Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. All of us look to him for his guidance and wisdom. I have said about Senator Byrd in the past that he is a model for what a computer might do, and he does it without all of the transistors and switches and chips, and all of that. If anyone doubts Senator Byrd's capacity, let them attend one of his lectures on the kings of England or the development of government in the Roman Empire. One will be astounded. I have always felt a little bit like a student when I listened to Senator Byrd. I thank him for his warm comments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield to our colleague from Arizona.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his laudatory comments. It is nice to hear that one will be missed. We haven't discussed the degree, but nevertheless being missed counts. I wish to say one thing in response to the thoughtful statement of the Senator from Arizona about Amtrak and a national railroad. I am glad that he did it because I misunderstood. Frankly, perhaps it is something I thought I heard the Senator from Arizona say in times past about the fact that he would resist advancing resources to Amtrak. I think it was described in terms of a ``cash guzzler,'' if I am correct in that recognition. But I am glad to hear the Senator from Arizona. Let it not ever be mistaken that Senator John McCain and I have had some differences on the floor and off the floor, but the fact is that I believe there is mutual respect. Certainly, I respect him for his contributions to America and for his contributions to this body. If anyone has any doubts about John McCain's capacity to deliver a message, one only need to look at the recent election to see that with very limited resources John McCain was able to influence the direction of policy that we are going to be witnessing in the next administration. But I also hope that Senator John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, will be able to accomplish something that has been lingering over this place. It is overdue. It has been talked about forever, and it has never been accomplished. The reason I made a decision to leave this body that I love dearly was because I didn't want to go out and raise that money. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, have done a masterful job in working inch by inch to get to the place where we examine as a proposal for the near future, I hope, how we ought to finance Senate races. I think the moment is near at hand. I hope that examination, frankly, obviously without my participation, will be taken. I will be encouraging you from the sidelines.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Boy, I could really carve out a few chips if I were going to remain here. I am happy to yield, provided I recover the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suspect you are getting weary of issuing that statement. Mr. President, just because I want to talk about 18 years of service doesn't mean I have to take 18 hours to do it. I will try to consolidate it. I have been talking about things that meant so much to me in the Senate and about the honor given when one is elected to this office. Too often it is denigrated in the heat of battle for victory in elections and again criticism of government and the bureaucrats, and so forth. It gets to a point where I must say I am very defensive, particularly for the staff who give so much of themselves to make things happen. Part of the work we have done over these years has proven to be of benefit. I hope I will be forgiven for taking some minutes to talk about things that can happen. I am proud of the work I did on gun safety, especially the law which takes guns away from domestic violence offenders who abuse their wives and their children. I am disappointed that more wasn't done to close the gun show loophole which permits people to buy weapons without any identification. I hope in the 107th Congress, with the new Members on both sides of the aisle, people who come here with good credentials, with those who have been here in the past from the 106th Congress, we will pass that law. Tobacco. Often when I am on an airplane, I am thanked by flight attendants and passengers for writing the ban on smoking in airplanes. It was a move that changed our country's cultural attitude on smoking. The tobacco industry has to understand that. I hope scientists have seen signs of understanding and cooperation that will lead them to work with us, through the FAA, to try to come to some kind of reconciliation of the position they are in where smoking brings so much damage and costs to our society. They are beginning to know that, and I hope they come up with something to permit citizens to avoid the poisons, the addiction that results from cigarette smoking. The Superfund is another program on which I worked fairly diligently for a long time without success, so far, in terms of getting it reauthorized, as it should be with a tax income that has those responsible, who could be responsible for that pollution, pay for the cleanups. We missed passing a bipartisan brownfields bill this year and hope that will take place next year. As we have reviewed tonight, transportation is one of my deepest interests. In working the bill to maintain our mass transit system, highways, airports, and ports have been a top priority for me as chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee. I believe we will face a serious transportation crunch in the future, as discussed, unless we develop high-speed rail wherever we can throughout this country. That is why this passage of the High Speed Rail Investment Act is so critical. And, once again, I thank the leaders for agreeing. I include the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their willingness to cooperate getting that Amtrak bill in place next year. Also, I am delighted to have served with our friend, Senator Connie Mack from Florida, who is also in the process of retiring from the Senate. He and I worked very hard to get passage of a bill that punishes those who would commit terrorist acts and to help the victims of terrorism. We came to a conclusion, before we left on our last break, that we will have these people receive compensation directed at having those nations that support terrorism pay for it. We are trying to get an understanding that, no matter what you do, if you support terrorism or you commit an act of terrorism, you are going to have to pay for it, and pay severely. I am proud of the work, also, I was able to do on the Budget Committee, especially the 1997 balanced budget agreement that laid the foundation for some of the surpluses we are now enjoying. I must say, when I walked across the lawn with the President of the United States and watched him sign that bill, I thought it was a moment I only wished my parents could have seen. I have served with many great men and women in the Senate. I have respect for all of them. I cannot name them all at this time, but I do want to mention some of the special ones. I worked with great majority and minority leaders. When I came here in 1983, Senator Howard Baker was the majority leader. I found him to be one of the most honorable people I have met. His word was his bond, and he taught me some early lessons when I asked him for a letter confirming a statement he had made to me, a promise he had made to me about a piece of legislation. So I said: May I have a letter to that effect? He said: If you need a letter from me, we are all in trouble. I was startled for a moment. But I could see then that Senator Howard Baker was a man of his word, as I have seen with other leaders on both sides. Senator Robert Byrd was minority leader when I came; later in the 1980s, Senator George Mitchell, Senator Bob Dole, distinguished leaders of our two parties. In the 1990s, I had the privilege to work under the stewardship of Senator Trent Lott and my good friend Senator Tom Daschle, among the very good people who served in leadership roles. It is not an easy place to manage. I don't know whether there is ever going to be a school of hard knocks that is going to teach people how to run the Senate. But I think it has to be learning under fire with an occasional singeing here and there. As a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, I served under terrific leadership: Senator Hatfield, Senator Stennis, Senator Stevens, and Senator Byrd. I don't think anyone of either party would quibble with my opinion that our friend Senator Byrd has been one of the great Senators in the history of this Republic. I have served for almost 16 years on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. That committee was led by extraordinary leadership, Senators such as Bob Stafford, Lloyd Bentsen, Quentin Burdick, John Chafee, Pat Moynihan; and Bob Smith has taken over the reins there. Max Baucus is the ranking member, and their leadership has been excellent. We worked hard to get things done. The funny thing is, it seemed that a spirit of bipartisanship just emerged without it being put into a record book or a program design. It just worked that way. I served on the Budget Committee. I did see Senator Pete Domenici here. I did that for 16 years. I worked with the best. Pete Domenici is an outstanding chairman. We disagree on some of the policy things, but I wanted Senator Domenici to know how much I respected his work as chairman of the Budget Committee. I finally got his attention. Senator Domenici and I had some disagreements--we had many agreements. But above all, we maintained respect for one another. That even developed, if I might describe it, as affection for one another, a respect for the turn our lives have taken and the problems we both would like to solve in our society. We had Jim Exon, Jim Sasser, Senator Stevens, we had some really good people--Lawton Chiles--who worked to chair these committees. There are others who left us with a memory of some greatness: People such as Ted Kennedy, Pat Moynihan, fighters such as Howard Metzenbaum, Dale Bumpers, statesmen such as Joe Biden, Lloyd Bentsen, and my colleague Bill Bradley; and American heroes such as Danny Inouye, Bob Dole, Bob Kerrey, and John Glenn--people who paid, in many cases, steep prices for their service to country. We worked with Presidents from both parties. Despite our differences, I was able to get things done with Presidents Reagan and Bush. Particularly with President Reagan, as I noted, I was able to get the legislation in place that raised the legal drinking age to 21. President Bush signed my legislation to ban smoking on all domestic airlines. I don't know whether that says something about the old saw that divided leadership in the various parts of government maybe produces good results. I wish I could have tried it all my way, but it did not get to work. But the system does work. I cannot leave this place with any criticism of the place not working or so forth. Sometimes the work goes slower than you would like. Sometimes it is more painful than you would like. But the fact is, this institution of government does work, and the people across the country have to know that, even as we looked at this kind of torturous process that followed the election we just completed. We are on to a new Presidency. We are on to the hope for the next century, for the next administration at least, that America will be able to continue to enforce its leadership in the world, not only militarily or functionally, but morally as well. So, Mr. President, it has been quite a go that I have had, to use the expression. I worked very hard for my State. I love New Jersey. I was born there. We have had Members in Congress there from both parties, and we worked together on a variety of joint Federal and State matters such as transportation, health care, and welfare. We had Governors such as Tom Kean, Jim Florio, and the present Governor Christine Todd Whitman. We were able to put politics aside and work together for the good of the people of the State of New Jersey. I am deeply grateful to the people of New Jersey. I thank them for putting their trust in me by sending me to the U.S. Senate for three terms. I hope I have made good on their trust and did the job they elected me to do. I welcome John Corzine, who is going to take this seat in the 107th Congress. He is a terrific fellow. He is going to do an excellent job, in my view. I was pleased to work with him in the election and, as a matter of fact, through these past couple of weeks as well, to see if I could be of help to him as he gets himself established, ready to take on the assignments of the Senate as Senator from New Jersey. I also extend my thanks to President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Their leadership in the past 8 years has resulted in unprecedented growth and prosperity for our country. For that I am grateful. Their leadership also helped us solve some of the problems that beset the world, whether it was in Kosovo or Ireland, where division and torment and violence existed for so many years. It is working its way slowly to a peaceful coexistence between the parties there. President Clinton deserves enormous credit for that and our intervention in Kosovo to stop the killing and abuse of people there. We look at the Clinton years as years of good government, of good accomplishment, to say President Clinton and Vice President Gore will be remembered for the good things they brought to this country. I thank my staff, perhaps the most loyal anyone could have, and many of them are here tonight and have stayed with me, as they say, to the end. Many of them have their own concerns, their own families, their own futures, their own careers to look after, but they stuck by, and we continued to get things accomplished--even this, though it is my last active day as a Senator, though I will be a Senator until January 3. My staff and I are showing we are still fighting to get things done. I was pleased with the outcome for Amtrak. Our people have worked long hours with great energy. They are talented, professional, bright, skilled people who are totally committed to our common view of public service. Whether it was in my personal office, State offices, Budget or Appropriations Committees, my people made enormous contributions day in and day out, and my service has been enriched and made more effective by their contribution. I have had some great people on the staff over the years who have dedicated their time and energy to advance our agenda. They have been outstanding public servants, anonymously serving the public interest, not elected but just as dedicated as anyone who has been elected to office. I want to take a few minutes to name for the Record people such as Eve Lubalin, my first legislative director, who served for many years as my chief of staff and campaign manager as well. She worked on so many of our accomplishments in 17 years in my office. Mitchell Oster worked on my 1982 campaign and later was my legislative director. He was an excellent, smart, aggressive staffer. A friend of mine who worked with me as a press secretary and State director is Jim McQueeny. James Carville and Paul Begala managed my campaign in 1988. I hope that was part of the propulsion that led them to the lofty positions they had in campaign logistics and successes. Karin Elkis has been on my staff since 1983. Bruce King is the staff director of the Senate Budget Committee. Sandy Lurie, my current chief of staff, has been on the staff for 10 years and has been involved in so many of my initiatives. Maggie Moran is my State director. Dan Katz, my outstanding legislative director, has helped me with so many public health issues. Tom Dosh has worked for me for 18 years, skillfully running the administrative and financial management side of all my offices. And my long-time assistant Eleanor Popeck has worked for me for over 35 years. She was with me as an assistant when I ran ADP and has worked in my Washington office and Newark office as well. She is an outstanding public servant. Her contributions have been significant. Peter Rogoff has worked with me on the Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee for over 10 years and has assisted me with so many major transportation accomplishments. There are many others over the years, and I wish I had time to mention them all. That would be disagreeable with some of the people in the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of my key staffers over the years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Finally, Mr. President, this is not a day without emotion. Eighteen years of my life have been spent here, 18 of the most satisfying years one could imagine. Couple that with some 3 years in the Army, and I have served the Government for 20 years. I have enjoyed it all. It has been an incredible learning experience for me, but I owe a special thanks to four people: My four children, Ellen, Nan, Lisa, and Josh. I asked them in the early stages what they thought about my running for office. I was chairman of a very large company, and life was pretty good. They all agreed that it was something I ought to do. We did not realize at the time what kind of an interference with normal family life it would be. It has taken lots of time away from our enjoyment of doing things together. I came to the Senate because I love them so dearly that I wanted to make sure their lives would be safer and fuller. How was that to be accomplished? It was not by earning more assets and resources. I knew my children and my grandchildren could never be as safe as I would like them to be unless everybody's children were as safe as they should be by getting rid of violence in the streets, in the communities, in the neighborhoods, in the schools. How does one do that? I could not single my kids out and say, OK, let's make sure they are safe and protected. No, I had to say all people's children have to be safe and protected, and that is what I have tried to do here. That was my inspiration. That outlined the goals I set for myself. That is why I wanted to raise the drinking age, lower the blood alcohol content, get guns out of people's houses, reduce smoking in public areas, make sure toxic chemicals were known throughout the communities in the Right To Know Act, and make sure terrorists did not run freely through our society or through the world chasing American citizens, abusing them, killing them. I tried. I have not accomplished all of those things, but a lot of them have been accomplished. I wanted the highways to be safer and the skyways to be safer because of the belief I had that people around the country would share my view on that. Now the pictures are off the wall, the furniture is moved out, the day is closing for the end of my Senate service. I will acknowledge that it was more than skills and knowledge that brought me here. Some of that was the pure good fortune of the people of New Jersey electing me the first time I went out to run for office. They did not know me from anybody else, but they looked at the record my company had and how we built it from nothing to something important. They looked at my service as commissioner of the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York that controls the bridges, tunnels, terminals, and buildings in New York that was an appointed post. People looked at me and said: Well, we don't know this guy, but it looks like he has done some things correctly. They saw pictures of my family. They know how devoted I am to them. I also was chairman of one of the largest charities of the world for 3 years. They entrusted me with this seat, the New Jersey seat, that I occupied for 18 years. I always refrain from calling it ``my seat'' because it is not; I filled it for a while. In closing, I thank the occupant of the chair for the opportunities we have had to share common goals and for his decency in reviewing those with me and having an open mind on many of the issues. I thank my friend from Nevada who stands as the guardsman of the floor in his assignment for the Democrats as the whip, and I note the respect I felt for him when I saw how arduously he worked to protect his State from becoming a nuclear dump, even when we struggled to find a place to put that material --and we do have to find a place. The fact of the matter is, if we defend the interests of our States in concert with the interests of our country, we will have done our jobs correctly. I hope the legacy I leave will create a brighter future for the people who sent me here, for my eight wonderful grandchildren, and for all of those I took the oath to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take some time to discuss the importance of investing in our Nation's high-speed rail infrastructure. We have what could fairly be termed a looming transportation crisis in the United States. Business and personal travelers are overwhelmingly relying on air travel to get from city to city, and the system is plagued with delays and congestion which is not only undermining people's personal plans but also harming the business community. Air travel has become so inconvenient and unreliable, the public needs alternatives. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, aviation delays increased 58 percent between 1995 and 1999. And to add to passengers' frustration, the average delay is getting longer each year--averaging 50 minutes in 1999. Even worse, flight cancellations increased 68 percent over that same period--1995--1999. Overall, nearly one in four flights was either delayed or canceled in 1999. The summer of 1999 was the most delayed summer in aviation history. That is until this summer, which blew past last year's delay record. The number of delays, the number of cancellations, and the length of delays all have continued to go up so far in 2000. And consumer complaints more than doubled in 1999 and are up almost another 50 percent so far this year. With aviation travel expected to increase more than 50 percent over the next decade, we have a crisis looming. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that boardings will increase to 917 million by 2008. Our current aviation system can't handle this demand. Fortunately, we have a solution to this problem right before our eyes. A solution that we have ignored and neglected for too long--high- speed passenger rail. Nineteen of the 20 most-delayed airports in the United States are located on potential high-speed corridors. And high-speed rail can provide a competitive travel alternative, particularly over distances less than 500 miles. The situation on our roads is almost as dire as the problems in our skies. One study estimated that $72 billion dollars was lost in 1997 as a result of traffic congestion through lost productivity and wasted fuel. And this situation continues to deteriorate. People now spend 50 percent more time stuck in traffic than they did in 1990 and triple the time they did in 1982. Critics have complained about Amtrak receiving $23 billion federal subsidies since 1971. But this is pocket change compared with the funding we have provided other modes over that same period. Since 1971, we have spent over $160 billion on aviation programs and over $380 billion on highways. The High-Speed Rail Investment Act can is the vehicle for giving Americans more transportation options. This legislation would allow Amtrak to sell $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds over ten years. The Federal Government would leverage private sector investment in our rail infrastructure by providing tax credits to bondholders. States would be full partners in this effort and would have to put up a 20 percent match which would go into an escrow account to be used to repay the bond principal. These funds would enable high-speed rail projects to go forward in the Midwest, the Southeast, the Gulf Coast, and along the Pacific Coast. And it would allow us to finish the Northeast Corridor high-speed rail project. High-speed rail means better, faster, more competitive rail service. It means a comfortable travel alternative to those who want to avoid congested highways and cramped and delayed planes. The High-Speed Rail Investment Act, S. 1900, is supported by a bipartisan group of 57 Senators representing all regions of the country. And companion House legislation, H.R. 3700, introduced by Congressmen Amo Houghton and James Oberstar, now has over 150 cosponsors. Our Nation's governors, state legislators, and mayors understand our transportation problems and see high-speed rail as a vital part of the solution to our transporatation woes. Newspapers from across the Nation have come out in support of investing in high-speed rail. Mr. President, the benefits of High Speed Rail Service are clear. High-speed rail is the future of transportation in America. We cannot maintain a productive and efficient transportation system without modernizing our rail infrastructure and providing a competitive alternative means of transportation on our rails. I am therefore pleased that I have the commitment of my colleagues to provide resources for high speed rail next year. While I won't be in the Senate, I know the Senator from Delaware and other colleagues will work relentlessly toward this goal.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Carol Browner, the longest-serving Administrator in the history of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and one of the people with whom I have been most honored to work. I can think of no finer role model for young women, or young men, considering a career in government today than Carol Browner. Since she came to the EPA seven years ago, she has set a gold standard for public service and for protection of the public's health. A dedicated advocate for the environment, she has never neglected her responsibility to protect and preserve the water, land and air that our childrens' children will inherit from us. Carol Browner has been a tireless advocate for the environment and made significant contributions in every area that the EPA touches. As just one example, Administrator Browner set up a childrens' office at the EPA for the first time, signaling her commitment to strengthening the ties between the environment and children's health. Under Administrator Browner's control, the EPA began to take children into account when developing air and water safety standards, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Food Quality Protection Act was the first law that made health of children, rather than adult males, the benchmark for evaluating safety. These two acts are monuments to Carol Browner's dedication to the environment and to children. To better protect our nation's surface waters, Administrator Browner was a principal architect of the Clinton Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. One component of this program was to increase the public's knowledge about the potential health threats from swimming in contaminated waters at our nation's beaches. Under her leadership, EPA established a publicly-accessible Internet site containing information about water quality and beach closings across the nation. Administrator Browner and I worked closely together to strengthen the water quality standards for our nation's coastal recreation waters, and to assist states in setting up beach monitoring and notification programs. Our efforts were successful through the enactment of Public Law 106-284, also known as the ``Beach Bill.'' Through the Clean Water Action Plan, Administrator Browner demonstrated her ability to take on the tough fights and to do what was right for the environment. Under her leadership, EPA adopted policies to reduce polluted runoff from factory farms and from aging urban wastewater systems, and helped obtain the funding to implement these controls. As a proponent of corporate responsibility and the citizen's ``right to know,'' an area of particular interest to me, Administrator Browner, the law and EPA's implementation of it, effected a 50 percent drop in the rate of industrial emissions, without creating any new regulatory mandates. As another example, Administrator Browner fought to limit the industrial pollution generated by coal fire plants in Midwestern states that contributed to air pollution in New Jersey. Under Administrator Browner and President Clinton, the EPA has both vigorously enforced environmental laws and reached out to industry to find creative new incentives and environmental results. This is the kind of leadership that Democrats and Republicans can both rally around. Perhaps most importantly to my home state, during Administrator Browner's nearly eight-year tenure, the Superfund Program has completed three times the number of waste site cleanups than in its previous twelve years. She helped keep Superfund strong, and held fast to the belief that justice and the environment are best served when polluters pay to clean up the messes they create, even while she strove to improve the program and accelerate clean-ups. I was honored to share the stage with Administrator Browner recently at Pepe Field in Boonton, New Jersey, which was Superfund's 750th clean-up. What was once a malodorous eyesore is now a thriving community park. Pepe Field is but one of many Superfund success stories under Administrator Browner's leadership. With her oversight of the Brownfields program, Carol Browner has demonstrated the vital ties between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Revitalizing these sites created more than 8,300 construction jobs. And once the work was done, another 22,000 jobs were either created or retained. Much of this economic revitalization happened in communities in need, where per capita incomes averaged just over $10,000 a year, versus a national average of almost $14,500. This program brings both environmental and economic justice to these neighborhoods. Communities once on the verge of despair are back on the road to revitalization, thanks to Carol Browner. Carol Browner is one of the best friends this nation's environment has ever had. As I prepare to leave the Senate, I will remember her for many things, but most of all for her optimism, her commitment, and her integrity. I thank her for her work and salute her accomplishments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the great work of a civil rights pioneer and chapter president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of Willingboro, New Jersey, Reverend Willie James, on the occasion of his receiving the award for exemplary community service. Reverend James began his work for civil rights in 1958 when he attempted to buy a house in Willingboro's Levitt community. He was told that houses would not be sold to African-Americans. Reverend James decided to sue. Two years later, the United States Supreme Court officially integrated Willingboro, enabling Reverend James to become one of the community's first African-American residents. In 1974, work demands forced Reverend James to move to Rhode Island. While in Rhode Island, Reverend James joined a statewide commission that studied disparities in white and minority prison rates than whites. Eventually Reverend James returned to New Jersey where his level of activism flourished. He became president of the Willingboro chapter of the NAACP. During his time as president, Reverend James made great progress researching the issue of disproportionate African-American male imprisonment. In the recent election, Reverend James and the local chapter of the NAACP worked on motivating minorities to vote. Reverend James is a recipient of more than 30 local and national awards for his commitment to public service. I am pleased to honor Reverend Willie James on this joyous occasion. His family, his friends, and his community are indebted to him for his unyielding service. This honor is richly-deserved. I salute him on yet another great achievement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would like to inquire of the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies, Senator Hollings, about a particular provision of the conference report. The conference report to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 specified that $1 million is available for land acquisition in Raritan, New Jersey under the National Estuarine Research Reserve system.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As I understand it, the intent of this language is to allow for the purchase of specific parcels of wetland habitat in the Raritan Bay region of New Jersey. The Raritan Bay area in Monmouth County, New Jersey, is the area of focus of this provision, not Raritan Borough in Somerset County, New Jersey nor Raritan Township which is located in Hunterdon County. In addition, the intent of this provision is for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Estuarine Research System to work cooperatively with the State of New Jersey to coordinate the acquisition and management of these lands.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the ranking member for clarifying the meaning of this provision.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say to Senator Boxer and Senator Reid, thank you for your comments, but, more than that, for our ability to work together to try to take care of our citizens as we believe they would want, to look at the issues fairly and squarely, and not spend as much time dancing around the truth and around the issues, as often goes on here. I thank the Senator, and I will send my thanks to Senator Reid. I will miss working with both of you and colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am particularly grateful to the occupant of the chair, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who, although we had some disagreements in terms of particular policies, always tried to work them out. I appreciate that balanced view, even though we didn't win as many as I wanted to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last month, and again last week, the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee released two reports criticizing what they wrongly described as the economic plan proposed by Vice President Gore and our distinguished colleague, Senator Lieberman. I wanted to come to the floor to discuss these reports, which I believe were inappropriate, and a misuse of taxpayer dollars. They also were grossly inaccurate and unfair. Let me read from a section of the Senate Ethics Manual. Campaign Use of Official Resources Official resources may only be used for official purposes. It is thus inappropriate to use any official resources to conduct campaign or political activities. Mr. President, as we all know, and the Senate Ethics Manual makes clear, it is inappropriate to use any official resources to conduct campaign or political activities. Of course, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between official Senate business and campaign activities. And reasonable people can disagree about many of the documents that are produced routinely here in the Congress. But, having said that, the reports issued by the Budget Committee staff, in my view, go well over the line. These reports are focused entirely on Al Gore's campaign proposals, or at least the staff's erroneous interpretation of those proposals. And their obvious purpose is not to provide an objective analysis, but to attack the Vice President. These staff reports aren't just biased, they're pure propaganda. And I would note that the latest report was issued just hours before the last Presidential debate. Not surprisingly, they issued no comparable critique of Governor Bush's budget plan. Now, Mr. President, I recognize that the Budget Committee is not like the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is supposed to operate in a nonpartisan manner. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee makes no pretense to being nonpartisan, and serves only on behalf of Republican Senators. So one would expect them to issue reports that further a partisan agenda. But, Mr. President, that does not justify the issuance of reports that are so obviously intended for campaign purposes, and that are so blatantly misleading and factually inaccurate. Mr. President, I could take a long time reviewing the many flaws of the Republican staff reports, but let me ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I believe is critical for the Congress to address before we adjourn this year. It is an issue on which environmentalists, the business community, and the labor community strongly agree. It is called the Brownfields Revitalization Act. I say it is called that. I have to explain exactly what we are talking about here. It is an issue upon which Republicans and Democrats agree. The Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2000 is a bill I introduced with Senator Chafee. It now has 67 cosponsors. Two-thirds of the Senate say this is a good piece of legislation and we ought to pass it. That includes, obviously, a majority of both sides of the political aisle--a rare example of overwhelming bipartisan support. Some accuse us of being a ``do-nothing Congress,'' that we are stuck in partisan disagreement. That can be said. But I can tell you, it cannot be said about this brownfields bill. We ought to pass it here and now as a way to show that we can still move bipartisan legislation in the Senate. We have strong support. Dozens of environmental organizations, business, labor, and State and local governments support the bill, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Real Estate Round Table, and the National Association of Realtors. It is a mix of people and interests, including the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Natural Resources Council. The list is a very long one, including various communities throughout the country as well as the organizations I mentioned. Many don't know what we are talking about when we say brownfields. We will explain it. These are contaminated sites. They are abandoned properties that blight our communities. But also, they lie there waiting to be developed because they offer great promise for the future. According to the Conference of Mayors, there are over 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. They are, of course, in every State of the Union. There are brownfields in rural and urban areas and large and small communities. Citizens everywhere would benefit from this bill. There are economic and environmental benefits from cleaning up brownfields. That is why the business community and labor so strongly support the bipartisan brownfields bill. The Conference of Mayors has estimated that redeveloping these sites would create almost 600,000 jobs, would increase tax revenues, by their estimate, from somewhere between $900 million to $2.4 billion. What a benefit that would be to communities. In a city in my State, Elizabeth, NJ, a town I lived in when I was growing up, we turned an abandoned site, that lay fallow for years, into an enormous shopping mall, with more than a million square feet of retail space and 5,000 permanent jobs. Elizabeth is one of the oldest industrial cities in the State of New Jersey. It is actively trying to build for the future. They are looking at hotels and a convention center thanks to brownfield revitalization. The successes in Elizabeth established proof that brownfields create jobs, hope, and opportunity for communities. In Trenton, NJ, we have a very famous company that builds steel for bridges and structures all across this country, formally called Roebling & Sons. We have a picture of what happened to this site as it sat for years. I know my State so well; I remember the dump site. It was almost a lagoon of toxins. It was broken down. Anyone could see in the picture the terrible deteriorating condition. Then we have a brownfield restoration program and this is what happened: It became a full-service supermarket, the first market in the city in many years. This is our capital city, with an office building and senior housing. It is almost a miraculous rebirth. There is a risk in letting these brownfield sites sit there. The risks are substantial. They pose threats to human health and the environment, they create blighted downtown areas often leading to crime and loss of jobs. It forces development of farmland and open spaces. It causes sprawl. The result is increased driving time for those who have cars living in these cities, with traffic congestion and air pollution. The bipartisan brownfields bill will make major strides in revitalizing sites across the country. They are small sites, typically for $200,000 and less. They can be turned into productive urban centers or rural centers where commerce can take place and jobs exist. The bill provides critically needed funds to assess and clean up abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites. They can use them for parks and greenways. They encourage cleanup and redevelopment of the properties by providing another important element: legal protection for innocent parties such as contiguous property owners and prospective purchasers, innocent land owners. They need to know that their liabilities are limited. Otherwise they are not going to take the risk in putting money into the sites. It helps, also, to encourage other cleanups of State and local sites creating a certainty for those who would invest there, and ensures protection for public health. When the sites are revitalized, the results are obvious: jobs, a stronger local tax base, curbing sprawl, preserving open space, and protecting the health of our citizens. Some suggest there are other ways to solve this problem by revitalizing or reforming or reauthorizing our Superfund Program. That is a nice idea, but unfortunately, we have been working 8 years to get the parties together to get the Superfund Program reauthorized. The Superfund handles the enormous sites that dot our landscape, without success. I, personally, since I have been so involved in the environmental committee and in environmental issues, wanted to get to work on Superfund and get it done before I left the Senate, which is effectively in the next few days. I will have lost my opportunity to talk on this floor and get some of the things done that we still have ahead. The value of this legislation is real and it is current. While the sites, by their very definition, are not the size of Superfund sites, the overwhelming majority of brownfields are not Federal cleanup problems but are being cleaned up by States and local governments. This bill will give incentives and protection at those hundreds of thousands of State sites. We owe this relief to our communities. They can take the money and get an investor to develop the site. We should not hold this bill hostage. There are 67 Members, two-thirds of the Senate, bipartisan, who do not want to see this bill lying around here and not getting passed. Mr. President, 67 Senators have spoken. Business groups support this, as do environmentalists, and State and local governments. The legislation ought to pass. It is a very simple task. The time for this bill to pass is now. I hope my colleagues will act to move this legislation as quickly as possible. They have cosponsored the bill. If we can just put it in the line of things, it need not take a long time to debate or discuss. I hope we can pass this legislation soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the President of the United States today nominated Ms. Lois Epstein to be a Board Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Ms. Epstein is a licensed professional engineer with over 16 years of technical and regulatory experience involving toxic and hazardous chemicals, with a significant focus on accident and pollution prevention. She currently is a Senior Engineer with Environmental Defense. In that capacity, she has served on three federal advisory committees, two for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and one for the Department of Transportation (DOT). She has also served as a consultant to the Science Advisory Board of EPA. Prior to coming to Environmental Defense, Ms. Epstein worked in the private sector and for the federal government in the EPA Region 9 office. Ms. Epstein has demonstrated integrity, technical and analytical expertise, industrial plant knowledge, and a stong understanding of environmental laws and regulations. She has the ability to work with a diverse array of interests, and a commitment to resolving environmental and worker safety problems. These qualities, in combination with Ms. Epstein's expertise in engineering, petroleum refining, and her familiarity with the National Transportation Safety Board--the model for the Chemical Safety Board--make her a strong candidate. Although she is being nominated without enough time remaining in the 106th Congress for confirmation, I hope that the next Administration and Congress will look favorably upon this qualified candidate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to discuss something that has been in front of our eyes and in front of our minds these last couple of weeks; that is, the turmoil we are witnessing in the Middle East. Those horrible pictures of young people engaged in violence and paying a terrible price for the consequence of that violence. Not just the young people--women, children, young men. I think it is fair to say that everyone who sees what is taking place wishes it weren't happening. The question is raised about our responsibility and what do we do about it. Is there an opportunity for us to lend peace a hand, to see whether or not we can encourage the reduction of violence, the elimination of the confrontation with stones and tanks and guns, to see if there isn't something more that we could do than to simply be a witness. Mr. President, I commend President Clinton's efforts. He has been such a wonderful peacemaker in his term of office. I have been to the places he has exerted some effort, i.e., Ireland. I was there many years ago and met with people in the north and met people from the Republic. I talked to Catholics and Protestants and tried to help make adjustments in our funding support so it would be more balanced, balanced towards those people who needed help while asking those who did not to at least participate in a nonviolent manner to get the killing and the mayhem stopped. President Clinton took the initiative there. He sent Senator Mitchell, one of our very good friends from this place, a distinguished Senator; a distinguished judge before he came to the Senate. He worked tirelessly. He would get the two sides to at least stop shooting at one another and come to the negotiating table. It has had a shaky peace arrangement, but at least people are not dying. And if they are, it is an exceptional occasion and not the usual thing. I was in Kosovo and Bosnia with other Members of the Senate and saw the unacceptable behavior of the leadership there, as they committed the genocidal acts against innocent people. We became engaged, and it was a tough fight to become a part of the peacemaking structure. We didn't always agree with our friends in Europe about whether or not it was in their interests or our interests. I think we have seen that too many times. I was a veteran during the war a long time ago. I enlisted in the Army. Even in those early days in the last century when Hitler started to invade neighboring countries, killing people, separating groups from one another so they could be attacked in an organized fashion, there were people, I understand, as I read the history, who questioned whether it was something in which the United States should become involved. Before we knew it, we had no choice. When our ships were attacked in Pearl Harbor, we were in it 110 percent, with some 15 million people in uniform. We fought hard. Hearts were broken. Families paid a price. Young people died--among others, but those who were involved in the military were young. In the last half of the 20th century, democracy flourished in some of those places. We still have troops in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea--50 years later. Sometimes, I must tell you, I do not understand it when questions are raised here about our role: Are we going to be the policeman of the world? Does it have our interest in it? I remember the debate on Kosovo and Bosnia. There were many who said we have no business being there. I disagreed. I disagreed strongly, and I encouraged us to do what we did. President Clinton and Vice President Gore led the charge, if I may say, by making certain we protected our pilots and our military servicepeople wherever they were in the area as we took on the task of stopping a mad, genocidal attack on people in Kosovo and at times before that in Bosnia itself. It was a wonderful conclusion that we lost no one in combat, but we stopped the killing of innocent people. Kosovo is being rebuilt. Again, maybe it is a shaky peace but a peace. That is the critical issue. The question was raised, as I said, was that in our national interest? Are we going to be the policeman of the world? Now we are faced with another situation. When terrorism rears its ugly head, and when those who want to violate the safety and well-being of ordinary citizens and take it into their hands to determine who is wrong and who is right commit atrocious acts, it does almost always come home to roost. It is proven that at some point in time it is in our national interest. Our national interest is to protect our people. Maybe in the process we reach out to protect others so violence does not spread and we are not looking at wholesale attacks on innocent people. The other day when the U.S.S. Cole was struck by madmen who detonated bombs that tore the U.S.S. Cole apart, left a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, in a ship that was designed to withstand torpedoes and other pieces of military weaponry, and killed 17 people, if one read the biography of so many of them who died, they were young: 19, 20 years old. I enlisted when I was 18. It is so very young. And 37 more, I think the number is, were wounded, many of them seriously wounded, and just brought home. Today I know there was a memorial service in Norfolk, VA, for those who died. The President was there. He made certain he got back from Egypt on time to be there. I wonder how many people are saying, do we have an interest, a national interest in what is taking place there when terrorism is allowed to flourish, and included in that activity are American citizens, those who were there to maintain the peace? The other day we passed a piece of legislation which I had the privilege of authoring that compensated victims of terrorist activity, families who lost people I knew, who lost a daughter in Israel in an attack on a bus outside the Gaza Strip. She was 20 years old, there on business, innocent, studying, trying to learn something about a heritage that she and her family were proud of --killed by a terrorist's bomb. Iran was held in our courts to be the country of responsibility. We took further action based on legislation that had passed through this House that enabled people to bring suits against those countries, to attach their assets that may have been in America. A resolution was adopted and the President is going to be signing a bill into law very shortly permitting the distribution of funds to those families. They didn't want the money but they didn't want other families to have to suffer the same consequences they did. Now we look at the President's attempt to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians. We do not know whether that effort is going to work. But we do know that the President did the right thing to assert the presence of America and to say we want to see peace in this area. We are friendly with both sides in the dispute there, perhaps friendlier, as I think we should be, in many ways to the democratic nation of Israel because it is a democracy and people have choices about things. But we do not want to see Palestinians killed. It pained us all to see the picture of that young boy who was shot in a crossfire. It pained us all to see a couple of soldiers, who were doing no harm, taken to a jail and held there as prisoners until a mob was able to get their hands on them and lynch them, mutilate them--lynched them not with a rope but lynched them in terms of taking their lives in a mob attack, parading their bodies through the streets, mutilating them even as they lay dead. It is time for us to ask those who can stop this violence, who can at least slow it down, at least encourage peace, to step up and do so and not hold out a friendly American hand to those who will not. I welcomed Mr. Arafat here in 1993. I was amazed to see Prime Minister Rabin; the President of the United States; and the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat; shaking hands because I had only known about Yasser Arafat in an earlier time when he wore a gun on his hip and went to the United Nations and held the gun up as a manifestation of his view of how disputes are resolved. Now we see what is happening, even though there was a tacit agreement to try and stop the violence and the Israelis were cooperating. They permitted the reopening of the Gaza airport. I was there the week before that airport was opened. I was so positive about it bringing an opportunity to the Palestinian people in Gaza to have their economy lifted, to have their hopes and spirits lifted at the same time, that perhaps an improvement in their way of life and their economy might be possible because they live in desperate conditions. We have seen the violence, the rioting, the abuse, the stone throwing. Stone throwing is not an acceptable way of resolving disputes. It does not matter what the weapon is; it is a weapon; and it is designed to intimidate and punish a people with whom there is a disagreement. The Israelis retaliated. They have a responsibility, in my view, to protect their people and protect their property, protect their integrity as a democratic nation. I did not see any Israeli gloating about the fact that a Palestinian life was taken. We saw some action by some of the so-called settlers in territories in the West Bank who took action against their Palestinian neighbors, and the Prime Minister rebuked them and said: No Jewish Israelis, no Israelis should be taking mob rule into their own hands and harming people or killing them. He came out against it. Chairman Arafat in 1993, when he stood on the lawn at the White House, signed a statement that violence was no way to resolve differences, and he took an oath, practically speaking, that he would do whatever he could to abolish it. What we have seen in the last few days is inconsistent with that position, and we ought to notice it. When the U.N. took up a resolution that blamed Israel for all the problems, I was disappointed that the United States did not veto that resolution. But I know in this administration, this President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State, all have peace in mind. I thought perhaps that was the reason we did not veto this resolution but, rather, abstained. Therefore, I do not second-guess the decision, but I hope if there are more such lopsided resolutions, the United States will veto it and not permit it to continue. It is fair to say the Israelis are making a genuine effort to stop the violence. And on the Palestinian side, they want it stopped. We heard Prime Minister Barak talking about it. They do not want to kill Palestinians. They do not want to injure people on the other side of the issue, but it is fair to say, Mr. Arafat, I was one in the Senate who supported financial assistance for the Palestinians when they signed the agreement to establish a peaceful relationship. I was one of those who encouraged it. I was one of those who said the Palestinians needed some hope and some expectation that their lives would improve, that their standard of living would be better, that their children could get an education, that they could have the proper health services they needed. I was filled with hope. I wanted to make certain that we showed our good faith by doing something positive for the Palestinians. I know Israel very well. I have visited there many times, and I know a lot of people there. Yitzhak Rabin was a personal friend of mine. When he was killed by one of his own people, it was a tragedy felt round the world. The nation of Israel continued to try to make peace. Prime Minister Barak, the most heavily decorated soldier in the Israeli military, the most highly decorated soldier, is a prominent peacemaker. He wants to establish peace. He has seen war at its worst. That is why he has the medals that reflect heroism, bravery, and valor, but he did not like the killing. He did what he had to do to protect his country, and he is doing the same thing now, trying to protect his country and is trying to do it without violence, without responding violently to the attacks of his country. He is pleading for there to be peace, some measure of tranquillity on both sides. So as we mourn the loss of our young people, the sailors from the U.S.S. Cole, we wish those who are ill, who are wounded, who are injured, a full and speedy recovery. We also wish we can be witnesses to a more peaceful discussion about where the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians will go. They can get along--they must get along--to try to resolve every difference. Whether it is with slingshots and stones or rifles or artillery pieces, it is not an appropriate way to resolve those problems. But I do respect Israel's right to defend itself, and I do respect the wishes of many of the people in Palestine, the Palestinian community, to have their freedoms enumerated very clearly--their capacity to raise their families, to have an opportunity for the appropriate education and standard of living that all people want. But I call on Mr. Arafat, Yasser Arafat, with whom I have shaken hands many times--and in the tradition of the Middle East, we kissed each other on the cheek in good will when I was there at Gaza at the opening of the airport, when I was there to see the economic development that was taking place; I had so much respect for the things he was trying to do for his people--I send out a plea to him to gather whatever strength he has to take the leadership of the Palestinian Authority and do what he is supposed to as the chairman; that is, call for reconciliation, call for the end of the violence. Get back to the negotiating table. Air your differences. Ask the United States to help. Do not invite imbalance in resolutions and things such as that. Do not search for those who have a bias in this case to present programs for peace. But do what you said you would do, Mr. Arafat, when you came here in 1993, when we sat around dinner tables together, when I visited you in Jericho, and we talked in such friendly fashion that I walked away believing we were seeing the accomplishment of miracles, small though they may be. So I wish both sides the best wish I can, and that is for peace, to take care of your families, save your children by not taking other people's children, by not taking other people's lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will allow me a few minutes, I appreciate that. It is very nice of him to do so. I listened carefully. I have respect for our friend from Oklahoma. He has been here, despite his youth, for a long time. He knows how this place works. President Bill Clinton went immediately to the scene of the violence, to Egypt, to the region where so much is taking place, to plead and beg and to force a peaceful resolution, to stop the violence. That is what he said: Stop the violence. He wasn't drawing the terms. It is not fair to say that we have done nothing. We went into Afghanistan with bombs. We attacked what we thought was the appropriate target. Yes, we missed when we went to the Sudan, but is that a criticism of our troops, of our pilots? Are they saying that mistakes don't happen in conflict or in a wartime exercise? I am not talking about practice. I am talking about the exercise of defense. Would we restrict the rights of our citizens to travel? Do we say that our warships can't circulate around the world? Do we say we have to stay home, come back here and just hide in our harbors so that we don't have any problems? Our people who enlist always know there is some risk. They have been asked to do tough duty. I am not sure about how the votes went when we decided to go to Kosovo, in deference to my colleague and friend from Oklahoma. I think there was a vote not to go to Kosovo by lots of people. I am not sure how the Senator from Oklahoma voted, but I do know there was sharp resistance: It was not in our national interest to stop the killing; it wasn't in our national interest to be on the side of antigenocide, to stop the mutilation of communities and families and people and the abuse of women, the likes of which has rarely been seen in history. It is not fair to say we have done nothing. We have tried. We have sent dozens of investigators to Yemen, and we have already made some progress. It is in the papers. I am not telling anything from the Intelligence Committee. But we have already found explosives in an apartment there. We are on the trail. When Pan Am 103 went down, brought down by terrorists, we found, from the tiniest fiber of thread from a jacket, people who were the likely perpetrators. This is not an idle administration. I would never say, because I am a Democrat and we have a Republican President, that there were times that I voted against going to war. There were times that I voted going for it. Because whenever I have a vote such as that, I look to the eyes of my son, when he was 22, and I say: This isn't a war I would send you to and, therefore, I am not sending other parents' sons. I enlisted when I was 18. My father was on his deathbed. My mother was 36 years old. I felt it was my responsibility to serve my country. I think one has to be careful when we start suggesting that nothing is happening. As to the Khobar Towers, the example the Senator cited, it is outrageous that we haven't found the perpetrators of those killings of our troops. But I want to point a finger at Saudi Arabia, the country that we sent our troops to protect in 1990. We sent them out there, 450,000 or maybe even over 500,000, to protect the Saudis, our good friends, who are holding us by the throat with their oil prices. That is where they are. What have they done to help us find the perpetrators of the murder of our troops? Not very much, I can tell you that. I have watched this very closely. So I will point fingers where they belong. Those pointed fingers didn't belong against the Bush administration who served until 1992 and they don't belong at the Clinton administration. Those examples are invalid. We have done what we have to do. We are fully committed, every one of us, to finding those who did that dastardly bombing against the U.S.S. Cole. I predict we will find them, and we are going to get help from people we never expected. When the trade towers went down in New York City, I was commissioner of the port authority. We had offices, before I came to the Senate, in that building. Unfortunately, a couple of the perpetrators came from my side of the Hudson River. But we searched until we found the people, just as we did in Oklahoma. We searched until we found the people. We can't push buttons and instantly solve these crimes that are planned by crazies, masterminded by people who have lots of skills in the wrong areas. We do our share; we really do. I think it is unfair to cast a net. Yes, I disagree with the decision on the vote of the U.N., but I trusted this administration, I trusted our Government to say, OK, the reason we don't want to do it is to create a further imbalance, to further enrage the Palestinian young people, to further the violence that is going on there. We have hopes for peace. Our mission is peace, not to make more war. So while we disagree--in hindsight it is always easy to disagree--the fact is, President Clinton picked up bag and baggage, went there overnight to try to bring the parties together. He is not disengaged by a longshot. We are not taking the Palestinian side in any issue. We are friends of Israel, but we are also cognizant that the Palestinians are humans. We don't want harm brought to them, either. I am sorry to get so passionate about this, but I have strong views and I just disagree with our colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to call attention to the life of a man who so perfectly portrays the success and opportunity this country can provide if one puts in the effort. Abe Schrader will celebrate his 100th birthday on October 15, 2000 with multitudes of friends and family. I am privileged to be included as one of those admirers and friends who will join with him that night. Abe's life story is an example of how a belief in self and hard work can lead to success. He started his life in America at the age of 20 when he immigrated here from Poland. He arrived penniless but with a determination to succeed in his new homeland. Succeed he did as we can see from the story recently printed in the New York Times. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of that article be included in the Record. I know Abe Schrader well and spend time with him on occasions. He is alert, bright and engaging. He manages his investments personally and has done a superb job with them. I wish all America could meet this congenial, intelligent, caring individual. He is an inspiration for me and I believe could provide spirit and encouragement to all who face aging as to what can be with the right kind of effort and determination. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 2000] Public Lives; at 99, Man of Fashion Finds Life a Good Fit (By Susan Sachs) Clothes make the man, goes the old saw. You would not get an argument from Abe Schrader. The garment business--in his case, manufacturing women's coats and better dresses for more than half a century--made him one of the kings of Seventh Avenue. Even now, gliding gracefully toward his 100th birthday next month, Mr. Schrader still appreciates the value of a well-cut suit of clothes. Sitting yesterday in his apartment overlooking Central Park, reminiscing about the rag trade before it became the more high-hat fashion business, he was impeccably turned out in a blue cashmere jacket, gray slacks, crisp baby-blue shirt and gleaming black shoes. A red silk handkerchief that matched the shade of his tie peeked from his breast pocket. ``All my clothes are made to order,'' Mr. Schrader said, as he flipped open his jacket to show his Italian tailor's label. ``Even when I made $10 a week, I saved up my money all year and bought a custom suit.'' This might sound strange coming from a man whose manufacturing company, the Abe Schrader Corporation, once dominated the city's ready-to-wear industry. But Mr. Schrader, a smallish man who once could burn up the dance floor at nightclubs like El Morocco, never found a good fit off the rack. ``I have a lust for life,'' he said, his Polish accent making the words especially rakish. ``And especially on a dance floor, you've got to look good.'' Last week, the city celebrated clothes with Fashion Week, an extravaganza of designer fashion shows meant to highlight New York as a fashion center. Mr. Schrader, who persuaded City Hall 35 years ago to name a stretch of Seventh Avenue ``Fashion Avenue,'' followed it from afar. ``Some good, some bad,'' he said, diplomatically, on the spring 2001 styles on display. Mr. Schrader retired from the clothing business 12 years ago, after watching it change from top to bottom. When he started out, in the early 1920's, the industry was big enough to absorb waves of immigrants--Germans and Irish, followed by Eastern European Jews, then Italians. Seventh Avenue was the center of factories where garments were cut and sewn. Now most factories have moved offshore in pursuit of cheap foreign labor. And many of the original independent apparel makers of Seventh Avenue were long ago gobbled up by conglomerates. Mr. Schrader was one of the immigrants who built the business. He arrived in the United States at the age of 20 from Poland. His mother hoped he would continue his religious studies and become a rabbi. But Mr. Schrader had his father's business instincts. He started out as a contractor, hiring people to sew garments for a middleman who got the orders from a retailer. Within a few years, the ambitious Mr. Schrader began his own manufacturing business, complete with a stable of designers, and dealt directly with retail stores. One of his first contracts was with the government for uniforms for the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps. ``I was,'' he recalled with a deadpan look, ``an instant success.'' Mr. Schrader's life might appear to mirror the archetypal turn-of-the-century immigrant tale. Think, for example, of the immigrant protagonist in the classic 1917 novel ``The Rise of David Levinsky,'' torn between his rabbinical studies and the lucrative garment business. But Mr. Schrader shrugged off the comparison. Although he can still toss of a Talmudic reference when pressed, he said godliness was not found in ritual or retreat from the world, but in doing good deeds. Besides, he explained: ``Competition is a godsend. If you didn't have it, you'd pay double for your clothes.'' For years, Mr. Schrader was also a fixture in the city's high society nightclubs, where he put his love of ballroom dancing on display. That is how Pauline Trigere, the fashion designer whose coats were produced by the Schrader company for several years, first met Mr. Schrader. ``It was on the dance floor at El Morocco,'' she said. Ms. Trigere, who has been in the business almost as long as Mr. Schrader, gave him the supreme compliment from a designer: ``When I made a collection, it was shown the way I made it. He never did something that hurt the garment.'' Mr. Schrader retired in 1988, four years after he sold his business to Interco Inc. With time on his hands, he started, for the first time, to feel his age. ``The first year I went from one museum to the other, one library to the other,'' he said. ``Finally my son said to me, `Here, Dad, take my car and chauffeur. Tell me, where would you like to go?' And I said, `Wall Street.' '' Now, snappily dressed and eager as any 24-year-old dot-com millionaire, he goes each day at 1 p.m. to his own private office in the brokerage firm of Bishop, Rosen, where he trades stocks for his own account. It is his joy, like dancing the waltz, although he admitted that ``at 100, I'd be lying to tell you my feet are as good as they used to be.'' He stays at his office until about 4:30 p.m., relishing that everyone calls him Abe, like a pal, instead of the stuffier Mr. Schrader. ``They treat me royally over there,'' Mr. Schrader said happily, settling into his car for the daily ride downtown. ``It keeps me young.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, time is short. I will try to get to the point very quickly. I support Senator Boxer's amendments to this VA-HUD appropriations bill. I want to point out one thing. Under the leadership of Senators Bond and Mikulski, the bill our subcommittee reported last month was far better than the one before us today. What we see today with these riders that have come over from the House side of the Capitol is delayed corporate responsibility. That is what these amendments ought to be called: Just take care of the corporations and forget about our obligation to our people to protect us from contaminated, polluted environments. One of these amendments is there because it is strongly supported by General Electric, an extremely powerful corporation. I like General Electric. I know a lot of the people who run that company. But they have, according to the League of Conservation Voters, polluted 200 miles of New York and Connecticut coastline with a million pounds of PCBs. Their slogan is: ``Bring Good Things To Life.'' We have heard it. I would rather have them say: ``Bring Good Life To Things,'' like fish and birds and people. That is where they ought to be. I commend Senator Boxer for bringing up this amendment. I hope our colleagues are going to support it. This is a good bill, other than this part. Again, I commend Senators Bond and Mikulski for a very tough job well done. But we ought not let the corporations escape getting on with their responsibilities. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy on an important matter. It is my understanding that the managers' amendment that we are adopting includes a rider which prohibits the EPA from making nonattainment designations under the new 8-hour ozone standard until June 15, 2001, or the final adjudication of the American Trucking Association vs. EPA case now before the Supreme Court, whichever comes first. Is that right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. While I believe that inclusion of this rider is unfortunate as it will slow progress toward cleaner air, I understand that it should have little practical effect. EPA is unlikely to make those designations much in advance of June 15, 2001, in any case, even though all but about 6 states have submitted proposed areas for nonattainment designation. I would just like to make one thing very clear for the record. This rider is a prohibition on the expenditures of funds. It does not negate the requirement included in TEA-21 that areas be designated under the new ozone standard. It also does not in any way prejudice the litigation pending before the Supreme Court. Would the distinguished Chairman confirm that these points are true?