Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has voted to commit this bill to the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, the pending bill is proposing a major change in criminal law. For the first time, this body may pass a law making a medical procedure a crime. If this legislation becomes law, doctors in this country could be thrown behind bars for performing medical procedures that they feel are necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. The bill also creates a new cause of action for people to sue doctors who perform a certain medical procedure. Mr. President, we should not make a decision on a bill with these far-reaching implications until we have a hearing. There are just too many questions about this bill that have not been answered by expert witnesses. Let me mention a few of them: Is this bill Constitutional? Does it violate the principles that the Supreme Court established in Roe versus Wade? Why is the Federal Government criminalizing a medical procedure when medical procedures are typically regulated by the States? What is the rationale behind the 2-year prison sentence for physicians who perform this procedure? Will this bill result in hundreds or thousands of new civil lawsuits that will overwhelm our legal system? What does the term ``partial birth abortion'' mean? I understand that no [[Page S 16929]] such term exists in the medical lexicon. Is Congress just inventing a new medical term to advance a political end? Which Federal law enforcement agency will enforce this law? Will FBI agents be snooping around physicians' offices? Will the FBI put hidden cameras into examining rooms? Mr. President, the Senate has not asked any expert witnesses to answer these questions. And before we vote on this legislation, I think we should have the opportunity to ask these questions. We also should hear from individuals, groups and organizations that will be affected by this bill. Have we heard testimony in the Senate from any of the following? The Justice Department? The FBI? Constitutional experts? The trial and criminal bar? Doctors? Patients? Families? This is the only question that we all can categorically answer. The answer is no! We have not heard testimony in the Senate from any of these parties. How can the Senate debate such a complicated bill without the input of such persons? Mr. President, the Senate should be more deliberate and responsible! We should not ram this bill through without proper consideration. It would be wrong and irresponsible for the Senate to act before we have a hearing on the provisions in this legislation. This is a new proposal that has not been before the Congress in the past. Before we should be asked to vote, we should have testimony and a committee report on our desks. Mr. President, I have great respect for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We do not agree on many issues but I believe that he is fair. Now since the Senate has voted to commit this bill to the Judiciairy Committee, I trust that he will put together a fair hearing on this bill so that the Senate can make an informed decision. Once again, I am pleased that the Senate has voted to send this bill back where it belongs--to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senior Senator from Utah in support of the Hatch-Lautenberg Resolution which condemns individuals who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust. It also commends the vital, tireless work of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. I urge my colleagues to join us in approving the resolution, affirming that this distinguished body, the U.S. Senate, denounces those who deny that the Holocaust occurred. Mr. President, more than 50 years ago, Adolf Hitler mounted his systematic effort to destroy whole populations--including the Jewish people, gypsies, the disabled, Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet POW's and political dissidents. Six million Jews and five million others were murdered. That is a historical fact proven by detailed records kept by the Nazis. Our duty to the survivors of the Holocaust and to those who died on the trains, in the fields, and in the gas chambers is to make sure that their story is told from generation to generation. We must study and reflect on the atrocities of the Nazis, in order to make sure that this dark chapter of history is never repeated. Mr. President, we have reason to be concerned. A recent poll found that 22 percent of Americans think that it is possible one of the most horrifying events in the history of the world never occurred. Even before the end of World War II, anti-Semitic groups worked to create the illusion that the Holocaust was nothing more than a myth. These individuals, bent on their own agenda of hatred, often pass themselves off as scholars and historians, and their findings as fact, they dispute all personal accounts and physical evidence as mere propaganda. Their allegations are astounding when you consider how well the Holocaust is documented. In recent years, these individuals have moved from the confines of hate groups and other anti-Semitic organizations to our colleges and universities. On campuses nationwide, in ads placed in university newspapers, they spread their propaganda, lies, and falsehoods in the hope of selling their claims. We must not allow groups attacking the Holocaust to gain ground or respect, nor can we allow the existence of the Holocaust be made a subject of debate. But most important, we can not let the memory of 11 million people fade from our memories. One of the most important tools we in combating those who would deny the Holocaust is viewing firsthand the horrors that took place in the concentration camps. This was the core concept of a living museum, where visitors could not only walk through and view exhibits, but actually feel them. In 1993, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum opened its doors to the world. Since then, over 5 million visitors have passed through its doors with over two-thirds of those being non-Jews. I am honored to serve on the memorial council and to be involved in the planning and management of the museum. In this capacity I have met and toured the museum with a number of Holocaust survivors. The stories of these survivors speak volumes of the horror and the stark reality of this event. I find it unimaginable that anyone could view such a collection without a heartfelt feeling of loss for what the victims and their families endured. Mr. President, I commend the individuals whose vision made the museum a reality. The survivors and families of those lost have shared their stories in a collection that teaches all that are willing to learn about the Holocaust. The building, in the shadow of the Washington and Jefferson Memorials, is a testament to the existence of one of the most tragic events in the history of the world. By acknowledging that the Holocaust did happen, and by educating these nonbelievers, can we help ensure that it will never happen again.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, a constituent of mine who teaches at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Adjunct Professor Leonard A. Cole, recently joined in organizing an appeal calling on the Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. I believe the Senate should debate this convention without delay and ask that the text of a letter from Mr. Cole, along with a news article on the appeal he helped to organize be printed in the Congressional Record. The material follows: Rutgers University, Department of Political Science, Newark, NJ. Dear Senator: Having organized the effort to produce the enclosed statement in The New York Times, I wanted to bring the matter to your attention. The statement urges support for the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty to ban chemical weapons from the face of the earth. It was paid for and signed by 64 leaders from every sector with a close interest in chemical weapons issues--from the scientific, intelligence, military, diplomatic, arms control, and business communities. The list includes eight Nobel laureates. The terms of the treaty were negotiated with scrupulous care by nations around the world, and received input from every affected U.S. interest group. It enjoys broad support. Before the U.S. signed in 1993, 75 senators went on record in favor of the treaty. Nevertheless, as you may know, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, has expressed reluctance to allow a vote on ratification. Current U.S. inaction on the treaty sends a very dangerous message to the rest of the world. By our failing to ratify, other countries can only believe the U.S. does not think banning these weapons important. U.S. leadership is crucial to maintaining a moral atmosphere that does not allow for these weapons. Without the treaty, more and more countries are likely to arm themselves with these low-cost, low-tech weapons of terror and mass destruction. In the interest of this nation, indeed of all humanity, we hope you will join in a vigorous effort to press for ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. If you would like to talk further about this, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Leonard A. Cole, Adjunct Professor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the events of the last few days fade from memory, and the recollection of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gets obscured by other events in the world, I want to take this opportunity to reflect somewhat on my visit there during the funeral and just to discuss, for a moment, my view of this man, this great man, someone I knew very well for a period of more than 25 years. Mr. President, the world now knows so well that the Israeli people have lost a courageous, visionary leader, and the world has lost a peacemaker. As Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was laid to rest on Monday in the holy city of his birth, Jerusalem, millions witnessed the funeral and grieved at the loss. His brutal assassination represents the worst of so many tragedies in Israel's recent history. It demonstrated too vividly the depths to which intolerance can drag the human spirit. The people of Israel are in shock, stunned and saddened by the senseless, cold-blooded murder of their unique leader, soldier turned peacemaker. Many felt the pain of the bullet that took away their Prime Minister, and that the assassin tore asunder at the same moment the spirit and the soul of Israel. The residents of the community, and those that know the Jewish people, cannot comprehend how one Jew could kill another in the name of God, when all, at times, have been victims. I, along with millions of Americans, share their grief and sense of loss. At this delicate time in Israel's history, the United States Government must remain unequivocal in showing its strong support for the Government of Israel and in its leader, acting Prime Minister Peres, as the head of the Government. He has the credentials to ably lead the people of Israel in the tumultuous days ahead. The United States commitment to Israel will remain strong. It cannot be shattered by an assassin's bullet. Mr. President, during the decades in which Yitzhak Rabin faithfully served his government, the American people observed, with great admiration, his evolution from soldier to statesman to politician to peacemaker. Always, he had our respect as an outstanding leader. Yitzhak Rabin was a man of great courage and determination. His concern, to his last moments, was for the security of the people of Israel and the attainment of peace. Though his life was cut short by the bullet of an intolerant, self-righteous assassin, his legacy of peace will live on with his countrymen in future generations of Israeli citizens. In his memory, I believe that the peace process will continue to move forward at, perhaps, an even faster pace. Because the Jewish extremists took up arms against the peace process, Israel must not be dissuaded from pursuing and strengthening regional peace. To abandon the process now would give succor to the extremists and terrorists of all religious persuasion. Because Rabin was a man of such character and courage and so deeply committed to peace, dignitaries and government officials from 80 different nations came to his funeral in Israel to pay him their last respects. Five thousand guests were invited from all around the world. President Clinton and former Presidents Bush and Carter attended the funeral, along with Secretary of State Christopher and former Secretaries Vance and Shultz. Thirty-five Members of Congress attended. Heads of State, Cabinet Ministers, and government officials from the international community traveled to Jerusalem to mourn the loss of this great leader, many of whom did not really know him but knew about him, read about him, heard about him, and saw his commitment--unyielding commitment--to his people to show support for continuation of the peace process. The global gathering at his funeral was testament to the fact that under Rabin's leadership Israel had been welcomed into the international family of nations as never before. Nowhere was his accomplishment in ushering in a new era of acceptance for his country more evident than in the reputation from Middle Eastern countries. Never in their wildest dreams could people imagine that Jordan's King Hussein would stand in Jerusalem, the city where his grandfather was assassinated--which he mentioned in his comments--in 1951 by Islamic militants, people in his own religion, his own communities, the city that was reunified by Israel in 1967. He came to say farewell to his former foe, Yitzhak Rabin calling him a brother--a brother, a colleague, and a friend. I saw him wiping tears from his eyes. Never did I imagine that the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, who had traveled to Jerusalem to pay Prime Minister Rabin his last respects--even dignitaries from countries like Oman and Qatar, which have no diplomatic relations with Israel, came, beyond their formalities, to cross the border to say farewell to this visionary leader. I, too, Mr. President, was at the funeral on Mt. Herzl where so many of Israel's military and spiritual leaders are buried. As the siren sounded throughout the country announcing a 2-minute period of silence and mourning for his death, I recalled many of the heroic moments of Yitzhak Rabin's life. I saw the flag of Israel draped over his coffin and envisioned Soldier Rabin leading the fight to keep the supply link between Jerusalem and the sea in the war of independence. We traveled that road from the airport to Jerusalem where along the roadbed still were the hulk of trucks and tanks and weapons that are left there as a reminder of what the price was that was paid to keep that road open and to create the independent State of Israel. I remembered reading about his exploits and how heroic this very young man at the time was. He was a brigade commander still in his early twenties. I envisioned Army Chief of Staff Rabin strategizing to recapture the city of Jerusalem and claim victory in the 6-day war of 1967. I recall the Ambassador to the United States Yitzhak Rabin arguing for a strong United States-Israel relationship from his Embassy office in Washington. I could almost sense Minister of Defense, twice Prime Minister, Rabin's steely determination in defending the security of the people that he loved so dearly, the people of Israel. Mostly, however, I recalled the day that Prime Minister Rabin did the inconceivable and made peace with enemies. I recalled sitting on the lawn of the White House and how still the world was as he shook hands with Chairman Arafat after signing the Declaration of Principles, then the day that he and King Hussein of Jordan did the same, in the same location, after making peace. Those are handshakes of courage and of bravery, of hope for attaining, at long last, safety and security through peace as opposed to security with weapons. History will say that Yitzhak Rabin, who fought in so many of Israel's wars, gave his life for peace, a task to which he devoted himself completely. It is appropriate, therefore, that his last words were of peace. I was a military man for 27 years. I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it for those who are standing here, and for those who are not here--and they are many. I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace. Violence erodes the basis of Israeli democracy. It should be condemned and wisely expunged and isolated. It is not the way of the State of Israel. There is democracy. There can be disputes but the outcome will be settled by democratic elections. He said in his remarks, ``Peace is not only in prayers * * * but it is in the desire of the Jewish people. This rally,'' as he addressed the group, ``must broadcast to the Israeli public, to the world Jewish public and many in the Western and outside world, that the people of Israel want peace, support peace.'' It is my profound hope that the people of Israel will strive to heal the wound and the national spirit that Yitzhak Rabin's assassination has caused and that they will be able to move forward as a unified nation, continuing in the quest for peace. That would be Prime Minister Rabin's greatest legacy and most fitting tribute. It is something that the United States and all the nations of the world must strongly support. As I said, I was there to say goodbye to this man who was an old friend, someone who commanded the respect [[Page S 16813]] and affection of millions who did not know him but respected his commitment, respected the fact that he was willing to take the risks that he took, risking his own life. The most disappointing moments of his days, he told me 2\1/2\ weeks ago in New York City, was when people from his own faith, some of them religious leaders, reportedly religious leaders, said he should be a target for assassination because he was giving away too much of his country. This man who fought to create the state, this man who gave his life unflinchingly to the well-being of his people, criticized, called traitor, depicted in Nazi uniforms, outrageously berated in his quest to secure the safety and well-being of the State of Israel and its people. The messages that came from people who spoke at the funeral, from our President, President Clinton, who said that he was a man chosen by God. King Hussein, who I mentioned, saluted him, his memory as a pro, and compared the assassination of his grandfather to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He was standing there, wearing traditional dress, a headdress common to the Arab world, proud of his heritage, but willing to recognize that this leader of the Jewish people was someone whom had respected and wanted to acknowledge as a friend. President Mubarak, President of the first Arab nation to make peace with Israel, he was there in his first visit ever to the country. And other leaders who spoke--the President of the European Union, the Prime Minister of Russia, and then, finally, his family. I think the world listened very attentively as his 17-year-old granddaughter spoke about her grandfather and declared him as a light unto nations. It is almost a Biblical intonation. She said her grandfather's life would continue to light the way for peace, but the light that he gave her was extinguished, that she would no longer see the light nor bask in his glow of love and affection. Elegant, elegant words for a 17-year-old, but expressing what so many failed to see because they did not have the personal contact. But they were reminded that included in the greatness of this individual was a very significant human side. One of his senior, most dedicated staff members stood, a man named Eitan Haber, who wrote some of Prime Minister Rabin's speeches. I kind of joked with him at a few meetings, because I said I wished that I could find such a speech writer. And he reminded me that the speech writing was the least significant part of a great speech. It took a great speech deliverer to make a memorable talk. Through his tears, through Mr. Haber's tears as he stood in front of the thousands gathered there and the millions watching across the world, he took out a piece of paper that the prime minister had in his pocket. As Shimon Peres, now the Acting Prime Minister, said, it was the first time in all the years of public service that Yitzhak Rabin had ever, ever agreed to sing in public, and he joined in a chorus in this rally of more than 100,000 people, singing a song of peace that was written to be sung by those gathered there and throughout the country. And he sang the song. This was a man who was not comfortable making speeches or in large public gatherings. Even though the greatness that he had internally shown through, you could see, when he was with the President or on public platforms, he was always ill-at-ease, always moving around, his body language indicating some insecurity. He sang the song, the first time and last time that he ever sang a song in public. And Mr. Haber, the speech writer, read from that song at the funeral ceremony when he took out this blood-spattered song. Because the bullet hit close to where the song was stored in Prime Minister Rabin's breast pocket. What an anomaly, this man singing for the first time in public, for peace, putting the song, the music for the song in his pocket, and then struck down by a bullet. There is something in the coincidence of those movements that perhaps none of us will ever quite understand, but it certainly is a symbol that will always be remembered. This was quite a week in the history of Israel, the history of democracy, the history of man. Lessons were taught in a short burst of gunfire that must caution us that extremes in language, in gesture, in tone, can turn into much more menacing things. Civility has to come back to our people, to people across the world, to democratic nations. Mr. President, we see it in the Congress of the United States, where anger and rage takes over discussion. It has an effect that pervades our society. We should not let it happen and this tragic incident should remind us all that we have to control our speech, our relationships, our view, if our mission is to make peace. One does not have to be in a formal war to want to make peace. So, we say goodbye with heavy hearts to this great man who proved by his own existence, his own experience, that making war could not save lives, it could not have people living in peace together, but a serious effort at shaking hands across a sea of differences could make the difference. When I saw Chairman Arafat in his traditional dress that I had come to despise over the years--he wore a gun on his hip when he went to the United Nations--I could not forgive him for their terrorist activities. But I forgave him when he came here and shook hands. That was the moment that he earned my respect. So, from that place where it all began in the Middle East, in those holy sites, perhaps the time has come when we will be, once again, able to make peace with one another. That is the proper place. This is the proper time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to some of the speeches that were being made this morning, and I heard speeches that decry the President's use of his opportunities for political reasons and to disagree with virtually everything that President Clinton has accomplished. I find it a strange anomaly. As Yogi Berra, the famous New Jersey philosopher said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' I stand here listening to political speech after political speech in which the President of the United States is accused of being excessively political. I think we ought to look at the record just for a couple of minutes. First of all, we are faced with a reconciliation bill put out by the Republican majority--and I sit on the Budget Committee, and I can tell you this--and this is no surprise--that is going to take care of lots of wealthy wage earners, income earners, big investment yields, at the expense of lots of little people, if I can use that word to describe them, those who are dependent on Medicare for the sustenance, for the maintenance of their health, those who depend on Medicaid, in many cases the only source, the only source to enable them to get the health care they require. And so it is despite the fact that Health and Human Services has projected an $89 billion program to keep Medicare viable until the year 2000, during which period we will have a chance to evaluate what is taking place, maybe get to work on some of the problems we know exist that are solvable and will not require less to be available to the Medicare beneficiary--waste, for instance. We know there is a significant amount of waste. We know that there is fraud--this is not a secret--amounting to billions of dollars. Those options ought to be examined before we turn to people who on balance in the senior community have less income than $25,000 a year, to the extent of three-quarters of that population. Three-quarters of the senior citizen population have incomes of less than $25,000 a year; 35 percent have incomes of less than $10,000 a year. But yet we say here in a majority voice that it is OK. ``We're going to save you from the demise of this program. We're going to save you by making sure you pay more, significantly more, in premiums for part B, in higher copays, in higher deductibles. We're saving you. We're taking money out of your pocket and transferring it over to those on the other side.'' By way of example, the House bill calls for a $20,000 tax break for those making $350,000 a year. The Senate, a more modest program, allows for a $6,000 tax break for those earning $350,000 a year. But at the same time, we are saying to the senior citizens, whose profile and income I just gave you, that they on balance will pay an average of $3,000 over a 7-year period more for their health care. There is something funny, as they say. And the question is raised, in my mind, whose side are we on? I think it is pretty obvious that on that side of the aisle, from there over, that they are on the side of the wealthy and the comfortable and those who have special access. It is obvious. The arithmetic is there. If only the American people get the full story, then we will start to see changes, I believe. We have already seen it. Congressmen in my State, who were dead full throttle behind the Gingrich proposal, the Contract With America, have now retreated because they are beginning to smell the ire of the constituency. They are beginning to hear the message that ``We do not want you to take money from us hard-working, modest-income people and transfer it to those who have been fortunate enough to make lots of money in this society.'' So, Mr. President, as we look at the record that President Clinton has compiled, it is a pretty good one. We just finished a year in which we saw one of the smaller deficits in many years, $164 billion, and it is on the decline since President Clinton has taken over. We notice that we have a robust economy, that until the end of September, the economy grew at a very firm rate. At the same time, we see almost an ideal situation in terms of inflation--modest growth, so little as to be of relatively minor consequence in the perspective that the people in this financial community have. So, we have seen growth in the economy, we have seen growth in jobs, we have seen inflation under control, we have seen the budget deficit at a relatively low point. And yet the President gets little or no credit and lots of criticism as the debate obscures the reality of what is taking place in this reconciliation discussion: Taking care of those who have money, who have influence, who have power, at the expense of those who work hard, who plan their futures, and who are concerned about what tomorrow brings.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to allow persons who are involuntarily unemployed to withdraw funds from individual retirement accounts [IRAs] and other retirement plans, without the tax penalty that would otherwise apply. Mr. President, over 7.5 million people were unemployed in September, which translates to an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Many of the unemployed will find themselves with no income, substantial fixed expenses, and severely impaired ability to make ends meet. In most cases, these Americans have been laid off not because they are poor workers, or because they do not try hard enough. They are simply the innocent victims of corporate down-sizing, or other forces larger than themselves. For those unlucky enough to be laid off when business slows, the experience is often traumatic. There is a sense of rejection and betrayal. There is anger. And perhaps most importantly, there is fear-- fear for oneself, and for one's family. The fear is understandable. While their short-term employment prospects are often bleak, the unemployed face enormous financial pressures. As mortgages and rent payments come due, and bills pile up, millions of American families find themselves trapped by high fixed expenses, and without a paycheck to make ends meet. Unemployment insurance can help, but it often falls far short of families' real needs, particularly in areas like my home State of New Jersey, where the costs of housing and other basic necessities are unusually high. Even if a family manages to survive on unemployment compensation, there may not be enough to overcome joblessness by relocating, or training for a new job. Compounding matters, the benefits of the long-term unemployed often expire. Yet in many cases, Mr. President, the unemployed do have their own savings in an IRA or other retirement plan. These savings can provide a financial life raft to get through this unexpected financial storm. Unfortunately, it is a life raft with a large hole, because, for those under age 59\1/2\, withdrawals generally trigger a stiff, 10-percent tax penalty. Mr. President, Americans do not believe in hitting people when they are down. And I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with imposing a heavy penalty on those who want to gain access to their own money to cope with unemployment. The bill I am introducing proposes to eliminate the 10-percent penalty for people who have been laid off and who are trying to find work. It is targeted to people who need it--those who have been eligible for unemployment compensation for at least 30 days. I think that is only fair. Mr. President, while the bill's primary purpose is to provide relief to the unemployed, it would also provide at least two additional benefits. First, it should increase the savings rate, by encouraging Americans to participate in IRA's and other retirement plans. Currently, many people, particularly young people, are reluctant to tie up their money for decades in a retirement plan. They're concerned, understandably, that their savings would be inaccessible in an emergency, such as an unexpected period of unemployment, without the imposition of a heavy penalty. Allowing greater flexibility during periods of involuntary unemployment, Mr. President, should reduce this concern, and that should lead to increased savings. The bill also should provide another indirect benefit. By unlocking savings and injecting money into the economy during periods of high unemployment, the legislation would provide a modest countercyclical stimulus. This would help revive a slow economy to the benefit of all Americans. Mr. President, the concept of allowing early withdrawals from retirement plans for specific compelling reasons is not new. In fact, I first introduced this proposal a few years ago, and it has been included in previous legislation adopted by the Senate. In sum, Mr. President, this bill would provide relief to the unemployed, increase our Nation's savings rate, and provide an automatic stimulus to the economy during slow periods. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to allow persons who are involuntarily unemployed to withdraw funds from individual retirement accounts [IRAs] and other retirement plans, without the tax penalty that would otherwise apply. Mr. President, over 7.5 million people were unemployed in September, which translates to an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Many of the unemployed will find themselves with no income, substantial fixed expenses, and severely impaired ability to make ends meet. In most cases, these Americans have been laid off not because they are poor workers, or because they do not try hard enough. They are simply the innocent victims of corporate down-sizing, or other forces larger than themselves. For those unlucky enough to be laid off when business slows, the experience is often traumatic. There is a sense of rejection and betrayal. There is anger. And perhaps most importantly, there is fear-- fear for oneself, and for one's family. The fear is understandable. While their short-term employment prospects are often bleak, the unemployed face enormous financial pressures. As mortgages and rent payments come due, and bills pile up, millions of American families find themselves trapped by high fixed expenses, and without a paycheck to make ends meet. Unemployment insurance can help, but it often falls far short of families' real needs, particularly in areas like my home State of New Jersey, where the costs of housing and other basic necessities are unusually high. Even if a family manages to survive on unemployment compensation, there may not be enough to overcome joblessness by relocating, or training for a new job. Compounding matters, the benefits of the long-term unemployed often expire. Yet in many cases, Mr. President, the unemployed do have their own savings in an IRA or other retirement plan. These savings can provide a financial life raft to get through this unexpected financial storm. Unfortunately, it is a life raft with a large hole, because, for those under age 59\1/2\, withdrawals generally trigger a stiff, 10-percent tax penalty. Mr. President, Americans do not believe in hitting people when they are down. And I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with imposing a heavy penalty on those who want to gain access to their own money to cope with unemployment. The bill I am introducing proposes to eliminate the 10-percent penalty for people who have been laid off and who are trying to find work. It is targeted to people who need it--those who have been eligible for unemployment compensation for at least 30 days. I think that is only fair. Mr. President, while the bill's primary purpose is to provide relief to the unemployed, it would also provide at least two additional benefits. First, it should increase the savings rate, by encouraging Americans to participate in IRA's and other retirement plans. Currently, many people, particularly young people, are reluctant to tie up their money for decades in a retirement plan. They're concerned, understandably, that their savings would be inaccessible in an emergency, such as an unexpected period of unemployment, without the imposition of a heavy penalty. Allowing greater flexibility during periods of involuntary unemployment, Mr. President, should reduce this concern, and that should lead to increased savings. The bill also should provide another indirect benefit. By unlocking savings and injecting money into the economy during periods of high unemployment, the legislation would provide a modest countercyclical stimulus. This would help revive a slow economy to the benefit of all Americans. Mr. President, the concept of allowing early withdrawals from retirement plans for specific compelling reasons is not new. In fact, I first introduced this proposal a few years ago, and it has been included in previous legislation adopted by the Senate. In sum, Mr. President, this bill would provide relief to the unemployed, increase our Nation's savings rate, and provide an automatic stimulus to the economy during slow periods. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we discuss where we have to go, the very difficult times in America--we have problems within our society in terms of crime and in terms of race relations, in terms of building our economy for the next century--I can understand people sticking up for their party because there is a separation of beliefs in many cases--in most, certainly. But to stand here to heap abuse on the President of the United States and try to discredit the office by even the terminology that is used to describe the President, I think that it does us no good, that it, in fact, continues to reduce the civility that used to exist here. I am here 12 years now--almost 13 years. If nothing else, we had our disagreements, but the tone was far more civil. There was far more interaction between the parties. And now what has happened is this has become a political staging ground. I hope, Mr. President, that we can do away with some of that, work on the problems, work on the budget, on reducing the budget deficit, sticking behind our country; if a decision is made by the Commander in Chief that makes sense in our review, we support it and not simply use it for another opportunity for a political score. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Last, Mr. President, we hear about the concerns expressed by people on both sides about Bosnia and about whether or not we ought to have American service people in Bosnia as part of a peacekeeping operation. I think that question is yet to [[Page S 16575]] be resolved. I think it is a dangerous practice to simply say that we will not do it, to describe the situation as throwing our people into the meat grinder. Mr. President, when America lacks the ability to stand up for human rights, to stand up against abuse of men, women, and children such as we have seen in Bosnia and such as we saw 50 years ago in Europe, when for a long period of time, America was silent while the slaughter went on--Mr. President, we have troops in Korea. They are there to protect democracy. They are at risk. There is some danger that something could go awry and people could get killed or injured, and we do not want that to happen. I want us to have a careful debate about Bosnia. But when America withdraws, as we see what is taking place in Europe, in the old Yugoslavia, where women are routinely raped, where young men are routinely killed, and we stand by doing nothing about it, shame on the free world, shame on America. I am not talking about troops. A long time ago I felt we should have men supporting the Bosnians by lifting the arms embargo because they were taking a terrible, terrible beating at the hands of a brutal invader. So, Mr. President, I think that as we talk here about the President, about programs, about ridicule, about lack of respect-- Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 2 more minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996 which the Senate will consider and pass today is of vital importance to the State of New Jersey. As the most populated State in the Nation, efficient and effective transportation is critical to the economic well-being of my State. This year's Transportation appropriations bill provides more than $650 million in transportation investment to my State. This investment provides good paying jobs in the short term and in the long term will create and maintain the infrastructure that New Jersey needs to attract and keep a strong work force. Mr. President, I would like to highlight some of the important provisions in this year's bill which I was able to secure for the Garden State. Transit is an intricate part of northern New Jersey's transportation plan. The single largest component of New Jersey's transit initiatives is the urban core. I appreciate the cooperation that I received from Chairman Hatfield on funding the Secaucus transfer portion of New Jersey's urban core at $80.25 million. Once completed the Secaucus transfer will link the Bergen and Mainlines to the northeast corridor, providing access to Newark and midtown Manhattan for Bergen County residents. To date I have secured a total of $436 million for urban core projects. In addition to the urban core and transit formula assistance, New Jersey will be receiving $12.5 million to begin construction of the Hamilton Intermodal Facility, $1.15 million to develop a park-n-ride facility on the Garden State Parkway at interchange 165 and $3 million to support the National Transit Institute at Rutgers. While this bill will provide New Jersey drivers with transit alternatives, it also recognizes that cars will continue to play a major role in travel within the State. Total highway program spending in the bill amounts to $19.9 billion, an increase of $454 million over last year, and nearly 96 percent of the ISTEA authorization. New Jersey should expect to receive some $500 million in formula highway assistance as a result of this funding level. To make roads in New Jersey as productive as possible this year's bill includes $1.5 million for TRANSCOM. TRANSCOM is a consortium of 15 transportation and public safety agencies in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Over half of the congestion on my region's roadways is due to traffic incidents and it is TRANSCOM's mission to improve interagency response to such incidents. The funding will be used by TRANSCOM to build upon existing programs to provide the region's transportation agencies with the tools necessary to strengthen their transportation management activities and their delivery of services to the traveling public. Mr. President, on March 23, 1994, shortly before midnight, a 36-inch- diameter pipeline ruptured catastrophically in Edison Township, NJ. The explosion and fire eventually destroyed eight buildings in the Durham Woods apartment complex. An estimated 2,000 residents were displaced due to the explosion. It was only through the diligent and heroic efforts on the part of numerous local and State agencies that the pipeline explosion did not cause numerous fatalities. This year's bill includes $28.75 million to allow the office of pipeline safety to aggressively prevent another Edison from ever happening again. In addition to the funding this bill provides to New Jersey, it also includes other bill and report language of interest to my constituents. The legislation before us today honors one of the great statesmen of New Jersey, former Congressman Bill Hughes. Renaming the FAA Tech Center the William J. Hughes Technical Center is a deserved tribute to Bill. It is a fitting show of appreciation for his hard work on behalf of the people of the Second District and the State of New Jersey. Mr. President, included in this year's committee report is language which continues to direct the FAA to withhold Federal funding from runaway expansion at Princeton Airport until an environmental assessment is completed, and community involvement is certified by Secretary of Transportation Pena. This is not just an air noise issue. It is a quality of life issue. I am hopeful that we can continue to operate the Princeton Airport in a manner that is compatible with community needs. The coast of New Jersey is the State's recreational and economic jewel. A provision in this year's bill prohibits the Coast Guard from closing any multimission small boat units. The Coast Guard had recommended closing a number of its rescue stations, including four in New Jersey-Shark River, Townsend Inlet, Salem, and Great Egg. Mr. President, having better, more efficient transit systems and roads will improve the quality of life for thousands of commuter on a daily basis. I am glad that as ranking minority member of this Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee I was able to secure this funding, as well as the bill and report language for New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2002, the transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. First, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington for his able work on the subcommittee and for managing the bill this morning. We worked together on many issues and it is a pleasure to be able to stand here with him this morning. I support this bill, but with considerable reluctance. When it comes to addressing the transportation needs of this country, this bill falls short. Yet, in many areas, fortunately, this bill does not accept some of the more draconian and counterproductive measures called for in the budget resolution or in the House bill. For that I am grateful. This conference agreement cuts $800 million in outlays from the fiscal year 1995 funding levels for the Department of Transportation. And, while it is over a half a billion dollars higher than the severe reductions called for under the Senate-passed budget resolution, it still signals a sizable disinvestment in our Federal transportation infrastructure. This is not the direction our country ought to be heading. Consider the fact that, between 1972 and 1990, the United States' public investment in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP ranked dead last of the six other G-7 nations. Among those nations that have the largest economies and the most power, we are last when it comes to investment in infrastructure. During the same period, the 1972 to 1990 period, the average productivity growth in the United States also ranked dead last. In recent years, Japan's investment in infrastructure as a percentage of its GDP was roughly three times that of the United States. To catch up even for 1 year, we would need to increase spending on infrastructure by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars. This widening investment gap is bad news for America's ability to compete in the 21st century, and it undermines our ability to provide essential jobs that will raise living standards. Recognizing that reality, over 400 of our Nation's leading economists have urged our Government to increase public investment. With the extraordinary congestion that we face on our Nation's highways and runways across our country, we must do no less, even within the current budget environment. My remarks are in no way intended to reflect on the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Senator Hatfield. Those of us on the Transportation Subcommittee were extraordinarily fortunate earlier this year when our full committee chairman, Senator Hatfield, accepted the chairmanship of this subcommittee. I was delighted to hear that he made that decision. Throughout the year, he has skillfully guided the subcommittee through extensive hearings as well as an amicable markup and conference. Senator Hatfield demonstrated his characteristic fairmindedness, openness and good judgment throughout the process, and I am grateful for the considerations he gave to my concerns throughout the year. Separate from the funding levels contained in the bill, I am pleased to report that Senator Hatfield and I were successful in retaining in the conference agreement several of the important policy positions articulated in the Senate bill. As it relates to the Coast Guard, for instance, the conference agreement retains the provision allowing the commandant to realign his existing search and rescue stations, as well as reallocate billets throughout the Coast Guard to achieve his rebalancing goals. Under the provision, however, dozens of local communities will be spared the upheaval and the worry of losing their Coast Guard search and rescue presence entirely, and that includes several communities in New Jersey, in Oregon, and in several other States. The bill before us also includes the provisions for FAA personnel and procurement reform that was included in the Senate bill. Under this provision, absent the enactment of other legislation, the FAA Administrator will be authorized to reform his agency's personnel and procurement processes by April 1, 1996. Both the Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are currently working on a comprehensive reform legislation for the FAA. In fact, I recently testified before the Commerce Committee on this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this legislation will be enacted and supersede the provisions in the appropriations bill. The issue of personnel and procurement reform is a very complex one that requires the input of all affected parties, including the air carriers, general aviation, the unions representing the FAA's employees, and others. I expect the language in the appropriations bill will continue to serve as a strong incentive--if I may characterize it as the pebble in the shoe--to bring all parties to the table to agree on necessary reforms, because I frankly think, as many do, that they are overdue. I should mention that, during conference committee deliberations on FAA personnel reform, both Congressman Coleman and myself sought to ensure that bill language would be included in the conference report ensuring that no new personnel scheme would be put into place that would bar the rights of FAA employees to be a member of the union. While we were only successful in including the relevant language in the statement of managers, I have obtained an assurance from Secretary Pena that absolutely no measures will be included in the FAA's personnel reform plan that will undermine the ability of FAA employees to be members of a union, just like other people who work for the companies in the country. Perhaps the most critical decision reached by the conferees as it relates to aviation is the final funding level for the FAA's operations account. The final funding level will be $4.646 billion--almost $50 million more than the House-passed level and almost $100 million more than the level passed by the Senate. Mr. President, we have a wonderfully safe aviation system in this country. While we have all been disturbed by aviation accidents in recent months, a dispassionate review of the relevant statistics reveals that this past year was not one of the worst years for aviation safety. The fact is that usage of the air traffic control system continually grows but without the kinds of investment I believe is necessary to bring it up to the current and future needs. The funding level for this account was, perhaps, the greatest deficiency in the Senate-passed bill. As the transportation appropriations bill moved to conference, the administration made clear the priority it attached to adequate funding for FAA operations. It was a program that gave all the conferees, frankly, a great deal of worry. I am very pleased that the conferees found a way to fund this account at a level more closely resembling the President's request. Importantly, as part of this effort, we were able to eliminate the provision in the Senate bill imposing a 5-percent pay cut on air traffic controllers. Frankly, these people are under great stress, and great strain. The last thing that we need to do is worry them further by threatening their ability to attend to their personal and family needs. I am very pleased, especially during this period of heightened anxiety over the adequacy of our air traffic control system, that we are not imposing a pay cut on our already overworked air traffic controllers. There are several conference decisions with which I strongly disagree. I find it outrageous, quite frankly, that the Senate conferees receded to the House provision prohibiting the DOT from increasing the corporate average fuel economy standard in 1996. Simply put so everybody understands it, this provision will prohibit the DOT from requiring the manufacturers of light trucks--a very popular vehicle in America--from trying to do even slightly better in terms of fuel efficiency. Everyone sees the quantity of imported oil we bring into this country increasing. I think it is an outrageous condition for America--to be hostage to foreign suppliers. It is not the way we ought to be going, if we can avoid it. One way we can avoid it is by conserving more here. This provision is being forced through the process on an appropriations bill because it could not be adopted through freestanding legislation. While I was very disappointed in the outcome, I want to commend Senator Gorton for his leadership in sticking up for the Senate position on this item. Other areas of deep disappointment for me are the deep cuts included in the bill for transit formula assistance and pipeline safety activities. Transit operating assistance is being slashed by 44 percent. To make matters worse, the conference agreement changes the formula in a way that poses an additional hardship on our major urban areas. Members need to be aware that a cut of this magnitude will necessitate service reductions and fare increases across the country. Every Senator will have constituents that will pay more money for less transit service. We are talking about longer waits for the bus to get home from work and more cars on our already congested highways. The Senate budget resolution called for transit operating subsidies to be phased out entirely. I hope that after the experience of a 44- percent cut this year, my colleagues will join with me in saying that enough is enough. I hope that next year we can hold the line and stem the hemorrhage in this program. Last year's tragic pipeline explosion in Edison, NJ, served as a wake-up call for the entire Nation as to the need to beef up our efforts to ensure pipeline safety. Our Nation's pipeline infrastructure is aging rapidly. President Clinton's budget recognized this reality and requested a 13-percent increase for pipeline safety. The conferees, however, turned around and cut these activities 16 percent below last year's level--a cut of 26 percent below the President's request. I only hope that it will not require another pipeline explosion with either massive pollution or loss of life to get my colleagues to recognize our extraordinary needs in this area. So once again, Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Hatfield for his consideration throughout the development of this conference agreement. My unhappiness with the bill does not reflect at all on his leadership. What it does say is that this country is not investing enough in its transportation infrastructure. By some accounts, the U.S. ranks 50th or worse in comparison to other industrialized nations, in terms of per capita investment in infrastructure. It is outrageous. Everybody knows that efficient transportation helps us move goods, helps us move people, helps us become more efficient, more competitive, and provide for a quality of life far better than that which is saddled with air pollution, delays caused by congestion, time away from family, and time away from business appointments. Mr. President, one of the things that we talked about and all of us feel so deeply here about is the diminution of the quality of life in our country, about how difficult it is for families to make a living where both mother and dad go out to work because it requires two workers to earn what one used to earn. Do you know who pays the heaviest price for that? It is the children. It is those who miss parental contact during the evening hours and the daytime hours. If this transportation system of ours continues to break down, continues to lack the ability to service our needs, it will impose an even heavier burden on the family. It is pretty simple. So, Mr. President, I am going to support this bill. It is the best that we could get done in the current budgetary environment. The administration has signaled definitively that President Clinton will sign this conference report. There are only 2 other appropriations bills that have been signed out of the 13 thus far. That is military construction and agriculture. We will look forward to having this bill signed. We also ask our colleagues who are in committees of jurisdiction--the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I sit, to expedite their action on the transportation authorization bills. Those bills, like this bill, will be critical to the functioning of our country. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to commit.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I am given the floor for a moment-- --

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can we have order in the Senate please, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the manager would permit me, it is exactly the same as the amendment that I sent up originally, and I am asking for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a motion that would benefit home-based small business owners. My motion would send the Senate reconciliation bill back to the Committee on Finance and would instruct the committee to insert language expanding the home office deduction. For a relatively small sum, to be offset by a modification to the corporate capital gains tax rate, Congress can remedy a 2-year-old court holding that interpreted a section of our Tax Code too narrowly. Under current law, a taxpayer may only obtain a home office deduction in one of the following ways: First, If the office is the principal place of business for a trade or business; second, if the office is a place of business used to meet with patients, clients, or customers in the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or business; or third, if the office is physically separate from the home. A 1993 Supreme Court holding interpreted the principal place of business too narrowly, thus effectively denying this deduction to taxpayers unless their offices were physically separate from their homes or unless their clients physically visited their offices. This court decision, and the IRS's subsequent application of it, have prevented taxpayers from obtaining a deduction Congress intended them to have. The Government should not be providing a disincentive to those persons who have made the decision to work at home, a decision that was most likely based upon economic constraints and family considerations. Women-owned businesses are being disproportionately hurt by this narrow interpretation of section 280A of our Tax Code. Women are more apt to work out of their homes than men and they should not be punished for choosing to work near their families. By voting for my motion, my colleagues will be sending a profamily message to their constituents. Expanding this deduction would also help workers who have been displaced by corporate downsizing to remain in the work force and avoid welfare by defraying some of their startup costs should they decide to go into business for themselves. My motion would also benefit the elderly and persons with physical disabilities who want to work but for whom commuting to traditional offices is simply too difficult. Mr. President, expanding the home office deduction was endorsed by the recently held White House Conference on Small Business, which had participants from every State. The Committee on Finance held a hearing on this matter in June and it has strong support in the small business community. Legislation was introduced earlier this year that would accomplish the same goal I am seeking today. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter written to the Majority Leader Dole by dozens of small business groups supporting this goal be inserted into the Record. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my motion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. This is to commit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report back on an amendment that would expand the deductibility of expenses that occurred in connection with business that one conducts in one's moment. In 1993, the Supreme Court decision drastically reduced the deductibility of items in connection with a home/office kind of business. If one was a plumber or electrician or an accountant and operated out of home, they would lose their deductibility because their clients would not have visited the home.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have cleared a unanimous consent request with the managers of the bill. It is simply to state on rollcall 531 I was present, voted aye. The official Record has me listed absent. There was some confusion at the front. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the official Record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. There is no change in the outcome of the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been cleared by all parties, if I might make that?