimes sounds as though most people always loved him. Doby knows better. He was there and he remembers. After that first season, he and Robinson barnstormed the country with Negro leagues all-stars. They rarely discussed their common experience in white baseball (``no need to, we both knew what the situation was''), but a few times late at night they stayed up naming the players in each league who were giving them problems because they were black. It was a long list. ``Many people in this world live on lies. Know what amazes me today?'' Doby asks, his deep voice rising with the first rush of emotion. ``How many friends Jackie Robinson had 50 years ago! All of a sudden everyone is his best friend. Wait a minute. Give me a break, will you. I knew those people who were his friends. I knew those people who were not his friends. Some of them are still alive. I know. And Jack, he's in heaven, and I bet he turns over a lot of times when he hears certain things or sees certain things or reads certain things where these people say they were his friends.'' Playing and traveling in the big leagues that year was a grindingly lonely job for the two young black men. Which leads to Doby's second shattered myth: the notion that Robinson, by coming first, could somehow smooth the way for him. ``Did Jackie Robinson make it easier for me?'' Doby laughs at his own question, which he says is the one he hears most often. ``I'm not saying people are stupid, but it's one of the stupidest questions that's ever been asked. Think about it. We're talking about 11 weeks. Nineteen forty-seven. Now it's 50 years later and you still have hidden racism, educated racist people. How could you change that in 11 weeks? Jackie probably would have loved to have changed it in 11 weeks. I know he would have loved to have been able to say, `the hotels are open, the restaurants are open, your teammates are going to welcome you.' But no. No. No way. No way.'' The Embrace There was no transition for Larry Doby, no year of grooming in the minors up in Montreal like Robinson had. One day he was playing second base for the Newark Eagles of the Negro leagues, and two days later he was in Chicago, pinch-hitting for the Cleveland Indians in the seventh inning of a game against the White Sox. ``We're in this together, kid,'' Bill Veeck, the Indians' owner, had told him at the signing, and that was enough for Doby. He trusted Veeck, then and always. Doby was only 22 years old, and his life to that point had been relatively free of the uglier strains of American racism. At East Side High in Paterson, N.J., he had been a four-sport star on integrated teams. He remembers being subjected to a racist insult only once, during a football game, and he responded by whirling past the foul-mouthed defensive back to haul in a touchdown pass. That shut the guy up. In the Navy on the South Pacific atoll of Ulithi during World War II, he had taken batting practice with Mickey Vernon of the Washington Senators and found him to be extremely friendly and encouraging. Vernon later sent him a dozen Louisville Slugger bats and put in a good word for him with the Washington club. Wishful thinking. It would be another decade before the Senators broke their lily-white policy, but Veeck, who had both an innate empathy for life's underdogs and a showman's readiness to try anything new, was eager to integrate his Indians as soon as possible. Doby was not the best black player (that honor still belonged to old Josh Gibson), but he was young and talented. Through the Fourth of July with the Newark club in 1947, he was batting .414 with a league- leading 14 homers. His Newark teammates gave him a farewell present, a kit with comb, brush and shaving cream, but there was no celebration when he took off to join the Indians. ``We looked at it as an important step as far as history was concerned, but it was not the type of thing you would celebrate in terms of justice for all, because you were going to a segregated situation,'' Doby says. ``Maybe someone smarter than me would be happy about that, but I wasn't. You know you're going into a situation where it's not going to be comfortable. That's what you're leaving. What you're leaving is comfortable because you are with your teammates all the time, you sleep in the same hotel, you eat in the same restaurants, you ride in the same car.'' When Doby was introduced to the Cleveland players that afternoon of July 5 a half-century ago, most of them stood mute and expressionless, essentially ignoring his existence. There were a few exceptions. Second baseman Joe Gordon told him to grab his glove and warmed up with him before the game, a practice they continued throughout the year. Catcher Jim Hegan showed he cared by asking him how he was doing. And one of the coaches, Bill McKechnie, looked after him. ``He was like Veeck, but there every day on the road--nice man,'' Doby recalls. But there was no roommate for him on the road, no one in whom he could confide. In every city except New York and Boston, he stayed in a black hotel apart from the rest of the team. Equally troubling for him, he rarely got the chance to play. After starting one game at first base, he looked at the lineup card the next day and was not there. Same thing the rest of the year. The manager, Lou Boudreau, never said a word to him about why he was on the bench. He was used as a pinch hitter, and could not adjust to the role. He finished the year with only five hits and no home runs in 32 at-bats over 29 games. After the last game of the season, he was sitting at his locker, wondering if that was the end of the experiment, when McKechnie came over to him and asked whether he had ever played the outfield. No, Doby said, always infield, in high school, college at Long Island University for a year, Negro leagues, the streets, wherever. ``Well,'' Doby recall McKechnie telling him, ``Joe Gordon is the second baseman and he's going to be here a while. When you go home this winter get a book and learn how to play the outfield.'' He bought a book by Tommy Henrich, the Yankees outfielder, and studied the finer points of playing outfield: what to do on liners hit straight at you (take your first step back, never forward), throwing to the right bases, hitting the cutoff man. He started the next season in right, and within a few weeks was over in center, where he developed into an offensive and defensive star, a key figure on the fearsome Indians teams from the late 1940s to mid-1950s. With Doby driving in more than 100 runs four times and tracking down everything in center, the Indians won the World Series against the Boston Braves in 1948, and lost to the Giants in 1954 after winning a league-record 111 games during the regular season. It was during the '48 season that Doby set several firsts. After batting over .300 during the regular season, he became the first African American to play on a championship club and the first to hit a home run in the World Series. His blast won the fourth game that fall against the Braves. In the locker room celebration afterward, a wire service photographer took a picture that was sent out across the nation showing something that had never been seen before: a white baseball player, pitcher Steve Gromek, hugging the black player, Doby, who had won the game for him. Doby says he will never forget that embrace. ``That made me feel good because it was not a thing of, should I or should I not, not a thing of black or white. It was a thing where human beings were showing emotion. When you have that kind of thing it makes you feel better, makes you feel like, with all those obstacles and negatives you went through, there is someone who had feelings inside for you as a person and not based on color.'' It was a rare situation that went easier for the black person than his white friend. Gromek received hate mail and questions from his neighbors when he went home. What are you doing hugging a black man like that? Hey, was his response, Doby won the game for me! But the world did not embrace Doby as warmly as Gromek had. In St. Louis one day, McKechnie restrained him from climbing into the stands to go after a heckler who had been shouting racist epithets at him the whole game. His anger erupted one other time in 1948, when he slid into second base and an opposing infielder spit in his face. ``I didn't expect to be spit on if I'm sliding into second base, but it happened. I just thank God there was an umpire there named Bill Summers, a nice man, who kind of walked in between us when I was ready to move on this fella. Maybe I wouldn't be sitting here talking if that hadn't happened. They wanted to find anyway they could go get you out of the league.'' Al Smith, a left fielder who joined the Indians in 1953 and became Doby's roommate and close friend, said there was one other way opposing teams would go after black players. Whenever Al Rosen or some other Indian hit a home run, the pitcher would wait until Doby came up, then throw at him. ``They wouldn't knock the player who hit the home run down, they'd knock Doby down.'' Common practice in those days, says Doby--he and Minnie Minoso, a Cuban-born outfielder who was an all-star seven years despite not becoming a regular in the major leagues until age 28, and Roy Campanella, a three-time NL most valuable player after playing for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro leagues, were hit by pitches 10 times more often than Ted Williams, Stan Musial and Joe DiMaggio. ``You don't think people would do it simply because of race,'' Doby says. ``But what was it? Did they knock us down because we were good hitters? How you gonna explain DiMaggio, Williams and Musial? Were they good hitters? So you see, you can't be naive about this kind of situation.'' But there was one setting where Doby and the other blacks on the Indians' team felt completely protected--when teammate Early Wynn was on the mound. ``Whenever Early pitched we didn't have any problems getting knocked down. Early, he would start at the top of the opposing lineup and go right down to the bottom. They threw at me, he'd throw at them.'' The segregation of that era offered one ironically comforting side effect to Doby. Black fans in the late 1940s were directed out to the cheap seats, the bleachers in left and center and right. They were a long way from the action, but very close to Doby. ``When people say, `You played well in Washington,' well, I had a motivation factor there. I had cheerleaders there at Griffith Stadium. I didn't have to worry about name-calling. You got cheers from those people when you walked out onto the field. They'd let you know they appreciated you were there. Give you a little clap when you go out there, and if you hit a home run, they'd acknowledge the fact, tip their hat.'' Back to Cleveland At the All-Star Game at Jacobs Field in Cleveland on Tuesday, all of baseball will finally tip its hat to Lawrence Eugene Doby. Finally, he will emerge from the enormous shadow of the man he followed and revered, Jackie Robinson. The American League, for which he works as an executive in New York, has named him honorary captain of its team, and he has been selected to throw out the first pitch. The prospect of standing on the field in front of a sellout crowd to be honored has led Doby to think about what has changed since he broke in with the Indians 50 years ago. ``A lot of people are complaining that baseball hasn't come along fast enough. And there is much more work to be done,'' Doby says. ``But if you look at baseball, we came in 1947, before Brown versus the Board of Education [the 1954 Supreme Court decision integrating public schools], before anyone wrote a civil rights bill saying give them the same opportunities everyone else has. So whatever you want to criticize baseball about--it certainly needs more opportunities for black managers, black general managers, black umpires--remember that if this country was as far advanced as baseball it would be in much better shape.'' Doby rises from his chair and walks around his den, taking another look at history. Here is a picture of him at the first of seven straight all-star games to which he was selected. He is posed on the dugout steps with three other black players. ``There's Camp and Newk [pitcher Don Newcombe] and Jackie,'' he says. ``I'm the only American Leaguer, fighting those Dodgers.'' Nearby is the picture of ``Doby's Great Catch,'' taken in Cleveland in a game against Washington on July 20, 1954. ``What a catch,'' he says softly, sounding modest even in praise, as though it was someone else who climbed that fence to make the play. And in the corner is a picture of the football team at Paterson's East Side High back in the early 1940s. One black player in the crowd--the split end. ``I was always the one guy,'' he says, looking at the image of his younger self. Sometimes he was overshadowed or all but forgotten, and in the history books it says he came second, but Larry Doby is right. He always was the one guy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate adopted an amendment to require the Pentagon to study the effectiveness of the military's programs aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles among members of the Armed Forces. By March 30 of next year, the Secretary of Defense must submit a report which outlines programs aimed at preventing tobacco and alcohol dependence, in terms of education, rehabilitation, and intervention. I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership on this issue. As a cosponsor to this amendment, I am glad that my colleagues view the health of our military personnel an important factor when considering our Nation's security. Over the past year, the Pentagon has taken important steps to reduce tobacco use among its personnel. Despite strong opposition from the tobacco industry and its friends in the Congress, policies to remove subsidies from tobacco products sold through military commissaries have been implemented. Further regulations on tobacco advertising and product placement are due to take effect in the future. These are positive steps that have been long overdue. The need to attack tobacco addiction in the military was crystallized in a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense last December. The DOD IG's analysis concluded that between health care and lost productivity attributed to tobacco use, tobacco addiction costs the Defense Department, and American taxpayers, about $930 million a year. Roughly $453 million of this is in hospitalization costs alone. In this Senator's view, that's $930 million too much. The need to address this issue head-on couldn't be clearer. Tobacco use among military personnel has continued at higher levels than that of the civilian population. Nearly 36 percent of civilian males aged 18 to 25 smoke cigarettes. However, for the same age group in the Army, 41 percent smoke tobacco products as do 39 percent in the Navy and 44.7 percent in the Marine Corps. In light of the fact that the health of our troops, and all members of our military, should be of the utmost importance, this disparity is shameful. I commend those in the Pentagon who have begun to seriously address the problem of tobacco sales and addiction in the military. They are doing a great service for military personnel by removing subsidies from cigarettes sold in commissaries in an effort to protect their health. They are taking the bold step of evaluating ways to discourage use, an effort which is clearly at odds with the low prices of tobacco products sold on military bases compared to prices in retail outfits in the rest of the country. While I agree that for their service, members of the military should get certain benefits, a line should be drawn at an addictive and destructive product such as tobacco. Mr. President, I hope that when this Congress receives the report from the Secretary of Defense, as directed by this amendment, it will include bold proposals aimed at curbing addiction. Our fighting forces need to be the best prepared and the healthiest in the world.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prevent the cruel and unsporting practice of ``canned'' hunting, or caged kills. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Kennedy, Boxer, Moynihan, Torricelli, and Murray. In a canned hunt, a customer pays to shoot a captive exotic animal on a small game ranch where the animal typically is trapped inside a fenced-in enclosure. The enclosed space prevents the animal from escaping and making it an easy prey. The so-called hunter returns home with the animal's head to mount on his or her wall and the ranch owner collects a large fee. No hunting, tracking or shooting skills are required. The animals are easy targets because they typically are friendly to humans, having spent years in captivity, and having been cared for and fed by the canned hunt ranch owners. There are reported to be more than 1,000 canned hunting operations in the United States. At these ranches, a customer can, for example, ``hunt'' a Dama gazelle for $3,500, a Cape Buffalo for $6,000 or a Red Deer for $6,000. The rarer the animal, the higher the price. My bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the 104th Congress, S. 1493. It is directed only at true canned hunts. It does not affect cattle ranching, the hunting or breeding of any animals that live in the wild in the United States, rodeos, livestock shows, petting zoos, or horse or dog racing. It merely bans the procuring and transport of non- native, exotic mammals for the purpose of shooting them for entertainment, or to collect a trophy. The bill would not affect larger ranches, where animals have some opportunity to escape hunters. Nor does the bill affect the hunting of any animals that live in the wild in the United States. Many hunters believe that canned hunts are unethical and make a mockery of their sport. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, has called canned hunts ``unfair'' and ``unsportsmanlike.'' Bill Burton, the former outdoors writer for the Baltimore Sun and a hunter, testifying last year in support of this legislation, stated, ``There is a common belief that the hunting of creatures which have no reasonable avenue to escape is not up to traditional standards. Shooting game in confinement is not within these standards.'' Canned hunts also are strongly opposed by animal protection groups. As the Humane Society of the United States has said about animals in canned hunts, ``the instinct to flee, their greatest natural defense, has been replaced by trust--trust that is rewarded with a cruel and brutal death.'' Indeed, many animals killed in canned hunts suffer immeasurably as they receive shot after shot to non-vital organs. This practice is intended to preserve the head and chest regions intact so that the animals will make more attractive trophies. The practice of keeping captive animals for canned hunts may also pose a danger to native wildlife or livestock if the captive animals escape. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, stated that ``Tuberculosis and other disease documented among game ranch animals in surrounding States'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' This is one reason why Wyoming has banned canned hunts. Other States that have banned these hunts include California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, in most States, canned hunts are largely unregulated. The lack of State laws, and the fact that many of these animals move in interstate commerce, make Federal legislation necessary. I urge my colleagues who want to understand the cruelty involved in a canned hunt to visit my office and view a videotape of an actual canned hunt. You will witness a defenseless Corsican ram, cornered near a fence, being shot over and again with arrows, and clearly experiencing an agonizing death, then only to be dealt a final blow by a firearm. Then I urge you to join me in support of this legislation which will put an end to this needless suffering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prevent the cruel and unsporting practice of ``canned'' hunting, or caged kills. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Kennedy, Boxer, Moynihan, Torricelli, and Murray. In a canned hunt, a customer pays to shoot a captive exotic animal on a small game ranch where the animal typically is trapped inside a fenced-in enclosure. The enclosed space prevents the animal from escaping and making it an easy prey. The so-called hunter returns home with the animal's head to mount on his or her wall and the ranch owner collects a large fee. No hunting, tracking or shooting skills are required. The animals are easy targets because they typically are friendly to humans, having spent years in captivity, and having been cared for and fed by the canned hunt ranch owners. There are reported to be more than 1,000 canned hunting operations in the United States. At these ranches, a customer can, for example, ``hunt'' a Dama gazelle for $3,500, a Cape Buffalo for $6,000 or a Red Deer for $6,000. The rarer the animal, the higher the price. My bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the 104th Congress, S. 1493. It is directed only at true canned hunts. It does not affect cattle ranching, the hunting or breeding of any animals that live in the wild in the United States, rodeos, livestock shows, petting zoos, or horse or dog racing. It merely bans the procuring and transport of non- native, exotic mammals for the purpose of shooting them for entertainment, or to collect a trophy. The bill would not affect larger ranches, where animals have some opportunity to escape hunters. Nor does the bill affect the hunting of any animals that live in the wild in the United States. Many hunters believe that canned hunts are unethical and make a mockery of their sport. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, has called canned hunts ``unfair'' and ``unsportsmanlike.'' Bill Burton, the former outdoors writer for the Baltimore Sun and a hunter, testifying last year in support of this legislation, stated, ``There is a common belief that the hunting of creatures which have no reasonable avenue to escape is not up to traditional standards. Shooting game in confinement is not within these standards.'' Canned hunts also are strongly opposed by animal protection groups. As the Humane Society of the United States has said about animals in canned hunts, ``the instinct to flee, their greatest natural defense, has been replaced by trust--trust that is rewarded with a cruel and brutal death.'' Indeed, many animals killed in canned hunts suffer immeasurably as they receive shot after shot to non-vital organs. This practice is intended to preserve the head and chest regions intact so that the animals will make more attractive trophies. The practice of keeping captive animals for canned hunts may also pose a danger to native wildlife or livestock if the captive animals escape. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, stated that ``Tuberculosis and other disease documented among game ranch animals in surrounding States'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' This is one reason why Wyoming has banned canned hunts. Other States that have banned these hunts include California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately, in most States, canned hunts are largely unregulated. The lack of State laws, and the fact that many of these animals move in interstate commerce, make Federal legislation necessary. I urge my colleagues who want to understand the cruelty involved in a canned hunt to visit my office and view a videotape of an actual canned hunt. You will witness a defenseless Corsican ram, cornered near a fence, being shot over and again with arrows, and clearly experiencing an agonizing death, then only to be dealt a final blow by a firearm. Then I urge you to join me in support of this legislation which will put an end to this needless suffering. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is a fast-track ticket to deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. It would essentially create a cap for these and other essential mandatory programs like the Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. President, we ought not punish the people who are on Medicaid or Medicare just because these programs grow faster than a particular rate. Sometimes growth in these programs could be good. For example, the first reconciliation bill includes money to recruit 3 million uninsured Medicaid-eligible children to sign up for the program. If this happens, obviously Medicaid spending is going to increase. But the question is, What do we want to do? Do we want to take care of those kids or don't we? This would not be a good reason to cut the program. This is a dangerous gimmick. We can balance the budget without it. Furthermore, we ought not accept an amendment that could force quick, drastic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to protect Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I oppose the Gramm amendment. The amendment would radically change current budget rules by allowing temporary, unspecified cuts in discretionary programs to pay for permanent tax cuts. That would violate the bipartisan budget agreement and could explode the deficit in the future. This amendment also brings back the discredited Gramm-Rudman system of automatic across-the-board cuts, the system that led to a proliferation of gimmicks and rosy scenarios, and we didn't significantly reduce the deficit until we got rid of it. Madam President, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on us. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment says that if revenues exceed current projections, all the savings can only be plowed into more tax breaks; if you have a surplus, back into the tax breaks, not defense, not education, only more tax breaks. Even if the deficit were actually going up due to increased spending, we would still be able to use all unexpected revenues only for more tax breaks. That is fiscally irresponsible. It removes power and flexibility from the congressional majority and it is terrible policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is extraneous and violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I now, Mr. President, raise the point of order that the amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and radical amendment and I raise a point of order----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Craig amendment. The amendment would change the pay-go system and mean that we could not provide for health insurance to children by closing unnecessary tax loopholes. You heard it from the Senator directly. This is outrageous. It would undermine our efforts to ensure that all of the 10 million children who lack health coverage in this country can have it. There are already budget rules that limit the use of savings that come from tax loopholes. This amendment would go much farther and make it tougher to invest in children's health programs. If you vote for the Craig amendment, you are voting to protect tax loopholes. If you vote against it, you are voting to help children obtain health insurance in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am strongly opposed to this amendment. It creates a 60-vote point of order against any budget resolution that shows a unified deficit after the year 2002. We are all committed to protecting against the rising deficit. This amendment, however, means that next year even a modest change in CBO's long-term economic forecast could trigger the need for deep and hurtful cuts. It would be outrageous to cut Medicare or Social Security just because CBO changes its guess about what the economy will look like in 5 years. CBO cannot even predict what the deficit is going to look like in the next 5 months, never mind 5 years. Their recent record is absolutely abysmal. This amendment also requires that Social Security surpluses be used in calculating the deficit and could make it impossible to use those surpluses in the future to pay for Social Security benefits of retiring baby boomers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Bob Torricelli, in introducing a bill to name a U.S. post office in my hometown of Paterson, NJ after a true American hero, Larry Eugene Doby. Mr. President, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the breaking of major league baseball's color barrier. In April 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game with the National League's Brooklyn Dodgers and ended segregation in our national pastime; simultaneously, he entered America's pantheon of heroes. While we rightfully honor Mr. Robinson, we cannot forget that heroes rarely fight their battles alone. Larry Doby is one of those heroes. Only 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson first graced a major league diamond, Larry Doby of Paterson, NJ took the field with the Cleveland Indians, becoming the first African-American player in the American League. Once on the team, he brought an ability and level of consistency to the game that few could match. He was the first African- American player to hit a home run in the world series, and he was named to six straight American League all-star teams. During his 13 year career, he attained a .283 lifetime batting average and hit 253 home runs. Mr. President, the day Larry Doby first took the field was definitely a great day for baseball enthusiasts. Millions of fans were able to enjoy the excitement he brought to the plate and the skill he brought to the field. But it was also a great day for every American. Along with Robinson's earlier integration of the National League, Doby's joining the American League was a double play against racism and inequality. And in the early years it wasn't easy. Doby had to meet the challenges of the game, while also facing sometimes angry opponents. But whether he was faced with a curve ball hurled by an opposing pitcher, or a foul remark hurled by a bigoted fan, he handled it with dignity, grace, and skill. Because of the manner in which he handled such adversity, he not only tore down the walls of exclusion, he also opened the windows of opportunity for many other African-American players, who followed him into the major leagues. Thanks to his example, we all learned that, in the words of Martin Luther King, ``We must judge a person on the content of his character, and not the color of his skin.'' Mr. President, Larry Doby is rightfully called a legend for his consistency on the field and a hero for his character off the field. But I have the privilege of also calling him a friend. We grew up together on the working class streets of Paterson. As a baseball fan, an American and a friend, I admire the contributions that Larry made to both the game of baseball and to the struggle for equality. When it comes to Larry, others may have filled his uniform, but no one will ever be able to fill his shoes. Above all, Larry Doby proves that good and great can exist in the same individual. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator Torricelli and me in celebrating Larry Doby by gracing the post office located at 194 Ward Street in Paterson, NJ with his name.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jesse Brown, who will retire as Secretary of Veterans Affairs on July 1, 1997. Since his appointment to this post on January 22, 1993, Secretary Brown has been the champion of our Nation's 26 million veterans. But his commitment to those who fought for this country began long before he accepted the awesome responsibility of heading the Federal Government's largest Department. Secretary Brown's service in the Marine Corps formed the foundation for his strong commitment to veterans. He later worked for the Disabled American Veterans, where he was an advocate for the highest quality healthcare and benefits for veterans and their families. Secretary Brown translated his personal experiences into action as he accepted the charge of providing for those who have protected our country. As a fellow veteran, I appreciate all of Secretary Brown's work on behalf of our Nation's veterans and their families. In the 4\1/2\ years since he accepted this challenging post, he has worked diligently to move the VA into the 21st century. His personal commitment to veterans has produced numerous accomplishments. Secretary Brown has overseen the Department's first national summit on homeless veterans. He has worked to expand the Department's services to women veterans. And under his leadership, the VA has opened community based outpatient clinics, giving more veterans wider access to VA healthcare services. In all that he has done, his commitment to broadening veterans' access to the system has never faltered. Throughout his service, Secretary Brown has gone out of his way to ensure that those who honorably served their country receive the attention, benefits, and services they deserve. Last year, Secretary Brown visited New Jersey, where he personally met with veterans to address their concerns about benefits and the VA healthcare system. After this meeting, numerous veterans from New Jersey contacted me to convey their appreciation for Secretary Brown's work on their behalf. Mr. President, Secretary Brown's service to this country will be sorely missed. As a fellow veteran, I join all of the veterans in New Jersey and across the country in thanking him for his work and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join with my friend and colleague, Senator Bob Torricelli, in introducing a bill to name a U.S. post office in my hometown of Paterson, NJ after a true American hero, Larry Eugene Doby. Mr. President, 1997 marks the 50th anniversary of the breaking of major league baseball's color barrier. In April 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game with the National League's Brooklyn Dodgers and ended segregation in our national pastime; simultaneously, he entered America's pantheon of heroes. While we rightfully honor Mr. Robinson, we cannot forget that heroes rarely fight their battles alone. Larry Doby is one of those heroes. Only 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson first graced a major league diamond, Larry Doby of Paterson, NJ took the field with the Cleveland Indians, becoming the first African-American player in the American League. Once on the team, he brought an ability and level of consistency to the game that few could match. He was the first African- American player to hit a home run in the world series, and he was named to six straight American League all-star teams. During his 13 year career, he attained a .283 lifetime batting average and hit 253 home runs. Mr. President, the day Larry Doby first took the field was definitely a great day for baseball enthusiasts. Millions of fans were able to enjoy the excitement he brought to the plate and the skill he brought to the field. But it was also a great day for every American. Along with Robinson's earlier integration of the National League, Doby's joining the American League was a double play against racism and inequality. And in the early years it wasn't easy. Doby had to meet the challenges of the game, while also facing sometimes angry opponents. But whether he was faced with a curve ball hurled by an opposing pitcher, or a foul remark hurled by a bigoted fan, he handled it with dignity, grace, and skill. Because of the manner in which he handled such adversity, he not only tore down the walls of exclusion, he also opened the windows of opportunity for many other African-American players, who followed him into the major leagues. Thanks to his example, we all learned that, in the words of Martin Luther King, ``We must judge a person on the content of his character, and not the color of his skin.'' Mr. President, Larry Doby is rightfully called a legend for his consistency on the field and a hero for his character off the field. But I have the privilege of also calling him a friend. We grew up together on the working class streets of Paterson. As a baseball fan, an American and a friend, I admire the contributions that Larry made to both the game of baseball and to the struggle for equality. When it comes to Larry, others may have filled his uniform, but no one will ever be able to fill his shoes. Above all, Larry Doby proves that good and great can exist in the same individual. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator Torricelli and me in celebrating Larry Doby by gracing the post office located at 194 Ward Street in Paterson, NJ with his name.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Daschle amendment, which would provide significant tax cuts for ordinary, middle-class families, without leading to exploding deficits in the future. Mr. President, throughout this Nation, millions of middle-class families are struggling simply to live the American dream. They love their children, but they don't see them very much. They work long hours. They're trying to save for their retirement, and their kids' education. But they're having a hard time just paying their bills, and making ends meet. Mr. President, these are the people who most need tax relief. And yet, Mr. President, those are not the people who get the bulk of the relief in the underlying bill, as reported by the Finance Committee. The committee's bill provides more benefits to those in the top 1 percent of the population than to the entire lower 60 percent, combined. That's not right. And this amendment would correct the problem. Mr. President, this amendment 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 are structured differently, to give most of the benefits to ordinary Americans. The Democratic alternative provides a $500 tax credit for children. But, unlike the Republican version, it makes the credit available for working families with little or no tax liability. The Democratic alternative provides significant tax relief to help Americans handle the costs of higher education. And it provides substantially more benefits for those attending lower-cost community colleges than the Republican legislation. The Democratic alternative would cut the capital gains tax rate. But, unlike the Republican version, it gives most of its benefits to the middle class, not the very wealthy. The Democratic alternative also reduces estate taxes. But instead of lavishing huge breaks on the heirs to multimillion dollar estates, it focuses benefits on small businesses. Mr. President, another advantage of the Democratic alternative is that it costs do not explode in the out years. The underlying bill has several provisions the costs of which increase substantially in the future, such as the so-called backloaded IRA and capital gains breaks. This problem is addressed in the Democratic alternative, which is much more fiscally responsible. So, Mr. President, in many ways the Daschle amendment is a far superior alternative to the underlying bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I wanted to take just a few minutes to discuss the first reconciliation bill that the Senate approved yesterday. Mr. President, as one of the principal negotiators of the bipartisan budget agreement, it pained me to have to vote against the first reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, that bill went far beyond the bipartisan budget agreement, to a point that I felt I could not support it in good conscience. I am especially concerned, Mr. President, that the first reconciliation bill includes substantial changes in Medicare--changes that have not been adequately considered, and that could be very harmful to the program, and to the millions of Americans whose health will depend upon it in the future. For example, the bill would eliminate Medicare coverage for individuals aged 65 and 66. Yet it provides no alternative for these people. This could leave millions of older Americans without access to affordable health insurance. And that's not right. The bill also would encourage higher income beneficiaries to leave the program, by completely eliminating all subsidies of their premiums. That could undermine Medicare's universal support, and lead to a two- tier system in which sicker, less wealthy seniors would be forced to pay more for less. And that's not right. Finally, the bill would create a substantial economic burden for many frail and sick elderly Americans, by establishing a new copayment for home health benefits. This copayment could cost up to $760 per year--a substantial percentage of many seniors' income. And that copayment would come on top of an already substantial increase in premiums called for under the bill. Mr. President, that's just not right. Mr. President, none of these provisions was included in the bipartisan budget agreement. And none have really been seriously debated in the 105th Congress. The public has had little opportunity for input on this, and most Americans probably don't even know what's being considered in the Senate. Mr. President, let me make one thing clear. There is no question that we will have to make changes to the Medicare program as the baby boomers reach retirement age. However, changes like these are too important to rush through Congress as part of a reconciliation bill that must be considered under very expedited procedures. These are serious issues that deserve serious attention and public input. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the final version of the first reconciliation bill will not include most of these problematic provisions. The President, and many in the House of Representatives, share many of my concerns about the Medicare changes. And so I continue to hope that these provisions will be eliminated in the final version of the legislation, and that I will be able to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Torricelli and myself, I rise to introduce the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Act. Mr. President, coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every year for local communities nationwide. Moreover, our coastal areas provide immeasurable recreational benefits for millions of Americans who want to build sand castles, cool off in the water, take a walk with that special someone, or just relax. New Jersey's tourism sector is the second largest revenue-producing industry in the state. Without a doubt, the lure of my state's beaches generates most of this revenue-- over $7 billion annually. Mr. President, this heavily used natural resource can actually pose a threat to human health if it is not properly managed. Studies conducted during the past two decades show a definite and alarming relationship between the amount of indicator bacteria in coastal waters and the incidence of illnesses associated with swimming. Water-borne viruses are the major cause of swimming-associated diseases--gastroenteritis and hepatitis are the most common ones worldwide. And because an individual afflicted with these diseases are contagious, the risk of sewage-borne illness does not end with the bather. Nationwide, state and local governments reported almost 4,000 beach closings or warnings because of bacteria contamination. New Jersey has been particularly aggressive in protecting public health at the beach. New Jersey is one of only a few states to have a mandatory beach protection program that includes a bacteria standard, a monitoring program, and mandatory beach closure requirements. The program is designed to address water quality from both a health and an environmental perspective. Beaches are closed when bacteria levels exceed the standard regardless of the pollution source. Ironically, New Jersey is penalized because it does more to protect public health than most other states. In past years the annual losses from beach closures in New Jersey have ranged from $800 million to $1 billion while beaches remain open in competing states that do not publicize the questionable quality of their water. I have introduced over this legislation several times over the past several years. The bill, the Beaches, Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health Act, is known by the acronym ``BEACH'' bill. The bill will address the uneven efforts to protect beach goers by establishing uniform testing and monitoring procedures for pathogens and floatables in marine recreation waters. This bill requires the EPA to establish procedures to monitor coastal waters to detect short-term increases in pathogenicity and to set minimum standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated beach waters. And it will assure that the public is notified when beach waters exceed the standards and public health may be at risk. Going to the beach should be a healthy and rejuvenating experience. A day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. Whether they go to the beach in the Carolinas or in California, in New Jersey or New York--Americans across the country have a right to know when the water is and is not safe for swimming. Beach goers should be able to wade or swim in the surf without the fear of getting sick. I am very pleased that EPA has recognized the seriousness of this problem and the need for a federal solution. As a result of BEACH bills that I have introduced, the EPA announced its own Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health program. Under this program, EPA has begun to survey state and local health and environmental directors on the quality of coastal recreational waters for posting on the Internet next year. By next summer, the website will serve as a clearinghouse to provide the public access to health-related information available from states and other sources on the quality of recreational water. The goal is to expand the beach public's ``right to know'' on the quality of the nation's beaches. The aim is to encourage those beaches that keep their water quality from the public to make that information as readily available as is done in New Jersey. However, without mandatory, uniform regulation these EPA programs will be ineffective. While some states use EPA guidelines, others have no programs for regularly monitoring their beach water for swimmer safety. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that only 7 states--New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio and Indiana --comprehensively monitor their beaches, and a mere 6 states consistently close beaches when bacteria water quality standards are violated. Additionally, NRDC found that while a high bacteria level cause beach closures in one state other sates may allow people to swim despite the identical health risks. This discrepancy threatens public health. That is why we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the importance of protecting public health at our nation's beaches by cosponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I join with Senator Domenici in offering the amendment. It implements a provision in the bipartisan budget agreement that relates to the budget process. Without the support that comes from this, I think the work that had been done would be relatively penetrable in so many ways that we would not be able to come up with the final target that we are shooting for, and that is to make certain that we have the deficit down to zero at the end of 2002, and then we have preserved the caps that were placed there to achieve that objective. The amendment extends several provisions in the Budget Enforcement Act that otherwise will expire and preserves the existing system for enforcing the fiscal policies established by the Congress. Madam President, current law establishes an overall cap on the amount of spending that Congress can appropriate each year, but discretionary spending--I am referring to the programs appropriated annually by the Congress, including the entire gamut of Federal Departments and Agencies and most of their day-to-day operations. By contrast, discretionary spending does not include entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, which flows without the need for annual congressional action. Under current law, total spending on discretionary programs cannot exceed the prescribed limits. However, these limits expire in fiscal year 1998, and the amendment would extend these limits to 2002 in accordance with the budget agreement. The levels established are the same as those adopted in the agreement and in the budget resolution. In addition, the amendment extends the so-called pay-as-you-go or pay-go system. Under that system, all tax cuts, all increases in entitlement spending have to be offset by either revenue increases or reductions in other entitlements. The amendment will extend this system through 2002. There was little disagreement in the bipartisan budget negotiations that the discretionary spending limits and the pay-as-you-go system ought to be extended. These two budget mechanisms are at the very core of the Budget Enforcement Act. The act has been in place since 1990 when it replaced the old Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, and the system has proven to be successful. There are many ways to measure success, but I begin by pointing to the bottom line. Since BEA, the Budget Enforcement Act, was put into place, our deficit has been reduced from $270 billion plus down to about $70 billion, a $200 billion reduction. By contrast, the old Gramm-Rudman system had promised dramatic deficit reduction, but when it came to producing results, frankly, it laid an egg. When Gramm-Rudman came into effect in 1986, the deficit was $221.2 billion. By 1990, when Gramm-Rudman was repeated, the deficit had moved from $220 billion to the same level, $221.2 billion. That, Madam President, is not my idea of progress. Beyond helping to implement the real deficit reduction, the Budget Enforcement Act has avoided many of the political and policy distortions that were originally created by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation. The old system created an incentive for both Congress and the White House to use unrealistic economic assumptions and other gimmicks in order to game the system. Since BEA was enacted, while there are still plenty of games in Federal budgeting, the process has dramatically improved. For example, Presidential budgets have used much more realistic economic assumptions, and we have largely been free of the threat of massive across-the-board cuts in defense and domestic appropriated programs that used to be so disruptive. So, Madam President, I, along with Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich, Congressman Spratt and the administration, all in the negotiations agreed we should retain the basic framework of the Budget Enforcement Act system. That is what we are proposing in the amendment before us. It is a fairly simple proposition. In addition, this amendment includes separate spending limits for defense discretionary programs and nondefense discretionary programs in the next 2 fiscal years. This also reflects the bipartisan budget agreement. Along with many other Democrats, I have long been skeptical of firewalls, but I remind my colleagues that these firewalls apply equally to both sides of the discretionary budget and could protect domestic initiatives from those who would shift funding from domestic discretionary to the military. I will also note that the separate defense and nondefense caps expire after 2 years. Another provision in this amendment, which also implements the bipartisan budget agreement, would revise the rule governing scoring of asset sales. Under the proposal, asset sales could be counted in budget calculations only if they do not increase the deficit. This should help ensure we don't sell assets only for short-term income if those assets would generate significant revenues in the future. An example might be a Government-owned recreational facility that generates significant user fees. Madam President, this amendment also includes provisions that establish reserve funds for Amtrak, highways and transits. These provisions will allow us to implement the comparable reserve funds that were included in the budget resolution, and they have been top priorities for me and, given my longstanding commitment to transportation investment, I worked very hard to make sure that we were going to provide the funds necessary to provide the investment in infrastructure so critically needed in our country. Finally, Madam President, this amendment includes a variety of technical changes that are designed to correct errors and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements and to revise the outdated provisions. So, I hope my colleagues will support us in this amendment. I express my appreciation, once again, to Senator Domenici and the staff, especially Sue Nelson, my Budget Committee staff, for their hard work and cooperation in the development of this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, this place is not in order. It is terribly unfair to the Senator. Her voice is soft, and we ought to make sure that we can hear it. She has an important message for all of us, and I resent the fact that people are talking and laughing and doing what they are doing. Please, Mr. President, let us get order.