Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is happening here is quite clear: Instead of just letting us vote on whether or not the other side is willing to accept some level at which we are saying we will not give tax breaks to those individuals, instead we are going to try to keep the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid from being as high as they are. Why, I do not understand, why can we not simply have a vote on it? I think by not permitting a vote they are absolutely voting on the Republican side. They are saying that we are not even going to cut off our friends who make $1 million a year or more. I hope we can get to a vote on my amendment, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple motion. It is to recommit, to cut the tax breaks for those who make over a million dollars a year, and to have the savings that occur apply to reduce the cuts that are contemplated in Medicare and Medicaid. I hope that we can finally reach a point at which we say across the board here that at some point we are not going to give tax breaks to those with the enormous incomes. We are talking about a million dollars a year on this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. I would ask how much time is left, because I want to be certain that my colleague from Delaware has a chance to say a few words.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And also for the Senator from California and the Senator from Connecticut. I will try to wrap up in a couple minutes because yesterday I think I expressed myself and my full support for this substitute. I want to commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Kyl for the hard work that they did to move this legislation along to ensure that the capital of Israel, the capital chosen by that State, is going to be home to our Embassy, as it ought to be. Frankly, there was some difficulty in arriving at the consensus view that we finally did. And that was largely, not because we disagreed on the objective, that is, moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, but because perhaps there might have been an involvement that would have interfered with the orderly discussion of the peace process. Madam President, the one thing that I want to be sure of is that as much as possible we stop the killing in the Middle East, that as much as possible we get these parties together on an open and honest basis. And the process is in being at this moment. There has not been in the history of the creation of the State of Israel a friendlier President than President Clinton is to Israel. We saw on the lawn of the White House the celebration of the end of enormous hostilities that existed for decades where people just looking at one another were almost ready at first sight to kill each other. Yesterday's story in the Washington Post was a poignant recollection of what happens to two families, one Arab, one Jew, who lost their sons, one responsible in a way for the death of the other, but nonetheless no one seeking revenge, no one looking for vengeance. What they wanted to do was make sure that other families did not have to mourn the loss of a son or a daughter, be they Palestinian or Jew. That is the way we ought to be approaching this. And I think, Madam President, that is what is going to happen. All of us want the Embassy moved. The question is, we want it to happen as soon as possible, but we want the peace discussions to continue, as I said, in an orderly fashion. I worked very closely with some dear friends, with Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, with whom I share a very deep interest in the State of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the peace process, and with Senator Biden who has had a long history of support for Israel. And I want to commend Senator Feinstein for her diligence, for her insight into the problem, and for getting us to this point where I believe that the supporting vote will be almost unanimous, as I believe it should be. And so, Madam President, it is a moment that not yet calls for celebration, but does initiate a process of which I think we can all be proud. Madam President, I support this substitute amendment. Unlike the original bill, this amendment includes a waiver for the President. I believe the amendment will mandate the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem while providing the administration flexibility in case it's necessary for national security reasons. Madam President, I have long supported having the American Embassy in Jerusalem. I wish the American Embassy had been opened in Jerusalem long ago, when the State was established or when the city was reunified in 1967. I believe Jerusalem--a city I have visited many times--will always remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel. The pace at which the Middle East peace process has yielded tangible results has been breathtaking. Just 2 years ago, on September 13, 1993, Prime Minister Rabin and Yasir Arafat agreed to end decades of bloodshed when they signed the historic Declaration of Principles and shook hands at the White House. Continuing their pursuit of peace, they signed the Cairo Agreement on Gaza and Jericho on May 4, 1994. And just weeks ago, on September 28, 1995, they again met at the White House to sign an agreement on the West Bank. Jordan, too, has been brought into the process and has signed a formal peace agreement with Israel. America should be proud of the role it has played in helping former enemies agree to end hostilities. To be sure, the parties in the Middle East needed to be ready to take the giant step toward peace. It was their readiness and their political courage that made peace attainable. The amendment we offer now would help protect the peace process should national security interests warrant it. The amendment would provide a national security waiver for periods of up to 6 months with prior reporting to Congress. It was included to give the administration a limited amount of flexibility. It also includes a clear expression of the Congress' belief that Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. It expresses the Congress' clear view that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and that our Embassy there should be established by May 1999. I am firmly convinced, Mr. President, that the peace process will result in Israel retaining control over all of Jerusalem, and that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. I am encouraged by support for the peace process. Even those who have lost their children to senseless acts of terrorism agree about the imperative of achieving peace. Earlier this year, a young college student from New Jersey, who was studying in Israel, was killed in a suicide bombing in Gaza. Her name was Aliza Flatow, and her death brought home to the people of New Jersey the urgent need to bring peace to the Middle East. I was in Israel at the time of this terrible tragedy, and from there, I spoke to Aliza's parents in New Jersey. Despite the loss of their daughter and in the midst of grieving her loss, Aliza's father urged me to do whatever I could to support the peace process and to ensure that it would move forward unimpeded. Only the peace process, he said, holds the promise of bringing an end to these senseless deaths. Our goal is to send a bill to President Clinton that will mandate the opening of the Embassy in Jerusalem. The amendment we are offering is consistent with that goal. It would represent a clear policy statement that the Embassy will be moved and is intended to preserve the President's constitutional authority. Absent a national security interest, it requires the Embassy to be established in Jerusalem by May 1999. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will try to confine my remarks to 10 minutes, not simply to spare the distinguished occupant of the Chair from further duty but to try and consolidate the message so that it has meaning and is clearly understood. Mr. President, I look at what is proposed in terms of this budget reconciliation, and I truly believe that the American people are being deceived; that there is kind of a sneak attack on senior citizens and the impoverished in our society; that they do not yet know what is planned for them for their future. The question that arises is a very fundamental one, and that is, Whose side are you on? Whose side are we on in this body when we pass legislation? Are we on the side of the people who have worked hard, who try to put away a few bucks, who have tried to protect their security in their old age, who worry about what happens to them in their golden years? Are we on the side of those who are making lots of money, who will get a benefit, the benefits of a tax cut that is being proposed as a result of the exorbitant request that is being made of the senior citizen population of our country or of those who are dependent on Medicaid? It is a backdoor attack. I do not mean to insult my friends on the other side of the aisle. I am describing what I think is their approach to decimate a program that has been of value. All one has to do is look at the human dimension as we discuss these programs. Forget about the accountant's approach for just a moment, forget about the fact that we are strapped, that we have to figure out ways out of our dilemma in terms of our budget deficit. Just think first about the people who are affected, think of those who worked hard, who put away small sums of money by paying their insurance premiums over the years, who believe deeply that a Government contract, a contract with their Government was something of value that could not be diminished. We know one thing, Mr. President. That is, that that program, the Medicare Program, has worked incredibly well. All you have to do is look at the life expectancy in our population today and look at the quality of life that people can enjoy even as they age if their health is good, if they take care of themselves at the appropriate time, if they get the right kind of medication, if they get the right kind of physician attention or health care provider attention. The program has worked. In Russia today, the former Soviet Union, the life expectancy for a male on average is 57 years. Fifty-seven years in this country is beginning to look like the prime of life. I know guys who are becoming fathers for the first time at 57 years of age. It is not something I recommend. I have no opinion on it. I am simply stating a fact. Fifty- seven is young. Age 72, 73 is a time when lots of people can do things that they did when they were much younger. I invite people to go skiing with me sometime to see. I do not like to tell anybody, but my next birthday is going to be my 72d birthday. I served in World War II. I worked hard all my life before I came to the Senate and, I think, since I have come to the Senate, because I believe so deeply in those things that this Government of ours can and should do for its citizens. We are looking at a $270 billion cut in Medicare opportunity for our senior citizens, a $180 billion cut in Medicaid. Mr. President, those who are dependent on Medicaid are either impoverished or disabled. The senior citizen who runs out of funds, who needs nursing home care, which is becoming an evermore present condition in our society, and who has to spend their time in a nursing home depends on Medicaid for care. Seventy-one percent of the funds applied for Medicaid are for senior citizens and the disabled, 71 percent. For the disabled, Mr. President we have seen people who are totally dependent on Medicaid support for the sustenance of their lives. We had a young man in his 20's appear at the Budget Committee the other day breathing from a device on his wheelchair. And as he spoke, he was obviously straining for breath, straining for volume in his voice. He said, ``If they cut out Medicaid the way they are planning, if they reduce it the way they are planning, I will lose my ability to continue my life.'' He is a college student. And that is what is going to happen. This is just not an accounting exercise. Mr. President, I want us to see a balanced budget in our society, in our country. Frankly, I am not upset whether it takes 7 years or 10 years. I think if we get on the right kind of a down slope, we will be doing the right thing. We have other ways of getting to a balanced budget than slashing programs that the elderly depend on for their health and well-being. We do not have to spend as much on defense as we are spending. We do not have to spend as much giving away mining claims to the folks out West who get benefits from the Federal Government that are beyond comprehension for most people. We do not have to continue to support wealthy corporate farms or corporate ranches. That is not necessary. But we do have to support those people who depend upon us for their very existence. And those are the senior citizens and those who live as a result of having assistance from Medicaid. Mr. President, again, the question is simply put, whose side are you on? And when we examine the sum of money, the sums that are being asked for reductions in health care programs, $270 billion is in the Medicare cut, a $245 billion tax break, much of it for the wealthiest in our society. The House proposed that if you had an income of $350,000 a year, you would get a $20,000 tax break. How does that square? Mr. President, it does not square. We do not believe that it is necessary to lop $270 billion off Medicaid to save the program as the proponents are suggesting. This is the case where the medicine is far worse than the cure because it could kill you. The medicine can kill you when we start worrying elderly people about whether or not they are going to be able to continue to have health care, whether or not they are going to have to depend on their kids, having the kids worry about whether or not mom or pop or grandma or grandpop is going to have to come to them begging for them to take over. That is what is going to happen if we go ahead with the program as proposed. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.) [[Page S 15593]]

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I have be printed in the Record. It comes from the chief actuary for the Health Care Financing Administration. It says that we need $89 billion to continue Medicare and its viability until the year 2006. The cut proposed by the Republican majority is to take care of things until 2002. They say it needs $270 billion. Let me correct the record, Mr. President, because I think there is an arithmetic error here. For $89 billion we can take care of the program until the year 2002, $89 billion versus $270 billion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also want to include in the Record an article that appeared in the New York Times a couple weeks ago. It talks about the arrangement made between the House Republican leadership and the AMA and about how, by reducing the reductions that the doctors and the health providers may have to take, that, in fact, they were able to get the doctors, the AMA, aboard for their health plan. Mr. President, while they were doing that for the doctors, they were not talking to the seniors who are alarmed by the prospects that their health care options are going to be substantially reduced. And I ask unanimous consent that this article from the New York Times be printed in the Record as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I would just like to read from the article for a couple seconds. After receiving assurances that Medicare payments to doctors would be cut less than originally planned, the American Medical Association tonight expressed support for a House Republican plan to redesign the medical plan for the elderly. * * * Republicans in the House and Senate alike want to cut projected spending on Medicare by $270 billion . . . in the next seven years. Of that amount, $26.4 billion would have come from strict new limits on Medicare payments for doctors' services. Obviously, that was obviated or the AMA in this case would not have come along. Mr. President, what this budget does is painful. It doubles the premiums for part B from $46 a month to $93 a month. It doubles part B deductibles from $100 to $210. It hurts seniors who want to stay in fee for service. It will mean a cut of $6 billion in the State of New Jersey that would cause us to lose the services of 40 out of 110 hospitals in our State, when combined with the Medicaid cuts. In short, this proposal, as it is outlined, would result in disaster for our senior citizen population. The arithmetic is very simply displayed on this chart. ``The GOP's New Medicare Plan: The Untold,'' I call it the sneak attack, ``The Untold Story.'' Mr. President, $270 billion worth of proposed cuts, $89 billion is needed for the trust fund. It leaves $181 billion, and where is it going? It is going for tax breaks for the well-off. And so, when we finally vote on this reconciliation bill, one I voted against in committee--I am on the Budget Committee--and one that I continue to view as harmful to the very structure of our society, breaking promises with people to whom we have had arrangements, I know one thing: That I am going to be on the side of the senior citizen. I am going to be on the side of the students in this country who are depending on our Government for help in getting their education. I am going to be on the side of those who need Medicaid for their support, and I am going to vote ``no'' on this budget reconciliation bill. The one thing I hope will come out in the debate these next couple of days is that the American people will fully realize what it is that is being proposed; that the notion that these cuts have to be made to save the program are patently false, they are untrue and that what we have to do is put our thinking caps together, sit down and take the time necessary to redesign a program that will fit the bill, that will not continue to exacerbate the budget deficit situation. So, Mr. President, as we close the debate this evening, I hope that our colleagues in the Senate will continue to examine this proposal that is in front of us and reject it when the time comes and to think about the folks back home and those who are depending on it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am joining Senator Dorgan in introducing the Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1995. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important piece of legislation. The Drunk Driving Prevention Act of 1995 would require States to take a commonsense approach to preventing drunk driving accidents and deaths. The legislation would require the transfer of certain Federal highway funds to a State's highway safety program if a State fails to prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the passenger's area of motor vehicles. Sanctions under the bill would not go into effect until fiscal year 2000, so States will have ample time to comply with this law. I have always been a strong supporter of efforts to eliminate the needless slaughter of innocent men, women, and children on our Nation's highways. I sponsored the legislation that established the 21 minimum drinking age law. That legislation has been credited with saving some 9,000 lives and 120,600 injuries over the last 10 years. Even with efforts like the ``21'' bill, the killing continues. Last year, nearly 17,000 people were needlessly killed in alcohol-related traffic accidents. That amounts to one alcohol-related death every 30 minutes. The repercussions of impaired driving continue to cost our society some $46 billion each year in direct costs, with approximately $5.5 billion allotted for medical care. Mr. President, we all know that mixing alcohol and driving is a deadly combination. Unfortunately, 26 States in this country allow the consumption of alcohol in motor vehicles. This is an open invitation to disaster and an outrage that must be stopped. I commend my friend from North Dakota for his tenacity on this issue and I am proud to join him in his effort to make our Nation's roads safer.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have before us an issue that I think commands attention all around the world. It is an issue about whether or not we acknowledge what is a fact of life--that the Embassy, our Embassy, embassies of countries with diplomatic relations with Israel, belong in Israel's capital. There is no doubt that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. What we are discussing today, frankly, is not whether or not the United States Embassy belongs in Jerusalem, our Ambassador to Israel should be stationed there; we are talking about something that is, frankly, I believe, a matter of timing more than a matter of principle. The question of timing raises many arguments and many views. I am only able to stand in the Chamber a few minutes now because I have a Budget Committee meeting, which is kind of at the crux of lots of things at the moment--reconciliation, how we develop our revenues and what our expenses are and how we get to a balanced budget. That is certainly critical when we talk about foreign relations generally because we continue to reduce America's ability to communicate its views and ideas and implement its policies around the world as we limit the funds available for the operation of the State Department and our ability to grant aid. [[Page S 15479]] Just by way of quick example, in 1986 we gave 21 billion dollars' worth of foreign aid, and in 1996 we are going to provide around $12 billion. And when you consider inflation, it is probably more like 30 billion dollars' worth of aid or more at present values. But we will be giving less than half of that, kind of saying that America is withdrawing; America is stepping back; we are returning to a period, not a very pleasant one in history, where we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world. We continue to fund friendly nations like Egypt and Israel so that we can help maintain stability and an honest relationship with these countries. And so part of what we want to do is respect the sovereign view of where the capital lies and functions, and, as a responsible ally, place our Embassy there, within the normal reach of their Government. I think there are few in this Chamber who do not want it to happen. I ask unanimous consent that an article in today's Washington Post on page A9, entitled ``He Felt What I Felt,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The article talks about the pain of two fathers, one whose son was kidnapped by the other's son and put on television when this young man was held by Hamas, pleading for his life. His father heard the pleas of the young man as they held a gun to his head. When the rescue attempt took place, just a little later on, not only was the victim killed, but the perpetrator was killed. And now the fathers are meeting a year later and discussing their feelings. Nothing can restore their children, but they can describe how they felt, their anger, their pain, the call for revenge, the call for healing, still unsure about what to do. Mr. President, what we are witnessing now is almost a modern miracle. I have traveled many times to Israel and Jerusalem. I know people there. I have visited the entire breadth of the country. And I know how important Jerusalem is to all faiths and that Israel has promised that its responsibility is to make sure that all faiths have access. There is not a lot of debate about what the capital of the country is. But more than anything else, people want peace. They want to stop the killing. What we have seen in the last couple of years has been astonishing. President Clinton and the United States have help make peace between these long-term enemies. It is something that, to me, resembled a modern miracle. Everyone knows Yasser Arafat. They know his costume. They know his manner. They know he was at the United Nations some years ago with a gun on his hip; and he was there this time, 2 days ago, yesterday, talking about peace and moving the process along. It was noted on this same page of the Washington Post, ``Joint Jordanian-Israeli Flight Marks Anniversary of Treaty.'' Two air forces, Israel and Jordan, flying side by side in joint maneuvers over both countries. And I am sure the sirens in Israel did not go off when the Jordanian airplanes flew over, and vice versa. Peace in the making, but violence continues. Fathers and mothers still anguish to understand what it is that takes their young son's lives. A few days ago six Israelis died on their northern border with Lebanon. This killing has to stop. Yesterday in New Jersey I spoke on behalf of a newly opened school. It was a religious day school. And I met a man who I had only known by telephone. His name is Stephen Flatow. I [[Page S 15480]] spoke to him on the phone while I was touring Israel and Egypt in April of this year, 6 months ago. The day I arrived in Israel from Egypt, an attack took place on a bus in which a number of people, innocent people, died. At that time the newly appointed Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, was presenting his credentials in Israel. And he said to me, ``Frank, I have terrible news. A young woman, 20 years of age, was on that bus and is on life support at the moment. She comes from New Jersey. She comes from West Orange, NJ. Her family has been just notified.'' I tried to find out more about her condition. It was precarious, at best. And within 2 days she died. Twenty years old. She was in Israel studying, on a learning experience. Murdered. For what reason? No explanation. Terrorism. People angry at one another, so angry that reason was obliterated. The father flew to Israel immediately and saw his daughter before she took her last breath. I spoke to him on the phone after the funeral was held in New Jersey. I expressed my sympathy and he said one thing to me that, frankly, I found almost so overpowering that it was hard to understand. He told me that his 16-year-old daughter, his other child who was studying in Israel also, was being asked by her father and mother, who just lost a 20-year-old daughter, to continue her studies in Israel and to continue to fight for peace. Their daughter was killed in a senseless act of terrorism, and they continued to search for peace. I saw him yesterday, as I said, and we talked about the peace initiatives that are taking shape. I said, ``I may quote you. I want you to know that I am going to mention our conversation. Do you want to see the search for peace continued there, raising all kinds of questions at the same time? Can Chairman Arafat keep law and order in the Palestine community? Will there be disruptions from Hamas and other mad organizations, angry, supported by mad men with lots of money, by mad nations with lots of money? Is it worth the pursuit?'' And he said, ``Yes,'' it was worth the pursuit. ``And they should continue to search for peace.'' And the relevance of this, Mr. President, goes to the discussion underway about whether or not the Embassy should be moved immediately, after 47 years of being established in Tel Aviv, whether it should move immediately or whether the move takes place in the context of general discussions of peace. Now, I, for one, have advocated the establishment of the American Embassy in Jerusalem from the day that Israel was declared a State, a country. I have said so as well in my many visits there--the first one being 1969 after the city had been united, when I saw what happened to holy Jerusalem during the years of occupation when there was total disregard for artifacts, for archeological treasures, for custom, for religion, for culture. I was stunned and glad to see the city undivided, and declared then, in 1969, that as long as I live and could do anything about it, that city would never be divided again, that it was essential that the world recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And I do not like being in a discussion, Mr. President, where there are those saying, ``Well, perhaps it ought to take a little more time.'' I do not want it to take more time. But I want it to be consistent with the discussions that are taking place. I could not believe that a couple weeks ago I stood with Chairman Arafat, shook his hand. I have been very angry with Arafat in the past. And I am sure he felt the same way about me. But there we were, shaking hands and taking pictures because he was here in Washington on a peace mission. We do not have to like the people we do business with, but if they are on the same wavelength, if they are on the same track, share the same goals and principles, then one would have to be a fool not to respect it. And so, Mr. President, I fully support the establishment of the American Embassy in Jerusalem, the undivided capital of the State of Israel, but I will continue to debate the process as to exactly when and how we move. That is the only thing I ask, an open discussion. The people who I know, the people I talk to feel similarly about whether or not Jerusalem is the place that embassies belong. It is the capital of the country. It does not belong anyplace else. We do not go to France and say we are going to locate our Embassy in Marseilles. We do not go to Russia and say we will locate it outside of Moscow. It is up to them to decide where their capital is, and it is up to us, as full diplomatic partners, to locate our Embassy where their capital is. So I hope that as this debate unfolds, Mr. President, that we will keep in mind that peace is the objective, a noble objective. I hope we will try to understand the many sides of this peace discussion, because there is now Jordan, a full diplomatic partner with Israel, there is Egypt, and there is hope that other countries will come along. I hope the situation with the Palestinians can be resolved into a full understanding. I hope we will see a more structured community and assistance to help the Palestinians establish themselves to have jobs, to have schools, to have a structured life, to have a chance to live peacefully. So while I respect and appreciate Senator Dole's willingness to have this move take place as well as the willingness of our colleague from Arizona, who has been fully supportive of the establishment of the Embassy in the capital of Israel, I hope that we have a chance to work out an understanding that we do not take away the President's initiative to conduct foreign policy, and I hope that he will help us to help them conclude the peace discussions and get the Embassy moved as part of a total understanding. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, later this week, the Senate will be voting on amendments to the budget reconciliation bill, which the Senate Budget Committee approved today. One of those amendments will be to strike the provision that opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. I strongly oppose drilling in ANWR and will support that amendment. If we allow drilling in the coastal plain, we are destroying what the Fish and Wildlife Service calls the biological heart of the only complete Arctic ecosystem protected in North America. We will be destroying that resource for a one in five chance of finding any economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. And, even worse, we will destroy that biological heart in an effort to recover what many experts suggest will be only 200 days worth of oil for the Nation. Mr. President, I do not intend to argue all the issues surrounding the decision to drill in ANWR, or to keep it as it is. Instead, I want to only focus on one issue: caribou. On Saturday, the Anchorage Daily News reported that a new State survey produced by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game revealed a sharp decline in the central Arctic caribou herd, which calves and ranges in the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil fields, from 23,400 animals in 1992 to about 18,100 this summer. The census also revealed that the herd that stays away from the oil and gas development has not suffered as much decline. The State and Federal wildlife biologists do not know what caused the decline, but one thing is sure. The article paraphrases a State wildlife biologist. [A]lmost all of the decline has occurred in that part of the herd that ranges near the oil fields. It could be due to noise, traffic or some other disruption of caribou grazing, or to some natural cycle. Mr. President, I raise this because there has been some dispute involving the effects of the proposed drilling on wildlife, and particularly on caribou. Supporters of drilling in ANWR contend that caribou are flourishing and the caribou may even benefit from development. Opponents of drilling contend that the impact will negatively affect caribou, particularly the porcupine caribou, which calve on the 1002 area and on which the Gwich'in people depend for their food and culture. Two herds occupy ANWR: the porcupine herd and the central Arctic herd. There are significant differences between the two herds, but, according to industry, the basic features of the ecology are similar. Industry publications boast that the central Arctic herd caribou are healthy and increasing in the Prudhoe Bay region, and that oil development has not adversely affected caribou. Opponents of drilling believe otherwise. Reasonable people can and do differ on this point. However, this recent study raises some serious questions as to the health of the central Arctic herd. More importantly, the fact that the herd is declining on those lands where there is current oil and gas development, raises critical questions about the effects of proposed oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Environmentalists have contended that the effects will be severe to the caribou herd. This survey suggests that they may be right. The Anchorage Daily News article cites recent research by a University of Alaska Fairbanks biologist, which found that caribou living near the oil fields have far fewer calves. And, a Federal Arctic National Wildlife Refuge biologist is paraphrased as saying: If oil activity is to blame, such impacts would be magnified in the wildlife refuge. There, the porcupine herd is much larger--about 150,000 animals--but there is less coastal habitat and the calving grounds are much smaller. Mr. President, when the Senate votes on the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, every Member should put politics aside and vote on facts. This report is serious. We ought not take a chance on the pristine ecosystem and its wildlife by drilling in ANWR. I ask that the text of the article be printed in the Record. [From the Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 21, 1995] Oil Field Caribou Decline--State Finds Fewer in Arctic Herd (By Steve Rinehart) A new state caribou survey has found a sharp decline in the Central Arctic caribou herd, which ranges in and around the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. State and federal biologists said they don't know what caused the decline but said it could have been brought on by interference from the oil fields, or by some unknown natural cause. In any case, the caribou count released late Friday by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game may strengthen arguments against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge just east of Prudhoe to oil drilling. The effect of oil development on caribou is one of the core issues in the statewide and national debate over drilling in ANWR. There, the much larger Porcupine caribou herd calves in areas that are thought to be hot oil prospects. The Central Arctic herd has dropped from about 23,400 animals in 1992, the most recent prior survey, to about 18,100 this summer, according to the count released late Friday. Low calf production brought on by undernourished cows is thought to be the cause of that 23 percent decline, but the reasons behind it are not known, according to state Fish and Game biologist Ken Whitten of Fairbanks, who conducted the survey. However, Whitten said, almost all of the decline has occurred in that part of the herd that ranges near the oil fields. It could be due to noise, traffic or some other disruption of caribou grazing, or to some natural cycle, he said. The department's first accurate count, coinciding with the early days of oil production in 1978, placed the herd at about 6,000 animals. The herd more than doubled in the next five years, then climbed steadily to its peak. The most recent survey was scheduled to be conducted in 1994, but was delayed until this year by bad weather. In a memo dated Friday, Whitten said the census was based on ``high quality'' aerial photographs taken July 15. ``Weather conditions and carbou behavior were ideal for the photo-census effort,'' Whitten wrote. ``It is unlikely that many caribou were missed.'' The kind of change noticed in the Central herd is not extraordinary for cribou, Whitten said in an interview. ``The fact that it is happening around the oil field is what is drawing attention,'' Whitten said. Biologists for the major oil producers could not be reached for comment Friday evening. However, at a wildlife conference in Fairbanks this summer, before the census was completed, British Petroleum scientist Chris Herlugson said his observations indicate the Central Arctic caribou may benefit from some oil field improvements. Thousands of caribou ``come right into the fields on sunny, calm days when the mosquitoes and flies are abundant,'' he said at the time, ``Those gravel roads and pads will provide a little bit of relief.'' Arco spokesman Ronnie Chappell said his company would ``delay comment until we have had an opportunity to talk to the biologists who conducted the census.'' Fran Mauer, a federal Arctic National Wildlife Refuge biologist who has worked with state Fish and Game on caribou studies, said he was not surprised by the findings. Recent research by a University of Alaska Fairbanks biologist found that caribou living near the oil fields have far fewer calves, he said. ``There are a myriad of potential factors,'' he said, but one part of the census stands out: The part of the Central Arctic herd that keeps away from Prudhoe has not suffered near as much decline, If oil activity is to blame, he said, such impacts would be magnified in the wildlife refuge. There, the Porcupine herd is much larger--about 150,000 animals--but there is less coastal habitat and the calving grounds are much smaller, he said. The census got plenty of attention late Friday. For, although the biological significance of the new caribou count is uncertain, the political weight may be considerable. In lobbying to open ANWR to drilling, the Knowles administration, the oil industry and development groups have made much of the fact that the Central herd has grown dramatically during the 20-year history of Prudhoe Bay. Oil exploration ``will not hurt the wildlife or the land,'' declared an advertisement in a Washington, D.C., newspaper this week, placed by the state- and industry- funded group Arctic Power. The new census does not contradict that, said Arctic Power director Debbie Reinwand. ``We could still say that the number of caribou have tripled since Prudhoe Bay,'' she said. ``I think if (oil development) was going to hurt the caribou we would have seen it in that 20-year period.'' She said she did not think the new information would sway Congress, which is days away from voting on a major budget bill that includes the ANWR drilling provision. ANWR drilling opponents, though, said the census supports their arguments, and could affect the debate. ``It makes an opening for people to listen who were not inclined to listen before,'' said Bob Childers of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, which represents some Interior Alaska Natives who oppose drilling. [[Page S 15503]] ``Senators and congressmen have been assured by everyone that the herd is growing and all is nifty-keen. This raises a caution flag,'' he said. Teri Camery of the Alaska Wilderness League said, ``This demonstrates that oil and wilderness don't mix.'' If the experience of the Central herd is applied to the Porcupine herd, she said, ``we're likely to see an even more severe decline.'' ``It is really interesting in that the state has denied there is a conflict between caribou and oil development,'' said Pam Miller of the Alaska Coalition. A spokeswoman for Gov. Tony Knowles, Claire Richardson, said Knowles would not comment until reviewing the report, which was released after the close of business Friday at the request of the Daily News.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might for just a moment respond to the statement of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, on which I sit. I hear the intonation that we are trying to take care of our budget responsibilities so that our children in the future have not sacrificed their opportunities, that they have not been burdened with debt--and so the story goes--because of expenditures like Medicare and Medicaid. But, Mr. President, are we burdening our children when we spend more on defense than was requested by the President, or is necessary in the judgment of many to preserve the strength of our military? Are we burdening our children, our future generations, Mr. President, when we give sweetheart leases for mineral development in the West, when there is a recent story about a sale for something less than $10,000 for a piece of property that can produce $1 billion worth of ore recovery? Do we burden our children when we give tax breaks to people of substantial means, when we give $20,000 to someone who earns $350,000? I think that is a darned burden for our children. I really do. So the only response to the growing deficit is not simply to put a dagger in the hearts of Medicare, or to deprive Medicaid recipients of their sustenance in many cases for life. So that is just to set the record clear from this Senator's vantage point, Mr. President. I know that we are close to, as they say, closing shop for the day. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi is on the floor, and is in the chair. I shall relinquish the floor to the Mississippi delegation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to begin some comments on the upcoming reconciliation bill. The Republican reconciliation bill simply, in my view, puts the question to this body: Whose side are you on? I think that is the basic question. Are you on the side of middle- class Americans? I think that is the defining precept. Or are you on the side of our senior citizens, middle-class families who are trying to send their children to college, and lower income working families? Or are you on the side of the wealthy and the special interests? The Republican reconciliation bill is a bonanza for the well-off and the powerful, while senior citizens, students, and working-class families get stuck footing the bills. In my view, this is plain wrong. While the Republicans lay down for the wealthy and the special interests, Democrats stand up for the middle-class, working Americans who are struggling to hang on and to build a better life for their children. The Senate will soon consider the biggest reductions in the history of the Medicare program--reductions in services, that is. Regrettably, the Senate will not have much time to consider these severe cutbacks thoroughly or thoughtfully. The debate on the reconciliation bill is limited to a total of 20 hours. That is quite incredible when you think about it, because reconciliation bill language is kind of arcane for most of our citizens. So, simply put, it is how we balance the books, how we reconcile income with expense. It is a question that families deal with and a question that businesses deal with. And here we have virtually the whole budget for the fiscal year for the Federal Government, and we are going to deal with this in 20 hours--quite incredible. But those are the rules and we have to play by them. Therefore, I want to take this chance to join with other colleagues on this day to talk about what we see as the faults in the reconciliation bill, before [[Page S 15103]] we consider it under such strict time restrictions. Mr. President, the Republican budget is built around a false premise. The Republicans argue that in order to save Medicare, we have to destroy its fundamental mission. This is simply not true. But our friends on the other side continue to perpetuate this myth. They have their propaganda machinery operating at full speed. They say they are saving Medicare, that they are throwing out a life raft. I have to ask the question: For whom? Who is the life raft for? The answer comes back very clearly. It is for the well-heeled. It is primarily based on the House bill, and we are talking about a $20,000 tax break for a $350,000 income earner. I think it is time to call our people and tell them the truth. The first unbelievable statement that Republicans are making is that we need $270 billion to save Medicare. That is the life raft they pretend to throw out. It is simply untrue. The Republicans are using this $270 billion to finance their $245 billion tax break for the rich folk. We see it here in graphic form on this chart. But we do not see it in the kind of graphics that the average family is going to see it in when they have to pay the bill. It is no coincidence that the Medicare cuts are $270 billion and the tax breaks for the well-off are $245 billion. These figures are remarkably similar because one is being used to finance the other. They are taking from our senior citizens, who paid the bills over the years, signed the contract with their country, weathered the storms in the post-World War II years, and they are giving it back to the wealthy and special interests. Mr. President, the second Republican claim is that we need to cut $270 billion to make Medicare solvent. That is not true. The chief Health and Human Services Medicare actuary has stated that we only need $89 billion in savings to make Medicare solvent until the end of the year 2006. The next chart simply lays out the arithmetic. Here $270 billion in GOP-proposed cuts--cuts in growth, cuts, period; $89 billion in savings needed for the trust fund, and that leaves a net sum of $181 billion, a lot of money. Where does that money go? Well, it goes to finance the tax breaks for the upper-income people. Mr. President, the third inaccuracy I want to discuss is the Republicans' fallacious portrayal of their $135 billion in Medicare part B cuts. The $135 billion in Medicare part B cuts include increased premiums and deductibles for our senior citizens. Those are taxes, in no uncertain terms. But these increases are not being used to save Medicare. I want to repeat that the Medicare part B cuts are not being used to make Medicare part A, the trust fund, solvent. They are two distinctly, separate pots of money. Our friends, the Republicans, are going around the country claiming that these increases in Medicare part B are being used to save the system. But, once again, it is very clear that that is not the mission. They are being used to finance the tax breaks for the rich. Mr. President, Medicare is not just a health insurance program. Medicare is a commitment that we made to our citizens. It is 30 years old now. It is a promise for those that if they worked hard during their lives, paid the premium, that one's medical needs would be taken care of when retirement comes. In the coming weeks, the American people need to hear the truth about Medicare, because the Republicans are going to try to ram through their Medicare cuts, the tax breaks for the wealthy, while they increase taxes on the elderly. We are going to try and tell the truth. We will tell them their Medicare program is being used as a slush fund for tax breaks for those at the top of the income ladder. When Americans understand the facts, Mr. President, I do not think they will like what they see. In confirmation of my statement--I think it sits fairly in front of the American people--I refer today to a story that appeared in the New York Times. It says ``Doctors' Group Says GOP Agreed to Deal on Medicare.'' Well, if there is any doubt about whether it is the special and the powerful that are getting the better part of this deal at the expense of the elderly and the disabled and others who will have to find ways to pay for programs that they have already paid for, then one simply has to see or hear what is being said in this article: Just hours after endorsing the House Republican plan to revamp Medicare, officers of the American Medical Association said today that they had received a commitment from the House Republicans not to reduce Medicare payments to doctors treating elderly patients. I add what is not being said is they did agree to increase the costs for the senior citizens, to put a tax on the elderly so that they could find the funds not to reduce the Medicare payments. And then Mr. Kirk Johnson, senior vice president, says: ``It's wrong to suggest that the AMA endorsement was contingent upon billions of dollars.'' ``There isn't a precise figure. We don't know the amount.'' Well, we know what the mission is; we may not know the specific amount. It goes on to say, ``The House Ways and Means Committee approved the bill today by a party-line vote of 22-14.'' They identify Representative Bill Thomas, a California Republican who is chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, who said the concession to doctors would cost no more than $400 million over 7 years. That is a nice, round figure. Still an awful lot of money. An aide to Speaker Newt Gingrich said, ``If the doctors are for sale, they come real cheap.'' Four-hundred million dollars over 7 years, it is not a lot of money; it is only a lot if your income is $25,000 a year, like 75 percent of our senior citizens in this country, or $10,000, like it is for 35 percent of our senior citizens, or it is for 25 percent of our senior citizens who live on nothing more than their Social Security. I guarantee if they see $400 million and ask where it is going that they will think twice about how they feel about being stuck with the bill as the programs are being cut in front of their faces. The article goes on: Lawmakers and lobbyists scramble today to explain events leading to the association's endorsement of the Republican plan . . . their accounts, though incomplete, open a revealing window on the normally secret negotiations. Boy, the public has to hear that--secret negotiations between congressional leaders and the high-powered lobby. Mr. Gingrich met AMA leaders on Tuesday and beamed as they announced their support for his handiwork. I am reading from the reporter's story. ``Mr. Thomas,'' formally identified chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, ``confirmed that the doctors would be protected against any reduction in Medicare fees in the next 7 years. Under current law, and under the House Republicans' original proposals, fees for many doctors would have declined.'' I do not hear anybody saying that they are guaranteeing that fees for the elderly nor fees for the impoverished Medicaid will not go up. They are saying, let them pay. Let them pay. Let their fees increase over $3,000 a person over the next 7 years for elderly people who qualify for Medicare. I assume that is true for the disabled as well. Let the copayments increase. Let the deductibles increase. Charge them the taxes. Even though they paid the bill, even though the agreement was made, let them pay. When the American people understand the facts, Mr. President, and that is the mission, I do not think they will like what they see. They will ask the right questions. I only hope that they get honest answers. I ask unanimous consent that the article in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

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, I rise in support of this amendment, which would increase our commitment to addressing the menace of domestic violence. Mr. President, violence against women is one of this country's most important and pressing problems. Every 5 minutes a women is raped. Every 12 seconds a woman is battered. In fact, these figures reflect only reported crimes--the actual incidence rates probably are even higher. These numbers are mind-numbing and appalling. Yet they fail to convey the horror and the long-term physical and emotional harms that victims suffer. Sexual assault can have a devastating impact on a woman, especially if she cannot get access to needed counseling and support services. These harms can last a lifetime. It's therefore critical that counseling and other services are available to all victims. That is one reason why last year I was proud to cosponsor the Violence Against Women Act. This act offers a comprehensive approach to fighting family violence and sexual assault. Under the act, Federal funds are distributed to the States for victim support services, for training of law enforcement officers, for expansion of law enforcement and prosecution agencies, and for the development of more effective programs to prevent violent crimes against women. Funds have already been distributed to the States under this act, and it's off to a good, strong start. But it's only a start. The job is far from done. Unfortunately, in its current form, this bill would take a step backward in the battle against domestic violence. Last year, Congress authorized about $175 million for fiscal year 1996. Yet the bill would cut that level by $75 million. In my view, that cut would be a big mistake. We simply should not turn our back on the commitment that we made last year to fighting violence against women. So, Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would provide critical additional funds for the Violence Against Women Act. It's time to make the fight against domestic violence a top national priority.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to increase funding for legal services, and to retain the Legal Services Corporation. Mr. President, the debate over this bill, when you get right down to it, is a debate about priorities. And in my view, little is more important than ensuring that all Americans have access to justice. After all, the principle of ``Equal Justice Under Law'' is at the heart of our democratic system. Every American is supposed to have the same legal rights. No matter their race. No matter their religion. No matter whether they are rich or poor. Today's Legal Services Corporation helps make this principle a reality. It protects victims of domestic violence. It defends senior citizens and veterans against bureaucrats who arbitrarily deny them benefits. It forces landlords to follow the law in eviction procedures. It stops nursing homes from dumping patients who have become expensive or difficult to serve. It helps the mentally ill and disabled get the benefits to which they are entitled. And it helps ensure that Constitutional rights are real for all Americans, whether or not they can afford their own lawyer. Mr. President, the need for legal services among low-income people is intense. Over 50 million Americans are living near the poverty level, and potentially eligible for legal services. One of every four children under six lives in poverty. For people like these, Mr. President, legal services can mean access to critical support from an absent parent. It can mean a decent home to live in. Access to health care. Access to education. Or escape from a violent home. Despite these critical needs, Mr. President, 70 percent of our country's least fortunate lack access to any legal services. One reason is that the number of legal services attorneys has been cut by one- third since 1981. A recent survey found that, on average, legal services programs turned away 43 percent of eligible individuals because they lacked sufficient resources. For some programs, the rate was as high as 60 percent. Mr. President, given these shortfalls, we ought to be increasing funding for legal services, not cutting it. Yet the bill approved by the Appropriations Committee would cut funding from legal services from $400 million to $210 million. That, in my view, would be an outrage. This amendment would increase that level to $340 million. That does not go far enough, and would leave the Legal Services Corporation with a significant cut. Still, it is a big improvement. And, from all indications, it is the best we can do for now. I also want to express my concern about the restrictions on legal service [[Page S 14607]] lawyers that are included in this amendment. For example, the amendment would prohibit LSC lawyers from pursuing class action suits. I think that is a mistake. If a group of poor people are harmed by wrongful conduct, why should each person have to pursue a remedy individually? That only increases litigation, increases costs, and makes it more difficult for poor people to get justice. I do not think it makes sense. But having said that, Mr. President, I realize that many of my colleagues feel strongly about this and other restrictions. And it appears that at least many of these restrictions are necessary to ensure that the program as a whole is supported and funded. So, in conclusion, I want to commend Senator Domenici for taking the lead in this area, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The Legal Services Corporation deserves our support. Because each and every American deserves access to justice.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 2789 to the excepted committee amendment on page 51, line 3, through page 128, line 20 (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to spending limitations on Fair Housing Act enforcement, and for other purposes)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to waive the application of the Budget Act as it pertains to the pending amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to take a few minutes to respond to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I first will explain very briefly why it is that I complimented him even as I [[Page S 14351]] voted against the subcommittee bill. It is fairly simple. I think yeoman work was done. I think that the distinguished Senator from Missouri gave it a good effort but I still feel that we are not adequately protecting our communities against environmental pollution. To me it is fairly simple, because I think that the legacy that each of us in America can best leave our children, the grandchildren, and those that follow, rich or poor, is to leave them a cleaner environment; to continue the progress that has been made in some areas. In 1973, only 40 percent of our streams were fishable and swimmable, which is really the test for the quality of the water. Now it is 60 percent. If we do not fund the revolving fund and insist on cleaning up-- treating wastewater before it gets to the streams, I do not want to be crude, but it will go in some cases direct from the toilet into the rivers, into the lakes. That is an outrageous condition for a country as well off, despite our problems, as this country of ours is. Superfund sites--there is always a question raised by those that are skeptical about how dangerous these sites are. Mr. President, I have to respond by talking about a condition in, coincidentally, in Forest City and Glover, MO. A 1995 study among residents who lived near Superfund sites shows an increase in reports of respiratory problems and increased pulmonary function disorder. Investigators have reported elevated rates of birth defects in children of women living near 700 hazardous waste sites in California; children of women living near sites with high-exposure rates to solvents have greater than twice the rates of neural birth defects such as spina bifida. The study goes on. There is a real hazard there. I can tell you this, I do not want my kids drinking water from a water supply, a groundwater supply that may have been leached into by contaminants left by a polluter. I have to ask this question as well. Why is it that suddenly in the American diet or the American purchases in the food market--water? People walk around with bottles of water like they were a belt on their pants. It is quite remarkable that now, suddenly, that has become a major business. Why? I bet it is because people just like spending money. I bet it is because people love carrying these water bottles in their backpacks or back pockets. It is plain they are afraid to drink the water that comes out of the tap. Face up to it. What we are saying is we do not want a tax cut for the rich in this country, for the richest in this country--that is where the money comes from. It does not come from smoke and it does not come from mirrors; it comes from eliminating a tax break for the wealthiest in our society. I think that is a very good idea. I do not know anybody who could not use more money, even the most profligate spender, but the fact of the matter is this is a country in deep financial distress and the last thing we ought to be doing is giving a tax break for those who do not need it and who would be a lot better off if we invest our money in our society, presenting our kids with a cleaner environment, not having to worry about the air that our parents breathe or the ground our kids play on. I think that is a much better investment than a tax cut for the rich--be they idle or earned. The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, the Superfund--and I discussed this in my office with my very able staff yesterday--the title suggests something that escapes understanding that the American people have about what it all means. Superfund ought to have a different name. It ought to be getting rid of threats to the health of people in the community. Superfund has some connotation that it is a major spending program by Government and that we all enjoy throwing money down the drainpipe. That is hardly the case. Superfund is a program that works, and the money that we spend in litigation is not out of the Superfund trust fund. Rather, it is spent between companies trying to dislodge themselves from their liability; between insurance companies and their insured, the insurance company denying the claim, the insured saying, ``You insured me for that and I want you to pay; that is why I paid those premiums.'' So that is where a lot of the money comes from for litigation. It is not out of the Superfund trust fund. Mr. President, I think we have to get the definitions very clear. Superfund was and is a very complicated program. It was begun in 1980, almost in innocence, just responding to the threat of environmental pollution and the health hazards that it represented for children. We have not discussed the environment that is affected as well, the pollution of lakes and ponds and streams, water supplies, all of those things. Mr. President, when we look at Superfund we say it is almost 15 years old now, what has happened? I will tell you what has happened. Mr. President, 289 sites have been cleaned up. That is not bad. We have 1,300 sites to go, but we are better at it. We move faster on it. And if we fail to fund it at the proper level and lose a lot of the skills and expertise that is now resident in EPA and in the Superfund department, it will take a long time to rebuild those skills and reorganize the structure. That is not a way to do business, not when you have long-term projects that are inevitably more complicated than expected. But we are gaining knowledge all the time, and, again, every one of the sites on the Superfund list has begun to have some attention, whether it is in the drawing of specifications that would be applied to construction or just simply a track for beginning the appropriate engineering studies. I was fortunate a few weeks ago. I was able to go to a site in the southern part of my State, a site that was one of the worst industrial pollution sites in the country. There was a responsible party. They paid a significant share of it. By the way, I think it is very interesting to note that, of the money spent on Superfund cleanup, 70 percent came from responsible parties-- not just from the trust funds, the Superfund trust fund. I was able to go to this community. It is called the Lipari landfill site. It was a site that was contaminated over a number of years. Now it is clean enough to introduce fish back in the site. I stood there with a bunch of schoolchildren, fourth and fifth grade, and we put smallmouth bass in there and we put bigmouth bass in there. I think that was for Senators' benefit. We put fish back in the pond. The kids were so excited. I was excited. I even got my feet wet in there. But the fact of the matter is, that was a turning point for the community. They were celebrating revival. They were celebrating almost, if I may call it in religious terms, a redemption. The community center point, a halcyon lake, was now going to be able to be used for recreational purposes by the children of the community. So we saw a Superfund success. Once again, if I may ask, how much time do I have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I understand my colleague from Delaware is on his way and wants to speak. I hope I can reserve the remainder of that time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent--since the amendment last night was prepared, there have been some amendments that were proposed here, and I simply ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to not inadvertently strike any language that was previously adopted by the Senate. These changes make no substantial change in my amendment.