Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did you see them crying and holding each other?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Trying to correct what imbalances they saw in life. Did the Senator see the pictures of those people?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did the Senator see the pictures from, I believe the city was Fort Worth, TX, of those young people praying together, reaching out to God?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Senator's home State is California. Did the Senator see the picture of the tiny children being led hand-in-hand by policemen and others trying to protect them from gunfire?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. They are not drawings.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I once saw an appendix removed and saw a couple of people around me faint. It is never pretty, but it is done for a purpose. When a lung is removed, or a colon is removed, it is never a beautiful procedure. But the fact is, the person for whom the procedure is done often is in better health afterward. Has the Senator ever seen pictures of the kids jumping out of the windows at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator has mentioned we have drawings on the floor, of the horror that is involved in performing a surgical procedure. Aren't surgical procedures generally unpleasant to witness?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It reverts back to wanting to control other people's destinies, other people's decisions by a few other-than-experts in this body on pregnancy, and the health care necessary to attend to that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Where does the Senator think we are in terms of saying to women, you can't make a choice on your own; you don't have the moral rectitude to go ahead and make this decision, even though you and your doctor agree and there is some risk to the mother's health in carrying this pregnancy. We can't even get an exception to that. Am I right in that interpretation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware that 13 kids a day are killed by gunfire in this country, over 4,500 children a year are killed by gunfire? Children who are alive, working, and with their families, exchanging love with their parents, brothers and sisters. Is the Senator aware that 13 children every day in this country are killed by gunfire because we lack control over that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I inquire as to the Senator's response, if this is an attempt to establish the moral platitudes around which this country should operate--and that is fortified in my view by the fact that while we ignore the opportunity to protect a born child 15 or 10 years old in school, we are unwilling to pay attention to the mother's plea in that case to protect the child; but we hear the National Rifle Association's voice. Does the Senator see a born child, a child going to school, a child walking in the neighborhood, a child at play, as being as protected as the definition that we want to exert here on a woman whose pregnancy is in a late term, and a doctor and she agree that it is an appropriate thing to do? Does the Senator see some kind of conflict here? Or perhaps even hypocrisy? The Senator ought to correct me if I am wrong because I don't want to be wrong about this. As I remember, those who are presently so strongly advocating removing the right of a woman to make a decision, vote against gun control measures that we have when it comes to protecting children. Does the Senator see the same question raised that I see?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator find women's organizations coming forward about outlawing this procedure? Does it make sense in any way to protect women who have an unfortunate condition or whose health is in danger in the late term in their pregnancy?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My most recent grandchild was delivered 1 week ago, a large baby. My daughter is very active athletically. She produced a 9- pound, 7-ounce baby girl, larger than the two brothers who preceded her. I also have two other daughters, each of whom has two children; one daughter carried a fetus for almost 8 months and something happened. She called me and said: Daddy, I've got bad news. The baby got caught in the cord and apparently choked to death. She wasn't feeling a heartbeat when she went to the doctor. Nothing hurt me more, nothing hurt her more. We are not the kind of family that casually looks at abortion and says everybody ought to have one. This is the right of privacy, is it not?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have heard on this floor that there haven't been any of these late-term abortions performed by doctors or performed in hospitals. The Senator has been diligent on the floor of the Senate in these last days in making sure women's rights are protected. It has been a tough fight. I wonder, to the Senator's knowledge, is it true these late-term abortions have been done exclusively outside of hospitals by nonobstetricians, by nonphysicians? Does the Senator have that kind of information? I had a chance to speak to Ms. Koster, portrayed in the photograph, a woman very happy with her decision to have an abortion in late term. By the way, this is not an unreligious person or not a person we could accuse of immorality. She insisted and told me she had obstetricians and she had it performed in a hospital, as I remember, in Iowa. Is the Senator familiar with that situation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to confirm my understanding with Chairman Bond regarding the conference report concerning the HPV chemical testing program. My understanding regarding the ``agreement'' is that it is actually a letter from EPA asking participants in the challenge program to make certain changes, and not in fact an ``agreement'' to do so. Is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And is it also correct that by using the word ``consistent,'' the conferees did not intend or imply that the test rule must be the exact equivalent of the voluntary part of the program in terms of the actual testing requirements?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. warrior hotel edi project

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as a member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee and the conference committee which produced this bill, I am prepared to join with most of my colleagues in voting for its adoption. However, I feel I have a responsibility to raise several serious concerns and reservations about this conference report. First, I am concerned that we as a nation are not allocating our defense dollars as effectively and efficiently as we could to meet future needs. Defense programs sometimes seem to take on lives of their own. They are sustained and even expanded year after year, even if we would not include them in a truly zero-based budget designed to address our top priorities. The Pentagon, and we in Congress, need to ensure that we are giving due priority to real national security needs, particularly opportunities to reduce the risk of conflict, the growing scourge of terrorism, and emerging threats like chemical and biological weapons and cyberwarfare. We need to ask the tough questions, like whether it makes sense to devote billions to accelerating multiple missile defense programs which can be circumvented. My second concern is what I can only describe as budget sleight of hand. This bill is within its allocations, but it would not be if the Congressional Budget Office was simply allowed to do its job. But the political maneuvering forced arbitrary changes to paint a prettier, but fictional picture. The Budget Committees simply directed CBO to revise the numbers downward. This is far more than a minor accounting issue. CBO indicates that its estimates include a $2.6 billion reduction in Budget Authority--the adjustment for spectrum sales--and reductions totaling $13 billion in outlays at the forced direction of the Budget Committees' leadership. We should not fool the public about whether that $13 billion will actually be spent this fiscal year--it will be! We should not be blind-sided by these or other gimmicks through which the majority will claim not to be spending the social security surplus. Earlier this year, many of my colleagues questioned whether certain funding has properly been declared ``emergency'' spending, which means it's a unique expenditure not subject to the budget caps that are supposed to control our spending. How do these cynics feel about the $7.2 billion in Operations and Maintenance funds which this conference report would declare an emergency? This year's Budget Resolution adopted by the majority party which is now in charge even included a requirement that any emergency spending be fully justified in the accompanying report. But the conference report before us simply ignores that requirement. Can anyone with a straight face answer the questions the Budget Resolution would pose? Would they say it in front of a group of accountants or financial analysts? Would they tell their sons or daughters to run their finances that way? Is this Operations and Maintenance spending, much of it requested by the President and funded in prior years, ``sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time''? Is it ``unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated''? An emergency designation such as this in another appropriations bill would be subject to review by the Senate which could only be waived with 60 votes. However, the majority apparently anticipated this emergency because they exempted defense spending from the point of order. My third major concern is what we call the top-line, though most Americans would call it the bottom line. This bill weighs in at $263 billion in new budget authority. That is over $3 billion more than the Defense Appropriations bill passed by the Senate and over $17 billion more than we spent on defense last year. These numbers come straight out of the conference report. I would not deny that we need to address readiness concerns and modernize our armed forces. We live in an uncertain world, a world which has become more dangerous through this body's rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last night. Can the dramatic increase in defense spending stand at this level while we starve other pressing needs in education, crime prevention, health care, and so many other areas? I am not sure we can. So while I am prepared to vote for this bill today, I would urge President Clinton not to sign it into law until and unless other appropriations bills have reached his desk with sufficient funding levels to meet America's needs. If this can be accomplished without simply resorting to more budgetary sleight-of-hand--and I sincerely hope we can do this--then I hope this bill will become law.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Chairman Bond, in the Senate report on the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, the committee instructs EPA to ``establish procedures to engage the public in the development, maintenance and modification of information products it offers to the public.'' It is my understanding that the committee does not necessarily intend for this process to consume the time or resources that would be involved in a rule-making. I also understand that, in general, the committee intends that EPA's obligation to honor the public's right to know and to disseminate to the public information about issues affecting human health and the environment should be balanced against the expectations discussed in the ``Environmental Data Management'' section of the report.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Chairman Bond, I understand that section 425 of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 is not intended to impede federal grantees or contractors from implementing responsibilities permitted under grant agreements. OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles of Non-Profit Organizations, makes clear that federal funds cannot be used to lobby Congress or initiate litigation against the U.S. government unless specifically authorized by statute to do so. Similar language exists in other cost principles, as well as Federal Acquisition Regulations affecting contractors. Section 425 is intended to be consistent with these prohibitions. When an organization endorses the terms and conditions of a grant or contract, that organization also certifies its compliance with the lobbying and litigation prohibitions in the cost principles. Section 425 makes clear that the signatory agreeing to the grant, contract, or other award is to be that of a chief executive officer (CEO) and will serve as meeting the requirements of section 425. Once a CEO (or his or her delegate) signs the grant, contract or other award, the terms and conditions become binding when an audit is conducted to verify that no funds have been used to lobby Congress or initiate litigation against the U.S. government unless specifically authorized otherwise. Additionally, it is my understanding that the language in section 425 prohibiting the use of federal funds awarded to grantees and contractors from being used for lobbying and litigating on adjudicatory matters is consistent with current rules that restrict the use of these funds for such purposes. This section is not intended to supercede any statute that specifically authorizes the use of federal funds to compensate parties for legal expenses such as the Equal Access to Justice law that allows small businesses and others that sue federal agencies for violating the law to recover their legal expenses when the agency's action is judged to be unfounded. Section 425 also does not change current practices where federal grantees may be representing low-income or disadvantaged tenants or other individuals, such as veterans, in adjudicatory proceedings. For example, under the Housing Counseling program, HUD reimburses federal grantees for representing tenants. This is something that Congress strongly supports and section 425 is not intended to limit or restrict such programs. Finally, section 425 is not intended to add new restrictions on membership fees or contributions that an individual whose sole income comes from federal benefits appropriated under this bill gives to organizations that may use a portion of the fee or contribution for lobbying, representing individuals in adjudicatory proceedings, or litigating. For example, the membership fee that a veteran, who has no other source of income other than federal support through this bill, gives to a veterans service organization should not restrict the VSO from representing the veteran in a manner that is any different than current rules. Let me restate that nothing in section 425 precludes affected entities from enforcing rights under federal law, including, but not necessarily limited to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution of the United States. Its intent is limited to ensuring that current grant and contract prohibitions are followed, not to impede participation in administrative actions.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are about to begin a new century--a new millennium with new opportunities to make the world a safer place. The United States must be taking the lead in pursuing those opportunities. Which will be possible when this Senate ratifies the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which is our best hope for containing the threat of nuclear war. Unchecked testing of nuclear weapons is the single greatest threat to world peace--and to the security of the United States--as we enter the 21st century. I know none of my colleagues want nuclear weapons falling into the hands of hostile people. None of us want emerging nuclear powers to develop advanced weapons of mass destruction. The CTBT is not a magic wand, but it would make it more difficult for other countries to develop sophisticated nuclear weapons. But unless we act now to ratify this treaty, those remain very real possibilities-- with potentially catastrophic consequences. Most of us here grew up during a time when the threat posed by nuclear weapons manufactured by the former Soviet Union were a day-to- day, ever-present reality. That particular danger, of course, is part of history now. But that doesn't mean the United States or any other country can rest easy. In fact, in some ways, the dangers are even greater today. Forty years ago, we at least knew who the enemy was. We knew where to target our defenses. Unless we ratify this treaty and play a role in enforcing it, we won't be completely sure which countries are moving ahead with a nuclear weapons program. Over just the last year and a half, India and Pakistan have conducted missile tests, and Pakistan's elected government has just been overthrown by a military coup. These developments make it more urgent than ever that we hold the line on any further nuclear weapons testing world-wide. That is exactly what this treaty promises to do. In fact, it represents the sort of historic opportunity that was only a dream during the Cold War. An opportunity to create an international monitoring system that would be our best assurance that no country's nuclear testing program moves any further than it already has. But that won't happen without this country's participation. The United States must take the lead in transforming the CTBT from a piece of paper into a force for global security. Our decision to ratify will have a profound effect on the way this treaty is perceived by the rest of the world. 154 nations have signed the CTBT, but many of those countries will ratify it only if the United States leads the way. And every nation with nuclear technology must ratify this agreement before it comes into force. Every President since Dwight D. Eisenhower has stressed the importance of controlling nuclear weapons worldwide. And I hope everyone here will remember that this treaty has strong support from military weapons experts, religious groups, scientists and world leaders. Even more importantly, the American people support ratification of this document. They know how important it is and prove it in polls when they say 82% view the treaty ratification as essential. They will remember how we vote on this issue. And it has to be pretty tough to explain to voters who want their families protected why you didn't vote to ban testing of nuclear weapons. I know the argument has been made that this treaty will somehow compromise our own defenses. But that's a pretty shaky theory. The United States can maintain its nuclear stockpile without testing, using the most advanced technology in the world. So ratifying this treaty won't leave us without a nuclear edge, it will preserve it. At the same time, it will signal our commitment to a more secure and lasting world peace. A number of our colleagues and other people as well have suggested that we don't have the required two-thirds majority to ratify this treaty. As a result, President Clinton has asked that we delay this historic vote a little longer. I am prepared to support that approach with great reluctance because rejecting this essential treaty outright would be the worst possible outcome. But a delay should give my colleagues who are skeptical of this treaty the chance to better understand how it will enhance our nation's security and why it has the support of the American people. I hope that, sometime within the next year, we will have the opportunity to continue this debate and provide the necessary advice and consent to ratify a treaty that would create a more peaceful world in the next century. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report. The East Coast suffered through months of drought this summer, causing enormous crop losses to our farmers. Then Hurricane Floyd arrived with severe rains, further affecting farmers with widespread floods. These two acts of nature are serious emergencies affecting millions of people, yet this conference report does not do nearly enough for farmers on the East Coast. In my state of New Jersey, agriculture is a $1 billion a year business involving 830,000 acres on over 8,000 farms. While in some more rural states these statistics may not be significant on a relative basis. But in a densely populated place like N.J. they are over- powering. This summer's drought caused losses on 406,000 acres affecting 7,000 of those farms. All 21 counties in my state were declared drought disaster areas. It has taken a truly devastating toll on our farm community. According to Secretary Glickman, the drought alone resulted in a total of $1.5 to $2 billion in damages throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. And now, we have the devastation of Hurricane Floyd on top of the drought disaster. If any state has suffered a true farm disaster this year--it's New Jersey as well as our neighbors in the northeast. Unfortunately, although this conference report contains $8.7 billion in emergency assistance for farmers, only $1.2 billion of that is for weather related disasters. And this $1.2 billion is spread out over the 50 states. That will not leave a fair share for New Jersey and other northeastern states that actually suffered a disaster this year. Numerous New Jersey farmers have been left with no hay, no crops and no livestock worth taking to market. Without our help, the result of these disasters may force some farmers to end decades of family farming and to give up the way of life that they love. This Congress must do more. The situation facing East Coast farmers is a true emergency, in every sense of the word. At a time when we are watching entirely predictable activities like the census being declared emergencies, we are doing little to assist those who face true acts of God. I cannot support this conference report until the farmers in New Jersey and up and down the East Coast receive the help they need.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this conference report. The East Coast suffered through months of drought this summer, causing enormous crop losses to our farmers. Then Hurricane Floyd arrived with severe rains, further affecting farmers with widespread floods. These two acts of nature are serious emergencies affecting millions of people, yet this conference report does not do nearly enough for farmers on the East Coast. In my State of New Jersey, agriculture is a $1 billion a year business involving 830,000 acres on over 8,000 farms. This summer's drought caused losses on 406,000 acres affecting 7,000 of those farms. All 21 counties in my State were declared disaster areas. It has taken a truly devastating toll on our farm community. According to Secretary Glickman, the drought alone resulted in a total of $1.5 to $2 billion in damages throughout the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. And now, we have the devastation of Hurricane Floyd on top of the drought disaster. If any State has suffered a true farm disaster this year-- it's New Jersey as well as our neighbors in the Northeast. Unfortunately, although this conference report contains $8.7 billion in emergency assistance for farmers, only $1.2 billion of that is for weather-related disasters. And this $1.2 billion is spread out over the 50 States. That will not leave a fair share for New Jersey and other northeastern States that actually suffered a disaster this year. Numerous New Jersey farmers have been left with no hay, no crops, and no livestock worth taking to market. Without our help, the result of these disasters may force some farmers to end decades of family farming and to give up the way of life that they love. This Congress must do more. The situation facing East Coast farmers is a true emergency, in every sense of the word. At a time when we are watching entirely predictable activities like the census being declared emergencies, we are doing little to assist those who face true acts of God. I cannot support this conference report until the farmers in New Jersey and up and down the East Coast receive the help they need.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also would like to thank my colleagues for their help.