Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is. The unanimous-consent request is, if I may, Mr. President, that a quorum call be fully charged to our side because the majority leader has a commitment under the previous order of a 5- minute response.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the Senator from Iowa because he is someone who is very thoughtful. We served together on the Budget Committee. He is concerned about what takes place in terms of our acts related to the budget. I know that he is sincere when he makes the case for having this done at a later time. I respectfully, however, disagree with my friend from Iowa because I think, A, that there will be no delay in terms of final consideration of this bill. There is a unanimous-consent order that is for this evening, and any single Senator can prevent that order from being altered in any way. So the vote will take place. So there is no further delay that is going to be caused by this amendment. I think that it is quite clear that now--and I once again agree with the that this House, this body is subject to the same laws that we write for everybody else, and I agree with that. Therefore, in my view, this is the perfect opportunity to say not only will we obey the laws, in terms of our performance of our functions within our offices, but we are also going to take a personal hit if something goes awry if we do not plan carefully enough to meet the budget targets that we have set. That law has been in place now I guess for 7 years--1986, I am reminded, 8 years, 9 years now--and we have had a couple of sequester years. But we have not had as much of a likelihood that a sequester ax will fall as we have facing the next year's budget, because everyone knows that we are trying to squeeze things down. In the process, if we miss those targets, we are going to have a sequester. Once again, to overstate the case perhaps, I think that if the American people's programs--and we are not necessarily talking about the private sector, we are talking about the public sector, we are talking about senior citizens, we are talking about veterans, we are talking about students--if those programs are diminished, then I see no earthly reason why our salaries should not reflect some adjustment for that year that corresponds with the reduction in programmatic dollars that might be available. So, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks. I yield back the remainder of my time and hope that we will adopt this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Great Falls Preservation and Redevelopment Act, legislation that recognizes the historic significance of the Great Falls area of Paterson, NJ. I am delighted that, once again, my senior colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, joins me as a cosponsor. Mr. President, this bill was broadly supported in the last Congress. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 280 to 130. After years of opposition, the administration lent its support. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill in September, but time ran out before the Senate could act. Today I reintroduce the draft that achieved this support, and I ask my colleagues to join once again in supporting the bill. I'm proud to say I was born in Paterson. My father worked in the mills, and I experienced firsthand the historic importance of industry in the city. Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton played a role here when, in 1791 he chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory and to establish the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures. Textiles held special significance; Paterson was once called Silk City as the center of the textile industry. While rich in history, the area is also blessed by great natural beauty and splendor. It is an oasis of beauty in an urban environment. Its resources offer not just educational and cultural opportunities, but economic and recreational ones as well. The Federal Government acknowledged all this by designating the area a national historic landmark, a formal recognition by the National Park Service. Mr. President, the roots and contributions of this area run deep. New industries were responsible for thriving businesses, tight knit families and for many of the residents, the first homes of immigrants, who arrived in the United States through nearby Ellis Island. Many of the industries from Great Falls have moved elsewhere. But we are left with an area whose significance is great for people like me. I find a source of inspiration in remembering my father in those thriving mills of Paterson, so I look at Paterson, and the Great Falls area, as a reminder of who I am. We must value our personal and collective histories, because they connect us to our families and to each other. Paterson is not alone in this story. New Jersey is rich in industrial, urban history. New Jersey played a major role in the industrial revolution. I sought to highlight this role when I secured funds in the fiscal year 1992 Interior appropriations bill to establish the urban history initiative in three cities in New Jersey. Paterson is one of those cities. Paterson's urban history program is in its early stages. The cooperative agreement was recently signed and things are moving. This infusion of funds has succeeded in initiating Paterson's historic revitalization. But this bill formalizes the current partnership among the city, its residents and the Federal Government. It establishes the Great Falls Historic District and provides a long-term Federal presence in the area. The resources of Great Falls are just beginning to be tapped; we need this bill to give the resources the focus they deserve. Such historical recognition provides important educational, economic, and cultural benefits. Its value is immeasurable. The Secretary of the Interior will enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofits, property owners, State and local governments to assist in interpreting and preserving the historical significance and contributions of the Great Falls to the city, to industry, and to our heritage. Mr. President, this bill does not impose Federal Government's heavy hand on the residents and businesses. The city doesn't want that, and neither does the Park Service. Instead, the bill initiates and facilitates cooperative agreements among interested parties. The Secretary will determine properties of historical or cultural significance, and provide technical assistance, interpret, restore, or improve these properties. This historic and cultural recognition leads to economic revitalization in the area. Mr. President, this bill is the culmination of years of effort to determine the correct Federal role in highlighting this important area. The bill does not designate a new unit of the National Park Service--it already is designated a unit--and it will not require additional Park Service personnel. The bill reflects the current budgetary climate by limiting Federal investment in capital projects, planning, and technical assistance. It also requires non-Federal matching funds and the authority to spend funds expires after 5 years. This bill, when enacted, will play an important part in advancing the historic revival of Paterson and of the Great Falls. In turn, it will boost the economic vitality of the region while restoring the importance of our industrial heritage for our children. I look forward to watching this bill become reality. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Great Falls Preservation and Redevelopment Act, legislation that recognizes the historic significance of the Great Falls area of Paterson, NJ. I am delighted that, once again, my senior colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, joins me as a cosponsor. Mr. President, this bill was broadly supported in the last Congress. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 280 to 130. After years of opposition, the administration lent its support. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the bill in September, but time ran out before the Senate could act. Today I reintroduce the draft that achieved this support, and I ask my colleagues to join once again in supporting the bill. I'm proud to say I was born in Paterson. My father worked in the mills, and I experienced firsthand the historic importance of industry in the city. Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton played a role here when, in 1791 he chose the area around the Great Falls for his laboratory and to establish the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures. Textiles held special significance; Paterson was once called Silk City as the center of the textile industry. While rich in history, the area is also blessed by great natural beauty and splendor. It is an oasis of beauty in an urban environment. Its resources offer not just educational and cultural opportunities, but economic and recreational ones as well. The Federal Government acknowledged all this by designating the area a national historic landmark, a formal recognition by the National Park Service. Mr. President, the roots and contributions of this area run deep. New industries were responsible for thriving businesses, tight knit families and for many of the residents, the first homes of immigrants, who arrived in the United States through nearby Ellis Island. Many of the industries from Great Falls have moved elsewhere. But we are left with an area whose significance is great for people like me. I find a source of inspiration in remembering my father in those thriving mills of Paterson, so I look at Paterson, and the Great Falls area, as a reminder of who I am. We must value our personal and collective histories, because they connect us to our families and to each other. Paterson is not alone in this story. New Jersey is rich in industrial, urban history. New Jersey played a major role in the industrial revolution. I sought to highlight this role when I secured funds in the fiscal year 1992 Interior appropriations bill to establish the urban history initiative in three cities in New Jersey. Paterson is one of those cities. Paterson's urban history program is in its early stages. The cooperative agreement was recently signed and things are moving. This infusion of funds has succeeded in initiating Paterson's historic revitalization. But this bill formalizes the current partnership among the city, its residents and the Federal Government. It establishes the Great Falls Historic District and provides a long-term Federal presence in the area. The resources of Great Falls are just beginning to be tapped; we need this bill to give the resources the focus they deserve. Such historical recognition provides important educational, economic, and cultural benefits. Its value is immeasurable. The Secretary of the Interior will enter into cooperative agreements with nonprofits, property owners, State and local governments to assist in interpreting and preserving the historical significance and contributions of the Great Falls to the city, to industry, and to our heritage. Mr. President, this bill does not impose Federal Government's heavy hand on the residents and businesses. The city doesn't want that, and neither does the Park Service. Instead, the bill initiates and facilitates cooperative agreements among interested parties. The Secretary will determine properties of historical or cultural significance, and provide technical assistance, interpret, restore, or improve these properties. This historic and cultural recognition leads to economic revitalization in the area. Mr. President, this bill is the culmination of years of effort to determine the correct Federal role in highlighting this important area. The bill does not designate a new unit of the National Park Service--it already is designated a unit--and it will not require additional Park Service personnel. The bill reflects the current budgetary climate by limiting Federal investment in capital projects, planning, and technical assistance. It also requires non-Federal matching funds and the authority to spend funds expires after 5 years. This bill, when enacted, will play an important part in advancing the historic revival of Paterson and of the Great Falls. In turn, it will boost the economic vitality of the region while restoring the importance of our industrial heritage for our children. I look forward to watching this bill become reality. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support campaign finance reform legislation and I have cosponsored it repeatedly over the years only to have it filibustered or vetoed by the other party. For me, taken outside the context of campaign finance reform, this amendment is problematic. It would prohibit a Senator from receiving support from lobbyists but it would not prevent a challenger from receiving contributions from those very same lobbyists. Yet that challenger could be an incumbent--a Governor, a State legislator, a mayor--and not be subject to the same restrictions. In my most recent campaign, I was challenged by the speaker of the house in the New Jersey State Legislature. I can tell you that he had the ability, based on his contact with various groups and issues, to raise a lot of money from lobbyists and special interest groups. So, without a comprehensive campaign finance program in place, the prohibition in this amendment singles out incumbent Senators--not all incumbents--unfairly. Further, comprehensive campaign finance reform set a limit on the total amount of money one could spend on a campaign. So even if a challenger could receive funds from lobbyists while an incumbent could not, the limit on total spending would not necessarily create an uneven playing field. In an environment of unlimited spending, however, denying one candidate resources which are available to another is not equitable. I support the goal of the Wellstone amendment--to break the link between contributors and any real, or perceived, influence on public policy. We can best achieve that goal in the context of overall reform of our campaign finance system. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Gas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 1995. This bill dramatically decreases the chances of pipeline accidents and reduces the risk to those who live, work, or go to school near a pipeline. This bill is designed to prevent disasters like the one that occurred last March 23, in Edison, NJ. The whole Nation witnessed the ball of fire over Edison in the wake of the explosion. Every American who saw that image on television shuddered. All too often, when a disaster happens, people focus on it for a few days and then shift their attention to other events. That has not happened in the wake of the Edison explosion and will not happen. I won't let that happen. Senator Bradley won't let it happen. And the people of Edison won't let it happen. I was the destruction in Edison after the explosion. The explosion was devastating to the families involved and traumatic to all residents of my State, which is home to a number of pipelines. I have talked to families who lost everything but the clothes on their backs. I have seen the emotional fallout--the children and adults who replay the events of that evening each night before they drift into a fitful sleep. And I know that even now, almost a year later, those people still have very real problems. Edison was not an isolated event. Since that terrible night on March 23, there have been other pipeline problems. And there were problems that preceded it. My major concern is what happened in Edison; but, Mr. President, we must make sure it doesn't happen in any community, to any American. I believe that if this bill had been law before that fateful night last March things could have been very different. Let me briefly describe the five major elements of my legislation: First, my legislation would beef up compliance with existing laws by making sure that the Department of Transportation has the resources necessary to conduct regular oversight inspections of corporations with pipeline operations in New Jersey and around the country. The bill achieves this goal by providing the U.S. DOT with the authority to recoup the cost of accident investigations from pipeline companies. In this way, DOT inspections are not interrupted when Office of Pipeline Safety personnel and resources are diverted to investigate a major pipeline failure. Second, the bill would prevent accidents before they happen. Our legislation will increase funding to States to advertise one-call notification systems and expand the DOT role in pipeline safety to include pipeline safety awareness programs. One-call notification systems require contractors to learn the location of underground facilities before they dig. Third, the bill directs the Secretary to establish an electronic data system on existing pipelines. This will provide an adequate data base so DOT can cope with the potential problems we face. This system will provide information on the nature, extent, and geologic location of pipeline facilities to facilitate risk assessment and safety planning with respect to such facilities. Fourth, we need to target attention to areas where the greatest potential threat exists. The legislation will increase inspection and siting requirements for pipelines in high density population areas. I would also encourage dumping or digging on a pipeline right-of-way. Finally, we need to have stronger punishment to deter negligent or willful violations of law. Our bill would make it a Federal crime to illegally dump on pipeline right-of-way and mandate the installation and use of remotely controlled shutoff valves. Mr. President, last June DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety sponsored a pipeline safety summit. The summit was designed to develop a public/ private agenda that establishes priorities for pipeline safety initiatives and identifies the next steps needed to make them a reality. The report developed from the suggestions at the summit will form a blueprint for action. I expect that report to be completed soon. When it is, I will develop additional legislative proposals based upon it. Meanwhile, I would like to remind my colleagues that no State in the Union is exempt from the type of disaster that happened in Edison, NJ. Mr. President, I would encourage all of my colleagues to examine and cosponsor the National Gas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the National Gas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 1994 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will take a few minutes to discuss my point of view on this piece of legislation. I am a cosponsor of the amendment which would prohibit Members of Congress from accepting gifts, travel from lobbyists and others. Mr. President, if this past election proved anything it is that the American people want change. They want Congress to respond first and foremost to the needs of ordinary citizens, not special interests, not just the wealthy, not just the lobbyists. I introduced a piece of legislation, something so similar that this is indistinguishable from what I introduced at that time. It was in May of 1993. At that time, Mr. President, there were many of us here, many here on Capitol Hill that did not appreciate the depth of the public's anger. Today I think it is quite obvious that the message was loud and the message was clear. And I think that everybody today understands how the public feels. And it is time, way past time, as a matter of fact, to finally translate that anger into action. Mr. President, I do not believe, and few do, that Members of Congress are selling their votes for the price of a meal or a free trip to the Caribbean. But it is hard to believe that when a lobbyist takes a Senator to dinner that they are only buying a meal. What they are buying is access, and access is power. Ordinary citizens do not have that access. They cannot just take their Senator or this Congress person to a quiet dinner at an expensive restaurant and explain what it is like to be afraid, to be concerned about the future, to be concerned about your job, to be concerned about whether or not your child is going to be able to climb the ladder of success, what it is like to be employed. Certainly they cannot take Members to resorts in the Caribbean or out in the mountains to discuss their personal tax problem. But meanwhile lobbyists have been doing these things for years. It gives them a distinct edge. Mr. President, when Americans see Members of Congress being wined and dined by lobbyists, they do not like it. They resent it. They believe with that kind of imagery that the deck is stacked against them, and they think it is wrong. They do not respect the system that operates that way. As I said earlier, I do not stand before my colleagues to criticize anyone or to question anybody's motives. I am not claiming to be particularly holier than thou--but I do think that we need to change the way that we do business. This is the time and the place to do it. We are, after all, considering a bill that is designed to eliminate double standards for the Congress, standards differing from that of the average person. And it is a terrible double standard for the executive branch to be living under stringent gift rules while Members of Congress continue to accept gifts from others. I would also point out, Mr. President, that many in the private sector are living under the type of tough standard proposed in this amendment. The occupant of the chair comes from the business community, as I do. As a matter of fact, our paths crossed indirectly in our previous lives. I was a CEO of a major corporation before I came to the Senate, and I know that the distinguished Senator from Utah also was head of a significant corporation. In my company we had very strict rules prohibiting purchasing agents from accepting gifts from suppliers. I did not think our people were dishonest. But I wanted to make sure that there was no temptation, no seduction on the part of the supplier to get a special advantage. I wanted the products that we bought, the merchandise that we bought, to be considered strictly on the basis of quality, ability to deliver and the appropriate price, nothing more. Lots of companies have similar rules. If these companies can live with these restrictions, I believe that it is fair to say that we in this body can also. Mr. President, just a few months ago Republicans in this body and in the House chose to defeat lobbying reform legislation that included a gift ban. At the time, our colleagues claimed that they were supporting the gift ban but they were concerned about other provisions in the bill. Others suggested that perhaps the motive was partisan to deny Democrats credit. I am not going under the bridge. I made some comments at that time that I think perhaps were misunderstood, was taken piecemeal out of the television interview. But once again, I state very, very clearly that my view is that people are not corrupted by a meal or a present or a trip or a golf game. But the appearance is not one that the American people believe gives them the same fair deal that some on the special inside track has. I hope my colleagues will agree to support this amendment which includes the very same gift ban that they claimed to support last year. As a matter of fact, it won 95 to 4, I believe was the count-- overwhelming. The eyes of America are on the new leadership and on this Congress. If we cannot bring ourselves to ban gifts from lobbyists it will be a sign that for all of the talk of reform we are still back in politics as usual. The fact of saying one thing but doing another, the fact of putting special interests first and the ordinary citizens last, would be a terrible and deeply disturbing message for this Congress to send, and we ought not to do that. So I hope that my colleagues will join me. Let it be voted upon. Let us take the count and see what happens. That is what the American people are entitled to know. What do the Members of this body really believe when they say they want to change things? It is easy. Get a tally of the vote, and it adds up to 100. Whichever way the majority rules is what will be done. So I would like to see it done with support from both sides of the aisle, in the spirit of the new mood of cooperation. I hope it can be done. I think it is very important to set the record straight, and you do it step by step. This is a very important first step. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.