Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer my strong support for Rodney Slater to be the next Secretary of Transportation. Mr. President, as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Rodney Slater has demonstrated the leadership, intelligence, and vision that is required to lead the Department of Transportation. I am confident he will do an excellent job as Secretary. During the past 4 years, Administrator Slater has overseen a $20 billion U.S. Highway System and a nationwide work force of 3,500. In that capacity, he transformed FHWA policies and programs to better serve the people and industries who rely on our highway system. He has also been a strong advocate for the advancement of women and minorities. As Secretary, Mr. Slater will play a critical role in ensuring that our Nation makes much-needed investments in our transportation infrastructure. I know he shares my commitment to that goal. Transportation generates 20 percent of our GNP, and every $1 billion invested in our transportation system yields more than 25,000 construction-related jobs. Investment in transportation is also necessary to keep us internationally competitive. Americans spend more than 1.6 million hours a day stuck in traffic, at a cost to U.S. businesses of about $40 billion per year. That's a burden our economy simply cannot afford. By reducing congestion, improving air quality and enhancing safety, effective transportation systems also improve our overall quality of life. This year we are facing renewed debate on the importance of transportation as we discuss the authorization of ISTEA. And I am pleased that Rodney Slater will be taking the lead for the administration in the reauthorization effort. Mr. President, ISTEA is a bold and innovative law that is helping to increase mobility, ensure access to jobs and sustain our environment for future generations. It has improved planning and flexibility, emphasized local decision making and encouraged new technology. Mr. President, we need to extend ISTEA to meet the transportation and economic challenges of the 21st century. We need to build on the legislation's innovative intermodal system. We should continue to promote State and local flexibility. We should continue to use technology, or so-called Intelligent Transportation Systems, to increase our capacity and efficiency. And we must maintain ISTEA's commitment to promoting safety. I believe Rodney Slater shares my commitment to these goals, and I am looking forward to working closely with him throughout the debate on ISTEA. Mr. President, as we develop so-called ISTEA Two, all of us will need to remember that the choices we make will directly affect the lives of millions of ordinary Americans. Our decisions will affect where and how we live. Where we work. How we'll get there. And how long it will take. In many cases, our choices also will be a matter of life and death for thousands of Americans. And we shouldn't forget that. We will be deciding the safety of our roads, our rails, and our air travel. Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, safety often has taken a back seat to other considerations. We have lost our national speed limit. We have lost our motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws. And, meanwhile, the problem of drunk driving has worsened. In my view, it's long past time that we made safety a top priority. Mr. President, I raised this issue with Administrator Slater during the informational hearing in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He assured me that safety is, and will continue to be, his top priority as Secretary of Transportation. I commend him for that commitment. Administrator Slater also assured me that he is an advocate for healthy transportation funding this fiscal year and in the years ahead. In the coming months, Congress and the administration will be working together to balance the budget. As that process moves forward, all of us who care about transportation will have to work hard to ensure that transportation is given the priority it deserves. Mr. President, I am confident that Rodney Slater will be a Transportation Secretary who will work to maintain our infrastructure, to preserve ISTEA, to enhance safety, and to ensure adequate funding for our transportation needs. I look forward to working closely with him to ensure that all Americans can travel safely and efficiently as we move into the 21st century.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Alan Hantman of New Jersey, who will soon become the next Architect of the Capitol. Mr. President, Mr. Hantman is eminently qualified for this position, and has a long and successful track record. Most recently, he served as vice president of facilities planning and architecture at Rockefeller Center from 1986 until mid-July of last year. As Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Hantman will be responsible for the maintenance of a large and varied Capitol complex. I know he will do an outstanding job. Over the past 30 years, he has earned the respect of many in his profession, who know him to be a man of great competence and leadership. Mr. President, the Capitol is a very special place, not only for those of us fortunate enough to work here, but for all Americans. Indeed, the image of our Capitol dome is a symbol of freedom and liberty throughout our world. We are fortunate that this special symbol, and the great complex of which it is a part, will be in the hands of someone as competent as Alan Hantman. I wish him all the best in his new position.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, just so our new colleague from Wyoming understands, this was the order that was agreed to under unanimous consent, and therefore, since he is waiting, I want to explain that this was not just being discourteous; it had been set that way. The junior Senator from Wyoming will get used to some of those things off in the corner. He may not like it, but it works out. (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg pertaining to the introduction of S. 18 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back the time at this point that I have not used and reserve for our side the remaining minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, while I am on the floor, I want to express some disappointment at the introduction today by my friend and colleague, Senator Chafee, of a comprehensive bill amending our Federal hazardous waste cleanup law, better known as Superfund. This bill was introduced without consultation with any of the Democrats or with the administration. My staff, and those of the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, did not see a copy of this bill until late this morning. If we are to make reforms to Superfund this year--and it was hoped we would do it last year and the year before--it is critical that we work together in a bipartisan manner. Today's bill introduction is not a positive first step toward that bipartisanship. Enacting any Superfund legislation this year is going to require Members of both parties in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to work together. It will also require all of us to work with the President and EPA Administrator Carol Browner. In addition, Madam President, it would require us to appreciate that times have changed since the debate over Superfund reauthorization began in the late 1980's. The administration has made wide-ranging administrative proposals that have made a real difference, and this is not the same Superfund program of years past. We have learned a lot. We have improved its processing. We have reduced the possibility of heavy litigation costs. I want to be clear, I support changes to Superfund that would speed cleanups, reduce litigation, increase equity, save money, and protect the health and environment of those who live near Superfund sites. But, Madam President, it is important to do this right. We should not be shifting costs from polluters to taxpayers, and the President has made it very clear that he will not abide by that either. So, Madam President, I hope that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will closely examine the administrative reforms already undertaken before moving forward on changes to the Superfund program. I hold this up as an example of what is in here, introduced this morning without consultation. This is not a way to get ourselves a bipartisan kickoff to this very important reauthorization program. I look forward, as I have for many years, to working with our distinguished colleague, Senator Chafee, and Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire and others, to find common ground. I want to reauthorize Superfund, but I would like to do it in a way that is fair to taxpayers and in a way that is going to work. I yield back the time on the Democrats' side reserved. How much time is left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, today along with Senators Daschle, Baucus, Moynihan, Graham, Harry Reid, Boxer, Wyden, Levin, Torricelli, Sarbanes, and Breaux, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup of potentially thousands of toxic waste sites across this country, and just as importantly this bill is about jobs, about revenue, and economic opportunity, because it will help turn abandoned industrial sites into engines of economic development. Madam President, I have been interested for a long time now in the issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial sites, commonly known as brownfields. Our Nation's great industrial tradition was the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. But this industrial tradition also entailed tremendous environmental costs. Sites were contaminated, and then when the manufacturers, the companies left, the legacy remained behind. Today, decaying industrial plants define the skyline and contaminate the land in many of our urban areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of those manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs and often inner- city hope with them. Yet, Madam President, in these foul fields may lie the seeds of urban revitalization, and I continue to feel as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 1993 and 1996, that a brownfields cleanup program can spur significant economic development and create jobs. This type of cleanup initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense. To appreciate, one need only look at a few of the brownfields success stories from across the States. Now, these are sites again that do not qualify as a Superfund site because they are not toxic enough, but they lie there and they contaminate not only the aesthetics of the area but also the opportunity for jobs and for business investment. A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private investment, a $1 million increase on the local tax base, and more than 170 new jobs. In Elizabeth, NJ, a former municipal landfill will be turned by the fall of 1998 into a major mall with 5,000 employees. Madam President, the potential for job creation across the country is enormous, and every revitalized brownfields may represent for someone a field of dreams, especially to an unemployed urban worker. While fostering jobs, brownfield cleanup also means that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment, and the scars of decades of neglected industrial waste which disfigure our cities and suburbs and even rural areas may be finally allowed to heal. The Superfund Program provides Federal authority to assist in cleaning up abandoned waste sites that pose the most serious threats. However, there are in this country of ours 100,000 of these brownfield sites that do not fall under Superfund because of lower levels of contamination. What do we do? We can't just watch them keep these communities from revitalizing themselves. The risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low and others even nonexistent, because brownfields are abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or even perceived, not really factually established, environmental contamination. But their full economic use is being stymied because there is no ready mechanism for getting them evaluated or, if necessary, cleaned up, even when the owner of the property is ready, willing and eager to do so. In addition, prospective purchasers and developers are reluctant to get involved in transactions with these properties because of their concern, however minimal, they might potentially create enormous environmental liability. The challenge is to turn these abandoned properties into thriving businesses that can generate needed jobs and act as a catalyst for economic development. My legislation would provide financial assistance in the form of grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate brownfields sites. This would enable interested parties to know what would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit the property. My bill would also provide grants to State and local governments to establish and capitalize low-interest loan programs. These funds would be loaned to current owners, prospective purchasers and municipalities to facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where traditional lending mechanisms are just not available. The minimum seed money involved in the program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, as well as turning lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future. The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when parties couldn't have reasonably known that the property was contaminated. So there is no hidden liability in there. There is no sudden surprise for someone who conscientiously and innocently made an investment, and suddenly they find they are liable for far, far more than their initial investment. Madam President, cleaning up brownfields will mean a safer environment and more jobs for places that badly need them. It will also send a message to those who want to invest in our urban areas that they don't have to leave the inner city in search of open space. They can build right there in our downtowns, the places that already have the services, the infrastructure and the people to do the job. There has been bipartisan interest, Madam President, in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other body on the other side of the Capitol. I am hopeful we can move this legislation forward in a cooperative way with support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, a section-by-section analysis and a letter of endorsement from the Regional Planning Association, the country's oldest planning organization, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, a few days ago, New Jersey lost a very special woman and I lost a good friend when Nancy Elkis passed away. Mr. President, few people in New Jersey have touched more lives, or made a greater contribution to their community than Nancy Elkis. Nancy was a woman of amazing energy and incredible warmth. Over the years, she involved herself in a very broad range of civic and philanthropic initiatives, and held a variety of positions of responsibility in government and community organizations. Yet throughout her life, Nancy always was able to find the time to help people on an individual basis. And, quietly and with little fanfare, she improved the lives of countless numbers of others who were in need. Mr. President, Nancy Elkis was the first woman elected to the Woodbury City Council, and she served as a councilwoman for 22 years. Although she was a Democrat in an area of the city dominated by Republicans, she won the respect of her constituents and her colleagues because of her unselfish, caring attitude, and her dedication to her community and the public interest. On the city council, she was especially active in overseeing the city's water department, and she continually worked to ensure that the city's water quality remained high. She also was vice chair of the Gloucester County Housing Authority. In that capacity, she came down to Washington regularly to discuss our State's housing needs, and we talked often. In all of those visits, it was obvious that Nancy cared deeply about publicly assisted housing, and was motivated by a deep commitment to improving the lives of residents. Nancy also was a member of the county economic development committee, the human resources committee, the commission on women, and the parks and recreation committee. Additionally, she was a State Democratic committeewoman for Gloucester County and past chair of the Woodbury Democratic Committee. Mr. President, Nancy's contributions extended well beyond the realm of government and politics. She also played a major role in several charitable organizations. For more than 20 years, she was active with the Gloucester County unit of the American Heart Association, and she was chairwoman of the board of the New Jersey affiliate division of the American Heart Association at the time of her death. Recently, she was named State Volunteer of the Year. In addition, Nancy was on the board of the United Way of Gloucester County, and had served as former president of the Gloucester County Visiting Nurse Association. She also volunteered at Underwood-Memorial Hospital in Woodbury. Mr. President, beyond her long list of accomplishments and contributions, Nancy Elkis was a woman of great warmth. She really cared about other people, especially her own family. But her love of others extended to her entire community, and she continually was looking for ways to help others in need. Mr. President, I attended a memorial service for Nancy yesterday, and was struck by the exceedingly large number of people who attended. The chapel was literally overflowing. People recounted stories of how Nancy had helped them over the years and each one was a memorial to a service she performed. Nobody could come away from that service, Mr. President, without appreciating just how deeply Nancy was loved and respected throughout her community, and how many lives she touched. Mr. President, I have a special personal connection to Nancy Elkis because her daughter, Karin Elkis, is the director of my Barrington, NJ, office. And as I attended yesterday's memorial service, I came to appreciate more than ever how Karin's boundless energy and tremendous warmth--and her deep commitment to her family and her community--is a reflection of her own mother. It would be hard to find two more special people, Mr. President. And if there is a personal testament to the kind of person Nancy was, it is Karin along with her three other children. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for the contribution Nancy Elkis made to her community and our State and offer my deepest condolences to Karin, her father, Preston, her sisters, Lisa and Emily, her brother, Tony, Nancy's mother, Irene Zibelman, and the other members of Nancy's family. Although their loss is painful, I know they will be nourished by their wonderful memories of Nancy. Mr. President, Nancy Elkis was an uncommon person whose legacy will live on for many years. I know I speak for literally hundreds of others in expressing my sorrow over her passing, and my deep appreciation for everything she did for her community. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, New Jersey recently lost a remarkable woman, Connie Woodruff, who passed away on October 20. A veteran leader of New Jersey's African-American community, she will be remembered by many as a friend, mentor and supporter. And her work on behalf of the women of our state constitutes a permanent legacy. Mr. President, if Connie Woodruff had a motto, it was, undoubtedly, that we make a living by what we gain, but we make a life by what we give. And her life was an example of generosity and compassion which should serve as a benchmark for all of us. In West Orange, she was chairwoman of the Human Rights Commission. And she was active in the Essex County ``Stamp Out Hate'' campaign, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. She was appointed to various commissions by six governors, including the state's Commission on Judicial Review and the New Jersey Martin Luther King Commemorative Commission. Governor Whitman also appointed her an Essex County Tax Court Judge. Over the years, Connie served on the board of more than 20 organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League of Essex County Guild, The Leaguers, Newark YMWCA and New Jersey Cities in Schools. For several years, she was chairwoman of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's Board of Concerned Citizens. Mr. President, although everyone in New Jersey benefited from her compassion and caring, she will be especially missed by the women of our State. During her 20 years with the Ladies Garment Workers Union, she battled to improve the working conditions for thousands of workers, mostly women. Later, she was an adjunct professor of labor studies at Rutgers-Newark, before moving on to Essex County College, where she spent the last 10 years of her career in education. At ECC, she was credited with helping to turn the dream of a Women's Center into reality. The Center's Director has remarked that Woodruff's life was dedicated to helping women become personally and financially self- sufficient. She also established the Connie Woodruff Nursing Scholarships at Essex County College. Mr. President, Connie Woodruff served 16 years as chairwoman of the New Jersey Commission on the Status of Women, and she won two terms as president of the National Association of Commissions on Women, becoming president emeritus by acclamation. As a writer for the City News, one of the most important voices of the African-American community in New Jersey, she married her special wit and biting insight into all the black political players. And she was one of the most astute political minds I have ever known. Mr. President, New Jerseyans will miss Connie Woodruff's scholarship and leadership, and I will also miss her friendship. Countless individuals were helped by her and touched by her. And she made a difference in the lives of thousands of ordinary people. A champion for women's rights, human rights and civil rights, Connie Woodruff proved that good and great can exist in the same individual.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators Bradley, Levin, and myself, to submit a resolution that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in 1997 commemorating the 150th anniversary of Thomas Alva Edison's birth. The genius behind more than 1,300 inventions, including the incandescent light bulb, the alkaline battery, the phonograph and motion pictures, Edison was awarded the Congressional gold medal in 1928 ``for development and application of inventions that have revolutionized civilization in the last century.'' We have the opportunity to again honor one of the world's greatest inventors by issuing both commemorative and circulating coins with Mr. Edison's likeness. Mr. President, not only would these coins honor the memory of Thomas Edison, they would also raise revenue to support organizations that preserve his legacy. The two New Jersey Edison sites, the ``invention factory'' in West Orange, NJ, and the Edison Memorial Tower in Edison, NJ, are both in poor condition. Irreplaceable records and priceless memorabilia are in danger of being destroyed because of leaky roofs, defective electrical systems and faulty sprinkler systems. The profits raised from surcharges on the commemorative coins would provide funds to repair and preserve these and five other historical Edison sites across the country and to expand educational programs that teach us about this great American. Let me emphasize that this legislation would have no net cost to the Government. In fact, because circulating coins are a source of Government revenue known as seigniorage, this bill will reduce Government borrowing requirements, thereby lowering the annual interest payments on the national debt. An Edison commemorative coin program also has strong support among America's numismatists whose interest is crucial to the success of any coin program. Mr. President, I introduce this legislation at the end of the 104th Congress with the expectation that it will be reintroduced in the next Congress and passed next year during the sesquicentennial of the birth of Thomas Alva Edison. This legislation would honor a great American inventor, it would provide seigniorage to the Treasury to help service the national debt, it is popular among coin collectors, and it would provide sorely needed funds to important historical sites. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I too join our many colleagues in wanting to say goodbye, good luck, and thank you to our colleagues. All of them are leaving this body. And as they leave they leave a mark of great distinction, each and every one of them. I cannot help, Mr. President, as I review the names of those who are retiring--we have heard several comments from many colleagues about the names, and they are all familiar--but I cannot help but note that when you talk about people like Senator Pell, Senator Hatfield, Senator Nunn, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Johnston, Senator Simpson, Senator Bradley, Senator Cohen, Senator Exon, Senator Heflin, Senator Pryor, Senator Simon, Senator Brown, this is a really distinguished group of people, Mr. President. And when I think of what each of them brings to our deliberations, to the body, to the Senate, they have enriched us substantially, each one of them, some with longer lists of legislation than others, but each one with a unique character, and a list of people of principle, of integrity, of honesty. And one of the things I think that each of us has to consider is who is going to follow, who is going to follow over these next few years as we approach the 21st century. Is there going to be a sense of what this institution is about? Are they going to have respect? Mr. President, as I said, the question as to those who follow, will they have the respect, the reverence, not only for this institution, but for the way we operate as a Government, with the respect that I think has been denied of more recent years by many, who choose to use this place often as a battleground, as opposed to a people's forum, trying to, in many cases, get the edge, get the leg up, get the publicity, get the press? I do not want to be too nostalgic here. These are wonderful people who, with the help of good health, will go on to do many other things. It strikes me, at a particular time when things seem to be so unruly in our society, so much hostility, so much anger, so much confusion that we take the best of us in this group and say so long to them with not only respect and reverence for them but with some misgivings, some apprehension as to the ordinary citizens of our society who are not serving in this body as they greet the newcomers. There will be many of them--I do not know how it ranks in the numbers that have come in a single class. Mr. President, I say goodbye to each of those individuals. I want to make particular note of the retirement of my colleague, Senator Bill Bradley, with whom I have worked very closely over these years, with whom I have shared prospects for what we can do for New Jersey, for the country, unity of opinion, and sometimes a different approach to how we got to these goals, Mr. President, but nevertheless someone whose friendship I treasure and whose presence will be missed here, in particular by me, because of our close association. In particular, as I mentioned Bill Bradley, Senator Mark Hatfield and others, who have served this body so well. I will miss them all and I know we will be a different place. This body is far bigger than the total sum of the individuals who serve it, and we will continue on, God willing, with strength and with purpose and with comity and collegiality. That is my wish.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Paul Simon. When I think of Paul's extraordinary career in the Senate, I'm reminded of a remark by Toni Morrison, ``As you enter positions of trust and power, dream a little before you think.'' Although Paul's intellectual abilities are well known, he even holds 39 honorary degrees, he is also a great dreamer. For he has dreamed of a country where no child has to live in poverty, where no young person is denied an education because of financial reasons and where no senior citizen is bankrupted by a medical emergency. And Paul has tirelessly fought to make those dreams reality. It is not surprising that in 1983, during his 10 years in the House, Time magazine noted that Simon passed more legislation that year than other Members of the House of Representatives. In the Senate, Paul has been particularly concerned with affording every American the opportunity of an affordable education. Among his accomplishments in this area, he recently enacted major education and job training legislation which includes the National Literacy Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the Job Training Partnership Act Amendments. He was also the leading champion of the new direct college loan program, enacted in 1991 as a pilot program and expanded in 1993 as a replacement for the guaranteed student loan program. Mr. President, Paul and I have personally fought many battles together. And although I could speak about his support on any number of issues, I want to especially recall his constant and consistent efforts on the issue of gun control. I knew that I could always count on Senator Simon's support in the continuing struggle to take guns off our streets. When I think of Paul's retirement from the Senate, I remember the words of Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson presented his credentials as U.S. Minister to France, the French Premier remarked, ``I see that you have come to replace Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson corrected him; saying, ``No one can replace Dr. Franklin, I am only succeeding him.'' In much the same way, Paul Simon is also irreplaceable. As he begins the next phase of his career, I wish my friend continued success and best wishes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That earlier colloquy also talked about a recent opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Kelley v. EPA, 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994), reh'g denied, 25 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1996). I think it is important that we avoid any misunderstanding, based on that case, concerning EPA's authority to issue rules. The Kelley decision struck down EPA's original lender liability rule, but this legislation recognizes EPA's authority to promulgate rules in this area. This is consistent with our general intent that EPA should use its expertise to issue authoritative interpretations of CERCLA, whether by guidance or regulation. For example, EPA has issued guidances pertaining to the liability of residential homeowners, de minimis and de micromis parties, and others. Such clarifications and expressions of prosecutorial discretion have served to reduce litigation and given the regulated community and others clarity over questions of liability. Mr. Baucus, is it correct that the lender liability provisions in the omnibus appropriations bill are intended to reaffirm EPA's ability to issue such interpretative guidance?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, earlier this week we passed the omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that bill are provisions that clarify lender liability issues under Superfund. These are important provisions that make it clear that lenders that do not participate in management are not liable under Superfund or the underground storage tank provisions of RCRA. It is also important, however, that we clarify a critical aspect of these provisons. First, you and I are aware of the colloquy in the Congressional Record of September 30, 1996, between Senators Smith and D'Amato regarding the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996. The colloquy seems to suggest that under the bill, EPA has no authority whatsoever to promulgate regulations on CERCLA liability. That was not my understanding of the intent of the lender and fiduciary provisions. My understanding is that our intention was to substantially endorse EPA's addressing of lender liability under Superfund in its 1992 lender liability rule, and to validate EPA's prior exercise of rulemaking authority for lenders and fiduciaries. Addressing lender liability specifically in this bill was necessary because, in 1980, Congress did not foresee how its original language, protecting security interest holders from liability, would be interpreted. Congress also could not have foreseen the restrictive view in Kelley v. EPA, 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1994), of EPA's authority to issue rules interpreting Superfund authority. The omnibus appropriations bill specifically addresses and modifies the earlier interpretations of the original language. Should new circumstances again arise concerning interpretations of lender and fiduciary liability, we believe and it is our intent that EPA has the authority to clarify and refine the liability rules applying to lenders and fiduciaries. Mr. Baucus, is it correct that nothing in the lender liability provisions in the omnibus appropriations bill, precludes EPA from issuing rules to clarify and refine the rules applying to lenders and fiduciaries?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to wish my friend, Jim Exon, an enjoyable retirement from this body. It's been a pleasure to serve him for the past 13 years, especially on the Budget Committee; together, we've fought for issues which were important to the average American. When I think of Jim's many accomplishments, I will especially remember his commitment to the Medicare program and his opposition to cutting Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. For the past 2 years, Jim has served as ranking minority member of the Budget Committee. It's been a tumultuous time. But as a businessman who founded a successful company, he brought to the Senate significant business skills and a commitment to fiscal responsibility. That was also evident in Jim's work on the Armed Services Committee, where he was a persistent and effective voice to reduce waste in the Defense Department. Recognized in the Senate as an authority on agriculture, rural America, commerce, national defense and transportation, Jim was, above all, a voice for Nebraska's interests. Whether fighting for fair international trade agreements for mid-west agriculture, or cosponsoring legislation that made Medicare reimburse rural and urban hospitals at the same rate, or having Nebraska's Niobrara River declared a National Scenic River, Jim always championed the State he had served as Governor. It's no wonder that the book ``Politics in America'' notes that Jim Exon, ``makes a real contribution to the Senate as a mirror of public opinion in America's heartland. It is hard to think of anyone else in the chamber who so seems attuned to the questions and concerns of the typical middle-American.'' Jim, your presence in the Senate will be sorely missed. Others may fill your seat, but few will be able to fill your shoes. As you begin the next stage of your career and your life, I wish you all the best.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Omnibus Parks package and I would like to note the inclusion of two very important components in this package for my State. The first is authorization of $17.5 million for the Secretary of the Interior to purchase over 15,000 acres of the Sterling Forest. This land, located in New York, is the source of drinking water for 25 percent of New Jersey households. Located just 35 miles from New York City, Sterling Forest contains excellent recreational and scenic opportunities and is habitat to hundreds of animal species. The developer of this land, a Swiss company, had plans to develop thousands of residential units and millions of square feet of commercial space. This legislation will ensure that these plans do not go forward. The Sterling Forest Corp. agreed to sell the property for $55 million. The Federal contribution will complement a commitment of $20 million from the governments of New York and New Jersey, and several million dollars from numerous private contributions. Mr. President, my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, and I sponsored legislation to protect the Sterling Forest and I am pleased to see it included in the package before us today. Mr. President, I am also pleased that the bill before us contains another important piece of legislation that Senator Bradley and I introduced--S. 188, to designate the Great Falls Historic District in Paterson, NJ. Mr. President, the Great Falls area of Paterson is known as the birthplace of the industrial revolution. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, founded the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufacturers at the Great Falls. He used the Great Falls to supply power to various mills and factories, thereby allowing Paterson to become one of the world's great industrial cities. This legislation allows the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to preserve and interpret Paterson's history. This historic and cultural recognition would provide a great boost for jobs and economic development in Paterson and will complement an urban revitalization program under the leadership of Mayor William Pascrell. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important package.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to commend the American Culinary Federation for its efforts to combat the problem of childhood hunger in the United States. Although we are the richest nation on Earth, each day 1 out of 12 children under the age of 12 goes to bed hungry. In my own State of New Jersey, 91,000 children must endure hunger as their constant companion. Children are our most valuable natural resource, and as a nation we cannot tolerate a situation where our youngest citizens are deprived the most basic necessity. Mr. President, I know that we all agree that steps must be taken to end the epidemic of childhood hunger. If we do not condemn this situation by our actions, then we condone it by our inaction. Mr. President, in New Jersey, the Jersey Shore Chapter of the American Culinary Federation is dedicated to fighting this scourge. Among its many activities, on October 16, the federation will again be holding its Childhood Hunger Day Forum in Washington, DC. The event is designed to increase awareness of the problem of childhood hunger, and it will give voice to the millions of small children who suffer in silence. Mr. President, I applaud the foundation's efforts, and I wish it every success on Childhood Hunger Day and for all of their future endeavors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for clearly laying out the facts. As the coauthor of this provision, I share his interest and concern about this issue. I am also pleased that the conference committee understood our intent regarding the Federal firearms relief program. I agree with his analysis completely and intend to closely follow this situation in the coming year to see if any further legislation is necessary to clarify our intent. I would also like to take this opportunity to let my colleague know how much I enjoyed working on this issue with him as well as so many other matters. I want to thank him for his commitment to this issue, and for the excellent work of Susan Kaplan and Amy Isbell of his staff, and I want to ensure him that although he will not be here next year to continue his work in the Senate on this matter, I fully intend to carry on the fight for us both.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Tobacco-Free Children's Internet Act of 1996, a bill to protect children from the health hazards of tobacco by extending to the Internet existing limitations on tobacco advertisements. Mr. President, countless studies have demonstrated the persuasive effect that tobacco advertising has on minors. This advertising encourages young people to smoke, which in turn leads to more lung cancer, more heart disease, and more death. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration has now decided to limit tobacco advertising in publications with a significant readership under age 18 to black-and- white text only. This is a significant, positive step, and should substantially reduce the effectiveness of such advertising in appealing to children. Mr. President, the Internet provides unprecedented access to information to persons of all ages. I believe that the widespread use of the Internet should be encouraged. However, certain material, such as tobacco advertising, is not appropriate for children. In addition to the eye-catching images common in tobacco print advertisements and billboards, cigarette and smokeless tobacco ads on the Internet have one feature exclusive to this medium--they can be interactive. The indiscriminate bombardment of advertisements on the Internet is also troubling if tobacco ads on this medium are not subject to FDA regulations. To view certain ads, a child need only sign onto an Internet provider. If an online provider decides to use a tobacco advertisement for one of its so-called banner ads, there is no doubt that children will see it. Similarly, a child browsing the World Wide Web for a research project on camels could end up viewing over 300 web pages about or mentioning Joe Camel merely by typing camel on an Internet search program. I therefore believe restrictions on tobacco advertising should be extended to the Internet. Minors comprise a large percentage of Internet users in our country and this number is increasing. Although this is a welcome indication that our youth has access to information that may not be available at their local library or at their school, I am concerned that minors may be especially affected by interactive tobacco ads. Mr. President, I understand that the FDA was reluctant to extend their advertising restrictions to the Internet in their last rulemaking because they believed tobacco companies had not yet exploited this medium. It is true that the majority of tobacco ads currently on the Internet are posted by foreigners; however, I am confident that this situation will not last. The Internet is a veritable wild West to the tobacco industry seeking to hook children. It is my hope that, in addition to applying applicable tobacco regulations to the Internet, the FDA, perhaps in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, will develop an effective means of implementing the Surgeon General's warning to Internet advertisements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Tobacco-Free Children's Internet Act of 1996, a bill to protect children from the health hazards of tobacco by extending to the Internet existing limitations on tobacco advertisements. Mr. President, countless studies have demonstrated the persuasive effect that tobacco advertising has on minors. This advertising encourages young people to smoke, which in turn leads to more lung cancer, more heart disease, and more death. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration has now decided to limit tobacco advertising in publications with a significant readership under age 18 to black-and- white text only. This is a significant, positive step, and should substantially reduce the effectiveness of such advertising in appealing to children. Mr. President, the Internet provides unprecedented access to information to persons of all ages. I believe that the widespread use of the Internet should be encouraged. However, certain material, such as tobacco advertising, is not appropriate for children. In addition to the eye-catching images common in tobacco print advertisements and billboards, cigarette and smokeless tobacco ads on the Internet have one feature exclusive to this medium--they can be interactive. The indiscriminate bombardment of advertisements on the Internet is also troubling if tobacco ads on this medium are not subject to FDA regulations. To view certain ads, a child need only sign onto an Internet provider. If an online provider decides to use a tobacco advertisement for one of its so-called banner ads, there is no doubt that children will see it. Similarly, a child browsing the World Wide Web for a research project on camels could end up viewing over 300 web pages about or mentioning Joe Camel merely by typing camel on an Internet search program. I therefore believe restrictions on tobacco advertising should be extended to the Internet. Minors comprise a large percentage of Internet users in our country and this number is increasing. Although this is a welcome indication that our youth has access to information that may not be available at their local library or at their school, I am concerned that minors may be especially affected by interactive tobacco ads. Mr. President, I understand that the FDA was reluctant to extend their advertising restrictions to the Internet in their last rulemaking because they believed tobacco companies had not yet exploited this medium. It is true that the majority of tobacco ads currently on the Internet are posted by foreigners; however, I am confident that this situation will not last. The Internet is a veritable wild West to the tobacco industry seeking to hook children. It is my hope that, in addition to applying applicable tobacco regulations to the Internet, the FDA, perhaps in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, will develop an effective means of implementing the Surgeon General's warning to Internet advertisements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 10 minutes on this side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee in a brief colloquy concerning pediatric AIDS demonstrations funded under title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would first like to commend and thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work to ensure our Nation's continued strong commitment to our children and families tragically infected with HIV by providing a funding increase for title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act. Title IV programs are designed to coordinate health care and assure that it is focused on families' needs and based in their communities. These programs are the providers of care to the majority of children, youth, and families with HIV/AIDS in our country, ensuring these families have access to the comprehensive array of services they need. The original Senate report stated that a portion of the title IV funds should be used to provide peer-based training and technical assistance through national organizations that collaborate with projects to ensure development of innovative models of family centered and youth centered care; advanced provider training for pediatric, adolescent, and family HIV providers; coordination with research programs, and other technical assistance activities. Is it correct that the managers intend to continue support of national organizations providing training and technical assistance, including the National Pediatric and Family HIV Resource Center located within the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in this legislation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of the chairman of the Small Business Committee with respect to language in division D of the omnibus appropriation bill, which incorporates the Senate substitute amendment to H.R. 3719 relating to the sale of the unguaranteed portion of loans made under the 7(a) program. It is my understanding that until the Small Business Administration issues a new, final regulation setting forth the terms and conditions under which the unguaranteed portion of 7(a) loans may be permitted, or until March 31, 1997, whichever is earlier, lenders currently eligible to securitize may continue to do so under the existing regulation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Missouri and I would like to commend him for crafting another bipartisan small business bill. It is my hope that we will work closely together next year to provide guidance from the Small Business Committee to SBA as they are formulating their new securitization regulation. Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am especially pleased with the additional funding included in this continuing resolution for Amtrak. Funding for Amtrak's capital accounts has followed a very torturous path this year. The administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997 embodied its endorsement of the concept that Amtrak should strive for self-sufficiency--that it should be free of a Federal operating subsidy within the next 6 years. The administration recognizes that the key to self sufficiency for the railroad is substantially increased investment in its capital plant--that a self sufficient Amtrak will require state-of-the-art, first-class, reliable equipment--clean stations and modern, efficient service. In its budget request for 1997, the administration called for a $232 million increase in funding for Amtrak's principle capital accounts. Unfortunately, our House colleagues met this challenge with a transportation bill that singled out Amtrak for devastating cuts. The House-passed transportation appropriations bill slashed Amtrak capital funding by $145 million, more than 42 percent--providing zero for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program--[NECIP]. Fortunately, thanks to the help and wisdom of Chairman Hatfield and many of my colleagues, the Senate bill provided Amtrak an overall increase for these crucial capital accounts including the full $200 million requested by the President for NECIP. While the conference agreement on the regular transportation appropriations bill was still a substantial improvement upon the House- passed bill, funding for NECIP ended up 42 percent below the President's request. During conference on the regular fiscal year 1997 transportation bill, I stated I would seek additional funding for NECIP in the continuing resolution. So I was pleased to work with Chairman Hatfield to construct a provision for this continuing resolution that added $60 million to NECIP while simultaneously providing $22.5 million to keep several routes in operation--routes in various parts of our country that were slated for termination due to Amtrak's current financial difficulties. This funding was completely offset with a series of noncontroversial rescissions. Mr. President, I have said time and time again that the key to Amtrak's future is the expeditious completion of the major infrastructure improvements in the Northeast corridor. Amtrak's own studies indicate that all of the increased revenue Amtrak can hope to capture in the near term will come from the Northeast corridor. I have also long believed that we should have a financially healthy and adequately capitalized national railroad that serves as many areas as possible. As such, I was pleased to support Members' efforts to maintain service to their States and throughout the country. But as we work to keep the national Amtrak network together and avoid route terminations, it has to be recognized that the key to Amtrak's self sufficiency--the key to Amtrak generating enough revenue to operate lines throughout the Midwest and the West, is adequate funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor. This is not just the opinion of a Senator from the Northeast. It is written clearly across Amtrak's balance sheet. The Northeast corridor carries half of all of Amtrak's riders and generates well over half of Amtrak's passenger-related revenues. Indeed, Amtrak's President, Tom Downs, recently testified to the Senate Commerce Committee that, were it not for the recent positive financial performance of the Northeast corridor, the trains that were slated for termination in the next few months would have been terminated several months ago. As such, I am very pleased that this continuing resolution includes our amendment providing the additional $82.5 million for Amtrak, including the additional $60 million for NECIP. This will bring the final funding level for NECIP to $175 million. While this is still $25 million below the administration's request, it is well above last year's level. This funding is essential to assure the development of efficient high-speed rail service throughout the entire Northeast before the end of the century. It will be that kind of service that will produce the revenue to allow Amtrak to avoid service cuts elsewhere in the country. I thank my many allies in this effort. Most notably, I want to thank our Chairman, Senator Hatfield, who stood firm throughout his negotiations with the House on this item. Also, Senator Wyden, Senator Biden, Senator Roth, Senator Hutchison, Senator Bumpers, Senator Pryor, Senator Pell, Senator Shelby, and the majority leader Senator Lott.