Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Missouri. Mr. President, how much time do we have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from Delaware 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Mikulski, Daschle, Baucus, Kerry, Biden, [[Page S 14347]] Murray, Sarbanes, Pell, and Kennedy, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that a detailee in my office, Lisa Haage, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair how much time remains for our side on debate?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment will do three things. It will restore funding for hazardous waste cleanup and for sewage treatment plants at last year's levels and provide funds for the Council of Environmental Quality to enable it to continue its work to meet its important responsibilities. First, Mr. President, I commend our colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bond, for his work on this bill and for adding over $650 million to the EPA budget. I know that he has done his best under very difficult circumstances. He deserves credit for that. In no way should my request here be viewed as being critical of the effort. But nevertheless, Mr. President, I believe that we are going to have to do better and hope that we can find a way to do it. I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for her hard work on the subcommittee bill and hope also she will be with me as we work our way through this to try and adopt this amendment. Mr. President, even with the additions that were made by the subcommittee, the bill still would cut EPA by more than 22 percent from the President's request. That is far more than many other agencies. Unfortunately, these deep cuts in EPA's budget are indicative of a much broader attack on the environment in this Congress. This year, we have seen efforts to undercut the Clean Water Act, dismantle the community right-to-know law, weaken the laws protecting endangered species and making environmental regulations that are almost impossible to promulgate. It seems that there is no end to the new majority's assault on the environment. That is not what the American people voted for last November. They do not want environmental laws curtailed. They do not want to see the gutting of our attempt to improve the environment. A recent Harris poll showed that over 70 percent of the American public, of both parties, believe that EPA regulations are just right or, in fact, not tough enough. Clearly, most Americans care about our environment, feeling, in many cases, very strongly about it. Mr. President, $432 million of this amendment restores money for the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program. The bill reported by the Appropriations Committee calls for a cut of roughly a third in hazardous site cleanup funding. That will mean many hazardous waste sites will not get cleaned up, and many people who live near these sites will continue to be exposed to dangerous and often lethal chemicals. I recognize that some critics of the Superfund say we should not provide money to the program unless some of its problems are fixed, and I agree we have to fix the problems. But while the program has had its problems in the past, which we are presently working to correct, people still want the cleanups to continue. While the controversy surrounding the program has focused largely on the issue of liability, there is no dispute about the need to clean up these sites, nor about the need for Federal funds to help do so. Communities concerned about the health of their citizens need this money to move ahead with cleanups, while the responsible parties, those accused of doing the pollution, who created the pollution, litigate amongst themselves trying to avoid paying for their obligation. Federal money also is needed if those responsible cannot be found or refuse payment. In addition, while everyone agrees that responsible parties should lead cleanup efforts where possible, Government oversight is necessary to assure that agreements are met and the public health is protected. About 260 sites in 44 States will not be cleaned up because of the funding cuts in this bill. Just look at the map, and we see that cleanups will stop, the red indicating that 1 to 5 cleanups will be delayed; in the blue area, 6 to 10 cleanups will be delayed; and in the area where we see green, including New Jersey, California, Florida, more than 10 cleanup attempts will be delayed. We cover almost the whole map. The only places where there is no delay is where we see the States outlined in white. It is a pretty ominous review that we are looking at. Beyond the severe environmental and health consequences that are apparent by delays, this will mean also 3,500 jobs will be lost in the private sector, and that would cause enormous loss of time getting rid of the hazardous waste blight that exists across our country. Also, sites that communities plan to use for economic redevelopment will not be available for use in the communities. As land lays contaminated and unusable, local communities will suffer economic losses that cannot be recouped. In my own State of New Jersey, 16 sites will see their cleanup delayed or terminated. For example, efforts will be halted at the Roebling Steel site, a former steel manufacturer next to the Delaware River, a company that had an illustrious history. Material manufactured there was sent all over the world, but they fell on hard times, and now we are dealing with a contamination that was left from their operation. Runoff from the precipitation on the site may have already contaminated the Delaware River and surrounding wetlands. Approximately 12,000 people in this area depend on ground water for their drinking water. An adjacent playground is contaminated with PCB's and heavy metals, including lead. Mr. President, hazardous waste sites have significant negative consequences for human health, and these can range from cancer to respiratory problems to birth defects. The need to prevent these kinds of diseases more than anything else is what makes funding Superfund so important. The second part of my amendment, Mr. President, will restore money to the States' revolving loan funds. The Clean Water Act requires that cities and towns comply with minimum waste treatment standards. States report that they will need $126 billion to comply with these requirements. This amendment keeps funding for the State revolving loan fund at last year's level by restoring $328 million. Finally, my amendment would add just over $1 million to continue the work for the Council on Environmental Quality. For a small amount, CEQ can [[Page S 14349]] coordinate the administration's environmental programs. This is important, especially with respect to the coordination of environmental impact statements. To fund these increases, Mr. President, my amendment would reduce the tax break that otherwise will be provided in the reconciliation bill this year. From all indications, this tax break will be targeted largely at the wealthiest individuals in America and a variety of special interests. Mr. President, the rich or poor in this country do not want to leave a contaminated environment for their children or their grandchildren, and I am sure that if this proposition that we have put forward is closely examined and we say, all right, if tax breaks are going to be given, we have to make sure that they are for the lower income, not just the top people or wage earners in our country. So, Mr. President, I am sure that if forced to choose between a tax break for the rich and strengthening environmental protections, I believe that Americans would strongly support the environment and thusly this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for the well-being and health of our citizens and our environment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thought the time the Senator asked for would be considerably shorter, and I ask that we have a chance to move.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for clarifying this. Drug elimination grants have been enormously helpful in my state in the battle against drugs and drug-related crimes at public and assisted housing projects. This program is a critically important tool for us to maintain this country's multi-year investment in decent, affordable housing. I would like to thank Senator Bond for his leadership in supporting this successful and worthwhile program. the center for international earth science information networks

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Mr. Baucus amendment and in strong opposition to the House riders that would substantially weaken environmental and health protections. The riders approved by the other body are an example of special interest legislation at its worst. Lobbyists for corporate polluters had a field day. They included a long list of anti-environmental provisions, with little opportunity for serious analysis, hearings or debate. Unfortunately, these riders are part of a broad assault on our environment by corporate polluters and their Republican allies. These attacks are attempting to turn back the clock on critical environmental protections that have proven highly successful over the past 25 years. Mr. President, since 1970, smog has decreased 70 percent. Acid rain has decreased 45 percent. Since 1973, the number of lakes and other water bodies that are swimmable and fishable has increased from 40 percent to 60 percent. Since 1988, toxic emissions have fallen by 42 percent. In other words, we have been making tremendous progress. But unless we hold the line, that progress will unravel. And the end result will be disappearing wetlands, increasingly polluted air and water, and beaches strewn once again with waste. There are so many problems with the riders in the House bill that I cannot list them all. But let me just review some of the more offensive provisions. First, the House bill would punch a variety of special interest loopholes in the Clean Air Act. One rider would provide a special exemption for the oil industry, which no longer would have to comply with the Act's hazardous toxic air pollution standards. Another rider would specifically lower the toxic air pollution standards for cement kilns. Not for any other type of incinerator, just cement kilns. Then there is a provision that would exempt the oil and gas industry from risk management requirements. The result of that loophole would be to exclude 45,000 facilities from standards that are designed to protect workers from injuries and deaths resulting from accidental chemical releases. That is a particularly offensive loophole to me because a recent explosion in a chemical factory in Lodi, NJ, could have been prevented if a risk management plan was in place. Another rider would essentially make the Clean Air Act voluntary. This rider eliminates EPA's ability to impose sanctions, even if a State fails to submit a permit program or proves unable to implement its own permit program. This would rip the heart out of the Clean Air Act. I am also concerned about a House rider that would badly weaken the so-called right to know law that sponsored. The right to know law is arguably one of the most effective environmental laws on the books. It has no prescriptive requirements, yet it has led to more voluntary pollution prevention than any other step we have taken. It imposes no regulatory controls, requires no permitting, sets no standards and requires no registration, labeling or reductions in emissions. It doesn't even require monitoring. All it requires are estimates of the amount of toxic chemicals the facilities release into our environment. This information is helpful for the city officials, for the fire and emergency personnel, and for those who live near the plants. Despite its dearth of requirements, the Right to Know law has probably led to more voluntary pollution prevention [[Page S 14298]] efforts and environmental clean up than any other environmental law. The Right to Know law requires companies to list the amount of certain chemicals that leave their facilities through air, water, or shipment to land disposal facilities. Mr. President, the impact of the Toxic Release Inventory is impressive. Emissions from facilities have decreased 42 percent nationwide since 1989; a reduction of two billion pounds. Let me repeat that--a 42 percent reduction since 1989. Despite the success, the authors of the House riders try to limit the type of information EPA can collect under that law. That is just wrong. And we should reject it. These House riders do not limit their target to gutting air pollution programs. One rider would give a green light for destruction of our wetlands. Another would stop EPA from regulating the most significant source of water pollution in our urban areas, storm water and combined sewer overflows. Yes, the House bill includes provisions allowing the discharge of untreated sewage into the water of the United States as well as our coastal beaches. Forget about clean drinking water, forget about cleaning up toxic waste sites, forget about lakes you can swim in and streams you can fish in. Overall, the 17 House riders would gut the national effort to protect the environment. And that was their intent. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to allow EPA to ignore those riders which place in jeopardy the health and safety of our citizens. Let us stand up for ordinary Americans and for the environment. And let us stand up to the lobbyists for corporate polluters. It is the right thing to do. I am convinced that if we do the right thing, the American people will support us.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to engage Senator Bond in a colloquy. It is my understanding that H.R. 2099 contains funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's drug elimination program. I would like to know if it is the Senator's understanding that this funding will be available to privately owned, assisted housing?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Chafee and Senator Smith in supporting S. 619, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. The bill is based on the bipartisan bill that I sponsored with Senators Faircloth, Lieberman, Reid and Graham during the last Congress. Mr. President, this legislation is an important step in our efforts to control the amount of toxic wastes entering the waste stream. Specifically it deals with mercury, cadmium and lead which are contained in some battery casing. These materials pose no risk while a battery is in use. But they can be a significant concern when discarded in our solid waste stream. Cadmium, which is used in the electrodes of rechargeable nickel- cadmium batteries, can cause kidney and liver damage. Mercury exposure can cause significant damage to the nervous system and kidneys. It has also been linked to decreased motor functions and muscle reflexes, memory loss, headaches and brain function disorders. And when mercury enters the aquatic environment, it can form methyl mercury, which is extremely toxic to both humans and wildlife. Although dry cell batteries account for less than one tenth of 1 percent of the 180 billion tons of garbage we generate each year, dry cell batteries have been significant sources of mercury, cadmium, and lead in our waste stream. According to a New York State report, mercury batteries accounted for 85 percent of the mercury, and rechargeable batteries accounted for 68 percent of the cadmium, in New York's solid waste. In landfills, dry cell batteries can break down to release their toxic contents and contaminate our waters. In incinerators, the combustion of dry cell batteries containing toxic metals leads to elevated toxic air emissions, and has increased the concentrations of toxic metals in the resulting fly and bottom ash. This bill, by limiting the amount of toxics used in primary batteries and creating a recycling program for rechargeable nickel cadmium, will remove a significant source of toxics from our landfills. Besides widespread bipartisan support, this bill is supported by the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. I urge speedy approval of this measure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for about 7 or 8 minutes in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wanted to take a little time to comment on some legislation that was introduced this morning by my colleague, friend, and distinguished Senator from Kentucky earlier this day, having to do with tobacco. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the Senator from Kentucky for his acknowledgment that smoking is a serious public health problem among our young people. Senator Ford's legislation seeks to curb advertising directed at young people and to limit children's access to tobacco. These are important goals. However, I strongly oppose the provision in the Senator's legislation that would seek to strip the FDA from asserting its authority to regulate tobacco products. Mr. President, nicotine is an addictive drug. This has not only been proven by a number of scientific studies, but was also revealed in confidential industry documents in the past year. Consider the following statement contained in an industry document by an official with the Brown and Williamson tobacco company. It said, ``Moreover, nicotine is addictive. We are then,'' he goes on to say ``in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug.'' Mr. President, this is directly from the tobacco industry. Now, last month President Clinton took a bold step to fight teenage smoking. He stood up to the industry, the tobacco industry, and he did the right thing. He deserves a lot of credit. President Clinton took the side of parents, American parents. They do not want their children smoking. Neither do I and neither do most here. The President is targeting smoking by teenagers, and I agree with this approach. It goes right to the source of the problem, especially if you consider the following: 3,000 children start smoking every day. More than 80 percent of all smokers had their first cigarette before the age of 18. If a child does not smoke before age 18, it is very unlikely that they will become a smoker in their adult life. More than half of all adult smokers had already become addicted regular smokers before they were 18 years of age. It is clear that smoking is a pediatric disease that ultimately contributes to over 400,000 deaths a year, enormous financial costs, terrific family dislocation and puts a burden on us that continues to add problems to our deficit. Unfortunately, it is getting worse. Between 1991 and 1994, the percentage of eighth graders who smoked increased by 30 percent. The percentage of 10th graders who smoke increased by 22 percent. Mr. President, we need the FDA to help us fight this major public health problem. Nicotine is an addictive drug, and the FDA is supposed to regulate addictive drugs. There is no reason to make a special exception for the tobacco industry. Mr. President, it would be a terrible mistake to tie the agency's hands in this critical area. We need a strong watchdog to ensure compliance with the President's initiatives. We also have to be prepared to take additional steps to reduce teenage smoking. The FDA has a critical role to play. Mr. President, ensuring compliance with President Clinton's new initiative is not going to be easy. In fact, I now have seen firsthand how easy it is for children to purchase tobacco products. In New Jersey, we have fairly strict rules on the ability to purchase tobacco by those underage. I went on a New Jersey Health Department compliance check in a couple of towns in New Jersey with two 17-year-olds. We went to 10 places to purchase cigarettes. These minors were able to purchase cigarettes at all 10 locations without a question, whether it was a machine which was supposed to be controlled by the management of the store of the location or whether it was directly over the counter. This is outrageous, Mr. President. The products they were able to buy--and this is not to single out a particular brand because that is irrelevant--but the products are the ones that we commonly see, the better advertised, the more popular. They just happen to be there; some of them had room on the counter. You did not even have to look at the clerk to buy them--just get up and pay for them, no questions asked. Mr. President, I think it is obvious keeping tobacco away from young people is going to be very difficult. We need the FDA to help lead that battle. Now, unfortunately, the legislation of our distinguished colleague from Kentucky will strip them of the power needed to respond to this public health crisis. I intend to strongly oppose the proposal and to fight as hard as I can to protect the health and well-being and the futures of our young people. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in just a couple of minutes, one of the things that happens to us occasionally on this floor is that we have to argue with friends for whom we have respect and admiration because we disagree. I must give the distinguished Senator from Kentucky credit because he has worked cooperatively to try to reduce the exposure for young people to tobacco, recognizing along the way, obviously, the possibility exists that it could be--I do not want to put words in his mouth, but his legislative proposal suggests it could be addictive. So it is a long step along the way. I thank him and I respect the Senator from Kentucky's legislative perspective here. I would say that I believe the FDA involvement is essential to the success of the program of curbing teenage smoking. I do appreciate and understand the position that the Senator from Kentucky is in. He is concerned about the farmers in Kentucky who grow tobacco, those who process the product, and I know he has long been an advocate of trying to make a sensible approach to the marketing of tobacco products without curtailing people's decisionmaking. I respect that. But, Mr. President, I really do think the only way to make this an effective battle against teenage smoking is to include the FDA, to give them the responsibility as they would have for any other addictive drug, and to pursue the course of action proposed by the President of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to tell my colleagues why I voted against the Dole welfare reform bill. Mr. President, we live in the greatest Nation on earth. We are the wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed to improving their lives. Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should be to move welfare recipients into productive work. This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a last resort--in community service. But the Dole bill is not designed to help welfare recipients get on their feet and go to work. It's only designed to cut programs--pure and simple. It's designed to provide funds so that Republicans can provide huge tax cuts for the rich. That's what's really going on here. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this legislation will harm our society while producing defenseless victims. Those victims are not represented in the Senate offices. They're not here lobbying against this bill. They don't even know they're at risk. The victims will be America's children. and there will be millions of them. Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born into poverty. And they don't deserve to be punished. These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are American children. And we as a nation have a responsibility to provide them with a safety net. The children we're talking about are desperately poor, Mr. President. They're not living high off the hog. These kids live in poverty. Mr. President, it's hard for many of us to appreciate what life is like for the 9 million children who live in poverty and who benefit from AFDC. I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it meant to struggle economically. But as bad as things were for my own family, they still weren't as bad as for millions of today's children. These are children who are not always sure whether they'll get their next meal. Not always sure that they'll have a roof over their heads. Not always sure they'll get the health care they need. Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They're living on the edge of homelessness and hunger. And they didn't do anything to deserve this fate. Mr. President, if we're serious about reforming a program that keeps these children afloat, we won't adopt a radical proposal like the Dole bill. We won't put millions of American children at risk. And we won't simply give a blank check to States and throw up our hands. Mr. President, this Republican bill isn't primarily a policy document. It's a budget document. Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and training by $10 billion. This year, by contrast, the bill before us would cut education and training dramatically, with the bill's total cuts exceeding $65 billion. So what's changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans need money for their tax cuts for the rich. Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies may give Congress more money to provide tax cuts. But it's not going to solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people it serves. To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a very basic American value: The value of work. We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that they work, if they can. Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important. But it's not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they need to get a job in the private sector. I'm not talking about handouts. I'm talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to run a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be self-sufficient in today's economy. We also have to provide child care. Mr. President, how is a woman with several young children supposed to find a job if she can't find someone to take care of her kids? It's simply impossible. There's just no point in pretending otherwise. Unfortunately, the Dole bill doesn't address these kind of needs. It doesn't even try to promote work. It doesn't even try to give people job training. It does little to provide child care. All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States. That's it. Mr. President, that's not real welfare reform. It's simply passing the buck to save a buck. And who's going to get the buck that's saved? The people the Republicans really care about: Those who are well off. Mr. President, the Senate did adopt the leadership amendment that made some improvements in the Dole bill. This amendment increases funding for child care, limits State cuts in welfare to 20 percent, and includes a $1 billion contingency fund. Mr. President, I commend the Senators who crafted these improvements. But they do not change the basic design of the bill, which remains deeply flawed. This bill would take away the safety net we established for poor children 60 years ago. It does far little to move recipients from welfare to work. And, when you get right down to it, it's main effect will be to take from the poor so that Congress can give a huge tax cut for the rich. This was a historic vote, Mr. President. And I fear we are making a bad situation even worse. I only hope I am proved wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Dole-Packwood welfare reform bill. Mr. President, we live in the greatest nation on Earth. We are the wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed to improving their lives. Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should be to move welfare recipients into productive work. This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a last resort--in community service. But the Dole-Packwood bill is not designed to help welfare recipients get on their feet and go to work. It is only designed to cut programs-- pure and simple. It is designed to take money from the poor so that Republicans can provide huge tax cuts for the rich. That is what is really going on here! Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this legislation will inflict problems on our society while producing defenseless victims. Those victims are not represented in the Senate offices. They are not here lobbying against this bill. They do not even know they are at risk. The victims will be America's children. And there will be millions of them. Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born into poverty. And they do not deserve to be punished. These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are American children. And we as a Nation have a responsibility to provide them with a safety net. The children we are talking about are desperately poor, Mr. President, They are not living high off the hog. These kids live in poverty. Consider the following: The median AFDC grant for a family of three is $366 per month. This is the same amount a Member of Congress makes in one day; $366 per month does not buy much these days. As a matter of fact, it gets a family of three to 38 percent of the Federal poverty level. Mr. President, this is the median. Consider the conditions some children live under in certain States. In Mississippi, the maximum a family of three can receive is $120 per month. This will get a family to 13 percent of the poverty level. In Texas, the maximum a family of three can receive is $184 per month. This will get a family to 19 percent of the poverty level. Mr. President, it is hard for many of us to appreciate what life is like for the 9 million children who live in poverty and who benefit from AFDC. I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it meant to struggle economically. But as bad as things were for my own family, they still were not as bad as for millions of today's children. These are children who are not always sure whether they will get their next meal. Not always sure that they will have a roof over their heads. Not always sure they will get the health care they need. Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They are living on the edge of homelessness and hunger. And they did not do anything to deserve this fate. Mr. President, if we are serious about reforming a program that keeps these children afloat, we will not adopt a radical proposal like the Dole-Packwood bill. We will not put millions of American children at risk. And we will not simply give a blank check to States and throw up our hands. Mr. President, this Republican bill is not a serious policy document. It is a budget document. It's a down payment on a Republican tax cut that targets huge benefits for millionaires and other wealthy Americans. A tax cut that, as passed by the House, would provide $20,000 to those who make $350,000 per year. Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and training by $10 billion. This year, by contrast, the House Republican welfare bill actually cuts $65 billion, including huge reductions in education and training. So what has changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans need the money for their tax cuts for the rich. Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies may give Congress more money to provide tax cuts. But it is not going to solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people it serves. To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a very basic American value: the value of work. We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that they work, if they can. Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important. But it is not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they need to get a job in the private sector. I am not talking about handouts. I am talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to run a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be self-sufficient in today's economy. We also have to provide child care. Mr. President, how is a woman with several young children supposed to find a job if she can not find someone to take care of her kids? It is simply impossible. There is just no point in pretending otherwise. [[Page S 12934]] Unfortunately, the Dole-Packwood bill does not even begin to address these kind of needs. It does not even try to promote work. It does not even try to give people job training. It does not even try to provide child care. All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States. That is it. Mr. President, that is not real welfare reform. It is simply passing the buck to save a buck. And who's going to get the buck that's saved? The people the Republicans really care about: the rich. Mr. President, if we are serious about welfare reform, I would suggest that we start with adopting provisions that were contained in the ``Work First'' alternative developed by Senators Daschle, Breaux, and Mikulski. Unlike the Dole-Packwood bill, this proposal addresses the real problems facing our welfare system. It emphasizes moving people into productive work by providing education, training, child care, and health care for those who leave the welfare rolls. And after 2 years, recipients would have to work, either in the private sector or in community service. It provides flexibility for States to run welfare experiments, while preserving the Federal commitment to poor children. It encourages families to stay together and discourages teen pregnancy. It contains tough new measures to better collect child support. Finally, it makes savings in the Food Stamp and SSI Programs by cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse. This is a much preferable approach to welfare reform, Mr. President. It emphasizes work and protects the safety net for children. It is the type of balance we need to truly reform our welfare system. Therefore, I will work with my colleagues to try to improve this Dole-Packwood bill through amendments. Mr. President, we have an enormous opportunity to improve the welfare system. President Clinton has made welfare reform a priority, and the American people are demanding action. But to do the job right, we are going to have to work on a bipartisan basis. That means that my Republican colleagues will have to sit down with Senate Democrats and the administration and produce a balanced reform bill. A bill that protects children. And a bill that promotes work. Mr. President, there is a precedent for such a bipartisan effort, and it can happen again. In 1988, the Senate passed the Family Support Act which provided funds for States to train AFDC recipients so that they could move permanently into the work force. We passed that legislation by a vote of 96 to 1 when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. It was signed by President Reagan. And you know who attended the bill signing ceremony at the White House? Then-Gov. Bill Clinton. I would hope that we could repeat this kind of bipartisanship. But to do so, we are going to have to move well beyond budget-driven proposals that simply shift the welfare problem to the States, and that threaten millions of children in the process. So I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject the Dole-Packwood bill. Let us reform our welfare system. But let us do it right. I yield the floor. tribal block grants and welfare reform

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Richard Tissiere, an outstanding New Jerseyan, [[Page S 12871]] who is being honored this week for his dedication and service to the labor movement. Mr. President, Richard Tissiere has had a long and successful career as a labor leader in my State of New Jersey. Currently he is president and business manager for the Laborers' Union Local 472 of the AFL-CIO. Mr. Tissiere's contributions to the union began when he joined the local in 1952. He worked as a laborer, shop steward, and foreman, and he continued to serve the local when he was elected in 1964 to Local 472's executive board. The local recognized his talents and commitment when he was elected president in 1976, and when he was chosen as union business manager in 1983. Finally, in 1990, he was acknowledged for his devotion to the labor movement when he was appointed to the New Jersey AFL-CIO Executive Board as its vice president. Mr. Tissiere has also undertaken other projects that have benefited the labor movement in New Jersey. He has been actively involved as a charter member for the New Jersey Alliance for Action and the Project Build Labor Management Committee. For his accomplishments with the Alliance for Action, he was honored as a recipient of the alliance's Eagle Award. In recognition of Mr. Tissiere's work to improve the labor movement, he was appointed to serve on Senator Bradley's Labor Advisory Committee. While serving on the committee, he was able to display his leadership and push forward a positive agenda for both the committee and the labor movement. In 1991, Mr. Tissiere was further recognized by the Governor's office when he was presented with the Peter J. McGuire Labor Excellence Award, one of the Governor's annual Pride of New Jersey awards. Not only has Mr. Tissiere made outstanding contributions to the labor movement, but he has actively contributed his time and effort to many public service endeavors. He served in the U.S. Navy, and has provided assistance to the Ironbound Boys and Girls Club in Newark, where he served on the board of advisers. He continues his contributions to his community by serving as an active member on the Task Force for Women in Construction. Mr. President, I extend my sincerest congratulations to Richard Tissiere for his many contributions to the labor movement in New Jersey, and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill. When most people talk about the budget, they talk about the cuts it contains--cuts in programs that will hurt middle- and lower-income Americans, cuts in taxes which will benefit the richest among us, cuts in education programs that will hinder our children's ability to carry America into the 21st century. While most areas of spending have been cut in the budget for next year, the defense budget will receive a huge increase. President Clinton recommended a budget which increased defense spending by roughly $25 billion over what we were told we needed just 1 year ago. Apparently it was not enough. Even though the cold ear has ended, the United States is the only superpower left in the world, and democracy is flourishing where communism once prevailed, the House version of the budget resolution boosted defense spending by another $7 billion for next year. During conference, the House number survived. No ``compromise by splitting the difference,'' just a total victory for the House position. And so, in line with the budget resolution, this appropriations bill spends nearly $7 billion more on the defense budget than the President requested. This bill, Mr. President, underscores the misguided direction in which the new congressional leadership wants to take our Nation. It is a direction which places a higher value on buying weapons we do not need than on books for our children's education. It is a direction which says that buying more aircraft and helicopters than the Pentagon has requested is more important for the American people than cleaning the environment or preserving Medicare benefits. We do need a strong national defense, but we can have one without the excessive $7 billion increase in spending included in this bill. The strength of our Nation, Mr. President, depends on more than the number of missiles we build and the aircraft we procure. It depends on having a well-educated work force, a clean environment, safe streets, a sound and strong economy. We cannot afford to starve domestic needs so we can spend a billion- plus on an amphibious assault ship that isn't budgeted until the turn of the century, spend hundreds of millions more than the administration requested for a national missile defense system, and spend billions of tax dollars for unrequested helicopters, aircraft, and other military equipment. Where is our sense of priorities? What happened to our common sense? The American people deserve better. And we need to make better choices with their tax dollars. We can and should start by opposing this bill. electronic commerce resource centers

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that is also my understanding.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert V. Seltzer, my legislative director, who is leaving the Senate after many years of distinguished service. Mr. President, there are few people more knowledgeable about the Senate, or more committed to this great institution, than Bob Seltzer. I have benefitted greatly from his special expertise and commitment, and his contributions to my office will be felt for many years to come. Bob's roots in the United States Senate are deep and long-lasting. He came to the Senate in 1979 to work with Senator Carl Levin after serving as his campaign manager and after leaving his post of ten years as professor of Rhetoric at Detroit University. Bob served as Senator Levin's Chief of Staff and helped to lay the groundwork for many legislative accomplishments by my friend from Michigan. After a brief period off the Hill, Bob returned to the Senate to serve as legislative director to former Senator Brock Adams. When Senator Kohl was elected to his Senate seat in 1989, he wisely chose Bob to head up his legislative department as his legislative director. In 1993, Bob came to work for me and for the people of the State in which he was born, New Jersey. Mr. President, Bob has provided invaluable service to me, to the people of New Jersey, and to the Senate. He has an impressive work ethic, and his commitment to public service is unmatched. Along with his hard work and dedication, Bob has a great sense of humor and an ability to lift the spirits and morale of others. His daily summaries of floor action almost invariably provided our staffers with a quick chuckle. Bob's humor helped the staff tolerate numerous late night sessions and the inevitable chaos of life in the Senate. His quick wit and lighthearted nature will be missed by this Senator, his coworkers and his colleagues around the Hill. Mr. President, Bob's departure from the Senate will allow him more time to pursue his love of literature and music, while permitting him to spend more time with his wife, Helen. I am sure that as he pursues new horizons beyond the Senate, he will continue to excel, just as he has in my office. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to express my sincere thanks to Bob for his contribution to my office and to the Senate. I know my colleagues who know him will join me in wishing him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from New Mexico in offering this amendment. The amendment itself is simple: it would appropriate the funds that the Pentagon will need to cover the costs of ongoing operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Guantanamo for fiscal year 1996. This amendment is offered to deal fiscally responsibly with existing commitments and to address a vital readiness issue. Now some may be surprised by the omission of such an appropriation in this bill. It is, after all, a bill to appropriate funds for fiscal year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense. The operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Guantanamo are certainly ``military activities.'' They are activities which we know will be conducted in fiscal year 1996. Yet the bill before us does not provide funding for those operations. There is, unfortunately, a precedent for such omissions. For several years, the Congress and Presidents from both parties have gotten into the habit of paying for these continuing military operations by going outside the regular budget process. Although the Department of Defense knew that it would have to pay the bills for these existing operations, it did not budget for them as I believe it should. Consequently, the Congress did not step up to the problem either. We did not include funding for them in our authorization and appropriations bills. Instead, typically, a few months after the fiscal year began, administrations would come to Congress and ask for supplemental funding for the operations. And Congress would provide the funds. In the past, that was an easier decision to make. Supplemental spending was often added to the deficit. But the rules have changed, Mr. President. Supplemental requests, we have decided, ought not just be added to the tab. They have to be offset by reductions elsewhere. Simply put, they have to be paid for. So, within the context of the Budget Resolution and the 602(b) allocations which flow from it, the Pentagon must pay for these ongoing operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Guantanamo. They can plan to pay for it now, in an orderly fashion in this bill. Or it will be paid for later, by reprogramming or rescinding DOD funds. Senator Bingaman and I are proposing that it makes better fiscal and military sense to plan to pay for it now. Delaying a decision will be, as it has been in the past, confusing, painful and costly. Identifying lower priority programs to eliminate in the middle of the year as an alternative to deficit spending has been contentious, time consuming, and problematic. The result is that the Congress and the administration have wrung their hands and quibbled over which ``low priority'' programs can be sacrificed at that time to pay these bills. The Department of Defense has been forced, at times, to dip into precious readiness accounts. As a result, the readiness of our troops has been compromised. We can and should do better. This year, the Defense Department is asking the Congress to do better. It is asking us to provide funding to cover the costs of these ongoing operations as part of the fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense Authorization bill and the fiscal year 1996 DOD Appropriations bill. Rather than deferring a decision about how to pay bills we already know will come due later in the year, the Pentagon is asking us to be fiscally responsible and include them in the fiscal year 1996 budget now. We should do that. And this amendment will do it. It is true, Mr. President, that the Administration did not request this funding in its official budget request for fiscal year 1996. However, before the Senate Armed Services Committee considered the Authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 and before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee acted, Secretary Perry wrote a letter to the Chairman asking the Committee to provide funding for these operations if the defense budget was increased above the President's request. Secretary Perry's letter is clear. Regarding ongoing operations in Bosnia, Iraq, and on Guantanamo, it says ``I suggest that you fund these contingencies first if you decide to increase the DOD budget this year.'' In a subsequent letter, Secretary Perry said ``the importance of avoiding any negative effect on readiness of U.S. forces argues for funding them earlier than can be accomplished if we wait for supplemental funding next year.'' I ask unanimous consent that copies of Secretary Perry's letters be included in the Record. To its credit, Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee did authorize $125 million for these ongoing operations as part of the $7 billion it added to the President's budget for defense. But that won't do the trick. The Pentagon estimates that it will need $1.2 billion to cover the cost of ongoing operations in fiscal year 1996. The appropriations bill provides nothing for the ongoing operations, although it increases defense spending by $6.4 billion above the President's budget request. We will still have more than a billion dollars worth of bills to pay later--bills which will need to be paid then, as we suggest they should be paid now, by finding other defense offsets. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the name of fiscal responsibility. We know now that we have more than a billion dollars worth of bills to pay this year for ongoing operations and we should include those funds in the fiscal year 1996 budget. In addition to being fiscally irresponsible, deferring a decision about how to pay these bills until later in the year runs the risk of putting the readiness of our troops in danger. Our service men and women, as well as the American people, expect and deserve better. [[Page S 12213]] For their sake, we should fix our priorities now--as this amendment attempts to do--and include funding for contingency operations in the fiscal year 1996 budget now.