Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have been waiting for recognition. I ask unanimous consent to permit the manager to dispose of the committee business with the right to regain the floor after the manager has disposed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that recognition is given based on the request from the floor. Now, I do not want to get stuck on this too much but I have been waiting a long time. I would indulge the Senator from Pennsylvania if I have an assurance that it would be no more than 5 minutes of time that he would occupy. I would be happy to modify my unanimous-consent agreement if that is the understanding we can get.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the manager have the opportunity to clear up committee business, that the Senator from Pennsylvania be recognized for not more than 5 minutes, and that I then regain the right to the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the pending Kassebaum amendment be set aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his eloquent reminder about what it is we are considering here. The statistics, the data do not have to be reiterated. It is very clear. The underlying problem is, in this country of ours, that domestic violence, no matter how severe the beating, is often dismissed as a squabble. I have heard reports of judges saying, ``Oh, he didn't really mean it. He didn't intend to hurt you. Can't you go home and settle it between you?'' And very often, of the cases reported, there is so much trauma attached to the recipient of the abuse that she--typically it is a she--is afraid to pursue the case any further because, along with the continuing relationships, inevitably are the threats of further disassociation, which, in many cases, could mean the end of income, support, mean the end of some reassurance that there is a roof over their heads. So they sell their souls. They quit when, if they knew that the State cared more about it, they would continue to pursue it. The other thing is, they are afraid that the guy, the fellow who first treated them to a fist in the face, may come home with a gun and take their lives. One can only imagine what kind of rage exists within a man who would beat up a woman, and often in front of the children they have. It is an outrageous condition that exists. And this country has not yet taken it seriously enough. We hope this amendment will send a loud and clear message that you are not going to get away with this kind of thing, because we are going to take away your gun. We are going to take away that extra chance that the woman might be killed. You heard it from my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, the Senator from Minnesota: Four women a day will lose their lives. I can tell you this, from the research that we have done, that is a very conservative estimate. The data are not good in that situation. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. We are ready to vote. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Gun Free School Zones amendment offered by Senator Kohl, which is critical to protecting the sanctity of our schools and the safety of our students. Mr. President, each day, an estimated 135,000 students pack a gun with their books on their way to school. In 1990, the Centers for Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30-day period. Three years later, that figure was 1 in 12. At a time when guns are becoming increasingly prevalent on neighborhood streets, we cannot simply stand by and allow our playgrounds to become battlegrounds. We cannot expect our students to thrive in an atmosphere where they must fear for their lives and for their safety. In 1990, Congress passed the original Gun Free School Zones Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. As many of my colleagues know, a sharply divided Supreme Court has invalidated that bill, saying that it exceeded congressional power. I personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, and signed an amicus brief supporting the law's validity. But that is not the issue before us today. Today, the issue is the safety of our children. This amendment ensures the constitutionality of the Gun Free School Zones Act by requiring the prosecutor to prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in, or affected, interstate commerce. That provision will place only a small burden on prosecutors and will ensure our power to keep America's schools safe. Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the law enforcement and education communities. It has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the American Association of School Administrators, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Is this legislation a panacea, Mr. President? Of course, not. However, it is a worthwhile effort to keep our children away from the dangers of guns and violence. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association likes to say that guns do not kill; people do. But the gun statistics I have seen belie their contentions. Firearms kill more teenagers than cancer, heart disease, AIDS, and natural diseases combined. Guns are now the leading cause of death for both white and black teenage boys. We need to fight back the wave of gun violence that is overtaking our streets and neighborhoods once and for all. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment and to help protect our children and our teachers from gun violence.

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 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 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. flexibility for telecommuting centers

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, to urge my colleagues to support this historic and important legislation. This bill would ensure that no American citizen is discriminated against in employment because of their sexual orientation. It's a simple, straightforward bill. And it stands for a fundamental American principle: the principle that discrimination of any kind is wrong. Mr. President, our Nation was founded over 200 years ago by people who had migrated to America largely to escape persecution. The earliest Americans often didn't fit in where they used to live. They were different. Maybe they belonged to a religious minority. Maybe they had different political ideas. Or maybe they were ostracized merely because of the way they looked. These earliest Americans left their homes, their communities, and their homelands to live in a new kind of nation. A nation that not only tolerated differences, but honored them. From the beginning, Mr. President, this respect for individual differences--perhaps more than anything else--is what has defined us as Americans. It lies at the heart of our culture. It's embedded in our Constitution. And, in the eyes of the world, it's what makes America the special place it is. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our Nation has not always lived up to our own highest principles. And it's often taken great battles to make sure that we do. It took almost 100 years and a civil war to eliminate slavery. It took another 100 years, and enormous social strife, to outlaw racial discrimination. And it took a long, difficult effort to win women the right to vote, and to prohibit sex discrimination. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the fight for equal rights for all Americans is not over. Today, it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay, lesbian, or even heterosexual--or merely for being perceived as such. This kind of discrimination affects hardworking Americans in all sorts of jobs, no matter how well they perform their duties. With hundreds of such cases documented, and many others undocumented, countless Americans fear losing their jobs to discrimination. Mr. President, today we have another opportunity to restore our commitment to American principles. But, this time, we can do it without the bloodshed and division of previous battles. Today we have an opportunity to extend the Civil Rights Act, and to say to each and every American, that you have a right to be treated as an individual in employment. You have a right to be judged on the quality of your work. A right to be judged on the basis of your performance. And sexual orientation is irrelevant. Mr. President, the right to be treated as an individual in employment is consistent with the great American tradition of individual liberties. And so it should not be surprising that it enjoys strong public support. Most Americans believe that people should not be denied a job, or a promotion, simply because of their sexual orientation. But discrimination against homosexual Americans remains a serious problem. Many employers just will not hire a gay or a lesbian. Or they will fire or fail to promote them once they have been hired. Sometimes, Mr. President, employment discrimination is based on raw and malicious bigotry--open hatred of people different than themselves. But often, the discrimination is more subtle. Often, employers don't hate gays. They're just uncomfortable with them. They're uneasy with the concept of homosexuality. And, so, all other things being equal, they'll choose to hire someone with whom they're more comfortable. Mr. President, from the perspective of an individual employer, that decision may seem entirely reasonable. But that's equally true of employers who are just uncomfortable with blacks. Or employers who are just uncomfortable with Jews. For those employers, we say: you may be uncomfortable with blacks or Jews. But you may not discriminate against them. Because it's wrong. It's wrong morally and ethically. And it's not fair. The same reasoning applies in the case of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mr. President, individual employers are not making these decisions in isolation. Millions of employers are making similar decisions. And together, they can create a systemic bias with serious consequences. In the case of homosexuals, this bias limits their opportunity to find meaningful employment. It limits their ability to make ends meet financially. It limits their ability to live full and satisfying lives, and to make meaningful contributions to society. Mr. President, that's not right. Every American should have the opportunity to live the American Dream. Every American. No matter their race. No matter their religion. And no matter their sexual orientation. Mr. President, as Senator Lieberman said on the floor last week, we are all God's children. Each and every one of us. And if we allow hate and discrimination against anyone, we damn our own loved ones. We shame ourselves. And we violate the fundmental principles upon which this great Nation was based. Mr. President, let me just close by recalling the words of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. President, let us live up to the principles of that Declaration. Let us be true to our values as Americans. And let us ensure that our own loved ones enjoy the respect and dignity that each and every American deserves. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I rise to salute one of New Jersey's finest enduring examples of public service. On September 10, 1996, the New Jersey Firemen's Mutual Benevolent Association will meet for the 100th time at its annual convention in Atlantic City. Since it was established on December 11, 1897, the New Jersey Fireman's Mutual Benevolent Association has had a tremendously positive impact on its members, their families and the general public. For the past century NJFMBA has conducted fire safety programs in our schools. They have worked tirelessly for burn victims through their fund raising efforts, and they have helped to establish state of the art burn centers in several New Jersey hospitals. Mr. President, the life of a firefighter is among the most demanding of professions. They answer every alarm and risk their lives to protect our communities. They hold the line against our most devastating natural enemy, uncontrolled fire. We live and work every day under the security and safety that firefighters provide. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and gratitude that I acknowledge the efforts, accomplishments and heroism of the 5,000 members of the New Jersey Fireman's Mutual Benefit Association.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me begin by commending both the chairman, Senator Bond, and the ranking minority member, Senator Mikulski, and their staffs, for their hard work on this legislation. With the inadequate allocation given this subcommittee, they have had to make very hard choices between the competing needs for environmental protection, housing, veterans, science, and NASA, not to mention the many other agencies covered by this bill. It's a very, very difficult job. Mr. President, as one with a strong interest in the environment, I am very pleased that the bill funds Superfund cleanup at the President's level, and exceeds the President's level for the State revolving loan funds, which are used to ensure that our water supply is clean. I also appreciate the chairman's support of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which studies the health threats posed by toxic waste sites and helps to prioritize Superfund cleanups. I also am pleased that this year we will avoid the debate on anti- environmental riders that have been pushed so hard in the past by many House Republicans. Mr. President, although we have made great progress on EPA funding overall, I do remain concerned about the inadequate funding of research into sediment decontamination technology. This work is critical to finding affordable and environmentally benign ways of dredging many harbors that are contaminated with deadly toxics sediments. I also am concerned that we are continuing to add duties to EPA without the accompanying resources. This budget does not provide the needed funding to implement Congress' demands for more and better risk- benefit analysis, more assistance to small business, and more consideration of stakeholders in the regulatory process. It does not provide the needed infrastructure to enhance EPA's scientific abilities. It also does not provide adequate funding to counter global warming, or for President Bush's initiative to improve the water quality of Boston Harbor. The President's budget provided $450 million for these various programs, money that is not in this bill. As the process moves forward, I want to work with the President to add these funds for this important allocations. Mr. President, led by Newt Gingrich and extremist Members of the House, this Congress has seen a massive assault on our environment. Last year, the House passed a bill to cut EPA by one-third. They have tried to tie the agency up in regulatory knots and red-tape. And they have invited polluters into the back rooms to weaken environmental standards. Mr. President, President Clinton has stood up to these extremists, and our environment will be much cleaner as a result. However, the war over the environment is not over. Senator Dole is proposing a budget scheme that calls for massive cuts in domestic programs. And that would mean deep reductions in environmental protection. Senator Dole also has pushed hard to undermine the ability of EPA and other agencies to protect public health and the environment. So, Mr. President, the real battle over the environment will be fought in this November's elections. Mr. President, let me now move beyond the environment to discuss the provisions in this bill that provide funding for housing, and for our Nation's cities. Mr. President, I am disappointed that these programs have again been targeted for disproportionate budget cuts. I represent a State with very severe housing needs, and several depressed urban areas. And it is of great concern to me that the Congress has not made these problems a higher priority. This bill funds HUD at $2 billion below the President's budget request and cuts spending for vital programs such as homeless assistance, the economic development initiative, and public housing modernization. These cuts will adversely affect many of our Nation's most economically vulnerable families. And that troubles me. Just as I know it troubles many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. So, Mr. President, I am concerned about many of the cuts in this bill for housing and community development. But I realize that the chairman and the ranking minority member have been dealt a terrible deck, and they've done their best in a bad situation. During last year's appropriations process, after Senate passage, additional funds were allocated for housing and environmental programs. I will work with the administration to restore these funds so that we may better address the severe housing needs of our Nation. I want to commend both Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for protecting several other important programs from funding cuts, including the Drug Elimination Program, CDBG, and HOME, each of which will continue to operate at current funding levels. Finally, I would like to thank the chairman for his generous funding of the low-income housing preservation program. This program will help to maintain the stock of affordable housing and potentially protect thousands of families from losing their homes. So, Mr. President, as a member of the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, I will vote for this bill. It is not perfect legislation. But it is a significant improvement over some of the related legislation we've seen in the recent past. the neighborhood networks program

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished managers of the bill. Mr. President, the Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology [CMMI], located in Newark, NJ, has been a leader in developing life saving treatment for cancers that plague our Nation's veteran population. In particular, CMMI is conducting research into radioimmunodetection and radio- immunotherapy, a new technology that uses radioisotopes and monochlonal antibodies to target tumors often too small for detection with traditional equipment and delivers cancer fighting therapy to targeted muscle tissue and organs with virtually no side effects. This has the potential to be very helpful to treating our Nation's veterans, many of whom suffer from cancer. Mr. President, the House report on the fiscal year 1997 VA-HUD appropriations bill included language that encourages the Veterans' Administration to enter into a partnership with nonprofit research centers to expand these research efforts. The Senate report does not include such language. Does the Senator support the intent of the House language?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Being a bulldog is not necessarily the kind of pet you want around the house, but it is not bad when it comes to a battle. Mr. President, I rise to express my satisfaction with the conference report and hope that our colleagues will support it. The final bill will enhance both the quality of our drinking water and America's confidence in its safety. Americans are concerned about the quality of their drinking water. The sale of bottled water and water filters is skyrocketing. Fewer people believe that the water out of their taps is clean and safe. Their fears are not illusionary. Look at Milwaukee or Philadelphia. Washington, the Nation's Capital has repeatedly had to tell residents to boil their water. Something had to be done. I believe the bill we crafted will enhance both quality and confidence. This was not an easy conference, as I am sure my colleagues will agree. Both bills resulted, from a set of delicate compromises, the House bill and the Senate bill. Any changes could raise significant opposition. I am happy the conferees were able to hammer out a draft which I believe is superior to either of the individual versions of the Senate or the House. I will elaborate on a few of the provisions. Unlike the Senate bill, the House version would have weakened the rights of citizens to sue for violations of the water standard, even when the suits were needed to ensure public safety. The House bill also failed to give States the flexibility to transfer money from the sewage treatment loan revolving fund to the drinking water fund and vice versa. This could delay high priority projects and would prove to be wasteful. I am glad the Senate version prevailed on that issue, protecting the rights of the citizens and giving flexibility to the States. At the same time, there is much in the House bill that is, in my view, superior to the Senate version. For example, I fully support the Boxer right-to-know amendment. As the author of a similar law that provides information about toxic releases, I think this kind of legislation is critical. Unfortunately, the amendment was not approved by the Senate, but the conference agreement includes provisions for a right-to-know law. Mr. President, letting people know what is in their water supply is not just common sense, it is common decency. The right-to-know provision provides consumers with information on contaminants that have been detected in their water, even if the levels do not violate EPA or State standards. Since all water includes some contaminants, the conference language also provides for information on the specific impact of those contaminants. I am disappointed, however, that these provisions fail to provide similar requirements for bottled water. Many consumers buy bottled water because they think it is cleaner than tap water. They have a right to know if that is true, and which pollutants, if any, remain in the bottles. Several years ago, Mr. President, the FDA published regulations to require the bottled water industry to regularly monitor its products for contaminants. The industry fought these provisions and the FDA relented. That concerned me. A study by the State of Kansas showed 15 percent of the bottled water tested had cancer-causing contaminants at higher levels than allowed by EPA. I am disappointed the conference report was watered down in this area. At least it does provide for a Federal Food and Drug Administration study on the feasibility of such a requirement. I expect the FDA will find it feasible to require the bottled water industry to provide the same information which we are requiring of suppliers of tap water to communities of 500 or above. After all, if that provision is not too burdensome for public water providers, it cannot be too burdensome for the bottled water industry. However, if the FDA does not appreciate the importance of providing this information to the public, I will not hesitate to bring up legislation to bring bottled water under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I also urge consumer groups to conduct tests on some bottled water sold in their areas and to prepare consumer confidence reports for the general public. This, at least, will educate consumers until proper provisions and safeguards are in place. In addition to water quality, the controversial part of the legislation dealt with radon. I am pleased the conference came out with a provision that will help lower the risk from radon exposure to a greater degree than either the House or the Senate bill would have. Mr. President, radon is a naturally occurring radioactive contaminant that causes lung cancer by inhalation. In New Jersey, radon exposure is believed to cause more lung cancer, more than any other environmental cause. That is why I sponsored the Indoor Radon Abatement Act in 1988. The conference report builds on that act by allowing States to implement programs that will decrease radon in the air, as an alternative to meeting the standard for radon in drinking water. A State can choose this option only if the proposed indoor air program provides greater public health benefits in complying with the drinking water standard. Since radon is dangerous only when inhaled, this measure would significantly enhance efforts to reduce this deadly contaminant. Last, Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Drinking Water, Fisheries and Wildlife Subcommittee, Senator Kempthorne, the ranking Democrat, Senator Baucus, in the committee and Senator Reid in the subcommittee. I also want to express my thanks to the staff for their hard work, Jimmy Powell, Jo- Ellen Darcy, Michael Evans from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and W.H. Fawcett, representing Senator Kempthorne. In particular, I congratulate my staff person, Scott Slesinger, for his hard and diligent work. He made it possible for me to stay totally informed as to what was going on and to make sure that our views were included in any of the comments that we finally sought. Without his time and effort, this would have been a much more difficult assignment for me. I am happy we have the bill we have.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that an excellent article about welfare, ``The Quality of Mercy'', by James McQueeny, be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I had the good fortunate of benefiting from Jim McQueeny's competence and compassion when he served as my press secretary several years ago. These same qualities are evident in his article, which is an eloquent statement about what it means to be on welfare, and what the welfare reform bill will mean for real people. I urge all my colleagues to read the article. The article follows: [From the New Jersey Monthly, July 1995] The Quality of Mercy--Many New Jerseyans Believe That Welfare Is a Waste. One Man--Now a Successful Executive--Who's Lived on It Disagrees (By James McQueeny) I'm not a member of any obvious minority group (being the son of an Irish immigrant no longer counts), although these days I might qualify as out of the mainstream because I am a Democrat. My views on welfare seem to place me even more squarely in the minority. And I am very concerned about what we as a society are saying and doing about that issue. We in New Jersey, the second richest state in the nation, are in the best position possible to do something about poverty and welfare reform, yet we're going about it with the worst possible attitude. The very success of New Jersey's post-war suburbanization has fueled what some pollsters call the Drawbridge Mentality--the mindset of people who find their castle and pull up the drawbridge on everybody and everything else. And who in suburbia actually lives near someone in poverty or on welfare? C'mon, I mean really knows them. By face. By name. I do. I was one of them. So I've always been aware of poverty slights, and they're on the increase. I've cringed at a ``progressive'' suggestion by a prominent New Jersey business leader who told me he wants to help the poor ``get off their asses.'' As if these people wake up every morning looking for ways to make themselves poorer. Or the Democratic politician who was trying to rationalize reforming welfare by not extending benefits to additional children of welfare mothers. As if the child had a choice of mother and neighborhood. As someone who has lived at the extreme ends of the economic spectrum in New Jersey, I know firsthand the frightening reality of life in poverty. I grew up on welfare, in a well-off town in Bergen County, one of the wealthiest counties in the state. I worked my way up through the ranks of New Jersey's largest newspaper, covering every county and the statehouse in Trenton, and eventually I became the paper's Washington bureau chief. Later, I was a television reporter for New Jersey Network, and I was the spokesman for one of our United States senators. I am now the president and an owner of a multimillion dollar company. I point this out only to emphasize that I cobbled together a professional life after starting out poor--and on welfare-- in New Jersey. And now, a day hardly goes by without a personal incident or a public headline reminding me how we're making it harder in New Jersey for the disadvantaged to follow a similar path of opportunity. And that upsets me. Several months ago, I was at Menlo Park Mall conducting voter interviews with a camera team for a weekly political commentary I do for NJN. Person after person in these opulent surroundings railed against big government. The phrase ``welfare cheats'' was usually the caboose on their long trains of lament, mostly about the economy. As I stood before them, I reverted to a habit I've had since poverty. I looked at the shoes of the people I was talking to. Why? Probably because my four brothers and I thought good shoes were the province of ``rich people.'' Our ``school shoes'' were worn only to school and Mass, and they had to last until they literally disintegrated on our feet. I can still recall going into town to a business that had an industrial staple gun, so I could either secure the flapping soles or repatch the holes with wads of oilcloth stapled from the inside so no one would notice. Instinctively, my gaze fell upon the shoes of the people complaining about things being so bad economically in New Jersey. Without exception, they were wearing designer shoes-- those kinds of sneakers that salespeople bring to you so delicately you'd think they were explosives, or those spiffy Rockport walking shoes. I was so amazed by those walking shoes that I was compelled to go into a shoe store and price them. One hundred and twenty dollars! On sale! With those kinds of shoes on their feet, they're feeling that much anger? I thought. And about the economy? They're not complaining about what they don't have. They're complaining that they don't have enough. Has poverty become so trivialized that the New Downtrodden are those who can't afford Rockports? Unfortunately, it looks like it. I only wish that some of these people could have learned the lessons of poverty the way I did--through experience. Like the time I couldn't tell my teacher I didn't have $1.50 for a science magazine subscription because I'd be revealing that I was on welfare in a rich town. Instead, I always said I forgot the money. He marked me up as a wise-guy deportment case, which helped drive my grades down. Some teachers ridiculed my scraggly shoes in front of classmates, unthinkingly viewing them as an issue of cleanliness rather than pennilessness. On one free field trip (I stayed behind in study hall for the paid ones), I borrowed a camera from a classmate on the bus to take a picture of some mundane highway bridge that crossed the Passaic River, about ten miles from home. They all had a riotous laugh when they found out I'd never been this far from home because we never had a car. And, yes, we were forced to ``cheat'' on welfare, too. The ``welfare lady'' visited the house at pre-arranged times to make sure we weren't buying things that would indicate alternative incomes of some kind. That would be cheating the taxpayer. I had to hide any evidence of the prosperity I was enjoying form my paper route--even the household essentials we bought with the money I earned. My brothers' bikes, bought second-hand, had to be hidden before the visits. What got us into this predicament? My father lost his job. Does it become a more acceptable welfare story when I say it was because he contracted terminal lung cancer and took six years to die? As opposed to being a victim of economic cancer? I won't insult victims of poverty or families on welfare by fully equating my time on welfare, or being poor and white in suburbia in the sixties, with the problems they are facing now. The problems now are worse, meaner. And bleaker. From my experience, and in discussions with people who lived or live in similar circumstances, there is one profound misunderstanding that policymakers and the public have about poverty: You do not choose it; by and large, it chooses you. The Democratic party meant to do well when it stitched together the welfare safety net during the Depression. And welfare worked well enough for a while. But as time passed, we didn't have the political common sense to stop sewing when it wasn't working well enough. We do need to come up with something else. But the latest plan being bandied about, the Contract With America welfare-reform proposal, really boils down to turning the program back to the states with guidelines about cutting off benefits to the needy tomorrow, while declaring victory today. The reason that this reform plan won't work is that you can cut spending all you want, but the same mothers and children will have the same food and sheltering needs at roughly the same cost come the end of the day--no matter how you cook the books or serve the baloney. And, yes, there will always be some lumpen layabouts or drug-fried fools who will rip off the system for dollars at the margins, get all the headlines, and jump-start another sorry cycle of retribution against the truly poor and needy. Part of the problem is that Congress, and state legislatures, are overstocked with affluent lawyers, professionals, and full-time politicians who are more than able and willing to impart their professional experiences on tort reform, health care, or the next day's news cycle. I know it's not fair, but I've seen what these politicians drive to work and leave in the parking lots outside the Congress and the state capital. Nobody's holding the mufflers of those cars together with hanger wire, I can assure you. All of this seems so fresh, so important to me, because I know that welfare made it possible for me to go as far as I have. I still have my family's welfare application, signed by both my parents, for my sons to see. I tell them to remember it's nothing to be ashamed about. To the contrary, it was a safety net that scooped up seven people from our family, and the investment in us let us re-invest our lives--and our taxes--in America. The shame would come from not extending our hands to someone else. But the real shame is that that could become a minority view in a state like New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the increase in the minimum wage. Mr. President, 5 years is a long time to go without a raise. Senators and Representatives do not go that long. Nor do corporate executives, or even most average working people. And neither should those who earn the minimum wage. Mr. President, the increase in the minimum wage that we will pass today will be the first raise in 5 years for close to 12 million American workers. It's about time. Mr. President, there's a lot of mythology about just who these minimum wage workers are. Contrary to those prevailing myths, Mr. President, most minimum wage workers are not rich suburban teenagers who take a job for extra spending money. The fact is--two-thirds of minimum wage workers are adults; 58 percent are women; 40 percent are the sole breadwinners for their families; and of the 25 percent that are teenagers, over half come from families with below-average income. Mr. President, fundamental fairness dictates that a person who gets up every day, goes to work, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, should earn a living wage. And yet, a minimum wage worker who works 40-hours per week, every single week of the year, doesn't even earn enough to reach the poverty line. That's wrong. And we have an obligation to do something about it. Mr. President, the minimum wage increase in this bill will lift 300,000 American families out of poverty. And that includes 100,000 children. Mr. President, an increase in the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour means an increase in income of $1,800 per year for about 10 million workers. That's enough to pay for 7 months of groceries, or 4 months of rent, or even 1 year of tuition at a 2-year college. It's tremendously important for millions of American families. In my home State of New Jersey, the minimum wage is currently $5.05 an hour, above the national minimum, and only 10 cents below this new minimum of $5.15. In my State, this wage increase will amount to $4 per week for a minimum wage worker. You might think that a 10-cent-an-hour raise wouldn't be a big deal. Well, you would be wrong. In communities and families all over New Jersey, and around this country, even such a small increase in income could mean the difference between caring for children, and having them go hungry. Four dollars buys 2 more gallons of milk, or 2 more loaves of bread, or 8 more boxes of spaghetti. To millions of American families, even just a few dollars more per week is a lot of money. Mr. President, people who work hard and play by the rules should be able to provide for themselves, and their families. The best way to encourage and honor the work ethic so important to our economic future is to ensure that even those at the bottom earn a living wage. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support working Americans and to support this bill. It's the right thing to do. And it's long overdue.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the Superfund taxes, which have been in place since 1980. Mr. President, the Superfund program provides for cleaning-up those toxic waste sites that pose the most serious threats to our environment and to our health. The program is largely funded by a chemical and oil feedstock tax and by taxes on corporate environmental entities, such as petrochemical companies. Mr. President, few of us may be aware of the fact that these taxes expired in December of 1995. Since that time, not one single penny has been assessed to replenish the Superfund, and so protect our ability to cleanup toxic sites in the future. The failure to extend the Superfund tax is causing us to lose $4 million dollars a day. That is $4 million a day which could be used to expedite the cleanup at existing Superfund sites, or fund the revitalization of additional sites. It has been argued that we have sufficient monies in the Superfund trust fund to carry us for the next few years, although there is disagreement concerning how long the money will last. However, Superfund monies are used for long-term construction projects. By utilizing these funds for other purposes, we squander our ability to do long range planning and to continue cleanups without interruption. Mr. President, as someone who spent most of my life as a businessman, I recognize the importance of long term planning. And I understand the real costs associated with stopping and restarting a project; it is never efficient or cost effective. Mr. President, I and the citizens of New Jersey, lived through the funding crisis of 1984-1985. The subsequent disruption of cleanups caused unnecessary hardships for the citizens of my state. I don't want to go through that again. We need to ensure that we have sufficient financial resources to plan for, contract and continue Superfund cleanups without interruption. After all, we owe it to our children to do whatever is possible to preserve the environment, to protect the public health and to provide for the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Aviation Security Act [ASA]. This legislation is designed to significantly enhance security measures at U.S. airports, to better protect those who fly. Mr. President, I join with all Americans in expressing my sorrow at the loss of 230 innocent lives in the crash of TWA flight 800. My sympathy and prayers are with the victims' families and friends as they struggle to cope with this tragedy. At this time, the sea has not yielded its secrets, and we do not have conclusive evidence of why the jet crashed. However, terrorism appears to be the likely cause of the disaster. Whether or not the cause of the crash was a bomb, this disaster has focused national attention on the fact that America's shores are not immune from terrorism. And this is a threat which I fear will only increase in scope and sophistication over the next few years. Terrorism is an act of war, not against any specific individual, but against our entire nation. Consequently, protecting ourselves from this scourge is a matter of national security, and we must act accordingly. We must treat this threat as seriously as any declared war. And we need to adopt measures--and attitudes--to aggressively combat this twentieth century plague. Mr. President, living in a free society, there is only so much we can do to protect every public building, park and gathering place. However, terrorists usually target a nation where it's most vulnerable. And perhaps nowhere are we more vulnerable than in our air security system. Mr. President, after the past few agonizing days, it's all too apparent that we must significantly upgrade security measures at U.S. airports. Although it may be impossible to stop every terrorist who is determined to bomb an airline, security can be significantly enhanced to better protect those who fly. And it must be continually improved as threats and technology change. The 1.5 million people who daily board flights at American airports undergo security measures which were designed decades ago to stop highjackers with metal guns and knives. These measures are inadequate when dealing with terrorists with Semtex and other plastic explosives. Such explosives are so dangerous that less than 2 pounds can shred a jumbo jet into a pile of scrap metal. The problem of inadequate protection stems from many causes. In most other countries, government is responsible for air security. In the United States, the Government, the airlines and the airports share responsibility. The highly competitive airlines, many of which are experiencing financial difficulties, face an inevitable and difficult conflict of interest. Although the Federal Aviation Administration issues minimum security standards, individual airlines and airports are responsible for implementing them. There are also multiple loopholes in the present security system. On U.S. domestic flights, bags and passengers are not even required to travel together. And there are many other points of vulnerability, including cargo and mail. It is true that our safety procedures were upgraded after the Lockerbie disaster. As a member of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism, I helped draft the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. Among its 38 provisions were requirements that the FAA accelerate explosives detection research and heighten security checks on airport personnel. Additionally, on July 25, the President announced new air travel security measures. These improvements, which include increased searches of carry-on luggage and required pre-flight cargo and cabin inspections, will certainly enhance security. However, they do not go far enough. Over the past few weeks, I have been briefed by some of our nation's best experts in the field of aviation safety. They are concerned that terrorists are outstripping our current procedures, and are breaking through America's cordon of safety. We can do better; we must do better. It will require leadership and decisiveness. This Senator believes that we must institute a truly comprehensive security system. In order to achieve this, we must do at least three things. We must adequately invest in security technology in proportion to the increasing threat of terrorism. We must ensure that the airlines enforce necessary security measures at the gate. And we must make sure that our security personnel are adequately trained and perform well. To begin the debate on these matters, I am introducing the Aviation Security Act (ASA). This legislation effectively addresses the problems which have become apparent recently, by charging the Department of Transportation with implementing a comprehensive aviation security system. To enhance security before travelers reach the airport, and once they are at the gate, my bill mandates increased screening of passengers, luggage, and cargo. It also requires that the Department of Transportation review and upgrade the current procedures for examining cargo on passenger flight. To identify passengers and cargo that pose a heightened risk--in other words, to stop the bad guys before they board or get a package on board--this legislation requries the Department of Transportation to develop a methodology to profile passengers and cargo. It also requires that air carriers implement this methodology and institute contingency plans for dealing with individuals identified as potential threats. For those individuals and cargo that pose the greatest threat, airports and airlines would be required to develop and utilize additional measures, including bag-match, personal interview, and enhanced bag search. To complement the additional profiling and security measures, my legislation also mandates expedited installation of explosive detection devices at those airports which the Department of Transportation identifies as facing the greatest risk. These devices will include density evaluators, scanners, trace and vapor detectors. Mr. President, the importance of installing these detection systems, as soon as possible, cannot be overemphasized. The latest luggage scanners, which can detect the most elusive plastic explosives, are now not generally used in U.S. airports. The most advanced scanning machine, the CTX-5000, works like a CAT Scan, providing a three dimensional image. There are 14 in use in Europe and Israel, and two are being installed in Manila. In our country, they are currently being tested in only Atlanta, which has two, and San Francisco. Another device, the EGIS machine, uses air samples from passengers' luggage to check for vapors emitted by explosives. Various overseas airports utilize the machine, but it's being used on only a limited basis in the United States. This, and other technologies, which can detect liquid explosives and trace chemicals, need to be further developed and deployed. Just as important as any new machine or measure is hiring well trained security people. Most airlines, to save money, contract with security companies for low-wage workers with minimal education and little experience. Training is cursory and turnover is high. Yet, this person may be the last line of defense between a plane full of innocent people and a suicide bomber. By contrast, European security personnel are usually highly trained, educated, speak several languages and have taken courses in psychology. This legislation requires that airport personnel who have security duties or who have access to any secure area must meet stringent requirements for training, job performance and security checks. In conjunction with training, performance measures will be developed to assess how well security personnel are doing their jobs. Also, comprehensive investigations, including criminal history checks, will be required of all personnel in this category. The importance of the human factor in improving security is probably best evidenced by the case of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. Yousef is currently on trial in New York for his alleged role in the 1994 bombing of the World Trade Center. Less well known are the details of a plot to join two other men in blowing up a dozen U.S. jumbo jets in 1995. In a 2-day reign of terror, Yousef and his compatriots planned to bomb 12 planes, with over 4,000 people on board. The motive was to provoke an end to United States support of Israel. The heart of each bomb was a timer built by rewiring a common Casio digital watch. The timer would then be connected to a liquid nitroglycerin, disguised as contact lens solution. Even the newest screening devices would have extreme difficulty detecting the substance. Only human vigilance may have been able to stop these murderers if they had reached the airport gate. Luckily, the plot was discovered by police in the Philippines before the night's sky was set ablaze. In addition to security, what became painfully obvious this week is that procedures to notify and counsel the families of airline disaster victims are totally inadequate. Compassion dictates that we need to adopt more efficient and humane procedures. This legislation establishes, perhaps within the National Transportation Safety Board, the Office of Family Advocate. In consultation with the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, experts in psychology and representatives of victims' families, this Office will develop standards for informing, counseling and supporting grieving families. Providing this assistance is not just common sense, it's common decency. Additionally, this legislation requires that information, such as full name, phone numbers and contact person, be collected when a passenger purchases a ticket. This information would be provided to the Office of Family Advocate within a specified time period after an air disaster. Mr. President, a comprehensive security system will be expensive. The FAA has estimated that it could cost up to $6 billion over the next 10 years, to pay for security improvements. We need to decide how to pay the bill--and we need to remember that this legislation is not about spending dollars, it is about saving lives. ASA proposes that an aviation security fee, or small surcharge of no more than $2 per one way ticket or $4 per round trip ticket, be instituted to pay for needed improvements. I would note that recent polls suggest that Americans are willing to pay as much as an extra $50 per ticket to upgrade security. An alternative financing mechanism would be to authorize the Department of Defense to transfer such funds as may be necessary to implement the provisions of the Act. In drawing on defense funds, we would recognize that terrorism is a threat to our national security. Mr. President, a truly comprehensive system should be put in place as soon as possible. Although not a panacea for every airport security problem, it can provide significant protection for travelers. Of course, to truly enhance security, there is another price we all must pay. We must be willing to submit to some delay, inconvenience and intrusion when traveling by air. In London, travelers are patted down. And in many Arab airports, passengers must negotiate fourteen checkpoints before boarding. Anyone who flies coach on El Al, the Israeli national airline, is required to report to the airport 3 hours ahead of a scheduled flight. The FAA is working on how to minimize disruption while enhancing security. But we must be willing to make some trade-offs, giving up easy and quick experiences on the ground, for added security in the air. Finally, it would be inappropriate for me to close without discussing the issue of terrorism. As a Nation, we need to better address the overall problem. We need to clamp down on domestic fundraising for Middle East Terrorist organizations. Press reports indicate that approximately $10 million is being sent annually by Americans to the terrorist group Hamas. We also need to encourage our allies in the Middle East to fight terrorist organizations in the region. And we must work with the international community to target the economies of countries that sponsor terrorism. We also cannot rule out the use of force, where necessary. If the crash of TWA flight 800 was the work of terrorists, then they may think that they have won the battle--but they certainly haven't won the war. We can fight back. But even if this tragedy was not the result of an evil act, but an unfortunate accident, we should not delay upgrading our security systems. We need to change the way this country approaches security. We need to be more proactive, anticipating and pre-empting changes in terrorist methods, rather than being reactive--always waiting for something to happen before we act. To those who would try to deny the seriousness of the threat, and the intensity of anti-American feelings in many parts of the world, I want to again recall Ramzi Yousef's legacy of hatred. When questioned by a Pakistani interrogator as to his real motive, Yousef remarked, ``This is * * * the best thing, I enjoy it.'' He went on to explain that the United States is the first country in the world making trouble for the Muslim people. Consequently, he was willing to send 4,000 innocent people to their deaths. Many of the scenes which have flickered across our T.V. screens over the past 2 weeks can never be forgotten. But there is one moment, in particular, which will always remain with me. A husband and father, who had lost his wife and two daughters in the disaster, hired a helicopter to fly over the crash site, which I had visited last weekend. Once there, he tossed two red roses on the water for his wife, and three white rosebuds for his little girls. And as I watched the news footage which showed the flowers slowly drifting in all directions, I thought of everything which the sea now held--the future lives of those taken too soon, and the past memories of those left behind. I can think of no better memorial to those who died, and to those who were left behind to carry on, than to work to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again. For the living, and in memory of the deceased, we must act now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus and Reid, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1996. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup and reuse of thousands of lightly contaminated and abandoned properties across the country. Mr. President, I have long been interested in the issue of abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial properties, commonly known as brownfields. For years, decaying industrial plants have defined the skyline and contaminated the land in many of our urban, suburban, and rural areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of the manufacturers that left, taking jobs--and often hope--with them. Yet, in these fallow fields may lie the seeds of economic revitalization. I continue to feel, as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 1993, that a brownfields' cleanup program can spur significant economic development and create jobs. Such a cleanup initiative makes good environmental sense, and good business sense. In fact, if one picture is worth a thousand words, then we need only look at a few of the brownfields' success stories in my State of New Jersey. In Hackensack, the city's department of public works yard, and an adjacent oil tank farm, have been redeveloped as a Price Club discount store, complete with riverwalk and park area. The site is now estimated to be worth about $15 million dollars, and the project has created 350 jobs. Near Elizabeth, NJ, a withering brownfield has been converted into a thriving IKEA furniture store. The story is the same across the country, where unused, unattractive land is being transformed into valuable community assets. A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private investment, a $1 million increase in the local tax base, and more than 170 new jobs. And in Buffalo, NY, a hydroponic tomato farm was built on a former Republic Steel site, bringing 300 new jobs to the area. In fact, the potential for job creation is enormous. And every revitalized brownfield may represent a field of dreams to an unemployed worker. Mr. President, while fostering jobs, brownfields' cleanup also means that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment. The subsequent benefit to our--and our children's--health could be enormous. Furthermore, the scars of decades of neglected industrial waste, which disfigure our cities and suburbs, may finally be allowed to heal. Brownfield initiatives are important, because the Superfund Program only provides for cleaning-up those abandoned waste sites that pose the most serious threats. However, there are over 100,000 brownfields that don't fall under Superfund, because of lower levels of contamination. The risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low. But their full economic use is being stymied, because there's no ready mechanism for fostering and financing cleanups--even when the property owner is ready, willing and eager to do so. In addition, prospective purchasers, developers and bankers are reluctant to invest in brownfields because they could be held liable for cleaning up the contamination. This is unfortunate because, as I noted these abandoned or underutilized sites have enormous potential for economic development. To unleash this potential, several States--including New Jersey--have developed expedited procedures to clean-up sites that do not pose a significant threat to public health or the environment. Under these cleanup programs, owners can volunteer to pay for the costs of remediation and State oversight. In return, they get a letter from the State which assures prospective buyers and lenders that the property has been cleaned up to the Government's satisfaction, and that other parties need not worry about potential liability. This so-called clean bill of health removes a major impediment to economic development, and it can help revitalize stagnant local economies. In New Jersey, 550 parties signed up for the State's voluntary cleanup program in just the first 18 months of its existence. The economic benefits, in terms of jobs and economic development, are undeniable. But if we are to move forward, if we are to foster economic revitalization and economic renewal, if we are to continue this public- private partnership for progress, then we must remove all major roadblocks to brownfields' cleanup and reuse. My legislation addresses the major barriers preventing redevelopment of brownfields sites. This bill would provide financial assistance, in the form of grants, to local and State governments to evaluate brownfields sites. Consequently, interested parties would know what is 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 for cleanups. These funds could be lent to current owners, prospective purchasers, and municipalities. The minimal seed money envisioned by this program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, and turn lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future. This legislation would also place limits on the potential liability of innocent property buyers. So long as purchasers or landowners made reasonable inquires, they would be exempt from Superfund liability. The bill also limits the liability of banks and other lending institutions, which hold title merely as a result of their security interest in the property. As long as they did not participate in the management of the site, the institutions could not be held liable. My bill would make similar reforms in the area of fiduciary liability, and would limit the liability for those who merely act as trustees or executors. Cleaning up brownfields means a safer environment in the future, and more jobs for places that need them in the present. Mr. President, the introduction of this bill is not a substitute for a Superfund bill. Throughout this session of Congress, Senators Baucus, Smith, Chafee, and I have worked long and hard to try and craft a Superfund bill which we could all agree on and the President could sign into law. However, I am forced to acknowledge that the calendar is against us at this point. Consequently, I think it is important to use the time remaining to focus on one of the areas where there is general consensus--the desire to facilitate the cleanup and development of blighted areas, and to provide the legislative framework to make this possible. Interest in fostering the cleanup of brownfields has been bipartisan, and it exists in both in our own body and among our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. It also has the strong backing of the EPA, and I want to thank Director Carol Browner for her support. Moreover, this bill is largely based on S. 773, which was unanimously reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 103d Congress, and on the lender, prospective purchaser and innocent landowner provisions in S. 1285 and S. 1834, that was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee last Congress. Mr. President, as ranking Democratic member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am committed to continuing the quest to reform the Superfund program. But I believe that we should move ahead, now, to cleanup thousands of priority sites not governed by the Superfund. This is an area where we can--and should--put aside our differences and work for a goal which we all embrace. Mr. President, our citizens want progress on both the environmental and economic fronts. The Brownfields legislation that I introduce today supports both goals. It creates a vehicle for cleanups which can help keep us on-board for environmental improvement and on-track for economic growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the bill in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the Superfund taxes, which have been in place since 1980. Mr. President, the Superfund program provides for cleaning-up those toxic waste sites that pose the most serious threats to our environment and to our health. The program is largely funded by a chemical and oil feedstock tax and by taxes on corporate environmental entities, such as petrochemical companies. Mr. President, few of us may be aware of the fact that these taxes expired in December of 1995. Since that time, not one single penny has been assessed to replenish the Superfund, and so protect our ability to cleanup toxic sites in the future. The failure to extend the Superfund tax is causing us to lose $4 million dollars a day. That is $4 million a day which could be used to expedite the cleanup at existing Superfund sites, or fund the revitalization of additional sites. It has been argued that we have sufficient monies in the Superfund trust fund to carry us for the next few years, although there is disagreement concerning how long the money will last. However, Superfund monies are used for long-term construction projects. By utilizing these funds for other purposes, we squander our ability to do long range planning and to continue cleanups without interruption. Mr. President, as someone who spent most of my life as a businessman, I recognize the importance of long term planning. And I understand the real costs associated with stopping and restarting a project; it is never efficient or cost effective. Mr. President, I and the citizens of New Jersey, lived through the funding crisis of 1984-1985. The subsequent disruption of cleanups caused unnecessary hardships for the citizens of my state. I don't want to go through that again. We need to ensure that we have sufficient financial resources to plan for, contract and continue Superfund cleanups without interruption. After all, we owe it to our children to do whatever is possible to preserve the environment, to protect the public health and to provide for the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this conference report. This is a good first step in trying to provide affordable health care coverage to all Americans. This bill will ensure that people who move from job to job will be able to keep their health insurance, even if they have a pre-existing condition. It also will give the same protection to people who lose their jobs and must get health insurance on their own. This bill also provides some tax incentives for families to better afford health care. The legislation increases the health insurance deduction for self-employed individuals from 30 percent to 80 percent, bringing health care coverage within reach of many more Americans. This bill also expands the tax deduction for nursing home and long term care coverage. This will help families better cope with the staggering costs of nursing home coverage for their loved ones. In some facilities, a year in a nursing home can cost over $30,000. This bill also includes an experiment in Medical Savings Accounts (MSA's). The Senate originally rejected the concept of MSA's by a bi- partisan vote. But the House Republicans insisted on a full blown implementation MSA's even though we have never even evaluated the efficacy of such health policies. Fortunately, this conference report only includes a limited demonstration of MSA's. This makes sense because this concept is untested. I am concerned that MSA's could drain the young, healthy and wealthy out of the traditional insurance system. This could leave old and sick people to cope with escalating insurance premiums, making it even tougher to afford health insurance. Therefore, I am pleased that this is only a time limited experiment. Mr. President, unfortunately, this bill does not include the so- called mental health parity amendment authored by the Senators Domenici and Wellstone. This amendment passed overwhelmingly in the Senate but was completely dropped in conference. I hope that some day this amendment will become law so that we can do away with insurance policies that provide more coverage for physical illnesses than for mental illnesses. Families with members who have mental illnesses deserve this much. Mr. President, while this bill makes improvements in our health care system, we must remember that this is only a first step. We have much more work to do in the next Congress to move toward providing health care coverage for all Americans. This should continue to be our goal. Tragically, there are now 41 million Americans who do not have health insurance, up from 37 million in 1993. For the most part, these are working Americans. Eighty-four percent of the uninsured work, but they do not get health insurance at their jobs. We must do something to rectify this. We must continue to enact legislation so that one day no family is without health security. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Baucus and Reid, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1996. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup and reuse of thousands of lightly contaminated and abandoned properties across the country. Mr. President, I have long been interested in the issue of abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial properties, commonly known as brownfields. For years, decaying industrial plants have defined the skyline and contaminated the land in many of our urban, suburban, and rural areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of the manufacturers that left, taking jobs--and often hope--with them. Yet, in these fallow fields may lie the seeds of economic revitalization. I continue to feel, as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 1993, that a brownfields' cleanup program can spur significant economic development and create jobs. Such a cleanup initiative makes good environmental sense, and good business sense. In fact, if one picture is worth a thousand words, then we need only look at a few of the brownfields' success stories in my State of New Jersey. In Hackensack, the city's department of public works yard, and an adjacent oil tank farm, have been redeveloped as a Price Club discount store, complete with riverwalk and park area. The site is now estimated to be worth about $15 million dollars, and the project has created 350 jobs. Near Elizabeth, NJ, a withering brownfield has been converted into a thriving IKEA furniture store. The story is the same across the country, where unused, unattractive land is being transformed into valuable community assets. A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private investment, a $1 million increase in the local tax base, and more than 170 new jobs. And in Buffalo, NY, a hydroponic tomato farm was built on a former Republic Steel site, bringing 300 new jobs to the area. In fact, the potential for job creation is enormous. And every revitalized brownfield may represent a field of dreams to an unemployed worker. Mr. President, while fostering jobs, brownfields' cleanup also means that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment. The subsequent benefit to our--and our children's--health could be enormous. Furthermore, the scars of decades of neglected industrial waste, which disfigure our cities and suburbs, may finally be allowed to heal. Brownfield initiatives are important, because the Superfund Program only provides for cleaning-up those abandoned waste sites that pose the most serious threats. However, there are over 100,000 brownfields that don't fall under Superfund, because of lower levels of contamination. The risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low. But their full economic use is being stymied, because there's no ready mechanism for fostering and financing cleanups--even when the property owner is ready, willing and eager to do so. In addition, prospective purchasers, developers and bankers are reluctant to invest in brownfields because they could be held liable for cleaning up the contamination. This is unfortunate because, as I noted these abandoned or underutilized sites have enormous potential for economic development. To unleash this potential, several States--including New Jersey--have developed expedited procedures to clean-up sites that do not pose a significant threat to public health or the environment. Under these cleanup programs, owners can volunteer to pay for the costs of remediation and State oversight. In return, they get a letter from the State which assures prospective buyers and lenders that the property has been cleaned up to the Government's satisfaction, and that other parties need not worry about potential liability. This so-called clean bill of health removes a major impediment to economic development, and it can help revitalize stagnant local economies. In New Jersey, 550 parties signed up for the State's voluntary cleanup program in just the first 18 months of its existence. The economic benefits, in terms of jobs and economic development, are undeniable. But if we are to move forward, if we are to foster economic revitalization and economic renewal, if we are to continue this public- private partnership for progress, then we must remove all major roadblocks to brownfields' cleanup and reuse. My legislation addresses the major barriers preventing redevelopment of brownfields sites. This bill would provide financial assistance, in the form of grants, to local and State governments to evaluate brownfields sites. Consequently, interested parties would know what is 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 for cleanups. These funds could be lent to current owners, prospective purchasers, and municipalities. The minimal seed money envisioned by this program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, and turn lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future. This legislation would also place limits on the potential liability of innocent property buyers. So long as purchasers or landowners made reasonable inquires, they would be exempt from Superfund liability. The bill also limits the liability of banks and other lending institutions, which hold title merely as a result of their security interest in the property. As long as they did not participate in the management of the site, the institutions could not be held liable. My bill would make similar reforms in the area of fiduciary liability, and would limit the liability for those who merely act as trustees or executors. Cleaning up brownfields means a safer environment in the future, and more jobs for places that need them in the present. Mr. President, the introduction of this bill is not a substitute for a Superfund bill. Throughout this session of Congress, Senators Baucus, Smith, Chafee, and I have worked long and hard to try and craft a Superfund bill which we could all agree on and the President could sign into law. However, I am forced to acknowledge that the calendar is against us at this point. Consequently, I think it is important to use the time remaining to focus on one of the areas where there is general consensus--the desire to facilitate the cleanup and development of blighted areas, and to provide the legislative framework to make this possible. Interest in fostering the cleanup of brownfields has been bipartisan, and it exists in both in our own body and among our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. It also has the strong backing of the EPA, and I want to thank Director Carol Browner for her support. Moreover, this bill is largely based on S. 773, which was unanimously reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee in the 103d Congress, and on the lender, prospective purchaser and innocent landowner provisions in S. 1285 and S. 1834, that was reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee last Congress. Mr. President, as ranking Democratic member of the Superfund Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am committed to continuing the quest to reform the Superfund program. But I believe that we should move ahead, now, to cleanup thousands of priority sites not governed by the Superfund. This is an area where we can--and should--put aside our differences and work for a goal which we all embrace. Mr. President, our citizens want progress on both the environmental and economic fronts. The Brownfields legislation that I introduce today supports both goals. It creates a vehicle for cleanups which can help keep us on-board for environmental improvement and on-track for economic growth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of the bill in the Record.