Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Boxer in introducing the Environmental Dredge Disposal Act of 1996, a bill to establish a fair cost-sharing formula for the disposal of dredged material. Mr. President, under existing law, the Federal Government helps assume the cost of the disposal or dumping at sea of dredged material associated with operation and maintenance of Federal channels. However, the Federal Government does not provide similar assistance for other methods of disposal, even when these other methods are more beneficial for the environment. This inconsistency makes no sense, and threatens the economic viability of large and small ports throughout the country. My bill proposes to eliminate this inconsistency, and would ensure that the Federal cost-sharing formula related to disposal of dredged material applies regardless of where the dredged material is disposed. More technically, the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to make upland, aquatic, and confined aquatic dredged material disposal facilities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a Federal navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor a general navigation feature of a project for the purpose of cost sharing. The bill includes safeguards to ensure that no single port receives a competitive advantage as a result of this bill. Mr. President, in 1824, Congress assigned responsibility for improving navigation in the still-young Nation's waterways to the Federal Government. Federal maintenance of a channel system has always been important for interstate and foreign commerce, and for national security. That remains true today. Approximately 95 percent of the Nation's import-export cargo travels on ships through American ports. Mr. President, dredging the channels of our Nation's ports, particularly the major load centers, or hubs, is not a discretionary item. It is essential. Similarly, it is essential that dredged materials be disposed of. Unfortunately, many ports are experiencing serious problems with respect to disposal. These problems have plagued Federal channels and Federal facilities, such as military marine terminals, as well as local and private terminals. Ports that face immediate and near-term disposal problems include Boston, New Jersey-New York, Baltimore, Houston, and Oakland. Many more ports will face disposal problems in the next century. Some ports, including New York Harbor, lack adequate disposal facilities, which has created great difficulty in obtaining Corps of Engineers and State dredging permits. The disposal capacity of many other ports is nearly full. This problem is likely to affect many more ports in the years ahead. For many ports with inadequate disposal facilities, disposing dredged materials in the ocean is not a viable option, because of sediments that do not meet ocean disposal standards. Other methods of disposal will have to be pursued. Yet the costs associated with these alternatives often are high. Given the national interests at stake, the Federal Government needs to share in the costs of all viable alternatives. Unfortunately, current law prevents such cost sharing in the case of facilities located on land. There is no real justification for this limitation. And without some modification of this law, many ports may well face a serious disposal crisis in the near future. Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the environmental implications of this matter. Many ports are located in estuaries and coastal areas that represent significant natural resources. I recognize that some might believe that the protection and enhancement of those resources is inconsistent with the operation of a busy port. However, that is not true. In the New York metropolitan region and the bay area of northern California, for example, both ports and natural resources coexist, and provide important economic benefits. In my view, Federal policy should seek to promote both port commerce and environmental resources. This bill would help, by making possible the construction of confined disposal facilities that would support development in an environmentally constructive manner. Mr. President, if commerce is to progress in this Nation, if import- export trade is to increase, if our Nation is to benefit from international trade agreements, our infrastructure must be prepared to make the transportation of goods efficient and cost effective. As Transportation Secretary Federico Pena has acknowledged, the port dredging problem is a national transportation problem. Secretary Pena organized the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process to determine how to improve Federal performance in several areas, including interagency coordination, the regulatory process, and disposal issues. The final report to the Secretary said: Over the past two decades, a number of factors have complicated the development, operation and maintenance of the nation's harbors, particularly in the area of dredged material management. These factors include increases in the demands of commerce, rapid evolution of shipping practices . . ., increasing environmental awareness and mounting environmental problems affecting coastal areas and ocean waters, heavy population shifts to coastal areas and a general increase in non-Federal responsibilities in the development and management of navigation projects. As a result, dredged material management has often become a contentious problem at all stages of harbor development and operation. . . . Left unattended, these problems could cause a crisis. The report specifically discussed the problem of an inconsistent dredged material management policy, which would be addressed by this legislation. I would note, Mr. President, that this legislation is supported by the American Association of Port Authorities, which represents more than 85 ports in 30 States. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the corps to move this legislation forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter signed by a number of organizations to Chairmen Chafee and Shuster expressing their support for equitable Federal cost sharing in the disposal of dredged material.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Boxer in introducing the Environmental Dredge Disposal Act of 1996, a bill to establish a fair cost-sharing formula for the disposal of dredged material. Mr. President, under existing law, the Federal Government helps assume the cost of the disposal or dumping at sea of dredged material associated with operation and maintenance of Federal channels. However, the Federal Government does not provide similar assistance for other methods of disposal, even when these other methods are more beneficial for the environment. This inconsistency makes no sense, and threatens the economic viability of large and small ports throughout the country. My bill proposes to eliminate this inconsistency, and would ensure that the Federal cost-sharing formula related to disposal of dredged material applies regardless of where the dredged material is disposed. More technically, the bill amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to make upland, aquatic, and confined aquatic dredged material disposal facilities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a Federal navigation project for a harbor or inland harbor a general navigation feature of a project for the purpose of cost sharing. The bill includes safeguards to ensure that no single port receives a competitive advantage as a result of this bill. Mr. President, in 1824, Congress assigned responsibility for improving navigation in the still-young Nation's waterways to the Federal Government. Federal maintenance of a channel system has always been important for interstate and foreign commerce, and for national security. That remains true today. Approximately 95 percent of the Nation's import-export cargo travels on ships through American ports. Mr. President, dredging the channels of our Nation's ports, particularly the major load centers, or hubs, is not a discretionary item. It is essential. Similarly, it is essential that dredged materials be disposed of. Unfortunately, many ports are experiencing serious problems with respect to disposal. These problems have plagued Federal channels and Federal facilities, such as military marine terminals, as well as local and private terminals. Ports that face immediate and near-term disposal problems include Boston, New Jersey-New York, Baltimore, Houston, and Oakland. Many more ports will face disposal problems in the next century. Some ports, including New York Harbor, lack adequate disposal facilities, which has created great difficulty in obtaining Corps of Engineers and State dredging permits. The disposal capacity of many other ports is nearly full. This problem is likely to affect many more ports in the years ahead. For many ports with inadequate disposal facilities, disposing dredged materials in the ocean is not a viable option, because of sediments that do not meet ocean disposal standards. Other methods of disposal will have to be pursued. Yet the costs associated with these alternatives often are high. Given the national interests at stake, the Federal Government needs to share in the costs of all viable alternatives. Unfortunately, current law prevents such cost sharing in the case of facilities located on land. There is no real justification for this limitation. And without some modification of this law, many ports may well face a serious disposal crisis in the near future. Mr. President, let me take a moment to comment on the environmental implications of this matter. Many ports are located in estuaries and coastal areas that represent significant natural resources. I recognize that some might believe that the protection and enhancement of those resources is inconsistent with the operation of a busy port. However, that is not true. In the New York metropolitan region and the bay area of northern California, for example, both ports and natural resources coexist, and provide important economic benefits. In my view, Federal policy should seek to promote both port commerce and environmental resources. This bill would help, by making possible the construction of confined disposal facilities that would support development in an environmentally constructive manner. Mr. President, if commerce is to progress in this Nation, if import- export trade is to increase, if our Nation is to benefit from international trade agreements, our infrastructure must be prepared to make the transportation of goods efficient and cost effective. As Transportation Secretary Federico Pena has acknowledged, the port dredging problem is a national transportation problem. Secretary Pena organized the Interagency Working Group on the Dredging Process to determine how to improve Federal performance in several areas, including interagency coordination, the regulatory process, and disposal issues. The final report to the Secretary said: Over the past two decades, a number of factors have complicated the development, operation and maintenance of the nation's harbors, particularly in the area of dredged material management. These factors include increases in the demands of commerce, rapid evolution of shipping practices . . ., increasing environmental awareness and mounting environmental problems affecting coastal areas and ocean waters, heavy population shifts to coastal areas and a general increase in non-Federal responsibilities in the development and management of navigation projects. As a result, dredged material management has often become a contentious problem at all stages of harbor development and operation. . . . Left unattended, these problems could cause a crisis. The report specifically discussed the problem of an inconsistent dredged material management policy, which would be addressed by this legislation. I would note, Mr. President, that this legislation is supported by the American Association of Port Authorities, which represents more than 85 ports in 30 States. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues and the corps to move this legislation forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter signed by a number of organizations to Chairmen Chafee and Shuster expressing their support for equitable Federal cost sharing in the disposal of dredged material.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from Alaska accept a 5-minute delay?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I submit the unanimous consent request for 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask our colleague to just withhold for 1 minute while I fashion a unanimous consent request here? There are amendments still ready to go. When the Senator from Georgia finishes, it will be past the bewitching hour of 8 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent if we can keep the amendment filing period open for another 30 minutes--another 15 minutes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon. Mr. President, I oppose efforts to undermine the provision Senator Hatfield included in this bill, which is intended to reduce the need for abortion. In the continuing resolution approved by the Congress in January, funding for voluntary international family planning programs was capped at 65 percent of the level provided in fiscal year 1995. This represented a steep reduction below the President's budget request for international family planning programs in fiscal year 1996. Even more, the continuing resolution prevented the Agency for International Development from spending any of those funds until July 1, 1996. These draconian cuts and restrictions will hamstring the voluntary population program, result in an increase in abortions, and undermine the United States development efforts in the long run. Unfortunately, the Senate was not given much opportunity to debate this or any other provision in the last continuing resolution, which was required immediately to keep the Government functioning. The House of Representatives sent us the bill at the 11th hour and then adjourned for a long recess. Because the House of Representatives was no longer in session, the Senate effectively had no choice but to accept this provision along with the rest of the provisions included in the continuing resolution. To do otherwise would have resulted in a Government shutdown. Though advocated by opponents of abortion, the irony is that the funding restriction in current law will result in more--not fewer-- abortions. On the other hand, the provision Senator Hatfield included in this bill is intended to reduce the need for abortion by freeing up funds for voluntary international family planning programs. Let me repeat that statement. The provision in the bill before us is intended to reduce the need for abortion. For this reason, I do not understand why Members of the Senate who oppose abortion are seeking to delete it. Ask yourselves, ``What is the net effect of reduced funding for voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs?'' Less money? But what does that actually mean? Does it mean programs will be available to help educate women in developing countries about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies? Absolutely not. Does it mean fewer abortions? Clearly not. The funding restriction on voluntary family planning programs in current law will, I believe, inevitably result in more abortions. It is estimated that approximately 50 million couples worldwide benefit from U.S. funded family planning services. But because of the draconian reductions included in the last continuing resolution, estimating conservatively, approximately 7 million of these couples will no longer have access to the very services that enable them to plan the timing and size of their families. Millions of families in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Caribbean will no longer have access to information so vital to making family planning decisions. Blocking access to this information in developing countries can only have one result: an increase in unintended pregnancies. And that can only lead to an increase in abortion. These cuts are clearly at odds with America's long-term development interests. Without the funds to train personnel in population control or educate families in the poorest countries, there is no doubt that population sizes will increase. Unchecked population growth perpetuates hunger, disease, and poverty. It undermines opportunities for economic growth and political stability in developing countries. It also has a lasting and harmful effect on our ability to protect the global environment. And who are those most affected by these cuts in voluntary family planning programs? Mostly, it's poor women and their children in developing countries. Poor women who seek to chart a better future by planning the number of children they will bear. Women who seek to elevate themselves politically and economically and pursue greater opportunities for their children. Mr. President, I commend Senator Hatfield for rectifying this wrong in the bill that is before us. The provision he has included in the bill will enable the President to restore voluntary international family planning funding if he certifies that funding restrictions will result in an increase in abortions. I wholeheartedly endorse his remedy and urge my colleagues to fully support it as well. It gives the President a necessary tool to use to head off the devastating effects funding cuts on family planning services will certainly engender.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk would serve to restore the basic right to organize to thousands of hard-working employees at the Federal Aviation Administration. As many Members are aware, the FAA is poised to announce a substantial restructuring of its personnel system. The authority allowing the FAA Administrator to reform the personnel system was granted as part of the fiscal year 1996 Transportation Appropriations Act. The Administrator was directed to have the new personnel system in place and functional on April 1, 1996. Unfortunately, the legislative language enabling these reforms to be implemented had the unintended effect of taking away the right of FAA employees to be represented by a union and to have the terms and conditions of their employment negotiated by their union. Obviously, we did not intend this language to have that effect. I raised this concern during conference committee deliberations on the transportation bill. However, it was thought by the House subcommittee leadership that this problem could be addressed in the Statement of Managers. As such, the statement of managers accompanying this provision in the transportation appropriations conference report states unequivocally that, and I quote: The conferees do not intend that the personnel management reforms included in this bill, force the disestablishment of any existing management-labor agreement, or lead to the dissolution of any union representing FAA employees. Regrettably, since that time, our legislative language has been restrictively interpreted by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Based on their reading, they are refusing to hear any FAA labor dispute cases, effectively leaving the FAA's thousands of employees without recourse or resolution in ongoing cases pertaining to pay and compensation, benefits, and discipline. The April 1 deadline for implementation of the new personnel system is upon us. If this situation is not resolved by April 1, thousands of FAA employees will be left without the right to organize. As such, I am taking this opportunity to include this technical fix in the continuing resolution in order to ensure its timely passage and avert any further negative impact. I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, and the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee, Senator Wendell Ford. The FAA reform bill, as reported by the Commerce Committee, would serve to correct this error. However, it is not clear at this time that the Commerce Committee bill can become law before April 1. Mr. President, we need FAA reform. The procurement and personnel reforms contained in the appropriations bill will assist the FAA in meeting current and future responsibilities for the safety of our aviation system. However, other aspects of the reform agenda have yet to be addressed. Air traffic continues to rise while it becomes more and more difficult each year to fund all of the FAA's needs. Everyone will be asked to make sacrifices as part of the process of reforming the FAA. And the FAA employees are willing to do their part. They are among the most dedicated employees in the Federal Service. But it is unfair in the extreme to deprive them of rights guaranteed to virtually all other Federal employees under Chapter 71, of title 5, United States Code--to organize and be represented in collective bargaining. Rectifying this error will assure these dedicated employees of a fair process for negotiating their grievances and a structured process for resolving disputes. I am not aware of any opposition to this restoration of rights for FAA employees and I would ask my colleagues to join Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, and me in providing a just remedy by adopting this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside for consideration of it at a later time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be charged to neither side during the quorum call.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent during the quorum call time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how will quorum time be charged if we go into a quorum call?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I may not need 5 minutes, Mr. President, but I thank my colleague from Maryland. This is a compromise piece of legislation. If you see lots of people concerned about what it is that we have in front of us, these are legitimate concerns for both those who support and those who object to this compromise. The amendment that is being offered, as we heard from the distinguished Senator from Missouri, includes $487 million for environmental programs instead of the roughly $900 million that was proposed in the original amendment. Unlike the earlier amendment, this amendment does not include a provision designating the proposed funding as emergency spending. Mr. President, clearly this amendment does not increase the budget for environmental programs as much as I believe is needed. However, under the circumstances, with earnest exchanges of view, we arrived at what was a middle ground. While having been so active on matters of environmental cleanup including Superfund and clean air and others, clean water, it distresses me that we could not get more to do the environmental job that many of us here would like to see done. I am pleased to see that there is $50 million more for Superfund cleanup. It is a program that needs to be continued. And even as we choose to examine it, to reform, to make reforms where necessary or where possible, still in all this is a program that has value and should be continued. In the final analysis, there is a major concern, major disappointment in this amendment, that concerns the Boston Harbor cleanup. Boston Harbor was an environmental disaster because of the inability to contain the pollution, the contamination that flowed into that body of water. It caused enormous increases in costs for those who use the drinking water in the area because of the costs invested thus far in trying to get it to a satisfactory condition. Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy have worked very hard for a number of years to get the kind of funding that is essential to continue this job. And I hope, Mr. President, that as we consider this amendment there will be opportunities to reevaluate some of the decisions that we are making this evening. There will be a conference with the House. The biggest deficiency in this bill is the lack of a clear-cut commitment to expend funding to clean up Boston Harbor. And again, other than that, we have fashioned a compromise--not one that is satisfactory to those who are most anxious to get the environment cleaned up to the fullest extent possible, but we do face a budget crisis here. We are interested in balancing the budget. We are interested in doing what we can with the limited resources that we have. This compromise amendment, I think, does just that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator from Maryland if I can have 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this year March Madness will have two New Jersey teams competing for the men's college basketball championship. I rise to extend my personal congratulations to the Monmouth University Hawks and the Princeton University Tigers, who have earned berths in the NCAA tournament. Mr. President, the Monmouth Hawks represent one of New Jersey's fine institutions of higher learning. Monmouth University's appearance in the NCAA tournament this year is its first ever, and an accomplishment of which the college is deservedly proud. The Hawks, led by coach Wayne Szoke, have amassed an impressive 20-9 record this year with their well-run motion offense, long-range shooting, and tenacious defense. Back in November, nobody picked them to make it to the NCAA tournament, but they are a team on the rise. Their next opponent is sure to find that out. I am pleased that Monmouth University has this opportunity to get some well-deserved national recognition and wish the Hawks the best of luck in their game tonight. The Princeton Tigers represent one of the finest universities in the world and are not new to the NCAA tournament. However, this appearance is a special one for the Tigers as it represents the last for their great coach, Pete Carril. Coach Carril has decided to retire after 29 magnificent years at Princeton and there is no doubt that Princeton and all of college basketball will sorely miss him. On behalf of his many fans in New Jersey, I wish him the best of luck in his future, and particularly in Princeton's game tonight.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment has a very simple task, I think a very important task, and that is to restore funding for a critical national priority, and that is the protection of America's environmental heritage. There is broad support for protecting our environment. Americans across the country want to drink clean water. They want to breathe clean air. They do not want to live near toxic waste sites that pose health risks to their families, regardless of whether they are urban or rural dwellers and regardless of the region of the country. Unfortunately, despite the public's commitment to environmental protection, this Congress has mounted a full-scale attack on our environment. The contract on America may not have mentioned the environment, but deep in the recesses of the presentation is a full- scale attack on our environment. The contract on America does not have to mention it, but the signers of the contract appear committed to doing everything possible to gut environmental protection. First, the House of Representatives passed a series of riders on the EPA appropriations bill to essentially repeal laws protecting our air, our water, our land, and our families. Also in that legislation, EPA's budget, already underfunded, was cut by a third from the 1995 funding level, and more riders were added on the Interior appropriations bill. One banned new listings of endangered species. Another rider essentially turned over the old growth forests to private timber interests. And then the House passed changes to the Clean Water Act. That bill dramatically weakened EPA's enforcement authority, wrote off the Nation's valuable wetlands, and included numerous other provisions apparently drafted not by legislators but by lobbyists for corporate polluters. Bills have also been introduced to cripple the Clean Air Act, to weaken our program for cleaning up toxic waste sites, and to exempt various industries from critical environmental regulation. Another legislative proposal which passed the Senate would weaken something called the community right-to-know law. I am the author of that law, and it has been on the books for some time. It simply requires polluters to tell the public the truth about emissions that come from their place of business. It has been responsible for a 46- percent decrease in toxic emissions in 4 years. It has been a smashing success, as they say, and yet a rider to the omnibus regulatory reform bill would gut that law and allow any company to easily remove chemicals from the listing requirement. As one can see, the list of congressional attacks on our environment goes on and on, and it is a source of great concern to millions of Americans. A poll, a Republican poll, commissioned by the Republican Party, by Linda DiVall, showed that only 35 percent of the voters would support a candidate who supported the one-third cut in EPA funding proposed by the House Republicans. Mind you, a Republican poll showed that only 35 percent of those who vote would be willing to support a candidate who supported this one-third cut in EPA funding. That is quite a revelation. The same poll showed that while 6 out of 10 Americans say there is too much Government regulation, generally only 2 in 10 believe that the statement applies to EPA. The public, even those who consider themselves Republicans, do not trust their party on the issue of the environment. In years past, I have been proud to work closely with many of my Republican colleagues to pass strong and effective environmental legislation. Frankly, I look forward to that opportunity this day. I know that there are Members from the other side of the aisle who care about the environment that we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren. We want to leave them the best, the cleanest available. I wish to single out for commendation the distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], chairman of the subcommittee on EPA and NASA and the Veterans Administration, who has made a serious effort to increase funding for EPA over the proposals that came from the House. He has had to deal with an inadequate 602(b) allocation from the Budget Committee. He has worked hard within these constraints, and he deserves real credit for that. Unfortunately, despite his efforts and despite the efforts of the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Mikulski from Maryland, laboring hard to try to improve the funding, because of the inadequate funding in the Republican budget for almost all domestic needs, the funding in this bill for environmental protection is just not enough to do the job. And, although better than proposals from the House, the legislation would require real cuts in critical environmental programs. Compared to last year's budget, even after the enactment of the Republican rescissions bill, the bill before us would cut EPA by over 11 percent. So, my amendment proposes to restore funding for the environment to bring EPA's budget back up to, essentially, last year's level after the rescission. And, perhaps most importantly, the amendment will add $365 million for States to fund sewage treatment and drinking water programs through State revolving funds. Our State and local governments need these funds to meet Federal standards related to the control of sewage waste and to ensure safe tapwater. States leverage this money so its real value will be many times the amount appropriated. Yet the needs are enormous. Local governments need to meet Clean Water Act mandates that will cost over $100 billion. So this is not the time to be stingy with aid. It is critical to many hard-pressed communities and to citizens who rely on safe drinking water coming from their taps. In addition to the $365 million to keep our water clean, my amendment includes various other provisions that will improve our environment. These include $50 million more for the Superfund Program to clean up toxic waste sites, and success and progress can be directly measured there. But what is going to happen as a result of the funding levels that we presently have is we will be shutting down work on sites that had begun, that show some promise for cleanup. That will grind to a halt. We have $62 million for environmental technology to do the research necessary to find different ways and more effective ways to treat the environment. We have $75 million for the Department of Energy included in here, for its excellent weatherization program which will provide weatherization grants for 12,000 homes, and give people a chance to protect themselves against the cold so they do not have to spend as much for fuel and also do not add to the consumption levels. Mr. President, we have $75 million for the National Park Service, to stop the degradation that is taking place in our national parks. The National Park Service needs money. It needs staff. It needs resources to keep these parks up to the level that makes them available and makes all of us proud about these national monuments. There is also $5 million to advance research for methyl bromide replacements. Methyl bromide causes nausea, headaches, convulsions, and ultimately death in some cases. Research in this area is badly needed. Unlike the underlying bill, which provides funds on the assumption that Congress and the President reach some type of budget deal, this amendment has sufficient offsets so that we can immediately get on with our efforts to protect the environment. First, the amendment includes legislation, proposed by the administration and adopted in the House reconciliation bill, that will improve the Federal Government's ability to collect delinquent debts. The Federal Government is owed almost $50 billion in nontax debts. We simply have to do a better job of collecting them. The other offset included in the amendment calls for the sale of Governors Island in New York harbor. This also enjoys broad bipartisan support and was included in the House reconciliation bill. Governors Island is no longer going to be used as a Coast Guard station as it has been for so many years. It is now deemed to be inefficient and unnecessary as a place for the Coast Guard. With these offsets, our amendment is budget neutral. Our Nation has made enormous progress since the environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970. Environmental laws have made our water safer to drink, cleaned up our oceans and rivers, made the air cleaner, and protected our land from dangerous waste disposal practices. This is no time to turn back. Because of our work, there have been measurable improvements in our air and our water. In 1975, 60 percent of our waters--streams, tributaries--did not meet water quality standards. Today, only 40 percent fail that test. That is a remarkable improvement, and we can continue to build on that. But if we let it slip back, it does not take long for pollution to take over. Thanks to our environmental laws there is now a generation of children in many parts of the country who have no conception about the terrible air pollution that spoiled our air not too long ago. Even our biggest cities have fewer days of unhealthy air pollution than they did 20 years ago, despite economic growth and population increases. Lead has been taken out of gasoline, which has had a significant positive impact on children's mental health. Today, ambient levels of lead are down 89 percent since 1984. Sulfur dioxide concentrations in urban areas are down 26 percent since 1984, improving the ability of people with asthma and other respiratory diseases to lead normal lives. Carbon monoxide levels are down 37 percent since 1984, largely due to cleaner cars and fuels, and more effective vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. These gains have come while the number of cars and vehicle miles has grown substantially. Ozone levels have dropped since 1984, so 43 million fewer Americans now must breathe unhealthy ozone levels. These advances occurred because this Congress passed the laws to make it happen, not in recent sessions, but over the years, and because we provided the funding to do the job. We made an investment in the environment and that investment has paid handsome returns. But now, if we back off on our commitment to the environment, successes of the past no doubt will be reversed in short order. The environmental challenges of the future are substantial and in many ways more difficult than those of the past. We need to control emissions from many smaller businesses, something not easy to implement or to police. We will need to develop new technologies and we need to develop alternative approaches to controlling pollution. All of these require a real commitment of resources. That fact cannot be wished away or ignored. We have heard it said many times that we need to balance the budget because we are piling debt upon our children. But what about the environment we are leaving to our kids? In my view, and the view of the American people, the environment simply must be a national priority. We can agree on balancing the budget and at the same time making certain that we provide a cleaner environment for our future generations. If we want to balance the budget we ought to find other ways to do it than restricting environmental cleanup activities. This amendment would simply maintain funding for environmental protection at about the same level as last year's budget, after the rescission. I think it is a modest and certainly a reasonable proposal. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. Mr. President, we all ought to agree here, and we will agree when we cast our votes, that the environment is a priority for those of us who can do something about it. We have to decide here and now what it is that we want to leave for our kids by way of environmental protection. Do we want them to be able to breathe the air without getting sick? Do we want them to be able to go to the water tap? Sales of bottled water in this country continue to escalate. I am sure, when the original settlers came here they never dreamed they could do anything else but drink the water that was naturally available, and now some 40 percent of the population is buying bottled water. We ought to be able to assure people that, when kids go to the tap to take a drink, they are not jeopardizing their health, nor is the ground they are playing on dangerous for their well-being. Those are the decisions we are going to make with this amendment, Mr. President. I hope that all of our friends on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, will agree that while we can discuss budget priorities, at the same time we can agree that we want to send a message on a cleaner environment. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning, I send an amendment to the desk for myself, Senator Mikulski, Senator Daschle, Senator John Kerry, Senator Kennedy, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Levin, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My question has nothing to do with the amendment of the Senator. It has to do with some time availability. I understand the Senator needs 40 minutes or some such time?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, 10 minutes off, on a totally different subject.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would appreciate a chance, about 10 minutes, if possible, just to make a statement. If that is acceptable to my friend from Nevada, then I would ask for recognition from the Chair. If not, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.