Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the students and faculty at Cresskill High School in my State for proposing a weeklong focus on HIV/AIDS, from May 27 to June 2, 1996. It's true that this is one of many spotlights that have been trained on this epidemic; and it's true that there have been many seminars and educational forums designed to inform the public about the devastation this disease causes and the medical and other support services available to sustain individuals and families living with HIV/AIDS. But the fact is that despite statistics clearly demonstrating that AIDS is no respecter of racial, religious, ethnic, or economic lines, most people prefer to think it can't happen to them. The idea for this particular AIDS Education Week in New Jersey came from Jessica Pomerantz, a student at Cresskill High School, a suburban school in an area where families are not faced with problems of the inner cities. Jessica felt the need to talk about this precisely because she sensed that her fellow classmates were like most people--they believed they would never be the ones to get the AIDS virus. The fact is, as she says, AIDS is an equal opportunity killer. The fact is this AIDS education week is very significant. AIDS has become a defining facet of modern life: The 80,000 Americans reported with AIDS in 1994 alone represented one-fifth the total number of cases ever reported in the United States; AIDS infects one of every 92 young American men ages 27 to 39; it's the leading cause of death among all 25-44 year olds and the fourth leading cause of death among all women. In New Jersey, some 50,000 people are infected with the HIV virus. We're fifth in the United States in reported AIDS cases, third in pediatric AIDS cases. Women represent 26 percent of all reported AIDS cases in New Jersey, the highest proportion of women with AIDS in the entire country. And women are the fastest-growing group of people with HIV/AIDS. Last December, the eighth observance of World AIDS' Day took as its theme, ``Shared Rights, Shared Responsibilities.'' Jessica and her fellow students at Cresskill High School have taken that message to heart. They understand the stake they have in this fight. They know they shouldn't and they cannot ignore it for the sake of their own future and the future of generations all over the world. ``We must protect our future,'' they say, ``by taking responsibility for our actions if we are to accomplish our goals.'' Mr. President, I'm tremendously proud of these young people from New Jersey. I ask my colleagues to join me today in wishing them continued success.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Chafee and Lieberman in introducing legislation to reduce the risks of oil spills. Mr. President, as the terrible Exxon Valdez incident demonstrated in 1989, oil spills can have disastrous consequences for our environment and our communities. I visited Alaska soon after the Exxon Valdez accident, and the devastation was overwhelming. Nobody could leave that site without feeling a great sense of responsibility for preventing any similar disasters. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to prevent a recurrence of similar disasters. Among other things, the act established tough new standards for vessels carrying oil. Under the act, all such vessels must have double hulls by the year 2015. In addition, the Act required the Coast Guard to issue regulations to improve the seaworthiness and spill prevention capabilities of single hull vessels by 1991. Mr. President, on March 30, 1996, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the implementation of this Act. What we learned was very discouraging. The structural requirements for single hull regulations are 4 years overdue. The Coast Guard, despite admitting that it had sufficient funds to implement that requirement, could not give the Committee a rationale for the delay. The recent spills of single hull tankers point to the need for better operations and better structural measures to reduce oil spills. The bill we are introducing today will require several common-sense improvements on single hull ships. These improvements include: Requiring that barges over 5,000 gross tons in the open ocean or coastal waters have at least one crew member on board and an operable anchor; Requiring the presence of an emergency system on a vessel towing a barge that would allow the vessel to retrieve the barge should the tow line be ruptured; and Requiring vessels to meet minimum under-keel clearance levels when entering or leaving a port. In addition, the bill will require the Coast Guard to issue final regulations to improve the seaworthiness and spill prevention capabilities of single-hull vessels no later than July 18, 1996; 5 years after the original deadline. If the regulations are not promulgated by that date, then proposed regulations already developed by the Coast Guard would automatically become effective. These proposed regulations would require all vessels to have double-hulls on their sizes or their bottoms. Alternatively, vessels could include hydrostatic loading systems, which help prevent spills by equalizing the pressure of the oil on the vessel with the outside water pressure. Under hydrostatic loading, in the case of a rupture, water enters the ship rather than the cargo of oil entering the ocean. In addition, the bill includes incentives to convert the present single-hull fleet to the safer double-hull vessels. Under the bill, any ship that is replaced by a double-hull vessel before double-hulls are required will be subject to a liability cap that can only be waived if there is gross negligence or willful misconduct. Mr. President, anyone who saw the devastation of Prince William Sound--such an invaluable natural resource--will understand the importance of preventing oil spills in the future. This is true not just in Alaska, but also on the Delaware River, in New York Harbor, and in the Rhode Island Sound, and throughout our rivers and coasts. The rivers and channels around my State of New Jersey are very vulnerable to spills. Because of inadequate channel depths, most of the crude oil in large ships moving into the Port of Newark must be transferred to smaller vessels, a practice called lightering. These transfers at sea between ships increase the likelihood of spills. It is only the exceptional abilities of the pilots serving the Port of New York and New Jersey that have prevented repeated spills in our region. Nevertheless, lightering increases the threat of frequent oilspills. To reduce that threat, the bill requires the Coast Guard to develop requirements for lightering operations that are to provide substantial protection to the environment as is economically and technologically feasible. Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold hearings on this legislation this year. I look forward to working with Senators Chafee and Lieberman, and the other members of the Committee, to make any needed refinements in the legislation, and to approve the bill without delay.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Chafee and Lieberman in introducing legislation to reduce the risks of oil spills. Mr. President, as the terrible Exxon Valdez incident demonstrated in 1989, oil spills can have disastrous consequences for our environment and our communities. I visited Alaska soon after the Exxon Valdez accident, and the devastation was overwhelming. Nobody could leave that site without feeling a great sense of responsibility for preventing any similar disasters. Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to prevent a recurrence of similar disasters. Among other things, the act established tough new standards for vessels carrying oil. Under the act, all such vessels must have double hulls by the year 2015. In addition, the Act required the Coast Guard to issue regulations to improve the seaworthiness and spill prevention capabilities of single hull vessels by 1991. Mr. President, on March 30, 1996, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the implementation of this Act. What we learned was very discouraging. The structural requirements for single hull regulations are 4 years overdue. The Coast Guard, despite admitting that it had sufficient funds to implement that requirement, could not give the Committee a rationale for the delay. The recent spills of single hull tankers point to the need for better operations and better structural measures to reduce oil spills. The bill we are introducing today will require several common-sense improvements on single hull ships. These improvements include: Requiring that barges over 5,000 gross tons in the open ocean or coastal waters have at least one crew member on board and an operable anchor; Requiring the presence of an emergency system on a vessel towing a barge that would allow the vessel to retrieve the barge should the tow line be ruptured; and Requiring vessels to meet minimum under-keel clearance levels when entering or leaving a port. In addition, the bill will require the Coast Guard to issue final regulations to improve the seaworthiness and spill prevention capabilities of single-hull vessels no later than July 18, 1996; 5 years after the original deadline. If the regulations are not promulgated by that date, then proposed regulations already developed by the Coast Guard would automatically become effective. These proposed regulations would require all vessels to have double-hulls on their sizes or their bottoms. Alternatively, vessels could include hydrostatic loading systems, which help prevent spills by equalizing the pressure of the oil on the vessel with the outside water pressure. Under hydrostatic loading, in the case of a rupture, water enters the ship rather than the cargo of oil entering the ocean. In addition, the bill includes incentives to convert the present single-hull fleet to the safer double-hull vessels. Under the bill, any ship that is replaced by a double-hull vessel before double-hulls are required will be subject to a liability cap that can only be waived if there is gross negligence or willful misconduct. Mr. President, anyone who saw the devastation of Prince William Sound--such an invaluable natural resource--will understand the importance of preventing oil spills in the future. This is true not just in Alaska, but also on the Delaware River, in New York Harbor, and in the Rhode Island Sound, and throughout our rivers and coasts. The rivers and channels around my State of New Jersey are very vulnerable to spills. Because of inadequate channel depths, most of the crude oil in large ships moving into the Port of Newark must be transferred to smaller vessels, a practice called lightering. These transfers at sea between ships increase the likelihood of spills. It is only the exceptional abilities of the pilots serving the Port of New York and New Jersey that have prevented repeated spills in our region. Nevertheless, lightering increases the threat of frequent oilspills. To reduce that threat, the bill requires the Coast Guard to develop requirements for lightering operations that are to provide substantial protection to the environment as is economically and technologically feasible. Mr. President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold hearings on this legislation this year. I look forward to working with Senators Chafee and Lieberman, and the other members of the Committee, to make any needed refinements in the legislation, and to approve the bill without delay.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Chafee and Senator Smith in supporting H.R. 2024, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. The bill is based on the bipartisan bill that I sponsored with Senators Faircloth, Lieberman, Reid, and Graham during the last Congress. This legislation is an important step in our efforts to control the amount of toxic wastes entering the waste stream. Specifically, it deals with mercury, cadmium, and lead, which are contained in some battery casing. These materials pose no risk while a battery is in use. But they can be a significant concern when discarded in our solid waste stream. Cadmium, which is used in the electrodes of rechargeable nickel- cadmium batteries, can cause kidney and liver damage. Mercury exposure can cause significant damage to the nervous system and kidneys. It has also been linked to decreased motor functions and muscle reflexes, memory loss, headaches, and brain function disorders. And when mercury enters the aquatic environment, it can form methyl mercury, which is extremely toxic to both humans and wildlife. Although dry cell batteries account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 180 billion tons of garbage we generate each year, dry cell batteries have been significant sources of mercury, cadmium, and lead in our waste stream. According to a New York State report, mercury batteries accounted for 85 percent of the mercury, and rechargeable batteries accounted for 68 percent of the cadmium, in New York's solid waste. In landfills, dry cell batteries can break down to release their toxic contents and contaminate our waters. In incinerators, the combustion of dry cell batteries containing toxic metals leads to elevated toxic air emissions, and has increased the concentrations of toxic metals in the resulting fly and bottom ash. This bill, by limiting the amount of toxics used in primary batteries and creating a recycling program for rechargeable nickel cadmium, will remove a significant source of toxics from our landfills.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the only Democratic member of this body who sits on both the Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with EPA and on the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have had a special interest in the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency. And I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their work on these issues. Mr. President, when the EPA budget first passed the the Senate, EPA's funding level was 17 percent below the fiscal year 1995 level. The House was 33 percent below the previous year level. Those figures were unacceptable to me, to the President and the American people. The people of America have made clear that they want us do all we can to protect their drinking water from contaminates, their air from harmful smog and their land from the improper disposal of toxic wastes. Since the President vetoed that funding bill for EPA, there has been significant progress. When this pending continuing resolution was considered in the Senate, I offered an amendment that would have raised EPA funding $726 million. That would have raised EPA to the full 1995 level by adding money for state assistance for drinking water and sewage treatment, for global climate change research, for environmental enforcement and for Boston Harbor clean up. Once that amendment was offered, there were long, and ultimately painful negotiations among the parties. Needless to say, negotiations were not easy; if they had been today would be October 25,1995 not April 25, 1996. I want to especially acknowledge the efforts of the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry, who fought relentlessly to fund EPA and, in particular, to address the special needs of Boston Harbor. Without his persistent efforts during our negotiations, the additonal dollars for Boston Harbor would not be in this bill. As a member of the Conference, I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Kerry for his hard work and persistent efforts in getting the funding for this important water pollution control program.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the chairman's attention, and to the attention of my esteemed colleague, Senator Harkin, that Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center and its Children's Regional Hospital are the only acute care hospitals in the empowerment zone that encompass Camden, NJ. These hospitals provide critical services to the Camden community. Now they are proposing to establish a new pediatric rehabilitation center which will address a vital unmet need in the community. There are many worthy organizations seeking these empowerment funds; however, this project is expected to provide community based quality care for children from communities in the Camden area. I strongly suggest that this project be considered for empowerment zone funding.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution to commemorate the 10th anniversary of one of the most tragic, devastating events in the history of nuclear power--the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The resolution also expresses Congress' unequivocal support for the closing of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. I am pleased that Senators Dole, Helms, Pell, and Levin are joining me in submitting this resolution. Friday, April 26, 1996, marks the 10th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident. Ten years ago, nuclear reactor No. 4 at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear power plant malfunctioned. The ensuing explosion and fire spewed a cloud of radiation across Europe, releasing 200 times more radioactivity than the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. The results were devastating. Millions of people were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. Chernobyl's legacy is much more than the worst technological disaster in the history of nuclear power. It is a continuing humanitarian tragedy that will always be remembered the world over. The inhabitants of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia continue to be heavily burdened by the social, economic, and health effects of the accident, and the entire international community continues to be threatened by the specter of another Chernobyl. Ten years ago, millions of Ukrainians, Belarussians, and Russians, including over one million children and thousands of people who cleaned up after the explosion, were exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation. A 30-kilometer radius around Chernobyl was rendered uninhabitable. Families were forced from their homes. Most have never returned. The tragic effects of this disaster have devastated millions. A 200- fold increase in thyroid cancer among children has ensued. Immune deficiency disorders, respiratory problems, and birth defects have increased at alarming rates since the disaster. The region's soil and water supplies have remained contaminated. Ukraine's economy has been overwhelmed by the costs of rebuilding. Mr. President, the people of Chernobyl and Ukraine have not been alone in their efforts to overcome the tremendous loss. Numerous charitable and humanitarian organizations have assiduously worked to ameliorate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine and the Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund, from my State of New Jersey, have lent considerable support to that effort along with many others in the Ukrainian-American community. These and millions of other Americans in New Jersey and elsewhere continue to provide valuable assistance to the victims of the Chernobyl disaster. All private organizations who have been at the forefront to help Ukraine deserve commendation for their tireless efforts to assist Cherbobyl's victims. Unfortunately, more work needs to be done. Cherbobyl's two working reactors continue to churn out electricity. The protective concrete covering over the obliterated reactor No. 4, the sarcophagus, has developed cracks which dangerously weaken its structure. Corrosion of this structure threatens to release even more radioactivity into the region. Experts warn that another accident is imminent. Just yesterday, a fire started within 10 kilometers of Cherbobyl. While initial assessments by specialists conclude that the abundant smoke produced by the fire may not pose further contamination dangers, all bets are off in the future. The region's inhabitants cannot be assured that radioactive particles which settled in the areas surrounding Cherbobyl after the accident will not be carried into their villages or water supplies. They cannot be assured that future fires or even floods will not release dangerous levels of contamination. This event underscores the ongoing threat Cherbobyl poses to safety and the urgent need to close Cherbobyl forever. On December 20, 1995, the Ukrainian Government, the governments of the G-7 countries, and the Commission of the European Communities signed a memorandum of understanding supporting Ukraine's decision to close Cherbobyl by the year 2000 and the international community has pledged financial support to facilitate the closure. Last week, President Clinton met in Moscow with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and leaders of other G-7 nations, and Ukraine reaffirmed its commitment to close Cherbobyl. Support from the international community is vital to help Ukraine move forward and close Cherbobyl. Ukraine is working hard to implement open economic and social reforms, and its economy is strapped. At this very delicate time in Ukraine's history, the United States should support Ukraine's efforts to rebuild its infrastructure and to secure the alternative energy sources it needs to close Cherbobyl in a safe and expeditious manner. Mr. President, the devastating health effects, social distress, and economic hardship remains in the hearts and minds of the people of Ukraine who lived through the Cherbobyl explosion. They cannot forget the radioactive blanket of despair that covered their homes and forced them from their villages. They cannot forget that their livelihoods have been destroyed. For their sake and for the sake of future generations, we should commemorate this event on April 26, 1996, and redouble our efforts to ensure that the devastation of 10 years ago will not be repeated. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, at this moment, though the hour is late, and I apologize to those who are inconvenienced while I make my remarks, this is a topic of great importance to me and my home State of New Jersey, and a number of communities across the country--that is, the cleanup of toxic waste. Mr. President, 73 million Americans live near toxic waste sites. That is about one of every four of our citizens. Many people think of hazardous waste as a problem of ugly dump sites that harm a community's appearance and property values. But it is far more than that, Mr. President. Toxic waste is a huge threat to public health. By contaminating our drinking water, our air and our soil, dangerous waste contributes to a wide range of health problems, and these include cancer, birth defects, cardiovascular problems, immune disorders, and even something as simple and obvious as dermatitis. Now, Mr. President, it is difficult to say how many people are harmed because of exposure to toxic waste. But the number is considerable. Unfortunately, New Jersey, where there are more Superfund sites than any other State, is being hit especially hard. Recent studies found that in all but one of New Jersey's 21 counties, cancer rates and areas around hazardous waste sites exceeded the national average. Studies from other parts of the country also suggest that those living near toxic waste sites have suffered disproportionately from serious health problems. Beyond the public health problems associated with toxic waste, these sites also have serious economic effects on local communities. They discourage investment and occupy otherwise valuable real estate that could be used for productive economic activity. If we do not clean up these sites, we are depriving communities of good jobs and local tax revenues. Mr. President, Congress created the Superfund Program in 1980, largely to respond to health problems, to save lives and protect and restore the environment. The program was designed to ensure that toxic waste sites were cleaned up promptly and that polluters took responsibility for cleaning them up. Unfortunately, as many know, the Superfund Program got off to a very slow start for a variety of reasons, including a lack of Presidential commitment. Many cleanups were delayed. However, in recent years, the program has turned around. Under the Clinton administration, toxic waste cleanups have been 20 percent faster, 25 percent cheaper, and there is real progress in cleaning up sites. Although we have a long way to go, many more sites are being cleaned up, and delays have been reduced significantly. Like any program, Mr. President, Superfund has its share of problems and critics. And there are many legitimate concerns that must be addressed. We do need to speed cleanups, reduce unnecessary litigation, and make the program work more efficiently. Still, Mr. President, there has been tremendous progress. And President Clinton and EPA Administrator Carol Browner deserve real credit for that. Unfortunately, just as the program has picked up steam, the Congress has permitted its funding mechanism to expire. This funding source simply must be reestablished, or the whole program could be threatened. It is important, in my view, to pass a Superfund reform bill. Many of us in the Congress have been working long and hard, and in a bipartisan way, to develop reform legislation, and to make needed improvements in the program. As ranking minority member of the Senate's Superfund Subcommittee, I have worked with many of my colleagues on this issue for several years now, especially my distinguished colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Last congress, after a long and arduous process involving all affected parties, we developed a bill that would have made comprehensive changes in the Superfund program. Our bill would have made Superfund fairer, more efficient, and less costly. It addressed every major issue raised by those affected by Superfund, and provided relief on every front. It would have fostered greater and earlier community involvement in cleanup decisions. It speeded up cleanups and made them more efficient. It would have slashed private litigation costs in half, and established a mechanism to efficiently resolve disputes involving polluters, their insurers, and the Government. It allowed qualified States to play a greater role in remedy selection and cleanup of sites, including federally-owned facilities. It promoted the voluntary cleanup and economic redevelopment of contaminated properties. And it provided much-needed relief to lenders, small businesses, municipalities and others who have been caught up in the liability scheme. Unfortunately, despite very broad support from environmentalists, industry, small businesses, State and local governments, communities, lenders, and others involved in Superfund, this reform bill was killed in the waning days of the 103d Congress. And so, last year, a new effort began to reauthorize the Superfund Program. Senator Smith, our new chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee, introduced a proposal last October. And for the past few months, Senator Chafee, chairman of the Committee, and Senators Baucus, Smith, and myself have spent countless hours trying to resolve our differences and produce a bill that can enjoy broad, bipartisan support. Representatives from the Clinton administration have worked with us virtually every day to support this effort. Last month, Senators Chafee and Smith introduced another measure that proposed a new liability scheme and made some other changes. Mr. President, I remain hopeful that we can reach an agreement on comprehensive reform, and note that the latest bill introduced by Senators Chafee and Smith--apart from the provisions on liability-- include improvements over the earlier draft. For example, the new measure would require that Superfund cleanups continue to meet Federal and State cleanups standards, and would allow States to impose their own liability and cleanup requirements. I am pleased by this progress and hope that it continues. Of course I would like to see it continue. At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about provisions in the chairmen's latest proposal that would dramatically reduce the responsibility of polluters to clean up their own waste. Before I go further, Mr. President, let me emphasize that Senators Chafee, Smith, Baucus and I share many goals. And I know every one of these senators is genuinely committed to making progress. We all want to reduce unnecessary litigation, and make Superfund more fair. Yet, I believe the approach embodied in their legislation has serious flaws. Their legislation essentially would eliminate polluters' liability for all actions causing pollution that took place before 1980. By letting so many polluters off the hook entirely, the proposal would fundamentally alter a basic principle of the Superfund Program: the principle that, in general, polluters--not taxpayers--should pay for cleaning up their own toxic waste. Mr. President, abandoning this principle would have serious consequences. It would lead to fewer cleanups. It would impose huge new burdens on State and local governments, which would be left holding the bag for cleaning up hundreds, if not thousands, of sites. And it would mean, in the end, that many fewer toxic waste sites will get cleaned up. Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I, along with the administration, have developed a different approach to reforming Superfund liability. I ask unanimous consent that an outline of our proposal be printed in the Record. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we think our proposal addresses many of the concerns that have been raised about Superfund's liability system. It would increase fairness, increase efficiency, and reduce transaction costs. At the same time, it would protect both the pace and protectiveness of cleanups. It would provide greater fairness and efficiency by establishing an allocation system under which those responsible for pollution pay only their fair share. Under this system, they would be able to do this quickly and without litigation. Second, the proposal increases fairness and efficiency, and cuts down on lawsuits, by pulling out of the process people who never should have been pulled in. This is accomplished through a series of exemptions and limitations on liability for small businesses, contributors of small amounts of waste, municipalities, charities, lenders, and other parties. The proposal would exempt as many as 30,000 small businesses from Superfund liability. It would limit the liability of up to 525 municipal owners and operators of municipal landfills. It would exempt countless individuals, businesses, and small nonprofit organizations that otherwise would be liable as a generator or transporter of municipal solid waste. It would exempt cities whose involvement is due solely to household trash created by its citizens. And it would exempt approximately 10,000 contributors of small amounts of waste. This means that parties like the Girl Scouts, local taxpayers, pizza parlors, and churches will be protected from frivolous lawsuits--suits brought by polluters who have tried to force innocent parties to bear cleanup costs, simply because they have sent ordinary household garbage to Superfund sites. At the same time, Mr. President, our proposal would reaffirm the principle that polluters should pay. It would ensure the availability of funding for more cleanups. And it would ensure that those responsible for pollution are held accountable for cleaning up the mess they have made. It is important to provide relief to many who have been swept into the Superfund system unfairly. But it is equally critical that toxic waste sites not be left untended as a result, or passed off as a burden to local taxpayers. Mr. President, I remain committed and hopeful about the possibility of enacting a Superfund bill in this Congress. I also want to express my appreciation to Senators Smith and Chafee for their acknowledgment that the only way to get Superfund reform this year is through a bipartisan effort. That kind of cooperation is part of a long tradition at the Environment and Public Works Committee, and it has resulted in landmark legislation protecting our citizens and environment. It will also be necessary if President Clinton is to sign a reform proposal into law. Chairman Chafee has scheduled hearings next week on Superfund, and I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss this proposal, among others. We have shared this proposal with our Republican colleagues, and we hope they will view it favorably. If we work together, we believe there is still time left in this session of Congress for the full Senate to consider a bill and work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to approve a bipartisan, consensus bill the President can sign. We believe our proposal is a serious effort to address concerns raised by our Republican colleagues. It also has the strong endorsement of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Carol Browner, and the White House. Mr. President, I believe that this proposal represents the best hope of securing a bipartisan Superfund bill this year that not only will be approved by the Senate, but which will be signed into law. And I remain committed to working hard with my colleagues to reach an agreement. Mr. President, we can have a Superfund program that is both more fair and more efficient at protecting public health and the environment. To accomplish this goal, we need to continue working together in a cooperative fashion. Seventy-three million Americans in every State of the country are counting on us to get the job done. I hope we will not let them down. With that I conclude my remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a constituent of mine whose name was Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein. Unfortunately, she has been in the papers a lot in this last week. Her life was at once ordinary and extraordinary. She was a resident of a town called Tinton Falls in New Jersey. She was a wife to her husband, Paul, and the mother to their 6-year-old son, Daniel. Mrs. Weinstein taught special education classes at Thorne Middle School in Middletown Township in New Jersey. She was a teacher, the kind of a teacher that we all wish our children had at some point in their education. She had begun a program in which children were given special recognition for committing ``random acts of kindness,'' toward their fellow students and the community--random acts of kindness. Everyone knows that plays on other words. The other words will become clearer in focus as I discuss Mrs. Weinstein's end of life. Today, Mr. President, the billboard in front of Thorne Middle School reads ``Mrs. Weinstein, Thank You for Your Random Acts of Kindness. We Will Miss You.'' She did not retire, Mr. President. Some days ago while on her way to take a test for a graduate school course, Kathleen Weinstein did what so many of us do ordinarily. She stopped at a local delicatessen in a shopping mall for a sandwich. When she returned to her car, a young man jumped in the car with her, threatened her, saying he had a gun, and abducted her with the car. Some time later, a day or so, her body was found in a wooded area where she had been smothered with her own coat. Unfortunately, in these times, Mr. President, this kind of event does not seem extraordinary. Indeed, Kathleen Weinstein was an extraordinary woman. At some time during her ordeal she had the presence of mind to reach into her coat pocket and turn on a small tape recorder. She recorded the conversation that she had with her soon-to-be killer, capturing her final conversation. Kathleen Weinstein pleaded for her life, but not until she had engaged her young--turned out to be 17-year-old--attacker, just turned 17, in what has been described as ``a meaningful conversation about a great many things.'' They talked about the consequences for his young life, and there was still time, she cautioned him, to turn things around. They talked about ``what happens by the decisions * * * that you make.'' The young man did not take her advice. You see, he was about to become 17 years old, and in New Jersey that is the age for a driving license. He wanted a car just like hers. So he took it. In the process, he took her life--a despicable, horrible, outrageous act. Mr. President, Kathleen Stanfield Weinstein's exceptional character and tragic death have touched the heart of Americans from around the country. It is ironic that a woman dedicated to teaching random acts of kindness to our children should be taken by a single random act of violence. She was ordinary, yet extraordinary. The legacy of her life will continue to touch New Jerseyans for a long, long time to come. I have an excerpt from a newspaper, the Cincinnati Post, that includes some of the conversation that she had with this young man. I will take the liberty of reading some parts of it. In a secretly recorded tape she hid in her coat pocket, the teacher is heard doing everything she can to reason with a teen-age carjacker, authorities said. Eventually she breaks down and begs in vain for her life. She says to him, ``You haven't done anything yet. All you have to do is let me go and take my car.'' The woman's miniature tape recorder clicked to a stop before she was smothered with her own coat and other pieces of clothing, officials said. She ``valiantly and persistently used every skill and power she had to convince her attacker to simply take her car and not her life,'' [the prosecutor] said. This 24-minute recording provides the key piece of evidence against the 17-year-old suspect. Through this article are accurate, precise statements that she made. The attack was described this way: After her attacker grabbed her from behind and forced his way into her car at gunpoint, she managed to turn on the voice-activated miniature cassette player hidden in a bag. She said to him, before he killed her, Don't you understand, though, what kind of trouble you are going to get in? Don't you think they are going to find you? You haven't done anything yet. All you have to do is let me go and take my car. For my life, don't you think I should be concerned and let you take my car? For my life! Do you really want that on your head? Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the full article as it appeared in the Cincinnati Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I make particular point of this horrible murder because it strikes a chord in all of us of our disappointment in the violence that threads our society, whether it is a young kid like this out to take a car or another youngster out to take a jacket--a senseless killing. Or like the killing recently here in Washington, DC, a 15-year-old boy, apparently a nice young man, good student, in trying to defend an argument between his younger sibling and another child-- stabbed to death. Mr. President, I ask a question that must go on in every home in everyone's mind in America: When will we stop this violence? How do we stop it? We sure do not stop it by a vote in the House of Representatives that says, ``Take away the ban on assault weapons. Let them have their assault weapons. That is part of freedom in America.'' That is nonsense. If I was not on public record I would use other words, perhaps, to describe it--to make sure that people could get their hands on weapons that are designed to kill people. That is what the vote was over there--some 230 votes for, and against, 170. I fought in World War II, Mr. President. I was no war hero, but I carried a weapon that could fire less shots than these assault weapons. I was supposed to kill the guys on the other side of the line. I was not called on to do it and they did not do it to me, either. The fact of the matter is the weapons issued to me as a soldier in the European theater were far less menacing than the kind of weapons we want to make sure everybody in America has, because the National Rifle Association says that is what we ought to do--make sure we free people up so they can bear their arms against their fellow citizens. That is hardly a way for a civilized society to conduct itself. When will we be so sick of violence that we will say no, no, no, you just cannot get a gun because you want one, and you are going to have to wait and pass a test just like you do when you want to drive a car? In my State, and in every State in this country, in the State of the distinguished occupant of the chair, there is a confrontation that could very well result in death and disaster. Lots of weapons are involved. In my State, a man walked into the post office in Montclair, my hometown, and shot four people. He is an ex-employee of the post office. At the Long Island Railroad out of New York City, a man shot and killed a number of people, one of them a young woman from New Jersey, whose parents I know. He did not know them, did not ever see them before. We hear about children picking up guns and killing other children. We hear about despondent daughters or sons taking their father's legitimately owned gun and blowing their heads off. We had four kids commit suicide in New Jersey a couple of years ago. They got hold of weapons and killed one another. There are disgruntled employees, disappointed partners, and family members who kill everybody in the family. We hear this trite old expression that makes me ill: ``Guns do not kill people, people kill people.'' Well, how do people get the ability to kill other people? I never heard of a drive-by knifing. Mr. President, one of these days, we are going to have to come to our senses about gun ownership, the proliferation of guns. I have legislation that I introduced the other day to reduce, on a Federal level, purchases of guns more than once a month. One gun a month, 12 guns a year. That does not sound like much of a restriction. But we have a fight on our hands. Maryland just passed it in one of the bodies of legislature there, in their Senate. It is predicted that it will go through with dispatch. Virginia has a one-gun-a-month program. Because Virginia has a limit of 1 gun a month--can you imagine, 12 guns a year are able to be purchased? They have reduced the gun presence in the Northeast of guns coming from the State of Virginia by 60-some percent by restricting gun purchases to one gun a month. The madness of it all. In order to protect those who demand an arsenal, they can buy 12 guns a year. It does not seem like that is a necessary thing to me. But I am willing to take whatever steps I can to reduce the proliferation of guns in our society. I have become friends with Sarah and Jim Brady. I would not have before Jim was shot because we were in different parties and of different political or philosophical persuasions, because I never belonged to a gun organization. But Jim Brady was a good friend of the National Rifle Association, until someone attempted to kill President Reagan and shot Jim Brady in the attack. Jim Brady, who has been physically disabled, wheelchair bound since that time, has turned the opposite way, and so did his wife, when they saw what a terrible thing a gun could do. There are others I have met who used to support the National Rifle Association agenda, and when they suddenly see violence in their homes, they are opposed to gun ownership as randomly as it exists in this country. I have also introduced legislation that says that anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor on domestic violence charges should not be able to own a gun. Right now, someone who has indicated that their rage is so impossible to control that they can come home and beat up their wife or kids and get convicted and stand in front of a judge in Baltimore County, and he says, ``I cannot assign criminal penalties to someone who is not a criminal,'' after the man killed his wife. He gave him community service and, I think, 5 months in jail after he killed his wife. He does not call it a criminal act. Now, Mr. President, we cannot do the job by simply building more jails. There was an editorial piece, an op-ed piece, in the New York Times the other day--and that is not gospel, but it was reporting facts--written by Anthony Lewis. He said that the biggest program for building in California was the building of jails. While the number of students per teacher increases, meaning less attention to the students' needs, jails are being built. I think criminals ought to be punished and punished hard. But I think we also ought to look at what it is that drives all these people to criminality with all of the penalties that we impose, each of them getting longer and larger and tougher. That has not curbed the violence problem. Maybe we ought to say, hey, perhaps there is a different way to do this and examine the alternative. I hope that we will, Mr. President. If I sound agitated, I am. I think about this young woman, a devoted parent and teacher, a teacher of the type that we all respect and want in our schools. She was murdered by some young punk who decides he wants her car. He was encouraged by what he sees on television and what he sees in gun ownership. She is threatened by a gun and did not even know that it existed, but she knows when someone says they have a gun, very often that is the case. I hope we will learn from this courageous woman's death, and many other murders around the country, that we ought to do something differently. I hope that police departments across the country will start to prepare some advisory so that women can protect themselves. I have heard--and I do not know whether this is true; I state it secondhand--that a woman is better off to resist in a public place than to permit herself to be taken out of the public limelight. I do not know whether it is true, but I hope police departments--I would like to see police departments across the country prescribe actions in response to an attack of that type, to do something to protect themselves, to thwart the intentions of somebody who wants to take their lives, or take their property first and, typically, then their lives, and often whether or not the property is gained. Mr. President, I hope we do not have to keep on discussing these kinds of things in the U.S. Senate, or in the Congress, or in our Government, and that we can look forward to a more peaceful time within our society. We are all shocked and horrified by the prospect of military engagement in Bosnia and in other parts of the world, and we look with horror upon the period in Vietnam when so many of our young people fought bravely and gallantly against a bad policy decision. We lost 50,000 people in the period of years that the Vietnam war went on. Now we lose over 15,000 people a year in this country to gun murders. Unfortunately, it does not get a lot of attention. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would just take 1 minute from my other remarks to say, though this may have been the last major appropriations conference the distinguished Senator from Oregon manages, with his fairly delicate but forceful touch, as I watched him as a member of the committee deal with a number of issues, a number of temperaments, always with his excellent eye on the mission, I marvel at Senator Hatfield's patience and diligence and skill. This is no time for eulogies or good-byes, but he will be missed. That aisle does not separate our friendship in any way at all. As a matter of fact, few issues separate our friendship. But my respect for his ability, for his service to country will be a permanent thing. I hope that it is also recognized in this body of ours that too few times do we have an opportunity to work with someone who has the kind of compassion and concern that is essential if one is to render the best service possible to this country of ours. I thank the Senator for his sacrifices, for his willingness to bend to the task, and his skill for getting the job done for so many years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from a newspaper in New Jersey, the Bergen Record, who editorialized, ``Sterling Forest is too important to this region's well-being to become a hostage of partisan politicking.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also care about title XXVI, which recognizes the historic significance and natural beauty of the Great Falls area of Paterson, NJ. Paterson is my home town. The history of the region was part of my childhood. In 1778, Alexander Hamilton came to the area and decided that the Great Falls could serve as a power source for the Nation's first industrialized community. Working with Pierre L'Enfant and then Governor William Paterson, Hamilton began to develop the resources as a means to free the Nation from England through business and manufacturing. Over the years, Paterson became known as the Silk City, and as the center of the textile industry. During the past decades, however, the Great Falls historic preserve has borne the brunt of industrial flight and the treasures at the Great Falls are threatened. This bill would allow for the partnership of the National Park Service to assist in restoring the treasures and history of the area. The Senate passed this bill last Congress. The bill deserves to be passed on its own, rather than as part of an omnibus park land bill that will be vetoed. In conclusion, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will understand what is happening here. Most of the bills included in this package are noncontroversial. But some are not. We should move forward and strike those bills that will attract a veto from the President and allow the rest of the bills to be considered and passed on their own merit.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment to H.R. 1296, the Presidio bill. Mr. President, as we all know by now, this is not a noncontroversial public lands bill. There are many provisions in the bill that truly are noncontroversial, and that have been considered and voted on in committee with little if any opposition. And I would note that the bill includes the Sterling Forest Preservation Act, which Senator Bradley and I strongly support. Unfortunately, the real goal of the pending substitute amendment is to slip through the highly controversial Utah wilderness provisions, based on Senate bill 884. Those provisions would permanently release millions of acres from wilderness study, and, in turn, allow uses on these lands that will destroy lands with significant ecological and scientific value. Mr. President, I oppose including S. 884 in this omnibus lands bill, and will support an effort to remove that title in its entirety. We need to act on many of the provisions in the underlying legislation, which are truly noncontroversial. But we ought to have a separate, open, and honest debate on those provisions that are controversial. Mr. President, I have heard from more people--both in New Jersey and from out West--about the Utah wilderness bill than perhaps any other public lands issue. By an overwhelming margin, people have urged me to support Utah wilderness, and to oppose S. 884 as written. Who are these people who visit my office, write me letters, stop me in the halls? They are people from New Jersey who understand what it means to live in the most densely populated State in the Nation. People who understand what it means to live in a State still reeling from the legacy of pollution from the industry, and who value open space, beautiful natural resources, and clean fresh air. These New Jerseyans know that once land is destroyed by extensive development, it may never return as it was. At best, it takes a very long time to recover. I've heard it said on the floor of this Senate that the only people who oppose S. 884 are the Eastern elites. Well, Mr. President, these so-called elites from New Jersey are really ordinary people who care about their environment and their Nation's natural resources. They care because they know what it's like to be without. But, Mr. President, not everybody opposed to S. 884 is from New Jersey. Take the mayor of Springdale, UT. He visited me a year ago to explain how his community benefits more from preserving the wilderness than from activities that would alter or destroy it. As the mayor explained, recreation and its associated businesses provide for a sustainable and growing economy. By contrast, he said, resource extraction does not. I've also heard from a fourth generation Utah native, the past president of the Salt Lake City Rotary Club, a Mormon, and father of four children who urged me to get involved in this issue. He told me that recreational and other commercial enterprises depend on the wilderness. And that these businesses are critical to the economic vitality of the State of Utah and to Utahn's quality of life. He also told me that preservation is crucial to his peace of mind. Mr. President, it is true that these lands are all in Utah. But they are also national lands that contribute to the entire country. They have great ecological significance, and they provide scientific and educational treasures, as well as a growing recreation business. That is why I care. I also care very much about title XVI of the bill, the Sterling Forest Preservation Act. Let me talk a little about Sterling Forest and why its preservation is so important. This bill designates the Sterling Forest Reserve and authorizes up to $17.5 million to acquire land in the Sterling Forest area of the New York/New Jersey Highlands region. This would preserve the largest pristine private land area in the most densely populated metropolitan region in the United States. It also would protect the source of drinking water for 2 million New Jerseyans. Mr. President, the Highlands region is a 1.1 million acre area of mountain ridges and valleys. The region stretches from the Hudson to the Delaware Rivers and consists primarily of forests and farmlands. The Forest Service, in a 1992 study, called the Highlands, ``a landscape of national significance, rich in natural resources and recreational opportunities.'' Unfortunately, the Highlands region faces an increasing threat of unprecedented urbanization. Perhaps the most immediately threatened area is Sterling Forest. Located within a 2-hour drive for more than 20 million people, the 17,500-acre tract of land on the New York side is owned by a private company that has mapped out an ambitious plan for development. The community that this corporation plans to develop will have a negative impact on drinking water for one-quarter of New Jersey residents. It also threatens the local ecosystem and wildlife, the nationally designated Appalachian Trail, and the quality of life of residents of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. I will not describe this proposed project in detail. But suffice it to say that one cannot build more than 14,000 housing units and 8 million square feet of commercial and light industrial space, and release 5 million gallons of treated wastewater into a pure environment, without a significant impact. My concern about the project's effect on New Jerseyans' drinking water is not new. We have known for some time that this development will destroy valuable wetlands, which filter and purify the water supply, and watersheds, which drain into reservoirs--reservoirs which supply one quarter of New Jersey's residents with drinking water. The proposal calls for three new sewage treatment plants to accommodate the development. These plants will discharge 5.5 million gallons of treated wastewater each day into the watersheds. Compounding matters will be nonpoint source pollution generated by runoff from roads, parking lots, golf courses, and lawns. This runoff carries pollutants such as fertilizers, salt, and petroleum products, among others. Together these pollutants pose a serious threat to drinking water, which is why there is so much concern in New Jersey. I am not alone in my opposition to the proposed development. Residents from the nearby communities also oppose it. Based on testimony delivered during local public hearings, the development plan will impose $21 million in additional tax burdens on surrounding communities. On the other hand, under the management scenario proposed by this bill, a park would generate revenue. The only viable management option for this important ecosystem is preservation. And that is what is proposed in this legislation. The bill would provide critical protection for the forest. But it does not impose the heavy hand of the Federal Government on the local community or on the owner of the property. The funds authorized in this bill represent a fraction of the total funding needed to purchase the forest. The rest would come from other public entities, such as the States of New Jersey and New York, and private parties. I also would note that the legislation specifically requires a willing buyer-willing seller transaction--if the company determines that it is not in its best interest to sell, it doesn't have to. Furthermore, the Federal Government would be relieved of the significant costs associated with forest management, law enforcement, fire protection, and maintenance of the roads and parking areas under an agreement with a respected bi-State authority. These provisions have the support of the local communities, the two States, and regional interests. They are cost effective and reasonable. And they are environmentally responsible. Senator Bradley and I have worked on this bill for years now, and we are pleased to note that last June, the bill passed as part of H.R. 400, now pending in the House. We have heard many expressions of support from the Speaker of the House for preserving Sterling Forest, and we anxiously await passage of H.R. 400. Unfortunately, including Sterling Forest in this bill only serves to, in the words of the Sterling Forest Coalition, ``hold Sterling Forest hostage to S. 884.'' The people of New Jersey do not support this omnibus lands bill as written, and I share their view. Let me quote from a letter I received yesterday from the Highlands Coalition, a leading organization with membership in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey: The Title XX of this bill, the Utah Public Lands Management Act . . . is anathema to environmental principles and must not be connected to Sterling Forest funding . . . The amount of acreage it would set aside as Wilderness in southern Utah is meager compared to what the majority of citizens in Utah and surrounding States would like to see. The preservation of Sterling Forest must not be at the cost of environmental degradation elsewhere in the United States. The Omnibus Parks bill must be amended to delete in its entirety the S. 884 Utah Public Lands Management provisions. If this bill is not so amended, we ask you to vote against the entire Omnibus Parks package. Mr. President, letters like this help show how our Nation's wilderness areas meet national interests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter from the Highlands Coalition be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. There is a right way and a wrong way to provide the President with a line-item veto. This is the wrong way. Mr. President, I have supported a line-item veto in the past. I believe that the President should have greater authority to weed out wasteful tax breaks and unnecessary weapon systems. But this legislation goes too far. I have three major objections to this conference report. First, this legislation cedes too much power to the President. Under this proposal, any President and one-third plus one in the House can stop any appropriated item. This legislation goes much further than the so-called separate enrollment bill that passed the Senate. The legislation before us, in effect, allows the President to veto report language and tables in Committee reports. This means that the President can veto airport improvement funds for Newark but keep funds for Kennedy and LaGuardia airports. And the only way to override this type of veto is to get two-thirds of the Members in both House to support an individual item--which is highly unlikely. The President of the United States already has awesome constitutional power. Look at what has happened in the past 6 months. The President vetoed a Republican budget that made huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the rich. He stopped this cold. He also vetoed a welfare reform bill that would have doomed 1.5 million children to live in poverty. Finally, he vetoed spending bills that made deep cuts in education, environment, and community policing. Mr. President, the Congress was never able to override these vetoes. This demonstrates how powerful the Presidency can be when it comes to vetoing unfair budget priorities. We should not provide the chief executive with this new power on top of the tremendous power he already possesses. Second, this legislation makes a mockery of applying the line-item veto to tax breaks. The Senate bill originally allowed the President to use the line-item veto to stop some tax breaks. These breaks were defined far too narrowly. But even this language did not survive conference. This conference report only allows the President to veto tax items that affect fewer than 100 persons. This means that Congress can pass a tax break that only applies to people with incomes over $1 million and the President could not single this out. Furthermore, the language also exempts other classes of persons from the tax provisions of the bill. One such exemption is property. Therefore, if Congress passed a tax break for 99 owners of a certain type of yacht, the President could not veto this provision. In summary, this legislation allows the President to use the line- item veto to reject investments in education and the environment but not to reject tax breaks for millionaires. This is preposterous. Finally, I object to the Republican political hypocrisy that went into choosing an effective date and sunset date for this legislation. This bill was a part of the so-called Contract With America. The House passed its version of this bill on February 6, 1995. The Senate passed its version on March 23, 1995. During debate on this legislation, I heard many Republicans in both Houses say that they were so committed to passing this legislation that they were even willing to give this power to a Democratic President. They argued how important the line-item veto was to cut out wasteful spending and unnecessary tax breaks. Despite all of the clamoring by the Republicans, they began to drag their feet so that they would not have to give this power to President Clinton. They delayed naming conferees on the bill. They stalled on calling a meeting for the conferees. They kept dragging it out so that they could pass the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills before the line-item veto bill became law. During this period of inaction, the Republican majority sent President Clinton a pork-laden Defense appropriations bill that spent $7 billion more than the Pentagon wanted. This is when President Clinton really needed the line-item veto--so he could reject this $7 billion in unnecessary spending. But he did not have this tool then. The Republicans were simply playing politics with the line-item veto bill. Now, we find ourselves with an entire new set of dates in this legislation. This bill will now go into effect on January 1, 1997 and it will last 8 years. Mr. President, this is so blatantly political. But this is not the reason why we should reject this conference report. We should vote this down because it cedes too much power to the President and renders him powerless to fight tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Omnibus School Transportation Safety Act of 1996, that would improve the safety of schoolbus travel. The legislation would require background checks of schoolbus drivers, establish minimum proficiency standards for such drivers, and promote advanced technologies that can help prevent schoolbus accidents. In addition, the bill calls for a variety of studies that could improve schoolbus safety and increase the information on bus safety available to school districts and parents. Mr. President, America's schoolchildren have a right to safe transportation to and from school. And we have a responsibility to do everything we can to guarantee that safety. To ensure our children's safety, we first must ensure that bus drivers are decent individuals who will not harm their passengers. Unfortunately, sexual deviants often are attracted to driving a schoolbus because the job gives them easy access to children who are the focus of their sexual desires. Children who ride on schoolbuses, particularly those in elementary school, are extremely vulnerable to physical abuse. They are too young to comprehend what is being done to them and too small to physically defend themselves from an attack. As a nation, we have a responsibility to provide as much protection as possible to this vulnerable population. My bill therefore would require all States to perform a Federal background check on potential schoolbus drivers before they are allowed to be alone with our children. Eighteen States--Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Louisiana-- already conduct State and Federal background checks on their drivers. My amendment generally would not affect how these States administer their programs. Fourteen States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin--currently perform only state background checks. This is well-meaning, but insufficient. A convicted sexual deviant can easily move to one of these States, receive a clean background check, and begin driving his prey to and from school. My bill therefore would require those States to participate in the nationwide, Federal program. There also are 18 States--Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming--that have no background checks for their schoolbus drivers. There is no rational reason why these States should not do more to protect their citizens. Mr. President, during the 2 months after California instituted Federal criminal background checks in 1990, it screened out 150 convicted sex offenders, child molesters, and violent criminals who tried to get permits to drive schoolbuses. This is shocking and my bill would address this problem. Beyond requiring background checks for prospective schoolbus drivers, Mr. President, my bill includes a variety of provisions designed to reduce school-bus accidents. During the past 10 years, 300 school-age pedestrians under 19 years of age have died in schoolbus-related crashes. Two-thirds were killed by their own schoolbus. Half of all school-age pedestrians killed by schoolbuses in the past 10 years were 5- and 6-year-olds. On average, 21 school-age pedestrians are killed by schoolbuses each year, and 9 are killed by other vehicles involved in schoolbus-related crashes. Mr. President, as a nation, we need to do much more to prevent schoolbus accidents. This bill attacks the problem on a number of fronts. First, it would establish proficiency standards for schoolbus drivers. Mr. President, driving a schoolbus with 40 young, screaming children is a unique skill that deserves specialized training. Unfortunately, many drivers are distracted when their young passengers are noisy or otherwise disruptive, and the results can be tragic. Inattention is one of the two factors most often reported by police for schoolbus drivers striking school-age pedestrians. Bus drivers already are required to possess a commercial driver's license with a general endorsement for those driving vehicles with more than 15 passengers. However, there are no Federal standards specifically directed to schoolbus drivers. My bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe such standards. Mr. President, some States already prescribe a level of proficiency for schoolbus drivers, but many do not. My bill generally would not interfere with existing State programs, but it would ensure that all schoolbus drivers meet a minimum standard of proficiency. Another way that my bill would reduce schoolbus accidents is by assisting States to develop safer places for children to enter and leave their bus. For example, States could make bus stops more safe by increasing their visibility. Similarly, States could establish special safe areas in which children could disembark from busses, away from traffic. The legislation also would require the Secretary of Transportation to promote the use and reduce the cost of hazard warning systems or sensors that alert schoolbus drivers of pedestrians or vehicles in, or approaching, the path of the schoolbus. These types of warning systems can be critical in saving the lives of young people. Unfortunatately, many school districts have failed to invest in such systems. One reason is that their cost can be high. We need to explore ways to reduce those costs. Another provision in the bill would require the Secretary to improve training materials on schoolbus safety and to improve the distribution and availability of such materials to schools for use by the student safety patrols. The most effective way to protect schoolchildren is to teach them to protect themselves. The Department of Transportation can do more in this area. My legislation also would promote research into the possibility of installing safety belts in schoolbuses. Mr. President, in addition to the loss of life attributed to schoolbus accidents that I mentioned earlier, approximately 10,000 schoolbus passengers are injured every year. Most injuries occur during side and rollover collisions. In this type of collision, the compartmentalized seat does not protect children, who can fall up to 8 feet to strike the roof, windows, other seats, and other children. To reduce these types of injuries, the State of New Jersey requires the installation and use of safety belts in all schoolbuses. New Jersey's State law in this area was adopted after a study by the New Jersey Office of Highway Traffic Safety into the safety of lap seatbelts in large school vehicles. That study concluded that installation of seatbelts in all schoolbuses would improve vehicles' overall safety performance. The study recommended that schoolbuses be required to be equipped with seatbelts, which led to later enactment of the New Jersey law. Mr. President, I support this law and believe it should be adopted on a Nation-wide basis. It is nearly impossible for a bus without belts to rollover without causing injuries or death. However, I recognize that some in Washington believe more information is needed before establishing such a Federal requirement. One cause of this skepticism is that the Federal Government does not study crashes in which there are no injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board only investigates bus crashes where there are severe injuries or fatalities. Therefore, the data they collect do not accurately reflect the benefits of safety belts in schoolbuses. A bus with safety belts costs an average of $1,000 more than a bus without belts. With an estimated schoolbus life of 15 years, seatbelt installation would cost approximately $66 per bus per year. Children are already required to wear seatbelts in cars. Installation of seatbelts on the standard size schoolbuses would reinforce the importance of wearing seatbelts, reduce injuries to our children, cost relatively little to install and maintain, and overall, makes schoolbus transportation safer for our children. My bill would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] to study the safety impact of safety belts on schoolbuses. It specifically requires that NHTSA evaluate the real life consequences of New Jersey's safety belt law. I am hopeful that the resulting study will help end the longstanding debate on this issue, so we can move forward to protect the lives of our Nation's children. Mr. President, this legislation also requires the Secretary of Transportation to begin a rulemaking process to determine the feasibility and practicability of: First, decreasing the flammability of materials used in the construction of the interiors of schoolbuses; second, informing purchasers of schoolbuses on the secondary market that those buses may not meet current NHTSA standards; and third, establishing construction and design standards for wheelchairs used in the transportation of students in schoolbuses. The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct a variety of studies designed to provide an accurate data base of schoolbus safety information. In addition, the bill, in response to requests from some States, calls for Federal guidelines on the securing in a schoolbus of children under the age of five, and on measures to facilitate their evacuation in an emergency. Mr. President, the Omnibus School Transportation Safety Act of 1996 is comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce deaths and injuries of children associated with schoolbus accidents. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would prohibit individuals who have been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from owning or possessing firearms. Under current Federal law, Mr. President, it is illegal for people convicted of felonies to possess firearms. Yet many people who engage in serious spousal or child abuse ultimately are not charged with or convicted of felonies. At the end of the day, maybe following a plea bargain, they are convicted of misdemeanors. And these people are still free under Federal law to possess firearms. This legislation will close this loophole, and will help keep guns out of the hands of people who have proven themselves to be violent and a threat to those closest to them. The legislation would add to the list of persons disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm individuals who have been convicted of any crime involving domestic violence, regardless of the length, term, or manner of punishment. This includes violent crimes committed by a spouse, former spouse, paramour, parent, guardian or similar individual. Mr. President, although there is a growing awareness about the problem of domestic violence, in many places, even today, these outrageous acts are not taken as seriously as other forms of brutal behavior. Yet each year an estimated 2 million women are victimized by domestic violence. That is 10 times the number of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those 2 million women, nearly 6,000 die at the hands of men who at least at one time claimed to love them. About 70 percent of the time, those hands are holding a gun. Mr. President, much of the killing and maiming associated with domestic violence could not happen but for the presence of a firearm. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that in households with a history of battering, a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a woman will be murdered fivefold. Often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Acts of domestic violence, by their nature, are especially dangerous and require special attention. These crimes involve people who have a history together, and who perhaps share a home or a child. These are not violent acts between strangers, and they do not arise from a chance meeting. Even after a split, the individuals involved often by necessity have a continuing relationship of some sort. The husbands, boyfriends, and former husbands who commit these crimes often have a record of violent and threatening behavior. And yet, frequently, these men are being permitted to possess firearms--with no legal restrictions. The statistics and data are clear. Domestic violence, no matter how it is labeled, leads to more domestic violence. And guns in the hand of convicted spouse abusers lead to death. To me, Mr. President, it is a simple proposition. Those guilty of acts of domestic violence should not be trusted to acquire or possess a gun. Period. Mr. President, this legislation would save the lives of many innocent Americans. But it also would send a message about our Nation's commitment to ending domestic violence, and about our determination to protect the millions of women and children who suffer from this abuse. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would prohibit individuals who have been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from owning or possessing firearms. Under current Federal law, Mr. President, it is illegal for people convicted of felonies to possess firearms. Yet many people who engage in serious spousal or child abuse ultimately are not charged with or convicted of felonies. At the end of the day, maybe following a plea bargain, they are convicted of misdemeanors. And these people are still free under Federal law to possess firearms. This legislation will close this loophole, and will help keep guns out of the hands of people who have proven themselves to be violent and a threat to those closest to them. The legislation would add to the list of persons disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm individuals who have been convicted of any crime involving domestic violence, regardless of the length, term, or manner of punishment. This includes violent crimes committed by a spouse, former spouse, paramour, parent, guardian or similar individual. Mr. President, although there is a growing awareness about the problem of domestic violence, in many places, even today, these outrageous acts are not taken as seriously as other forms of brutal behavior. Yet each year an estimated 2 million women are victimized by domestic violence. That is 10 times the number of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer. Of those 2 million women, nearly 6,000 die at the hands of men who at least at one time claimed to love them. About 70 percent of the time, those hands are holding a gun. Mr. President, much of the killing and maiming associated with domestic violence could not happen but for the presence of a firearm. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that in households with a history of battering, a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a woman will be murdered fivefold. Often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Acts of domestic violence, by their nature, are especially dangerous and require special attention. These crimes involve people who have a history together, and who perhaps share a home or a child. These are not violent acts between strangers, and they do not arise from a chance meeting. Even after a split, the individuals involved often by necessity have a continuing relationship of some sort. The husbands, boyfriends, and former husbands who commit these crimes often have a record of violent and threatening behavior. And yet, frequently, these men are being permitted to possess firearms--with no legal restrictions. The statistics and data are clear. Domestic violence, no matter how it is labeled, leads to more domestic violence. And guns in the hand of convicted spouse abusers lead to death. To me, Mr. President, it is a simple proposition. Those guilty of acts of domestic violence should not be trusted to acquire or possess a gun. Period. Mr. President, this legislation would save the lives of many innocent Americans. But it also would send a message about our Nation's commitment to ending domestic violence, and about our determination to protect the millions of women and children who suffer from this abuse. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Omnibus School Transportation Safety Act of 1996, that would improve the safety of schoolbus travel. The legislation would require background checks of schoolbus drivers, establish minimum proficiency standards for such drivers, and promote advanced technologies that can help prevent schoolbus accidents. In addition, the bill calls for a variety of studies that could improve schoolbus safety and increase the information on bus safety available to school districts and parents. Mr. President, America's schoolchildren have a right to safe transportation to and from school. And we have a responsibility to do everything we can to guarantee that safety. To ensure our children's safety, we first must ensure that bus drivers are decent individuals who will not harm their passengers. Unfortunately, sexual deviants often are attracted to driving a schoolbus because the job gives them easy access to children who are the focus of their sexual desires. Children who ride on schoolbuses, particularly those in elementary school, are extremely vulnerable to physical abuse. They are too young to comprehend what is being done to them and too small to physically defend themselves from an attack. As a nation, we have a responsibility to provide as much protection as possible to this vulnerable population. My bill therefore would require all States to perform a Federal background check on potential schoolbus drivers before they are allowed to be alone with our children. Eighteen States--Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Louisiana-- already conduct State and Federal background checks on their drivers. My amendment generally would not affect how these States administer their programs. Fourteen States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Illinois, and Wisconsin--currently perform only state background checks. This is well-meaning, but insufficient. A convicted sexual deviant can easily move to one of these States, receive a clean background check, and begin driving his prey to and from school. My bill therefore would require those States to participate in the nationwide, Federal program. There also are 18 States--Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wyoming--that have no background checks for their schoolbus drivers. There is no rational reason why these States should not do more to protect their citizens. Mr. President, during the 2 months after California instituted Federal criminal background checks in 1990, it screened out 150 convicted sex offenders, child molesters, and violent criminals who tried to get permits to drive schoolbuses. This is shocking and my bill would address this problem. Beyond requiring background checks for prospective schoolbus drivers, Mr. President, my bill includes a variety of provisions designed to reduce school-bus accidents. During the past 10 years, 300 school-age pedestrians under 19 years of age have died in schoolbus-related crashes. Two-thirds were killed by their own schoolbus. Half of all school-age pedestrians killed by schoolbuses in the past 10 years were 5- and 6-year-olds. On average, 21 school-age pedestrians are killed by schoolbuses each year, and 9 are killed by other vehicles involved in schoolbus-related crashes. Mr. President, as a nation, we need to do much more to prevent schoolbus accidents. This bill attacks the problem on a number of fronts. First, it would establish proficiency standards for schoolbus drivers. Mr. President, driving a schoolbus with 40 young, screaming children is a unique skill that deserves specialized training. Unfortunately, many drivers are distracted when their young passengers are noisy or otherwise disruptive, and the results can be tragic. Inattention is one of the two factors most often reported by police for schoolbus drivers striking school-age pedestrians. Bus drivers already are required to possess a commercial driver's license with a general endorsement for those driving vehicles with more than 15 passengers. However, there are no Federal standards specifically directed to schoolbus drivers. My bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe such standards. Mr. President, some States already prescribe a level of proficiency for schoolbus drivers, but many do not. My bill generally would not interfere with existing State programs, but it would ensure that all schoolbus drivers meet a minimum standard of proficiency. Another way that my bill would reduce schoolbus accidents is by assisting States to develop safer places for children to enter and leave their bus. For example, States could make bus stops more safe by increasing their visibility. Similarly, States could establish special safe areas in which children could disembark from busses, away from traffic. The legislation also would require the Secretary of Transportation to promote the use and reduce the cost of hazard warning systems or sensors that alert schoolbus drivers of pedestrians or vehicles in, or approaching, the path of the schoolbus. These types of warning systems can be critical in saving the lives of young people. Unfortunatately, many school districts have failed to invest in such systems. One reason is that their cost can be high. We need to explore ways to reduce those costs. Another provision in the bill would require the Secretary to improve training materials on schoolbus safety and to improve the distribution and availability of such materials to schools for use by the student safety patrols. The most effective way to protect schoolchildren is to teach them to protect themselves. The Department of Transportation can do more in this area. My legislation also would promote research into the possibility of installing safety belts in schoolbuses. Mr. President, in addition to the loss of life attributed to schoolbus accidents that I mentioned earlier, approximately 10,000 schoolbus passengers are injured every year. Most injuries occur during side and rollover collisions. In this type of collision, the compartmentalized seat does not protect children, who can fall up to 8 feet to strike the roof, windows, other seats, and other children. To reduce these types of injuries, the State of New Jersey requires the installation and use of safety belts in all schoolbuses. New Jersey's State law in this area was adopted after a study by the New Jersey Office of Highway Traffic Safety into the safety of lap seatbelts in large school vehicles. That study concluded that installation of seatbelts in all schoolbuses would improve vehicles' overall safety performance. The study recommended that schoolbuses be required to be equipped with seatbelts, which led to later enactment of the New Jersey law. Mr. President, I support this law and believe it should be adopted on a Nation-wide basis. It is nearly impossible for a bus without belts to rollover without causing injuries or death. However, I recognize that some in Washington believe more information is needed before establishing such a Federal requirement. One cause of this skepticism is that the Federal Government does not study crashes in which there are no injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board only investigates bus crashes where there are severe injuries or fatalities. Therefore, the data they collect do not accurately reflect the benefits of safety belts in schoolbuses. A bus with safety belts costs an average of $1,000 more than a bus without belts. With an estimated schoolbus life of 15 years, seatbelt installation would cost approximately $66 per bus per year. Children are already required to wear seatbelts in cars. Installation of seatbelts on the standard size schoolbuses would reinforce the importance of wearing seatbelts, reduce injuries to our children, cost relatively little to install and maintain, and overall, makes schoolbus transportation safer for our children. My bill would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] to study the safety impact of safety belts on schoolbuses. It specifically requires that NHTSA evaluate the real life consequences of New Jersey's safety belt law. I am hopeful that the resulting study will help end the longstanding debate on this issue, so we can move forward to protect the lives of our Nation's children. Mr. President, this legislation also requires the Secretary of Transportation to begin a rulemaking process to determine the feasibility and practicability of: First, decreasing the flammability of materials used in the construction of the interiors of schoolbuses; second, informing purchasers of schoolbuses on the secondary market that those buses may not meet current NHTSA standards; and third, establishing construction and design standards for wheelchairs used in the transportation of students in schoolbuses. The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct a variety of studies designed to provide an accurate data base of schoolbus safety information. In addition, the bill, in response to requests from some States, calls for Federal guidelines on the securing in a schoolbus of children under the age of five, and on measures to facilitate their evacuation in an emergency. Mr. President, the Omnibus School Transportation Safety Act of 1996 is comprehensive legislation that would dramatically reduce deaths and injuries of children associated with schoolbus accidents. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 942, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Mr. President, America's small businesses badly need relief from excessive and unnecessary regulations. For years, those of us on the Small Business Committee have heard first hand from men and women in small businesses about the disproportionate regulatory burden they face. This burden was confirmed late last year in a report by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy. Among other things, the report found that while small businesses employ 53 percent of the workforce, they bear 63 percent of total business regulatory costs. The annual average cost of regulation, paperwork, and tax compliance for small businesses is about $5,000 per employee. By contrast, the comparable burden for businesses with over 500 workers is $3,400 per employee. This difference is significant. Big businesses already enjoy a competitive advantage over their smaller counterparts because of economies of scale. The Federal Government should not further disadvantage small businesses by imposing uniform regulations where tiering the regulation to account for business size would be just as effective. Mr. President, the bill before us will give teeth to the Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress passed in 1980. That act, known as the Reg Flex Act, requires agencies to assess the effects of their proposed rules on small entities. Based on this assessment, agencies either have to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact on small entities, or they must certify that their rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite Congress's best intentions, agencies all too often have refused to comply with the Reg Flex Act. Unfortunately, there is nothing small businesses can do currently to enforce compliance. S. 942 would correct this problem. The bill would enable small businesses to take agencies to court to challenge an agency's determination. This should provide the spur necessary to ensure much greater compliance in the future. In addition, this bill will require agencies to publish compliance guides for small businesses. In the study commissioned by SBA, 94 percent of small businesses said that it was unclear what they had to do to be in compliance with regulations. By providing easily understood explanations of regulations, agencies will ensure greater compliance. In addition, the bill directs agencies to provide informal guidance to small businesses about what is required of them to be in compliance. In the case of regulations for which a regulatory flexibility analysis is required, small businesses will now be part of the rulemaking process by providing advice and recommendations to agencies before proposed and final rules are issued. To further help small businesses make their way through complicated regulations, the bill permits Small Business Development Centers and Manufacturing Technology Centers to offer regulatory compliance assistance and onsite assessments for small businesses. Finally, Mr. President, S. 942 makes it easier, in certain instances, for small businesses to obtain attorneys fees from the government for claims upon which they prevail. I had serious concerns about the language we considered in the Small Business Committee mark up, which modified the so-called Equal Access to Justice Act. I did, however, have the assurance of the Senator from Missouri that our offices would change these provisions so that we would not be rewarding companies with attorneys fees when they violated the law, because, for example, they prevailed on 1 of 10 claims. I believe the new language contained in sections 301 and 302 accomplishes the goal of aiding firms that had to fight the Government on meritless suits, while protecting taxpayers from paying the attorneys fees for companies that have broken the law. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Bond and his staff for their willingness to adopt recommended changes suggested by myself and other members of the Small Business Committee. Most Members of this body express their desire to work with their colleagues across the aisle, but those expressions often prove hollow. In this case, however, I am happy to say that S. 942 is truly a bipartisan bill and I hope we will have many more such bills before the end of the 104th Congress. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Clinton Administration's ``Reinventing Government'' initiative and last year's White House Conference on Small Business. Their efforts laid the groundwork for the legislation we are considering today. Again, I want to thank Senator Bond and Small Business Committee staffers Keith Cole and John Ball for their assistance on this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S. 942.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would appreciate having some time from the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to do it, and I ask unanimous consent that it does not come off the remaining time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the one thing that mystifies me about some of the actions that we take here is, why is it that a few want to control the thoughts for so many? It is an assault on one's human rights, one's civil rights. It is inappropriate to be introducing this kind of legislation that has to deal with things other than the funding issue, and to intrude on people's private lives. To suggest that the way to deal appropriately with the sparseness of funds is to take away people's right to learn as part of a medical education, and that they might lose their Federal funding--not might, but will--it is outrageous. God was good to me yesterday. My oldest daughter delivered a beautiful baby boy, and I was in that hospital on the maternity ward, and I was looking around, and I thought, thank goodness, they have the facilities that they have to be able to bring new life into being. I thought about those poor women who, at the same time, who may be distressed by the fact that there was a conception. It was bizarre, but in the news today was a woman who was 10 years comatose, was raped by someone in the institution she was in, and she delivered a child. Is that not ridiculous that we would object to having someone learn the abortion technique, so that in the case of a request or a need, that it is unavailable? I think this is mischievous, I think it is unfair, and I think that the American people ought to rise up and say: Listen, enough of that stuff. You do what you want to. If you do not believe that a woman ought to have choice in an unwanted pregnancy, then do not do it. But why should someone else lose their right to make that choice if they are in such a situation? It is outrageous. We have these sneak attacks constantly--do it one way, do it another way. You violate the principles that we operate under. Privacy--that is what the Supreme Court said. Why is it OK for some people to decide what is appropriate, private or not? The courts have made a decision. So, I hope, Mr. President, that both bodies will reject this. I hope the Senate will decline to support this. The notion that the city of Washington should not be able to use its own funds as it sees fit, I think, is a disgrace. So I hope that we will reject this invasion of privacy, of decency, if you will. This issue is not about abortion, it is about Federal intrusion into a private decision. With that, I yield the floor back to my colleague, if any time remains.