Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I regret that I was not here at the time this debate began because we are now engaged in a discussion about what it is that is holding up the progress of the U.S. Senate on behalf of the American people. We have a most extraordinary situation here in the Senate. I think it is important the public understand what has happened. The public is being victimized by procedural gridlock that is going to cost thousands of people across this country an opportunity to have their cases heard, to see justice dispensed, and fairness dealt with. Last night, the U.S. Senate was thrown into gridlock once again, although an agreement had been reached between the respective leaders to move forward with several important judicial nominations. That agreement was undermined at the last minute when one Member of this body objected unexpectedly, and much contrary to the rules and protocol here--courtesy, if you will--when the minority leader, the Democratic leader, asked the Senator what was her objection, she turned on her heel and walked out. I have never seen that in the 14 years I have been in the U.S. Senate. Usually, there is a courtesy that says, ``Well, I object for the following reasons,'' and that makes sense. That is the way this body operates. Now the basis of the objection has become clear. It is truly remarkable. The Senate is being held hostage and so is the American public for one reason, and one reason only: So that we do not take away guns from wife beaters and child abusers. We want to make sure they can get their gun if they want it. That is why some 2,000-plus women a year get killed by men who have already beat them up, have been hauled into court, and in many cases convicted of misdemeanors, and then they want their gun back. Around here, we want to make sure those nice boys can get their guns. Mr. President, the situation is too absurd. It would almost be a comedy, but it is too serious, a matter of life and death for thousands of women and children whose futures are being threatened by a narrow faction of extremists. I want to take a moment to explain. Mr. President, for months I have been trying to get an amendment included in the bill that deals with the problem of stalking. Stalking is a terrible thing for anyone to have to endure. We see it in New Jersey. We see it across the country. I am sure all 50 States have the problem. I support the bill. In fact, I am cosponsor of the legislation. I wanted to make it even more effective. That is the right that we have here. When you have an opportunity to add a piece of legislation you think has merit, you put it on a piece of legislation that has already been introduced. I have been working to include an amendment that would prohibit anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. It is pretty simple. My amendment stands for the simple proposition that if you beat your wife, if you beat your kid, you should not have a gun. It says ``beat your wife, lose your gun; abuse your child, lose your gun.'' It is pretty simple. It is little more than common sense. Mr. President, for months I tried to include my proposal as part of the stalking bill. Finally, on July 25, after agreeing to several changes at the request of my Republican colleagues, my legislation passed the Senate by a voice vote. The compromise, Mr. President, that was worked out was supported by even the most ardent progun Members of this body. Even those Members were not willing to go on record and stand up here and vote to say that someone accused of wife abuse, child abuse should have to have a gun. They did not want to vote on it, because it would have been a shameful experience. Maybe they would have pleased some, but they would not have pleased all. So our sense was that with the changes that were made at their request, the stalking bill, which was here with my amendment attached, should be able to move quickly and easily through the House. It was my understanding that the majority party here was going to help work it through the House. Well, Mr. President, it looks like the extremists are back. Although the House passed a large number of noncontroversial bills earlier this week, this legislation was not among them. Now we hear that there is a move afoot among Republican leaders in the House to eliminate my proposal, the proposal that wife beaters should not get guns. I think, Mr. President, the American people would share my outrage at this. Every year thousands of women and children die at the hands of a family member, and 65 percent of the time those murderers use that gun. There is no reason why wife beaters and child abusers should have guns, and only the most progun extremists could possibly disagree with that. Unfortunately, these same extremists seem to have veto rights in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, I made it clear that if the stalking bill comes back from the House with my proposal gutted I will not just sit back and take it. The lives of thousands of women and children are at stake. We are not just talking about the use of a gun in a murder; we are talking about a gun that is used in intimidation, to threaten and to strike fear and harass. Imagine what a child must think when he sees a man holding a gun, threatening a woman, even if he does not pull the trigger. What kind of a society are we that says by law we should not remove the gun from the hands of that individual? I will fight for this every step of the way. Now we have the progun extremists dictating how this body is going to function. It is across the Capitol, but we are willing to do it here. Things like judicial appointments, so that justice can be administered, so that we can move the process that this country has in its very foundation, a country of laws. ``No, no,'' the Senator from Texas says. ``No, no, you are not getting those judges. I don't care how good they are.'' What she is saying is, ``Unless you take off the denial of a convicted wife abuser to own a gun, I am not letting judges go through.'' What a contrast. It is perfect. Want to control the law, not let the judges go through, not let other important legislation go through? Tie the place up in a knot. Well, maybe that is where we are going to be, but I hope the American public hears it. I hope they understand what is being said here, that you can have a gun even though you may have beaten your wife. It reminds me of the story I repeated on this floor now a few times about the judge in Baltimore County, not far from here, who, faced with a sentencing of a man who murdered his wife, sentenced him to 18 months, time to be done on weekends, because he said he ``didn't like giving a noncriminal a criminal sentence.'' In other words, murdering a wife is not the same as murdering a stranger. Those who want to shut this place down are ignoring what the consequences are of this, not to let us consider noncontroversial judicial appointments. So eager that we protect the rights of child abusers that they will not let us consider a bill to fund veterans health care, environmental protection; so eager not to deprive a wife beater of a gun that they are willing to grind the Senate to a halt on all appropriations bills. Mr. President, this is extremism run amok. It is outrageous, almost unbelievable. So I hope the people and the press will tell the American people what is going on here. It is quite an amazing story, stranger than fiction. It is unbelievable, in my view. It says a lot about this Congress and the power of the National Rifle Association. It says a lot about our values, priorities, and about our commitments to people victimized by domestic violence. Mr. President, I am hoping that we can overcome the extremism on this issue, because special interests may have a lot of power in Washington. Extremism may have a lot of power in Washington, but, at the end of the day, the real power in this country rests--and so it should--with the American people. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with these basic principles: Wife beaters should not have guns. Child abusers should not have guns. It is time for Congress to put these principles into law. Mr. President, I just want to refer to the Record of July 25, 1996, when the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], said: Senator Lautenberg is to be commended for working with us to make his amendment a good amendment, and it is a good amendment, and I applaud him for it. I think it adds to the bill. He was willing to work with us, and I think we now have a very strong bill. Because of Senator Lautenberg's amendment, we are also going to be able to keep people who batter their wives or people with whom they live from having handguns. So I think it is going to be a great bill that will give the women and children of this country some protection that they do not now have, and I am very pleased to be supportive of the compromise. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning we had a discussion on the floor about legislation I am sponsoring to prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns. My bill stands for the simple proposition that wife beaters and child abusers should not have guns. It says: Beat your wife, lose your gun. Abuse your child, lose your gun. It's that simple. And it's really little more than common sense. Mr. President, for many months, I had tried to include my proposal as part of the stalking bill. And, finally, on July 25, after agreeing to several changes at the request of my Republican colleagues, my legislation passed the Senate by voice vote. Mr. President, the compromise we worked out was supported by the most ardent progun Members of this body. And we had an understanding that the leadership on both sides of the aisle would work to get the legislation passed promptly in the House. Now we have just learned that the stalking bill has been inserted into the conference report on the DOD authorization bill--but without my amendment to keep guns away from wife beaters. Mr. President, given the understanding that we had with the leadership, this news came as something as a shock to me. Earlier this morning, there was a suggestion that somehow I was not respecting an agreement we had on this matter. And now this. Mr. President, this is not how we should be doing business in this body. Mr. President, I continue to be amazed at just how far the NRA and their supporters are willing to go to let wife beaters and child abusers get guns. And I think the American people would share my outrage at this. Every year, thousands of women and children die at the hands of family members. And 65 percent of the time, these murderers use a gun. There is no reason why wife beaters and child abusers should have guns. Only the most progun extremists could possible disagree with that. Unfortunately, these same extremists have incredible power here in the Congress. Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that I am not going to let this issue die. The lives of thousands of women and children are at stake. And I'm going to continue this battle for as long as it takes. Members of Congress on both sides of Capitol Hill need to be held accountable on this. The public has got to know what's going on here. Mr. President, I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. Wife beaters should not have guns. Child abusers should not have guns.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Paul Densen on his 80th birthday, which is on August 8. I want to honor Paul not simply because he has reached a milestone, but because his life has been a model of public service and philanthropy. After fighting for his country in World War II, he headed a major packaging corporation until the 1970's. His philosophy has always been that success obligates us to give something back to the society that enabled us to succeed. When we succeed, we owe something to our community and to those who may be less fortunate. Densen's record of philanthropy and community service confirms that attitude. He is associate governor of the international board of governors of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a member of the board of directors and a vice-president of the American Friends of Hebrew University. He also serves as a board member of the Suburban Community Music Center in Madison, NJ. Paul has been a member of the board of directors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, a member of the dialog committee on interreligious affairs at Seton Hall University, and a budget committee member for the Jewish Education Association. He was also president of the West Orange Charter Association and a member of the West Orange Economic Development Committee. Given this record, it's probably not surprising that it was public service which initially brought Paul and I together. Our first meeting took place decades ago, when we met to discuss the Lautenberg Center for General and Tumor Immunology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem- Hadassah Medical School. Since 1976, Paul has been chairman of the center's endowment committee, and he has been a driving force in its development and volunteer recruitment efforts. Without Paul's dedication and leadership, the Lautenberg Center could not have achieved the remarkable history of success of which we are all so proud. Mr. President, many people have benefited from Paul Densen's work, and I have certainly benefited from our friendship. I congratulate Paul on his 80th birthday. Reaching this milestone is a cause for celebration. However, through his work, his public service and his civic involvement, Paul definitely proves that what's important isn't simply the years in our life, but the life in our years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me start off by saying that I greatly respect my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the manager and the chairman of the Budget Committee. I listened to him carefully, and I know that he is a man of compassion and concern. I have seen it manifested in many ways: his interest in the mentally ill, his interest in the disabled. This is someone who cares about people. So when I talk about my difference in view, this is my personal perspective and, by no means do I intend to criticize the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, acting as the minority manager on this conference report, to make my remarks, and they reflect my opinion. This is not a consensus view that I have mustered; this is the opinion of the Senator from New Jersey, who has been on the Budget Committee for some time and draws on some experience from my corporate world, as I discuss my perspective. This is a historic and peculiar time for the U.S. Senate. The body is on the verge of ending a 60-year guarantee that poor children in this country might not go hungry. I salute the attempts to solve the problem. I am right with all the others, including the President of the United States, in wanting to solve the problem. The question is not whether one wants to solve the problem; the question is, how do you solve it? This is going to be a test not only of our pocketbooks and our resources, but of our hearts as well. Though I have heard it described as bleeding hearts, I am willing to accept the nomenclature that has applied, because having had my life experience when in the Depression years my family was, to use the expression, dirt poor, and my father had to go to work on a WPA program, it was a humiliating experience for him to have to go to work on a Government program. But he buried his pride for a moment, and he did what he could to support his family. I don't know many people who want to humiliate themselves standing in a line waiting for their welfare check. Yes, there are some cheats out there and there are druggies and there are drunks. They are out there, there is no question about it, but a lot of those people are simply people who have not yet discovered a way out of their misery and their poverty. Women with children, many of them unwed--I do not approve of that condition, but that is life. The punishment should never exceed the deed, and that is what I fear, Mr. President, we are about to do in this body of ours, in our beloved country. For 60 years, we could rest easier at night and be sure American children had a minimum safety net. The bill before us takes away this peace of mind and throws up to 1,100,000 children into poverty, according to a study by the Urban Institute. I agree, the welfare system is in need of repair, and I believe that it needs to promote work and self-sufficiency, pride and dignity. That is going to make the difference. I think it should also, however, protect children and, unfortunately, I am not certain at all that this so-called welfare reform does it. First, the Republican bill does not promote work. It asks for work. It demands work. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee say we can make people work. That is a requirement for welfare recipients. But it does not require the resources to put people to work. In fact, CBO said that most States would be unlikely to satisfy this work requirement for several reasons. One major reason is that this bill cuts funding for work programs by combining all welfare programs into a capped block grant. Second, the Republican bill hurts children. It would make deep cuts in the Food Stamp Program, which millions of children rely on for their nutritional needs. It would also end the guarantee that children will always have the safety net. Under this bill, a State could adopt a 60- day time limit, and after that the children would be cut off from the safety net entirely. The State would not even be required to provide a child with a voucher for food, clothing, or medical care. When you take all of these policies together, this bill will put an estimated approximately 1.1 million children into poverty. And this is a conservative estimate. It could be higher. Mr. President, my conscience does not permit me to vote for a bill that will likely plunge children into poverty. I had an experience some years ago when I was at the Earth summit in Brazil with the now Vice President of the United States and other Senators, Republican and Democrat. We were dining at a restaurant, facing a beautiful harbor in Rio. The restaurants were separated by rows of shrubs--beautiful places, a marvelous atmosphere. I saw a light brown hand reach through the bush and take food off the table. Children starving, thousands of them, sometimes chased by the police, sometimes shot at because they crowded the doors. Mr. President, a child who is hungry will go to any means, as will an adult, to satisfy their hunger. I am worried about that. I cannot vote to leave our children unprotected. I was one of only 11 Democrats to vote against the original Senate welfare bill that would have put 1.2 million children into poverty. I voted against the conference report on this bill that would have doomed 1.5 million children to the same fate. I will vote against this bill for the same reason. We dare not abandon our children. Mr. President, I hold a different vision of what the safety net in this country should be. I am concerned, frightened, that this bill will leave children hungry and homeless. I am afraid the streets of our Nation's cities might someday look like the streets of the cities of Brazil. Walk around there and you see children begging for money, begging for food, and even at 8 and 9 years old engaging in prostitution. Tragically, that is what happens to societies that abandon their children. When we don't protect our kids, they resort to their own means to survive. I do not want to see that happen in this country. I want to see this country invest in children. I think we should invest more in child care and health and nutrition so that our kids can become independent, productive citizens. I want to give them the opportunity to live the American dream like I and so many in this room had the good fortune to do. If we do not, we will create a permanent underclass in this country. We will have millions of children with no protection, and we are going to doom them to failure. Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, I also want to comment on the priorities that are reflected in this reconciliation bill. Despite the fact that this bill is only limited to safety net programs, it is still considered a reconciliation bill. The bill receives the same protections as a budget-balancing bill, but there is no balanced budget in it. This reconciliation bill seeks to cut the deficit only by attacking safety net programs for poor children, for legal immigrants. There are no cuts in corporate loopholes or tax breaks, despite the fact that the tax expenditures cost the Federal Treasury over $400 billion a year. There are no such savings in this bill. There are no grazing fee increases, no mining royalties, no savings in the military budget or NASA's budget. The only cuts in this bill come from women and children. This reconciliation bill gives new meaning to putting women and children first. Mr. President, I realize that this bill is going to pass. I understand the President clearly has indicated that he is going to sign it. However, as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico mentioned, the President and many of us are determined to examine a package of changes next year to soften the blow of the harsh provisions in this bill. Mr. President, we have seen the reaction of people regarding this bill. When you hear from the mayor of one of the world's most distinguished cities, New York City Mayor Giuliani, he is worried about where they get the money in the block grants to supply the job training, the child care support. He is concerned, as are many mayors across the country we have heard from. Mr. President, I will, for a moment, just relate an experience that I had when I ran a corporation, a big corporation. When I left to come to the U.S. Senate, we had over 16,000 employees, a very successful company. We were a company, founded in New Jersey, that tried to work within our community. The company still has its headquarters in New Jersey and employs almost 30,000 people today. I always tried, since I came from a poor background of hard-working, honest people who always wanted to keep their heads high and always wanted to do the right thing and not ask anybody for anything--but there were times when we needed help. If I did not have the GI bill, Mr. President, I doubt that I would be standing in front of the U.S. Senate and the American people today. So, we were very conscientious, my partners and I, about trying to understand what was happening around us. We began to hire people, or we attempted to hire people, who were literally unemployable with job after job, short-term employment, and then back on the streets. We brought people into the computer room, not into the factory. We did not have a factory. I was in the computer business. We brought them into the computer room, and we had one startling success among several people that we worked with. The reason for that success was very interesting. The reasons for failure were obvious, because though we would give these people a job, and they would be enthusiastic about it for a couple days, as soon as they got back into their environment and as soon as they were faced with poverty and despair and drugs and crime, they fell right back in the trap. They were useless as employees in very short order. But the one person who succeeded so well, we got an apartment for her, and we moved her, helped her move from her ghetto area to a more middle-class area. The success was astounding. This woman, when we hired her, she was 25 years old. She had very limited education. She became a computer room supervisor--a good job--and went on to become a part of management in the company. It was a startling success, because it was not that we said, you have to go to work and have to show up on time. We said that to everybody. You say that to all of your employees. All of them do not do it. It needs training. It needs commitment. Mr. President, I hope that this bill that is being considered today, this reconciliation bill, will not be the first step toward larger problems than we can understand today, toward the kind of situation where America turns its heart into stone and says, OK, we are here as accountants, we are here to cut the budget. I want to cut the budget. I have programs to cut the budget to arrive at a balanced budget. I know what happens in the corporate world when your expenses get too high and your revenues too low. You make changes, make them selectively. We did not just cut every department if we had to reduce expenses. Maybe it was time to cut the marketing department or the production department or the products design department. But I always thought about the long term. We are abandoning the long term. What we are doing is giving a lot of people political satisfaction, those who work here and those who are outside who hear us on TV and the radio. Mr. President, I make my remarks in the full context of the realization of where we are. This bill has lots of support. I am not, I promise you--not--attempting or trying to influence people to vote against it. I am stating the case as I see it. I hope it will in some way encourage others to think very deeply about their decision to vote. I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the President. I just ask the majority leader to extend the courtesy, if he can. I want to add my compliments to those that he has already received for such a good job, and I think too in a most serious way. He has tried to--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The majority leader--like my name--is frank, and I appreciate that candor. Because, if we are talking about the stalking bill here that passed the Senate that is over in the House, it carries an amendment by me that says wife beaters, child beaters, spouse abusers should not have a gun. Apparently there is an objection. ``We are concerned about that. We want to give those guys guns. What did they do? Beat up their wives? That is not a crime.'' One judge said, ``I hate to give a noncriminal a criminal sentence.'' One judge was so tough that he gave a man who murdered his wife in Baltimore County 18 months with time to be served on weekends. He murdered his wife. The judge said, ``I do not like to really punish someone like the criminals. They are not really a criminal. All they did''--he did not say this. I am saying it. ``All he did was murder his wife.'' So I am asking for my amendment and that bill to be carried along, and now suddenly I hear that has something to do with the approval of judges, which now has us tangled up in appropriations bills. I think it is pitiful that someone would object as we saw here last night; the Senator objected to an order that the minority leader requested and refused to answer a question--refused, turned around and walked out. This place is deteriorating into a sorry condition. But I know the majority leader is working on it. I think it is very important that people across the country hear that eight judges are not being appointed because of a piece of legislation that would prevent wife beaters and child abusers from getting guns. I think that is pretty important. I hope the public hears it and listens to it, and I hope the press hears it and listens to it. I say to the majority leader, my apologies for this little tirade, but I had to kind of get it off my chest. I thank the Senator. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To use an expression, ``I don't have a judge in this fight.'' So I want you to know that. [Laughter]. I enjoy not only working with him but my kind, friendly tete-a-tete with the majority leader. I ask the majority leader whether or not in reality these judges did not move tonight because they had something to do with something else? Is there some legislative redress that is being sought here, a judge is being held hostage, and people seeking justice are being held hostage because we are not processing their cases in an expeditious fashion? I ask the majority leader because it was suggested to me that perhaps there was something that I might do to help it along here. I just would like to know whether or not there is some particular piece of legislation that may have offended someone that has them out here saying, ``No. I am going to object to judges. I am going to object to anything that goes on in this place, and I do not care what the consequences are. I object to the legislation.'' Could I possibly be correct in my assumption, Mr. Leader?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both sides. We are prepared to accept it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. We are also reviewing a matter with the Senator from Maine and the Senator from New Hampshire. I hope we will be able to have that resolved.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Despite the fact that I heartily agree with him, I hardly think that there are many in this Chamber or many across the country who would think it is a good idea to facilitate the exportation of jobs. That is about the silliest thing we can do, and, frankly, I think it has hurt America severely by providing ease of transportation, transmission, and relocation of jobs that used to be in America that we thought were relatively menial, low-skilled jobs that today would be very nice to have in our country. The Senator's point is an excellent one, and I regret that we at this point cannot accommodate him, but I think the message is clear to those who are going to be on the conference committee that they ought to pay attention because it will be remembered for a long time to come if they ignore the opportunity to cut that flow. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are going to be waiting for a few minutes for other Senators who wish to speak to arrive. I would like to take a few minutes during that wait to lend my support to the amendment that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from Montana. I think it is well-intentioned, and I think the amendment is fair. The one thing I want to be certain of is that this amendment is not going to be perceived as a formula fight, because that should not be. This is a correction. It corrects the fact that the Department of Treasury misinterpreted the revenue reports that were put into a new format. The unfortunate result is that the Treasury Department grossly overstated the amount of gas tax receipts to the highway trust fund during 1994. This error is acknowledged by the Treasury Department and by the Federal Highway Administration. Unfortunately, the FHWA is required by law to base a certain category of highway fund allocations on the Treasury's formal estimates, whether or not they are correct. So, what the Baucus amendment seeks to do is correct the allocations made as a result of Treasury's error. And the amendment, I must say to my colleagues who were in the Chamber or who might hear us, the amendment will not deny any State the full 90 percent of the payments they are due through the Federal aid to highways formula program. What this amendment will do is to set these payments at 90 percent of what the States actually paid, rather than 90 percent of the Treasury's erroneous estimates. We heard from the distinguished Senator from Virginia about the interest that he and the Senator from Montana have in terms of examining the formula. We will have a chance to do that, I assure you, at length, I believe. But we ought not to try to do it here, and that is not what is being attempted. Unfortunately, the impact of correcting this mistake results in certain States getting more and others getting less than they would otherwise receive if this correction were not adopted. When reviewing this amendment, I hope that the Members will keep in mind that the bill before us provides an increase of $100 million in the overall obligation limit for the Federal Aid Highway Program, from $17.55 billion to $17.65 billion, a $100 million increase. This increase is going to help all States in meeting their transportation needs. While it is unfortunate that the legislation is required to correct this mistake, the Federal Highway Administration assures us that absent this bill language, the Secretary does not have the administrative authority to correct these highway allocations and bring them into conformity with what we now know to be the actual gas tax receipts. I hope our Members will support this amendment. It is the right thing to do; it is the fair thing to do. The amendment is not an attempt to pick anyone's pocket in the dark of night. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the very knowledgeable comments of Senator Breaux. He is correct that there are significant potential cost reductions in both the establishment and operation of the VTS 2000 system. Both of my colleagues can rest assured that I will keep these issues clearly in focus as we deliberate the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill in conference with the other body.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, want to add some words of commendation and appreciation to the staff, particularly on this occasion when Pat McCann will have seen the last transportation appropriations bill that he is going to have to work on. I reminded him, sometime he is going to look back here, where it is a quarter to 10 at night, he has not had dinner, has not seen his family, he has not been able to watch the Olympics, how much he is going to miss this place. He started to weep, and I could see a tear fall down his cheek, but he will be strong. On a serious note, Pat's service has been truly exemplary of bipartisanship. He came to me as a Republican, stayed with me as a Republican and left as a Republican. That is really bipartisan. But we have worked very well together--again, trying to be serious, Pat and Peter, the two senior people on each of the subcommittee staffs, the majority and the minority, have given loyal service wherever and whenever called upon to do so. We are going to miss Pat. He brings a special touch and a good sense of humor and knows the subject extremely well, and he had the good judgment to send his daughter to college in New Jersey. Princeton, of course, is a nice place to have a child. Mine didn't go there. He felt it was too close to dad or too close to home. Pat has been a marvelous, marvelous influence on staff and on Members as well. So it is with other members. Peter Rogoff is really busy these days. We learned the difference between being in the majority and being in the minority. It is numbers of people that you have to do the job. Peter has been a very able assistant throughout this. I thank also Anne Miano. I have gotten to know Anne over the years and watched her approach motherhood and do that very well, while also staying on top of the work she has here. Joyce Rose who has been helpful, Carole Geagley and Mike Brennan, his first time on the bill. To all the staff, my deepest appreciation and thanks for a good job. When I look at how complicated things are right now and see how sparse the funding for major, significant programs has become, we just dealt with over 37 billion dollars' worth of funding, very important transportation programs dealing with aviation, highways, rail, Coast Guard, and I think have done it with balance and with consideration for the value of all of the programs. That resulted, Mr. President, from the influence of Senator Hatfield, his leadership, his constancy, his conscientious belief that things have to be right among all, not just a few. It has enabled me to feel very good and feel like a full partner, though in the minority status and throughout the negotiation and the planning and the hearings and the markup of this bill. So, we note with a degree of sadness, though he will be here with other bills, this is the last time that we will have Senator Hatfield's valued hand as chairman. I hope, too, the conference will go through on a voice vote and, as a tribute to Mark Hatfield, perhaps I can call on the goodness of the hearts of our colleagues to do it just that way. As a friend, as a leader, as an outstanding citizen and American, Mark Hatfield has been an enlightenment for many of us and particularly for me in the years I have had a chance to work with him. We close this bill hoping our colleagues are satisfied with the job we have tried to do as best we can. I thank the Chair. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think this is a good solution to a difficult problem. I commend the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine for their cooperation here. We accept it on this side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Josh Weston who is retiring as chief executive officer of Automatic Data Processing. It's been said that you can't judge a businessman by intentions, but by results. If that's true, then we can only judge Josh Weston as an incredible success. Josh joined ADP in 1970, and he has far exceeded the high expectations I had for him. During his 14 years as chairman and chief executive officer of ADP, Josh's leadership accelerated ADP's already extraordinary record of excellence. In the words of Wall Street Stock analyst James A. Meyer, ``This company is so well managed that it's the envy of everyone on Wall Street.'' Josh has decided that it's time to pass on his mantle at ADP, and he leaves a legacy that was not only good for ADP, its staff, clients, and shareholders, but for our country. His extraordinary talent for management will serve as a model to be studied by managers across our corporate society. ADP has grown phenomenally since two friends and I joined together in the early 1950's. It went public in 1961 and continued to grow and prosper; in fact, ADP is the only public company in the Nation to achieve consistent, record growth in earnings and revenue for 139 quarters--nearly 35 years. In the most recent quarter, which ended on March 31, ADP earned a net $143.9 million. Earnings grew 15 percent and revenue 20 percent. Yet, ADP's success goes far beyond the debit and credit columns. It currently has 350,000 clients, prepares checks for 19 million, and enjoys a financial history which has made investors, many of them ordinary ADP employees, financially secure. In addition, ADP provides jobs for 5,000 New Jerseyans and employs 29,000, worldwide. Much of this success is due to the leadership of Josh Weston over the past 14 years. He did it by following and building upon ADP's established formula for success: striving to master new technology, to improve efficiency, to attract outstanding staff, to make profits every employee's responsibility, and to develop new products and markets . But perhaps most importantly, ADP has always invested in the morale, skills and training of its employees. These valuable men and women are ADP's greatest resource, and Josh never failed to recognize this fact. In fact, in a recent article in the Newark Star Ledger, Josh credited ``teamwork'' as the key to ADP's success. Although an extremely successful businessman, Josh has always believed that we make a living by what we gain, but we make a life by what we give. And Josh's contributions to his community are considerable. The numerous Pro Bono Boards on which he has been active include Chairman of Boys Town of Jerusalem; Chairman of Mountainside Hospital; Vice-Chairman of the Tri-State United Way; New Jersey Symphony Orchestra; Atlantic Health System; WNET/Channel 13; I Have a Dream Foundation; Montclair Art Museum; Montclair State University Business School; New Jersey Quality Education Commission; National Conference of Christians and Jews; New Jersey University of Medicine and Dentistry; etc. This sampling undeniably demonstrates Josh's breadth and depth of commitment. For the past 14 years, Josh Weston and ADP have been a great team, but Josh has decided that it's time to relinquish the CEO title to ADP's current president and chief operating officer, Art Weinbach. As usual, Josh made an excellent decision. Management gurus John Clemens and Douglas Mayer once noted, ``From a management viewpoint, Shakespeare's King Lear is a tragedy because Lear failed to understand two managerial concepts: the need to select competent successors and the need to let go.'' Josh undeniably understands these concepts. However, ADP will miss his vision and vitality. Josh Weston is not just a businessman or an executive; his record of accomplishment, his commitment to his customers and his loyalty to his employees distinguishes him as a true leader. I am proud to call him a friend, and I wish him the best as he goes on to other challenges.