Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to just take a few minutes. I have waited patiently. I want to talk about the Lautenberg-Hollings- Kerry amendment. Our amendment would provide $7 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and $3 million for the Department of the Treasury to address the emergency of terrorism in the Middle East. The funding would be used to enhance efforts to prevent illegal fundraising in the United States on behalf of organizations, such as the ill-famed Hamas organization, that support terror to undermine the Middle East peace process. Now, the funding we are proposing would bolster the FBI and the Treasury Department's efforts to promote greater enforcement of Executive Order 12947, which is listed as ``Prohibiting Transaction with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process.'' Under that Executive order and subsequent notices that are published by the Treasury Department, American citizens are prohibited from making contributions to Hamas along with organizations and individuals that front for Hamas. Even more, the assets of such terrorists and terrorist organizations are frozen by the Treasury Department. That is in the Executive order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the President's Executive order be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if my friend from Nevada would just respond to an inquiry?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. While some of these contributions may not be used to promote terrorism in the Middle East, I think we need to be more certain. Blood for the despicable murders in Israel that the world has witnessed in the past few weeks is already on the hands of the Hamas militants. I do not want it on the hands of American citizens, as well. There are no words to express sufficient outrage at the rash of Hamas- supported suicide bombings in Israel. In four recent bus bombings, 48 innocent people have been killed by Hamas madmen. Clearly, the United States has an interest in helping our friend and ally, Israel, put an end to this madness. We also have a more direct interest at stake. Though Hamas militants aim to strike a blow to the peace process and in the psyche of the Israeli people, its suicide bombs do not distinguish between soldier and citizen, between infant and adult, or even between Israeli and other nationals. Unfortunately, two of the most recent victims of Hamas' senseless violence were young adults from the United States. Two were from New Jersey: Sarah Duker, from Teaneck, NJ, and her fiance, Matt Eisenfeld, from Connecticut. Another college student from New Jersey, Alisa Flatow, was killed last April in another Hamas suicide bombing. My concern and the concern which this amendment addresses is that the funds raised in this country may be used by Hamas militants to take the lives of both American and Israeli citizens. Although American citizens are not detonating the bombs, they may be providing the financial support which enables Hamas militants to pull the pin. Since the Executive order went into effect just over a year ago, some progress has been made in stemming the flow of financial support from the United States. Press reports indicate that $800,000 in assets have been blocked, unable to be transferred to their Middle East recipients. Unfortunately, the dramatic increase in Hamas-supported violence reminds us that the job is far from done. Despite our efforts, Hamas militants continue to gloat in the killing and continue to make martyrs of the murderers. The graphic photographs of blood from the Middle East compel us to redouble our efforts to choke off support in the United States for Hamas militants. It is not enough to declare war against fundraising Hamas' militant activities, but we need to put our money where our mouth is and provide additional resources to get the job done, to stop terrorism. The funding provided in this amendment would enable our Government to accelerate investigations of individuals and organizations that it has good reason to believe are attempting to fund the Hamas death machine. It would provide funding for additional analysts, equipment and intelligence-gathering equipment in the United States aimed at addressing this problem in the Middle East. It will provide resources to allow for better tracing of funds once they leave the United States so that we can be more certain that American dollars are not ending up in the coffers of Hamas militants. It will provide resources to promote greater efficiency in freezing the assets to stop bankrolling of terrorism dead in its tracks. Mr. President, this week our President, Bill Clinton, will join world leaders at a summit in Egypt on terrorism. He has left already. He will, among other things, call upon leaders in the Middle East to redouble efforts to ensure that the financial wealth for these extremists is going to run dry. I applaud his initiative and wish him well in this worthwhile endeavor. I hope that he will say publicly that Syria's unwillingness to come to the talks on terrorism, that their client state, Lebanon, is essentially prohibited from joining in these talks, is an action that we deplore. How can we believe and how can the Israeli people believe that Syria will talk seriously about peace when they will not come to a discussion about the reduction or elimination of terrorism? I want the record to reflect accurately, I think it is a terrible sign of their intention about making peace. Syria has to know that we here in the United States want them to be honest and forthcoming in their peace discussion and not to come to a meeting that consists of tens of nations' representatives in the area, willing to discuss peace, willing to discuss at least the elimination of reduction of terrorism-- I think reflects very badly on the seriousness of their view. I can think of no better way of helping our President succeed in his effort to shut off the international funding spigot for Hamas' terrorists than by showing the world, as this amendment would do, that we are doubling our efforts to do the same at home. This amendment will not solve all of the problems of terrorism in the Middle East, but it demonstrates America's resolve to ensure that our citizens are not directly or inadvertently financing the actions of terrorists. I am grateful that we obtained the unanimous support of our colleagues to enhance our ability to fight harder against the killers of innocent people and to fight against the thugs that do not understand that the civilized world rejects their approach of murder to gain political objectives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a pertinent letter from the Anti-Defamation League.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Despite the existence of this Executive order, Mr. President, from the United States, funds are still being sent to Hamas, the organization that takes credit for suicide bombings, for killing innocent people, for injuring scores of others. One report I heard on the radio this morning estimated that $10 million was being sent annually by Americans to Hamas. By the way, that is tax-exempt, if my understanding is correct, tax- exempt funds to help terrorists work their dastardly deeds. Even the FBI acknowledges Americans are still contributing money to Hamas. In one article, Robert Bryant, Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Security Division, said, ``U.S. financial support is funding for Hamas.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Snowe, Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Simon, and myself, today I am introducing legislation, the Comstock Clean-up Act, to repeal a law that prohibits the transmission of abortion-related information over the Internet and through the mail. Mr. President, freedom of speech is among the most fundamental of democratic rights. Yet the recently-enacted telecommunications bill include a little-noticed provision that directly violates this basic principle. The provision applies to the Internet an archaic law known as the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act prohibits the interstate transport of materials that provide information about abortion, or the interstate transport of drugs or devices that are used to perform abortions. These prohibitions were first enacted in 1873, and they have been on the books ever since. Under the law, first-time violators are subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison. Mr. President, these prohibitions almost certainly are unconstitutional. And, fortunately, President Clinton has said that his Justice Department will not enforce them. Yet many users of the Internet are concerned, and understandably so. After all, Bill Clinton is a pro-choice President. But what if Pat Buchanan wins the Presidency? Or Bob Dole? Zealous prosecutors in their administrations might well use the new law to harass people who are pro-choice, and to chill speech about abortion over the Internet. In other words, if you distribute information about abortion over the Internet today, there's no assurance that you won't be prosecuted next year. Mr. President, anyone prosecuted under this law almost certainly would be able to successfully challenge its constitutionality. Yet who wants to be the one innocent American who's forced to defend hereself against the power of the U.S. Government? The costs of defending oneself in a criminal case often are enormous. And many Internet users will be unwilling to risk being a test case. Current law therefore threatens to have a severe chilling effect on abortion-related speech. Over the past few years, numerous pro-choice groups, such as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood, have established home pages on the world wide web. These home pages provide important information about birth control, women's health, and abortion. Women can also obtain information about clinics in their area over the Internet. Within the last month and a half alone, over 1,500 people have accessed such an Internet site. Under this new law, these 1,500 persons potentially could have been arrested, fiend up to $250,000, or sent to prison for five years. Mr. President, this law adversely affects people on both sides of the abortion issue. Groups opposed to abortion are at risk when they mail information about abortion providers, just as are those who support abortion rights. All Americans should be able to freely discuss abortion-related matters, no matter how they might feel about this issue. So this bill would repeal the prohibition against the interstate transportation of drugs and articles that produce abortions and the dissemination of abortion-related information across State lines. It also would repeal a prohibiton against mailing information about abortions, abortion providers and articles or drugs that produce abortions. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the abortion debate join me in support of this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, and related materials, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Snowe, Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Simon, and myself, today I am introducing legislation, the Comstock Clean-up Act, to repeal a law that prohibits the transmission of abortion-related information over the Internet and through the mail. Mr. President, freedom of speech is among the most fundamental of democratic rights. Yet the recently-enacted telecommunications bill include a little-noticed provision that directly violates this basic principle. The provision applies to the Internet an archaic law known as the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act prohibits the interstate transport of materials that provide information about abortion, or the interstate transport of drugs or devices that are used to perform abortions. These prohibitions were first enacted in 1873, and they have been on the books ever since. Under the law, first-time violators are subject to a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison. Mr. President, these prohibitions almost certainly are unconstitutional. And, fortunately, President Clinton has said that his Justice Department will not enforce them. Yet many users of the Internet are concerned, and understandably so. After all, Bill Clinton is a pro-choice President. But what if Pat Buchanan wins the Presidency? Or Bob Dole? Zealous prosecutors in their administrations might well use the new law to harass people who are pro-choice, and to chill speech about abortion over the Internet. In other words, if you distribute information about abortion over the Internet today, there's no assurance that you won't be prosecuted next year. Mr. President, anyone prosecuted under this law almost certainly would be able to successfully challenge its constitutionality. Yet who wants to be the one innocent American who's forced to defend hereself against the power of the U.S. Government? The costs of defending oneself in a criminal case often are enormous. And many Internet users will be unwilling to risk being a test case. Current law therefore threatens to have a severe chilling effect on abortion-related speech. Over the past few years, numerous pro-choice groups, such as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood, have established home pages on the world wide web. These home pages provide important information about birth control, women's health, and abortion. Women can also obtain information about clinics in their area over the Internet. Within the last month and a half alone, over 1,500 people have accessed such an Internet site. Under this new law, these 1,500 persons potentially could have been arrested, fiend up to $250,000, or sent to prison for five years. Mr. President, this law adversely affects people on both sides of the abortion issue. Groups opposed to abortion are at risk when they mail information about abortion providers, just as are those who support abortion rights. All Americans should be able to freely discuss abortion-related matters, no matter how they might feel about this issue. So this bill would repeal the prohibition against the interstate transportation of drugs and articles that produce abortions and the dissemination of abortion-related information across State lines. It also would repeal a prohibiton against mailing information about abortions, abortion providers and articles or drugs that produce abortions. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the abortion debate join me in support of this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, and related materials, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, the Rail Safety Act of 1996, to improve railroad safety. Mr. President, over the last 2 weeks, there has been a rash of railroad accidents, including two involving large numbers of passengers. The first of these accidents occurred in my home State of New Jersey on Friday, February 9. In the middle of the morning rush hour, two New Jersey Transit commuter trains collided outside of Secaucus, NJ. The crash killed two engineers and one passenger, and injured more than 235 others. The trains were carrying more than 700 passengers combined, and the death and injury toll easily could have been much higher. One week later, right here in the Capital area, 11 people lost their lives when a Maryland commuter train collided with an Amtrak train. These accidents have revealed significant gaps in rail safety and the failure to use existing technology to improve safety. I personally visited the site of the New Jersey crash and was chilled by the devastation. There is no way that one could see what happened in New Jersey and Maryland without feeling a great sense of responsibility about the need to improve the safety of our rail system. Each day, over half a million Americans use commuter railroads to get to work. Each year, Amtrak carries an additional 22 million passengers on its national routes. In addition to those who take the train are the millions of Americans who live near congested freight train routes which pose their own dangers during accidents, such as spills of hazardous materials and fires. I recognize that passenger rail service is among the safest forms of travel. And I think it important that we not scare the public into believing otherwise. At the same time, in my view, there is much we should be doing to make rail service more safe. Just consider our Nation's commitment to rail safety compared to our commitment to safety on commercial aircraft, which have the better safety record. On planes, there are elaborate safety procedures for each flight. Flight attendants explain emergency measures at the beginning of each trip. Automatic emergency mechanisms are required in each plane, highly sophisticated technology tells pilots when problems arise and emergency exits are well identified and easy to operate. By contrast, many of today's railroad safety signals and procedures date back almost to the last century. For some reason, the technological revolution seems to have left rail safety back at the station. Compounding matters, much of our railroad regulatory system has been unchanged for decades. Congress should act promptly to address this problem. We need to review a wide variety of laws and regulations, with one overriding philosophy: The safety of our Nation's rail passengers must come first. Just because railroad passengers only ride 32 inches off the ground does not mean they deserve less attention or protection than those who ride 32,000 feet above the ground. That does not mean we should rush to impose unrealistic mandates that would drive up costs beyond the capacity to support changes. But, it still requires that we search for ways to take on the issues that have been allowed to drag on for too many years, while rail passengers continue to be exposed to danger unnecessarily. The Rail Safety Act of 1996 proposes important steps that I think we should take immediately. One of the most critical matters that we should address is the current law that establishes the hours of service that rail engineers may work. This law was developed in 1907 and has changed very little over the past 90 years. Under the law, it is perfectly legal for a locomotive engineer to work 24 hours in a 32-hour period. Mr. President, those kinds of hours, combined with the demands and stresses of an engineer's job, is a recipe for disaster. We would never allow pilots or truck drivers to work these kinds of hours; restrictions on these operators are severe. Yet engineers, who are responsible for hundreds and hundreds of people at a time, continue to work under these archaic rules. The Federal Railroad Administration is in the process of studying the issue of fatigue, as is the industry. But those studies could be years from completion. The adverse effect of fatigue on the ability of an individual to perform their job is well documented. We should act now. I believe the FRA should have the ability to regulate hours of service for railroad engineers. The FAA has authority to regulate hours of service for pilots and the Office of Motor Carriers has the authority to regulate hours of service for commercial drivers. Why should the railroad industry be treated differently? My legislation would direct the Federal Railroad Administration, not later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, to promulgate regulations concerning limitations on duty hours of train employees. The bill does not prejudge the FRA's process. It encourages FRA to develop regulations in a negotiated rulemaking process so that the interests of all parties are fully represented. My bill protects railroad employees by prohibiting any FRA rules from being less stringent than the current hours of service law. This provision will ensure that a future Administration could not abuse its discretion by actually increasing the burdens on engineers, contrary to congressional intent. Beyond changing the hours of service requirements, we need to explore ways to use technology to prevent rail accidents. For more than 75 years, automatic train control systems have been available that can warn engineers about a missed signal and automatically stop the train. These systems are right in the train cab. Both visually and audibly these automatic train control systems remind the engineer about their latest signal. In fact, such systems were installed on virtually our entire rail network years ago. Unfortunately, that technology has been removed from most tracks, and no related technology was in place to prevent the accidents in New Jersey and Maryland. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. President, I recognize that we should be careful before mandating the automatic train control system if more advanced, satellite-based technology will be available in the immediate future. But, we cannot continue to drift. Therefore, my bill directs the FRA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment, to determine the feasibility of satellite-based train control systems to provide positive train control for railroad systems in the United States. Positive train control systems use a constant flow of information to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and order the appropriate measures long before an accident might occur. Under this legislation, all rail systems would be required to install automated train control technology. However, this requirement would be waived for those systems that establish, to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation, that they will install an effective satellite-based train control system not later than the year 2001. This seems a reasonable period to me, though I would invite comments from interested parties on whether a different period would be more appropriate. Mr. President, we need to make a judgment about the prospects for the new satellite-based train control technology, one way or the other. Otherwise, we will find ourselves back here again in another few years, asking the same questions while families grieve and others lie in pain in hospital beds. Another set of issues raised by the two passenger accidents is emergency escape, crash worthiness of passenger cars, fuel tank integrity, and signal placement. All have contributed to the loss of life and injury. My bill would direct the FRA to examine the possibility of developing automatic escape systems. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to complete a study of the technical, structural, and economic feasibility of automatic train escape devices. If the report is positive, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations in this area. Mr. President, there is reliable, off-the-shelf technology that is used to inflate air bags during violent automobile accidents. That same technology could be used to automatically open escape routes in violent train accidents. Such technology might have saved the lives of passengers in the Maryland accident, who apparently survived the crash, but who were unable to escape the fire and smoke. Another step I am proposing is to have FRA establish minimum safety standards for locomotive fuel tanks. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to establish minimum safety standards for fuel tanks of locomotives that take into consideration environmental protection and public safety. The Secretary would be given the authority to limit the applicability of the standards to new locomotives. The Maryland accident demonstrated the terrifying nature of fuel-fed fires. Many in the industry already are investing in less vulnerable fuel tank configurations. But we need to ensure in the future that no locomotives have the kind of exposed, vulnerable fuel tank that contributed to the Maryland disaster. It is also important to ensure that passenger rail cars are produced and configured in a safe manner. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to determine whether to promulgate regulations to require crash posts at the corners of rail passengers cars, safety locomotives on rail passenger trains, and minimum crashworthiness standards for passenger cab cars. The death toll in both the New Jersey and Maryland accidents might have been less if the passenger compartments were stronger or if some had not been exposed by the lack of a locomotive at the front of the train. Amtrak is investigating the possibility of using decommissioned locomotives at the front of their push trains in order to provide engineers with a safe platform from which to work and to provide additional protection to the first passenger car in case of a collision. The National Transportation Safety Board has suggested that passenger cars be equipped with crash posts at the corner of each car. The FRA is developing new safety standards for rail cars. My bill would direct the FRA to consider crash posts and safety locomotives, and to make a specific finding about these alternatives. Also, after touring the scene of New Jersey Transit's sideswipe accident, I am convinced that unprotected passenger cab cars should be held to a higher standard than other passenger cars. The bill therefore requires FRA to evaluate the possibility of establishing minimum crashworthiness standards for these passenger cab cars, and to issue a report about their conclusions. In addition, the bill directs the FRA to look into signal placement. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to determine whether regulations should be promulgated to require that a signal be placed along a railway at each exit of a rail train station; and if practicable, a signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train that the signal is designed to influence. If the study determines such regulations should be promulgated, the Department of Transportation is given the authority to promulgate those regulations. Signals should be positioned in the best places possible to minimize human error. Mr. President, I recognize that some in the rail community may object to the costs of additional safety measures. And these costs cannot be ignored. Last year, Federal operating and capital assistance to transit agencies was cut by some 20 percent from the previous year's funding level. This reduction represented the single largest cut of any transportation mode in the Transportation appropriations bill. Our Nation derives economic, social, and environmental benefits from public transit agencies. We expect these agencies to provide safe services. Yet, we cut their funding and then wonder why safety is affected. We must continue to support mass transit or else we will force commuters off relatively safe buses, subways, and trains and onto our Nation's roads, which annually cause the premature death of some 40,000 Americans. Mr. President, it remains critically important to improve rail safety. I challenge skeptics to visit with the families of loved ones who died in New Jersey and Maryland. See first hand what it means when we compromise on safety. You will not come away unmoved. Mr. President, we in the Congress have an obligation to protect the public. After the Chase, MD, accident of 1987 Congress mobilized and quickly enacted sweeping rail safety legislation. As a result, untold Americans have been saved through the mandated use of automatic train controls on the Northeast corridor, the creation of minimum federal standards for licensing of railroad engineers, certification requirements for predeparture inspections and whistle blower protections for rail employees. I am proud of the part that I played in developing that legislation and believe that it has been very effective. However, more should be done. The lives and health of literally millions of Americans are at stake. Mr. President, both the Washington and the New York editorials of February 21, 1996, make the case for increasing rail safety. I ask unanimous consent that they be inserted in the Record as part of my statement. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I believe it is a responsible approach to rail safety that builds on the lessons we have learned from our Nation's recent rail safety accidents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, the Rail Safety Act of 1996, to improve railroad safety. Mr. President, over the last 2 weeks, there has been a rash of railroad accidents, including two involving large numbers of passengers. The first of these accidents occurred in my home State of New Jersey on Friday, February 9. In the middle of the morning rush hour, two New Jersey Transit commuter trains collided outside of Secaucus, NJ. The crash killed two engineers and one passenger, and injured more than 235 others. The trains were carrying more than 700 passengers combined, and the death and injury toll easily could have been much higher. One week later, right here in the Capital area, 11 people lost their lives when a Maryland commuter train collided with an Amtrak train. These accidents have revealed significant gaps in rail safety and the failure to use existing technology to improve safety. I personally visited the site of the New Jersey crash and was chilled by the devastation. There is no way that one could see what happened in New Jersey and Maryland without feeling a great sense of responsibility about the need to improve the safety of our rail system. Each day, over half a million Americans use commuter railroads to get to work. Each year, Amtrak carries an additional 22 million passengers on its national routes. In addition to those who take the train are the millions of Americans who live near congested freight train routes which pose their own dangers during accidents, such as spills of hazardous materials and fires. I recognize that passenger rail service is among the safest forms of travel. And I think it important that we not scare the public into believing otherwise. At the same time, in my view, there is much we should be doing to make rail service more safe. Just consider our Nation's commitment to rail safety compared to our commitment to safety on commercial aircraft, which have the better safety record. On planes, there are elaborate safety procedures for each flight. Flight attendants explain emergency measures at the beginning of each trip. Automatic emergency mechanisms are required in each plane, highly sophisticated technology tells pilots when problems arise and emergency exits are well identified and easy to operate. By contrast, many of today's railroad safety signals and procedures date back almost to the last century. For some reason, the technological revolution seems to have left rail safety back at the station. Compounding matters, much of our railroad regulatory system has been unchanged for decades. Congress should act promptly to address this problem. We need to review a wide variety of laws and regulations, with one overriding philosophy: The safety of our Nation's rail passengers must come first. Just because railroad passengers only ride 32 inches off the ground does not mean they deserve less attention or protection than those who ride 32,000 feet above the ground. That does not mean we should rush to impose unrealistic mandates that would drive up costs beyond the capacity to support changes. But, it still requires that we search for ways to take on the issues that have been allowed to drag on for too many years, while rail passengers continue to be exposed to danger unnecessarily. The Rail Safety Act of 1996 proposes important steps that I think we should take immediately. One of the most critical matters that we should address is the current law that establishes the hours of service that rail engineers may work. This law was developed in 1907 and has changed very little over the past 90 years. Under the law, it is perfectly legal for a locomotive engineer to work 24 hours in a 32-hour period. Mr. President, those kinds of hours, combined with the demands and stresses of an engineer's job, is a recipe for disaster. We would never allow pilots or truck drivers to work these kinds of hours; restrictions on these operators are severe. Yet engineers, who are responsible for hundreds and hundreds of people at a time, continue to work under these archaic rules. The Federal Railroad Administration is in the process of studying the issue of fatigue, as is the industry. But those studies could be years from completion. The adverse effect of fatigue on the ability of an individual to perform their job is well documented. We should act now. I believe the FRA should have the ability to regulate hours of service for railroad engineers. The FAA has authority to regulate hours of service for pilots and the Office of Motor Carriers has the authority to regulate hours of service for commercial drivers. Why should the railroad industry be treated differently? My legislation would direct the Federal Railroad Administration, not later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, to promulgate regulations concerning limitations on duty hours of train employees. The bill does not prejudge the FRA's process. It encourages FRA to develop regulations in a negotiated rulemaking process so that the interests of all parties are fully represented. My bill protects railroad employees by prohibiting any FRA rules from being less stringent than the current hours of service law. This provision will ensure that a future Administration could not abuse its discretion by actually increasing the burdens on engineers, contrary to congressional intent. Beyond changing the hours of service requirements, we need to explore ways to use technology to prevent rail accidents. For more than 75 years, automatic train control systems have been available that can warn engineers about a missed signal and automatically stop the train. These systems are right in the train cab. Both visually and audibly these automatic train control systems remind the engineer about their latest signal. In fact, such systems were installed on virtually our entire rail network years ago. Unfortunately, that technology has been removed from most tracks, and no related technology was in place to prevent the accidents in New Jersey and Maryland. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. President, I recognize that we should be careful before mandating the automatic train control system if more advanced, satellite-based technology will be available in the immediate future. But, we cannot continue to drift. Therefore, my bill directs the FRA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment, to determine the feasibility of satellite-based train control systems to provide positive train control for railroad systems in the United States. Positive train control systems use a constant flow of information to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and order the appropriate measures long before an accident might occur. Under this legislation, all rail systems would be required to install automated train control technology. However, this requirement would be waived for those systems that establish, to the satisfaction of the Department of Transportation, that they will install an effective satellite-based train control system not later than the year 2001. This seems a reasonable period to me, though I would invite comments from interested parties on whether a different period would be more appropriate. Mr. President, we need to make a judgment about the prospects for the new satellite-based train control technology, one way or the other. Otherwise, we will find ourselves back here again in another few years, asking the same questions while families grieve and others lie in pain in hospital beds. Another set of issues raised by the two passenger accidents is emergency escape, crash worthiness of passenger cars, fuel tank integrity, and signal placement. All have contributed to the loss of life and injury. My bill would direct the FRA to examine the possibility of developing automatic escape systems. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to complete a study of the technical, structural, and economic feasibility of automatic train escape devices. If the report is positive, the Secretary is authorized to promulgate regulations in this area. Mr. President, there is reliable, off-the-shelf technology that is used to inflate air bags during violent automobile accidents. That same technology could be used to automatically open escape routes in violent train accidents. Such technology might have saved the lives of passengers in the Maryland accident, who apparently survived the crash, but who were unable to escape the fire and smoke. Another step I am proposing is to have FRA establish minimum safety standards for locomotive fuel tanks. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to establish minimum safety standards for fuel tanks of locomotives that take into consideration environmental protection and public safety. The Secretary would be given the authority to limit the applicability of the standards to new locomotives. The Maryland accident demonstrated the terrifying nature of fuel-fed fires. Many in the industry already are investing in less vulnerable fuel tank configurations. But we need to ensure in the future that no locomotives have the kind of exposed, vulnerable fuel tank that contributed to the Maryland disaster. It is also important to ensure that passenger rail cars are produced and configured in a safe manner. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to determine whether to promulgate regulations to require crash posts at the corners of rail passengers cars, safety locomotives on rail passenger trains, and minimum crashworthiness standards for passenger cab cars. The death toll in both the New Jersey and Maryland accidents might have been less if the passenger compartments were stronger or if some had not been exposed by the lack of a locomotive at the front of the train. Amtrak is investigating the possibility of using decommissioned locomotives at the front of their push trains in order to provide engineers with a safe platform from which to work and to provide additional protection to the first passenger car in case of a collision. The National Transportation Safety Board has suggested that passenger cars be equipped with crash posts at the corner of each car. The FRA is developing new safety standards for rail cars. My bill would direct the FRA to consider crash posts and safety locomotives, and to make a specific finding about these alternatives. Also, after touring the scene of New Jersey Transit's sideswipe accident, I am convinced that unprotected passenger cab cars should be held to a higher standard than other passenger cars. The bill therefore requires FRA to evaluate the possibility of establishing minimum crashworthiness standards for these passenger cab cars, and to issue a report about their conclusions. In addition, the bill directs the FRA to look into signal placement. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of my bill, the Department of Transportation would be required to determine whether regulations should be promulgated to require that a signal be placed along a railway at each exit of a rail train station; and if practicable, a signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train that the signal is designed to influence. If the study determines such regulations should be promulgated, the Department of Transportation is given the authority to promulgate those regulations. Signals should be positioned in the best places possible to minimize human error. Mr. President, I recognize that some in the rail community may object to the costs of additional safety measures. And these costs cannot be ignored. Last year, Federal operating and capital assistance to transit agencies was cut by some 20 percent from the previous year's funding level. This reduction represented the single largest cut of any transportation mode in the Transportation appropriations bill. Our Nation derives economic, social, and environmental benefits from public transit agencies. We expect these agencies to provide safe services. Yet, we cut their funding and then wonder why safety is affected. We must continue to support mass transit or else we will force commuters off relatively safe buses, subways, and trains and onto our Nation's roads, which annually cause the premature death of some 40,000 Americans. Mr. President, it remains critically important to improve rail safety. I challenge skeptics to visit with the families of loved ones who died in New Jersey and Maryland. See first hand what it means when we compromise on safety. You will not come away unmoved. Mr. President, we in the Congress have an obligation to protect the public. After the Chase, MD, accident of 1987 Congress mobilized and quickly enacted sweeping rail safety legislation. As a result, untold Americans have been saved through the mandated use of automatic train controls on the Northeast corridor, the creation of minimum federal standards for licensing of railroad engineers, certification requirements for predeparture inspections and whistle blower protections for rail employees. I am proud of the part that I played in developing that legislation and believe that it has been very effective. However, more should be done. The lives and health of literally millions of Americans are at stake. Mr. President, both the Washington and the New York editorials of February 21, 1996, make the case for increasing rail safety. I ask unanimous consent that they be inserted in the Record as part of my statement. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I believe it is a responsible approach to rail safety that builds on the lessons we have learned from our Nation's recent rail safety accidents. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments about Sunday's ``60 Minutes'' program on Dr. Jeffrey Wigand and his statements about what went on inside the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. Mr. President, for those who did not see this interview, Dr. Wigand told the Nation that Brown & Williamson acknowledged that cigarettes are a ``nicotine delivery'' device and that senior management rejected his efforts to make their tobacco products safer. Dr. Wigand also claimed that Brown & Williamson knowingly used carcinogens in their tobacco products. Mr. President, if these allegations were found to be true--if Brown & Williamson knew that nicotine was addictive, if the company knew that its products contained carcinogens, if it withheld this information from the public and this resulted in unnecessary death and disease--it would be absolutely unconscionable. Mr. President, I ask that a transcript of this interview be printed in the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, these accusations made by Dr. Wigand are extremely serious and I believe that Congress and the American people should fully understand the real dangers of tobacco products and all of the recent allegations involving the tobacco industry. Mr. President, there is so much activity and confusion about tobacco these days. Let me tell my colleagues about some of the legal matters that are currently pending: Five States are actively suing the tobacco companies for Medicaid costs associated with tobacco related illnesses of their residents. Other States are seriously considering similar action, including my home State. On the Federal level, I have introduced legislation to recoup all Medicare and Medicaid costs spent on tobacco related illnesses, some $20 billion a year, directly from the tobacco companies. There is a multibillion-dollar class action suit against the tobacco companies going on in New Orleans. It is commonly referred to as the Castano case. The plaintiffs are former smokers and survivors who claim that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addictive and dangerous but never told their customers. There is a Justice Department probe underway to investigate whether the seven tobacco companies' CEO's perjured themselves before Congressman Waxman's subcommittee when they testified they did not believe nicotine was addictive. Because of all of these current legal activities, there have been numerous leaks about the dangers of tobacco in the print and television media. However, Congress and the American people are only getting bits and pieces of the entire story because of the intense legal climate surrounding this entire issue. This is why I wrote a letter to Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy asking them to hold hearings in the Labor and Human Resources Committee about the entire tobacco issue. I have spoken personally to Senator Kassebaum and she assured me that she would seriously consider this request. I also spoke with Senator Kennedy who is deeply interested in all health issues including the health effects of tobacco and would like to set up hearings on this subject. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, the Congress, on behalf of the American people, needs to find out the truth about the addictive nature of nicotine, the health effects of tobacco use and all of the recent allegations involving the tobacco industry. We need this information so that we can evaluate the need for legislation regulating the tobacco industry and trying to recoup the cost of tobacco related illnesses. It is clear that the only way for Congress and the American people to get all of this information is to have open hearings in the Senate--so that we can secure for the record as much information as possible. On the House side, unfortunately, there is little chance of hearings. Congressman Bliley, from Richmond, VA, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has indicated that his committee will not permit these issues to be aired. I hope that things will be different in the Senate. I hope that both Democrats and Republicans will see the value in holding hearings on this critical issue. Only then, will the Congress and the public be fully informed about the dangers of a product that takes over 400,000 lives per year. Mr. President, we cannot sit idly by and listen to these types of allegations and do nothing. The material follows: Transcript From 60 Minutes, February 4, 1966 Mike Wallace. A story we set out to report six months ago has now turned into two stories: how cigarettes can destroy people's lives; and how one cigarette company is trying to destroy the reputation of a man who refused to keep quiet about what he says he learned when he worked for them. The Company is Brown & Williamson, America's third-largest tobacco company. The man they've set out to destroy is Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, their former $300,000 a year director of research. They employed prestigious law firms to sue him, a high- powered investigation firm to probe every nook and cranny of his life. And they hired a big-time public relations consultant to help them plant damaging stories about him in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and others. But the Journal reported the story for what they though it was. ``Scant evidence'' was just one of their comments. CBS management wouldn't let us broadcast our original story and our interview with Jeffrey Wigand because they were worried about the possibility of a multibillion dollar lawsuit against us for ``tortions'' interference--that is, interfering with Wigand's confidentiality agreement with Brown & Williamson. But now things have changed. Last week The Wall Street Journal got hold of and published a confidential deposition Wigand gave in a Mississippi case, a November deposition that repeated many of the charges he made to us last August. And while a lawsuit is still a possibility, not putting Jeffrey Wigand's story on 60 minutes no longer is. [Footage of Wigand; Brown & Williamson Tower; cigarettes on machine; of tobacco on conveyor belt; tobacco executives testifying before Congress.] Wallace (Voiceover). What Dr. Wigand told us in that original interview was that his former colleagues, executives of Brown & Williamson tobacco, knew all along that their tobacco products, their cigarettes and pipe tobacco, contained additives that increased the danger of disease; and further, that they had long known that the nicotine in tobacco is an addictive drug, despite their public statement to the countrary, like the testimony before Congress of Dr. Wigand's former boss, B&W chief executive officer Thomas Sandefur. Mr. Thomas Sandefur (Chief Executive Officer, Brown & Williamson). I believe that nicotine is not addictive. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand (Testifying Against Brown & Williamson). I believe he perjured himself because---- [Footage of congressional hearing.] Dr. Wigand (Voiceover). I watched those testimonies very carefully. Wallace (Voiceover). All of us did. There was the whole line of people-the-the whole line of CEOs up there, all swearing that---- Dr. Wigand: And part of the reason I'm here is I felt that their representation, clearly--at least within Brown & Williamson's representation, clearly, misstated what they commonly knew as language within the company: that we're in a nicotine-delivery business. Wallace. And that's what cigarettes are for. Dr. Wigand. Most certainly. It's a delivery device for nicotine. Wallace. A delivery device for nicotine. Dr. Wigand. Nicotine. Wallace. Put it in your mouth, light it up and you're going to get your fix. Dr. Wigand. You'll get your fix. Wallace. Dr. Wigand says that Brown & Williamson manipulates and adjusts that nicotine fix, not by artificially adding nicotine, but by enhancing the effect of the nicotine through the use of chemical additive like ammonia. This process is know in the tobacco industry as ``impact boosting. Dr. Wigand. While not spiking nicotine, they clearly manipulate it. [Footage of Brown & Williamson Root Technology handbook.] Wallace (Voiceover). The process is described in Brown & Williamson's leaf blender's manual and in other B&W documents. Dr. Wigand. There's extensive use of this technology, which is called ammonia chemistry, that allows for nicotine to be more rapidly absorbed in the lungs and, therefore, affect the brain and central nervous system. [Footage of documents in file cabinet; computer screen; Williams walking; Glantz; Journal of the American Medical Association.] Wallace (Voiceover). And then there are these documents, thousands of pages of confidential scientific reports and legal memoranda from B&W's secret files, which experts say support Dr. Wigand's claim that Brown & Williamson's executives have had strong reason to believe all along that nicotine is addictive and that their tobacco products cause cancer and other diseases. Most of these documents had been locked away in B&W's lawyers' confidential files in Louisville, Kentucky, until this man, the paralegal in that law office, Merrill Williams, walked off with them. The documents found their way to Dr. Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco. It was Dr. Glantz and a team of scientists from the university who wrote about the documents this past summer in a series of articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What is the story that the documents told you? Dr. Stanton Glantz (University of California Medical Center). They told me that 30 years ago Brown & Williamson and British-American Tobacco, its parent, knew nicotine was an addictive drug, and they knew smoking caused cancer and other diseases. [Footage of Glantz.] Wallace (Voiceover). And Dr. Glantz says these documents reveal how Brown & Williamson was keeping that knowledge from the public. Dr. Glantz. And they also developed very sophisticated legal strategies to keep this information away from the public, to keep this information away from public health authorities. Wallace. Dr. Wigand said that the cigarette is basically a nicotine delivery instrument. That's what it's really all about. Dr. Glantz. Yes, absolutely. And they--in the documents, they say that over and over and over again. [Footage of smokers.] Wallace (Voiceover). And finding a way to deliver that nicotine to the smoker's brain without exposing smokers to disease-causing pollutants, like tar that come with tobacco smoke, is one reason, says Dr. Wigand, that he was hired by B&W on January 1st, 1989. Dr. Wigand. They were looking to reduce the hazards within cigarettes, reduce the carcinogenic components--or--or list the carcinogens that were within the tobacco products. Wallace. They talked about carcinogens to you? Dr. Wigand. Talked about carcinogens---- Wallace. They talked about cancer and heart disease and emphysema and all of those things---- Dr. Wigand. They talked about---- Wallace. ----and they were going to work toward making a safer cigarette? You must have been very excited. Dr. Wigand. I was enthusiastic and energetic in terms of pursuing that. [Footage of Wigand; a smoker.] Wallace. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, with a doctorate in biochemistry, had spent nearly 20 years working in the health-care and biotechnology industries. He says his goal at B&W was to make a cigarette that would be less likely to cause disease. Dr. Wigand (Voiceover). People will continue to smoke no matter what, no matter what kind of regulations. If you can provide for those who are smoking and who need to smoke something that produces less risk for them--I thought I was going to be making a difference. [Footage of newspaper story of Wigand.] Wallace (Voiceover). Brown & Williamson made Jeff Wigand vice president for R&D, paying him more than $300,000 a year in salary and perks. Dr. Wigand. And I was very inquisitive when I came on. ``Have you ever done any nicotine studies? Have you done any pharmacology studies? Have you done any biological studies? Have you looked at the effect of nicotine on the central nervous system?'' And they always, general categorically, ``No, we don't do that kind of work.'' [Footage of Brown & Williamson Tower; Wigand.] Wallace (Voiceover). But according to those thousands of pages from B&W and its parent, British-American tobacco's, confidential files, the company had, in fact, done exactly those kinds of studies. Dr. Wigand says he did not suspect there was anything wrong until he attended a meeting of scientists who worked for British-American tobacco companies from around the world. Dr. Wigand says that his colleagues talked about working together to develop a safer, a less- hazardous cigarette, a cigarette less likely to cause disease. But when it came time to write up their ideas, to create a documentary record of their discussion, B&W's lawyers intervened. Dr. Wigand. The minutes that came in were roughly about 18 pages long describ--the co--I knew what was in the content. The--they were rewritten by Kendrick Wells. They were-- Wallace. Who's he? Dr. Wigand. Kendrick Wells was the--one of the staff attorneys at B&W. Wallace. And he rewrote the minutes of the meeting? Dr. Wigand. He rewrote the minutes of the meeting. He edited out the discussions on safer cigarette and, basically, toned the meeting down. Wallace. You're saying that one of the staff attornyes from B&W, here in the United States, whose name was---- Dr. Wigand. Kendrick Wells. Wallace. ----an attorney---- Dr. Wigand. Mm-hmm. Wallace. ----rewrote the minutes of this research meeting with all of the research heads of BAT Industries---- Dr. Wigand. That's correct. Wallace. ----in order to sanitize it, in a sense. Dr. Wigand. Sanitize it, as well as reduce any type of exposure associated with discussing a safer cigarette. When you say you're going to have a safer cigarette---- Wallace. Mm-hmm. Dr. Wigand. ----but that now takes everything else that you have available and say it--it's unsafe, and that from a products liability point of view, gave the lawyers great concern. [Footage of Wells; files; cigarettes on conveyor belt; files.] Wallace (Voiceover). Kendrick Wells, the lawyer Dr. Wigand says deleted materials from the minutes of the scientific meeting, is now the assistant general counsel of B&W. Why would B&W lawyers like Kendrick Wells be so concerned? According to B&W's own confidential files, any evidence, any documents that show any B&W tobacco product, like Kools or Viceroys, might be unsafe, those documents would have to be produced in court as part of any lawsuit filed by a smoker or his surviving family. And according to the lawyers, those documents could be disastrous for B&W. So the lawyers took over. Dr. Wigand (Voiceover). The lawyers intervened. And then they purged documents every time there was a reference to a word ``less hazardous'' or ``safer.'' [Footage of Wigand.] Wallace (Voiceover). But Dr. Wigand says the lawyers' interference, their editing and review of his reports, did not stop him. Dr. Wigand. And I started asking more probing questions and I started digging deeper and deeper. As I dug deeper and deeper, I started getting a bodyguard. Wallace. What do you mean a bodyguard? Dr. Wigand. I went to a meeting; I now was accompanied by a lawyer. My bodyguard was Kendrick Wells. [Footage of Wigand; photo of Sandefur.] Wallace (Voiceover). Frustrated by the lawyers' intervention and presence at major scientific meetings, Dr. Wigand says he took his complaints to Thomas Sandefur, then the president of B&W. What'd he say to you? Dr. Wigand. ``I don't want to hear any more discussion about a safer cigarette.'' [Still shot of B&W executive.] Wallace (Voiceover). And he says Thomas Sandefur went on to tell him---- Dr. Wigand. ``We pursue a safer cigarette, it would put us at extreme exposure with every other product. I don't want to hear about it anymore.'' Wallace. All the people who were dying from cigarettes. Dr. Wigand. Essentially, yes. Wallace. Cancer---- Dr. Wigand. Cancer. Wallace. ----heart disease, things of that nature. Dr. Wigand. Emphysema. [Still shot of Sandefur; footage of Wigand.] Wallace. (Voiceover). Lawyers representing B&W and Thomas Sandefur have said that all this, as well as other accounts of conversations with Thomas Sandefur, are absolutely false. We asked Dr. Wigand what his reaction was to what he says was Sandefur's decision to abandon a safer cigarette. Dr. Wigand. I would say I got angry. Wallace. He was your boss. Dr. Wigand. I bit my tongue. I had just transitioned from another--one company to another. I was paid well. It was comfortable. And for me to do anything precipitous would put my family at risk. Wallace. You were happy to take down the 300,000 bucks a year. Dr. Wigand. I, essentially, yeah, took the money. I did my job. Wallace. So Dr. Wigand abandoned his idea of trying to develop a new and safer cigarette. He turned his attention to investigating the additives, the flavorings, the other compounds in B&W tobacco products. Many, like glycerol, which is used to keep the tobacco in cigarettes moist, are normally harmless. But when glycerol is burned in a cigarette, its chemistry changes. Dr. Wigand. Glycerol, when it's burnt, forms a--a very specific substance called acrolein. [Footage of book; excerpt from book; smokers.] Wallace. (Voiceover). According to the American Council on Science and Health, acrolin, or acrolEIN, is extremely irritating and has been shown to interfere with the normal clearing of the lungs. Recent research shows that acrolein acts like a carcinogen, though not yet classified as such. And Dr. Wigand says that B&W continues to add glycerol to their product. But it was another additive that Dr. Wigand says led to the end of his career at B&W. Dr. Wigand. The straw that broke the c--the camel's back for me and really put me in trouble with Sandefur was a compound called coumarin. [Footage of smoker; medical record on mice experiment; B&W documents.] Wallace. (Voiceover). Coumarin is a flavoring that provides a sweet taste to tobacco products, but is known to cause tumors in the livers of mice. It was removed from B&W cigarettes, but according to these documents, B&W continued to use it in its Sir Walter Raleigh aromatic pipe tobacco until at least 1992. Dr. Wigand. And when I came on board at B&W, they had tried to tend--transition from coumarin to another similar flavor that would give the same taste. And it was unsuccessful. [Footage of Wigand and Wallace; report.] Wallace. (Voiceover). Dr. Wigand says the news about coumarin and cancer got worse. This report by independent researchers, part of a national toxic safety program, presented evidence that coumarin is a carcinogen that causes various cancers. Dr. Wigand. I wanted it out immediately. And I was told that it would affect sales and I was to mind my own business. And then I constructed a memo to Mr. Sandefur indicating that I could not, in conscience, continue with coumarin, a product that we now knowingly have documentation that is lung- specific, carcinogen. Wallace. Right. Sent the document forward to Sandefur? Dr. Wigand. I sent the document forward to Sandefur. I was told that--that we would continue working on a substitute, and we weren't going to remove it because it would impact sales. And that's--that was his decision. Wallace. In other words, what you're charging Sandefur with and Brown & Williamson with is, ``ignoring health considerations consciously''. Dr. Wigand. Most certainly. [Footage of Wigand]. Wallace (Voiceover). After his confrontations over coumarin, Dr. Wigand says he was not surprised when, on March the 24th, 1993, Thomas Sandefur, newly promoted to chief executive officer, CEO of B&W, had him fired. And the reason for firing that he gave you? Dr. Wigand. Poor communication skills, just not cutting it, poor performance. [Footage of Wigand and his family at dinner table.] Wallace (Voiceover). When Dr. Wigand, who has a wife and two young daughters, was fired by Brown & Williamson tobacco, his contract provided severance pay and critical health benefits for his family, critical because one of his children requires expensive daily health care. Several months after he was fired, B&W decided to sue their former head of R&D and they cut off his severance and those vital health benefits. Dr. Wigand. They said I violated my confidentiality agreement by discussing my severance package. [Footage of Wigand and Lucretia walking.] Wallace (Voiceover). Lucretia Wigand says that the firing and B&W's suspension of benefits was devastating. Mrs. Lucretia Wigand (Dr. Jeffrey Wigand's Wife). We almost lost our family as a unit. Jeff and I almost separated. Wallace. Why? Mrs. Wigand. Because he was under so much stress and sto-- so much pressure that it was something that we needed help dealing with. We went to counseling and we worked through it. Wallace. And this was, you think, started--triggered by the business with B&W? Mrs. Wigand. Yes. I know it was. [Footage of Wigand in his kitchen; document.] Wallace (Voiceover). B&W settled that lawsuit we mentioned and reinstated those critical health benefits, only after Dr. Wigand agreed to sign a new, stricter, lifelong confidentiality agreement. Nontheless, word of Dr. Wigand's battles with Brown & Williamson attracted attention in Washington, where, in the spring of 1994, Democratic Congress and the FDA, the Food & Drug Administration, were investigating the tobacco industry. Dr. Wigand was contacted by their investigators, and after notifying Brown & Williamson, he talked with those investigators. Shortly afterward, he was stunned by a couple of anonymous telephone calls. Dr. Wigand. And in April 1994, on two separate occasions, I had life threats on my kids. Wallace. What? Dr. Wigand. We had life threats on my kids. [Footage of Wigand and Wallace.] Wallace (Voiceover). Dr. Wigand told us he doesn't know where they came from, but that, understandably, they frightened him. He described the threats by referring to his diary. Dr. Wigand. ``A male voice that was on the phone that said, `Don't mess with tobacco anymore. How are your kids?' '' Then on April 28th, around 3:00 in the afternoon, relative the same voice--he says, ``Leave tobacco alone or else you'll find your kids hurt. They're pretty girls now.'' So I got scared. I started carrying a gun. Wallace. Really? Dr. Wigand. Yep. Started carrying a handgun. Mrs. Wigand. Someone called and threatened to--to kill him and to hurt the family if he messed with the tobacco industry. Wallace. That was last August. Now in February, Lucretia Wigand has filed for divorce, citing spousal abuse, just one of the accusations Brown & Williamson is using in their full- throated campaign to discredit Jeffrey Wigand. That report when we return. [Commercial break.] Wallace. Today, three years after he was fired by Brown & Williamson, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand is the star witness in a US Justice Department criminal investigation into the tobacco industry, which includes the question of whether B&W's former CEO lied to the US Congress when he said that he believed that nicotine was not addictive. But Dr. Wigand is paying a heavy price for his decision to testify, as well as for breaking his confidentiality agreement by talking to us. His family life has been shattered, his reputation has been tarnished because of B&W's massive campaign designed to silence him and to discredit this former research chief turned whistle-blower. They're trying to do what they can to paint you as irresponsible, a liar---- Dr. Wigand. Well, I think the word they've used, Mike, is a ``master of deceit.'' Wallace. You wish you hadn't come forward? You wish you hadn't blown the whistle? Dr. Wigand. There are times I wish I hadn't done it, but there are times that I feel compelled to do it. I--if you ask me if I would do it again or if it--do I think it's worth it, yeah, I think it's worth it. I think in the end people will see the truth. [Footage of state attorneys general of Florida, Minnesota and Mississippi.] Wallace (Voiceover). Well, these three men have seen the same truth as Wigand. They are the state attorney's general of Florida, Minnesota and Mississippi, where Dr. Wigand is testifying in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Mike Moore is attorney general of Mississippi. Mr. Moore. Jeffrey's testimony is going to be devastating, Mike, to the tobacco industry, so devastating that I fear for his life. I think---- Wallace. Are you serious? Mr. Moore. I'm--I'm very serious. The information that Jeffrey has, I think, is the most important information that has ever come out against the tobacco industry. This industry, in my opinion, is an industry who has perpetrated the biggest fraud on the American public in history. They have lied to the American public for years and years. They have killed millions and millions of people and made a profit on it. So I hope that they won't continue to lie and try to destroy Jeffrey like they destroyed the other lives of people all over this country. [Footage of newspaper clippings; Wigand and Wallace; The Investigative Group Inc. sign.] Wallace [Voiceover]. The campaign to destroy Dr. Jeffrey Wigand began over two months ago in the midst of a media frenzy over our failure to broadcast our August interview with him. Brown & Williamson sued Dr. Wigand for talking to us, despite his confidentiality agreement. And they got a court order in Kentucky to try to silence him from speaking out further. Then investigators hired by B&W fanned out across the country looking for anything they could use to discredit the whistle-blower. Dr. Wigand. They've been going around to my family, my friends, digging up and digging here and digging there. Wallace. Then their lawyers--and B&W has a half-dozen major firms working on the Jeff Wigand case--their lawyers compiled the results of their nationwide dragnet into a summary that alleges that, in recent years, Dr. Wigand pled guilty to everything from wife-beating to shoplifting. Beyond that, they charged him with a multitude of sins, from fudging his resume to making a false claim three years ago for $95.20 for dry cleaning. [Footage of Scanlon.] Wallace (Voiceover). Then Brown & Williamson retained John Scanlon to get their story to the media. Scanlon is a fixture of the New York media scene, who has close, personal relationships with print and television reporters and producers, as well as editors and publishers. We asked him to sit down and discuss the charges he has been circulating to me and other reporters, but he declined. But Scanlon did make this statement to a CBS News camera crew. Mr. John Scanlon (New York). He's running from cross- examination. His victims have decided to respond and present evidence that he is, in fact, a habitual liar. Dr. Wigand. The smear campaign--it's been very systematic, very organized, very well done. (Speaking to class). My background is I have a PhD in biochemistry. [Footage of Wigand teaching class; news broadcast.] Wallace (Voiceover). Today Dr. Wigand is a $30,000 a year science teacher at a Louisville, Kentucky, public high school. And his students, his faculty colleagues and his family were stunned last month when a Louisville television station broadcast some of Brown & Williamson's accusations. Unidentified Reporter (From news broadcast). Court records show Wigand was charged with theft by unlawful taking and shoplifting. [Footage of document; article in The Wall Street Journal; Gordon Smith.] Wallace (Voiceover). Then the Brown & Williamson 500-page dossier on Wigand was given to The Wall Street Journal, who investigated the charges. And last Thursday in this front- page story, The Journal reported that, quote, ``a close look at the file and independent research by this newspaper into its key claims indicates that many of the serious allegations against Dr. Wigand are backed by scanty or contradictory evidence.'' And they continued, quote, ``Some of the charges, including that he pleaded guilty to shoplifting, are demonstrably untrue.'' We put that Journal statement to Gordon Smith, an attorney designated by Brown & Williamson to talk to us. The Wall Street Journal went through all of that material. It says that what--the dossier that you put together: ``scant evidence.'' Mr. Smith. Mr. Wallace, that's dead wrong. There is not scant evidence. The Wall Street Journal did not---- Wallace. It---- Mr. Smith. ----did not go over the scores--literally scores of untruths told by Jeff Wigand that we showed to them. [Footage of Smith and Wallace.] Wallace (Voiceover). And Gordon Smith went on at some length to say that Wigand's life, quote, ``is a pattern of lies.'' Well, I don't understand, frankly, Mr. Smith. I really don't understand. Brown & Williamson must be in a panic if they are going after this man as hard as you are. Mr. Smith. You're wrong. There are no material inaccuracies in that book, none whatsoever. [Footage of performance appraisal document on Wigand; Wigand; letter.] Wallace (Voiceover). But not included in that dossier were Brown & Williamson's own personnel records, which showed that Wigand had received good performance appraisals for the first three years from B&W. In his fourth year, however, those appraisals turned sour. But despite that, even after he was fired, he received this letter from Brown & Williamson's personnel director. ``To whom it may concern, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was instrumental in the development of new products, as well as the major impetus behind a significant upgrade in our R&D technical capabilities, both in terms of people and equipment. During his tenure at Brown & Williamson, Dr. Wigand demonstrated a high level of technical knowledge and expertise.'' And this is on your own stationery, your own man saying bad about him. Mr. Smith. Mike, Brown & Williamson refused to be a reference for Jeff Wigand after he left. This letter was negotiated with his attorney, and it was the only statement Brown & Williamson would ever make about him because Brown & Williamson did not want to be a reference for Jeff Wigand. [Footage of Smith and Wallace.] Wallace (Voiceover). And Mr. Smith had this to say about our relationship with Jeffrey Wigand. Mr. Smith. You're being led along by a guy who's not believable. You're getting half the story. Wallace. Well, then why---- Mr. Smith. You--you--and you've got--you've got a--a vested interest in making this man credible. Wallace. Why do we have a vested interest? Mr. Smith. CBS has--has paid this guy $12,000. Wallace. For what? Mr. Smith. I believe for consulting. Wallace. Now wait just a moment. Let's get this straight. Paid him $12,000 for what? Mr. Smith. To consult on a story for CBS. Wallace. For the record, as we explained to Mr. Smith, 60 Minutes did, in fact, hire Dr. Wigand two years ago to act as our expert consultant to analyze nearly 1,000 pages of technical documents leaked to us, not from Brown & Williamson, but from inside Philip Morris, another tobacco company. At that time, Dr. Wigand told us he would not talk with us about Brown & Williamson. And he did not, until over a year later. Dr. Wigand. I felt an obligation to tell the truth. There were things I saw, there were things I learned, there was things I observed that I felt--that need to be told. The focus continues to be on what I would call systematic and aggressive ta--tactics to undermine my credibility and my-- some of my personal life. Wallace. But you expected that, didn't you? Dr. Wigand. Well, I didn't expect to the extent it would-- it's happened, OK? It's--it's disrupted not only my life--I'm in divorce proceedings now. [Footage of state attorneys general.] Wallace (Voiceover). These three state attorneys general say that no matter what B&W's accusations are, they remain convinced that what Wigand has to say about the tobacco industry in general, and Brown & Williamson in particular, is thoroughly credible. They are suing the tobacco industry for the billions of dollars in state Medicaid costs their states have paid to treat people who have become ill from smoking. Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III. Mr. Hubert Humphrey III (Minnesota Attorney General). We want to see the full truth come out. We want the deception and fraud and the violations of our state laws stopped. And we want people that are making the money on this product to bear the full cost of the health-care burden that is there. [Footage of state attorneys general.] Wallace (Voiceover). Bob Butterworth is the attorney general of Florida. Mr. Bob Butterworth (Florida Attorney General). The issue has been deceit. WALLACE. Deceit. Mr. Butterworth. Pure and simple deceit. The cigarette companies made a decision that they would withhold valuable information from the American public, information that the consumer would need to make a--an intelligent decision as to whether or not they wish to smoke or not to smoke. [Footage of Moore.] Wallace (Voiceover). Again, Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore. Mr. Moore. I'm used to dealing with--with cocaine dealers and--and crack dealers, and I have never seen damage done like the tobacco company has done. There's no comparison. Cocaine kills 10,000, 15,000 people a year in this country. Tobacco kills 425,000 people a year. Mr. SMITH. Mike, it's absurd to suggest that tobacco is any way like cocaine in terms of addiction. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that. Brown & Williamson makes a lawful product. They sell it and make it in a lawful way. Wallace Well, then why do 425,000 people die every year-- according to all medical and scientific evaluations, die of smoking cigarettes? Why? Mr. Smith. Mike, 50 million people choose to use tobacco and smoke. Wallace. So on a cost-benefit ratio, it's only 425,000 people who die out of the 50 million? Mr. Smith. No, Mike. Wallace. That's--that's a--a--a small fraction. Is that the point you're making? Mr. Smith. No, Mike, not at all. People choose to smoke. People choose to stop smoking. I think you used to smoke and you chose to stop smoking. Wallace. That's right. Mr. Smith. It's their choice. It's a lawful product. It's marketed and manufactured lawfully. [Footage of Wigand and Wallace.] Wallace (Voiceover). B&W has questioned Dr. Wigand's character. But he says that's just a smoke screen, and he has some questions for Brown & Williamson. Dr. Wigand. Why don't they deal with the issue of whether they can develop or--a safer cigarette? Why don't they deal with the issue of using--and knowingly using additives that are known to be carcinogenic in order not to influence sales? Why don't we deal with that issue? Wallace. Brown & Williamson did answer some of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand's questions for us. They told us they have removed coumarin--that's carcinogenic flavoring--from their Sir Walter Raleigh aromatic pipe tobacco, but they insist it never posed a health risk to smokers. B&W lawyer Kendrick Wells declined to talk to us, but he did deny, in testimony last week, Dr. Wigand's charge that he had altered the minutes of that scientific meeting. And B&W says the truth will come out in the end when they get a chance to cross- examine Dr. Wigand under oath. And they insist that we, CBS, cannot report on this story objectively since we are indemnifying Dr. Wigand in B&W's lawsuit against him. Two months ago CBS agreed to do that after a leak resulted in the disclosure of Dr. Wigand's identity before he was prepared to go public. Though still unaware of where that leak had come from, CBS decided to take financial responsibility for the impact that leak had on Dr. Wigand because it exposed him to a lawsuit by Brown & Williamson. A footnote. [Footage of That Courier-Journal headline and article.] Wallace (Voiceover). This banner headline yesterday in the Louisville Courier-Journal, B&W's hometown newspaper, about charges their employees and engaged in smuggling and bribes in Louisiana. In that story, the US attorney in New Orleans says, ``Look for some indictments in the very near future.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair if there is an opportunity to make a statement without interrupting the discussion on the amendment of the Senator from Iowa? Mr. President, clearly, since there is a moment of time, I just wanted to make a point about an amendment that I was going to offer. I have decided not to do so, not because I do not think it is warranted and justified and ought to be presented, but it is very obvious to me, after having seen the vote that was taken on the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts to increase education funding substantially so we can meet our needs for our young people and to provide the kind of education that is essential if the United States is going to maintain or improve its leadership in global affairs, economics, science, et cetera--I saw what happened with that vote. We did not get 60 votes in favor of it, whatever the technicality was, to waive the budget, et cetera. So, when I look at an amendment I was going to offer on environmental protection, it seemed to me that the handwriting was on the wall or that the toxics were in the ground or in the air, and that we were not going to get anywhere with a vote. Mr. President, the American people clearly want to see an end to the partisan bickering, and it seems we are making some progress in that direction. At the same time, Mr. President, I do want to register my concern about the stop-start way we are now financing much of the Government. Continuing resolutions and shutdowns are no way to run a Government. The resulting uncertainty and chaos has a serious impact on States and local governments, on Federal employees, and on Americans throughout the country. I also want to take a few moments to discuss the impact of the current CR on an area of particular concern to me: the environment. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to protect environmental programs during the life of this short-term spending measure. My amendment would have frozen EPA's funding at last year's levels, as opposed to the roughly 14-percent cut called for in this bill. However, I recognize that my amendment would be subject to the same point of order that was raised on Senator Kennedy's amendment. As with his amendment, I am confident this amendment would receive a majority of votes, but not enough to overcome the parliamentary objection. I also am concerned that, if my amendment were adopted in the Senate, the House leadership would refuse to put such a CR up to a vote, and the result would be another Government shutdown. I do not want that to happen. And I will not be offering my amendment. But I do want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of adequately funding EPA--and preferably doing so on a longer-term basis--when the pending CR expires in March. Mr. President, it is time to make protection of our environment a national priority. Americans have a right to know that their air is clean enough to breathe, their water is clean enough to drink, and their children are not going to get sick because they live near a toxic waste dump. The American people feel strongly about this, Mr. President. Poll after poll shows very strong public support for protecting our environment. Even Republican polls have reached that conclusion. One recent Republican poll by Linda DiVall showed that only 35 percent of voters would support a candidate who supported the one-third cut in EPA funding in the House Republicans' VA/HUD appropriations bill. The same poll showed that while 6 out of 10 Americans say there is too much Government regulation generally, only 1 in 5 believe that statement applies to the EPA. Unfortunately, despite the broad public support for environmental protection, this Congress has treated these programs very poorly. Funding for EPA has been under serious attack. And EPA's budget has been subject to stop-start budgeting, which has created tremendous uncertainty and which has had a serious impact on environmental programs. For example, many toxic waste sites are not getting cleaned up because of budget uncertainties and inadequate funding. These cleanups typically take a long time, and sometimes are costly. Since EPA does not know how much money it will have, it has been forced to shut down many projects that already have been underway, and to delay others. This will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It also will mean that many sites will remain filled with toxic wastes, placing nearby residents at additional risk. Mr. President, EPA is not an agency with a fat budget. It has been underfunded for years. EPA has already eliminated all of its temporary employees, and the Agency now has 1,300 employees less than its authorized ceiling. If the level in the continuing resolution continues for the rest of the year, EPA will be forced to furlough all its employees for 10 to 12 workdays. Mr. President, furloughs at EPA are not what the people want. They want a Federal Government that will take responsible and prudent steps to improve our environment. To to that, in my view, we should be increasing EPA's budget, not cutting it, as this bill would do. Mr. President, deep cuts in EPA's budget inevitably will have an adverse impact on our environment, and on the many hard-working people who work at the Agency. But I also want to point out to my colleagues-- especially those on the other side of the aisle--that cuts in EPA have a direct impact on many businesses in the private sector. Under President Reagan, EPA entered an era of substantial privatization. Today, over 80 percent of the Superfund budget and 52 percent of the rest of EPA's budget goes to private contractors. Those companies and their employees will suffer needlessly if EPA's budget is slashed. Other companies that rely on EPA also will be hurt by EPA cuts. For instance, EPA is required to certify new pesticides before they can be marketed. However, under this CR, many of these certifications will not be done. That means these products will not be approved for the coming growing season. Farmers, consumers and the agricultural chemical community all will be adversely affected. Mr. President, our Nation has made enormous progress since the environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970. Environmental laws have made our water safer to drink, cleaned up our oceans and rivers, made the air cleaner, and protected our land from destruction. We can not afford to turn back now. I have heard it said over and over that we need to balance the budget because we are piling debt onto our children. But what about the environment we are leaving our children? In my view, and the view of the American people, that simply has to be a national priority. Mr. President, at the expiration of this continuing resolution, I really hope that the Congress will approve a budget for EPA that protects the environment. And not for 6 weeks at a time. But for the rest of the fiscal year. That is important for the Agency to operate effectively. It is important for its employees, who need to plan their work, and their lives. It is important for the many private contractors and their employees, who depend on this funding. It is important for States and localities, which also rely on EPA funding to administer environmental programs. And, most critically, it is important to all Americans who care about the quality of our environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent an article appearing today in the New York Times, on the front page as a matter of fact, be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, I am hoping we get on with the resolution, the CR, not that I like it, frankly, but we do have to maintain the constancy of our work force, get the jobs done as well as we can at the moment. I am terribly disappointed at the relatively low levels of funding----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, rather than take any more time, I will yield the floor at this point.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Bradley and Moynihan to submit a resolution that will celebrate the 150th birthday of this country's national pastime. This resolution would declare June 19, 1996, as ``National Baseball Day,'' commerating this date in 1846 when baseball's first game was played. The seeds of modern baseball were planted on the Elysian Fields of Hoboken, NJ, on the warm spring afternoon of June 19, 1846. On this historic date, one of baseball's earliest and most influential teams, the Knickerbockers, invited a group known as the New York Club to join them for a game of ball under a unique set of rules that the Knickerbockers had recently devised. As time passed and word spread, other baseball clubs soon began to assemble and over the next decade the Elysian Fields grew into the first great center of baseball activity in the United States. Soon the game of baseball spread north and south along the east coast of the United States. Today it is played from coast-to-coast and all over the world. Mr. President, this game, unlike any other, has had a profound influence on generation after generation of Americans. The men that played in these early games were amateurs in the noblest sense of the word, as they played for the sheer joy they found in the game. Millions of American boys and girls carry on this tradition every year by participating in amateur baseball and softball leagues. In T- Ball and Little Leagues across the country, youngsters are not only learning the fundamentals of the game but teamwork and good sportsmanship, lessons that can be carried off the diamond. In fact, for millions of Americans, baseball is part of their earliest childhood memories, including the crack of a bat, the smell of a glove, and the endless summers spent on sandlots and schoolyards in every community across this great Nation in a uniquely American rite of passage. In every American generation for 150 years, baseball has been an important bond between millions of parents and their children who have shared countless afternoons at the ballpark. Baseball binds one generation of Americans to the next through a shared experience that has become central to our identity as a nation. It is often said that to understand America, one must first understand the game of baseball. For the past century and a half the game of baseball has been with us through good and bad. During difficult times, baseball has been an aid to Americans, providing not only a distraction to the current hardships, but offering hope that if the pastime of this great country can endure so can the Nation as a whole. It helped keep the home fires burning during World War II and moved us into the civil rights movement with Jackie Robinson. This is much more than a game, it is a part of who we are. We eagerly await the start of spring training, looking forward to opening day and baseball's first pitch. Then summer arrives, where temperatures and pennant races heat up moving us into crisp fall nights and the magic of the World Series. The greatness of baseball comes from its simplicity and diversity, a trait which makes the game like no other. The dimensions of the field differ from park to park, games have no set time limits and the phrase ``perfect game'' has a specific meaning with its own precise guidelines. It is a game filled with tradition that can not be matched by any other. Mr. President, at its heart, baseball is a communal experience and its memories are those we inevitable share. It is a game that allows the fan to remember the past while at the same time looking towards the future, knowing that the game will be around for generations of sons and daughters to enjoy. Baseball is truly a game for the ages. The designation of a ``National Baseball Day'' will provide an opportunity to celebrate America's national pastime and to reflect upon a game that has become a metaphor for our Nation's values and a living symbol of our heritage. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am introducing the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1996, which would prohibit smoking on international flights to and from the United States by domestic and foreign carriers. Mr. President, more than 50,000 studies have established the scientific evidence incriminating cigarette smoking as a direct cause of death and disability. Volumes of evidence also document similar health effects as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. For example, in 1991, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health placed environmental tobacco smoke in its most significant category of human carcinogens. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that environmental tobacco smoke causes some 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 12,000 other cancer deaths each year. In addition, the EPA believes that 70 percent of the lung cancer deaths attributable to environmental tobacco smoke are due to exposures outside of the home. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure leads to coughing, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function in nonsmoking adults. While these symptoms may seem minor in nature, their effects on individuals can have permanent health and financial consequences. It is estimated that flight attendants lose about $10,000 per year in salary if they are unable to work on international flights on which smoking is still allowed. Mr. President, in September 1992, the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] passed a nonbinding resolution urging governments to take the necessary steps to ban smoking on all international flights as a safety and health measure. The resolution calls for the ban to be in place no later than July 1, 1996. I am hopeful, but not confident, that the ICAO resolution will be successful. This past summer, ICAO released a working paper on the progress being made toward the implementation of its international smoking ban resolution. While developing the working paper, ICAO asked its more than 300 members to indicate their intentions with respect to implementation of the smoking ban. Of the 67 replies, 34 countries gave either no indication of their intentions or indicated they were going to delay implementation. Another 10 countries indicated implementation plans were under study. Only 24 countries stated that they would implement the smoking ban. Based upon replies to this questionnaire, some have estimated that just 13 percent of all ICAO members will take the steps necessary to ban smoking on international flights. Mr. President, from the perspective of the United States, the potentially low rate of participation of other countries in an international smoking ban should be unacceptable. The United States and its carriers have repeatedly demonstrated their support for an international smoking ban. As the result of an agreement between the United States, Canada, and Australia, passengers traveling between these countries need not suffer through a smoke-filled flight. About a year ago, the Department of Transportation provided eight U.S. carriers with an antitrust waiver so they could discuss implementing a voluntary transatlantic smoking ban. Despite their unanimous resolve to move toward a smoke-free environment, the participating carriers were unable to reach an agreement. Many were unwilling to ban smoking because of perceptions about competitive pressures from foreign carriers who are unwilling to voluntarily ban smoking. Mr. President, I have been active for many years in efforts to ensure clean cabin air for airline passengers. In 1988, I sponsored legislation that banned smoking on domestic flights of 2 hours or less. This law protected approximately 80 percent of all domestic passengers from the documented effects of environmental tobacco smoke. In 1989, based upon the success and popularity of the 2-hour smoking ban, Congress expanded the ban to include nearly all domestic flights. Mr. President, this legislation would extend the protection now enjoyed by domestic passengers and flight attendants to those who fly into and out of this country. I wish other countries would enter into multilateral smoking-ban agreements on their own so this bill would be unnecessary. However, that does not seem likely. Therefore, this bill is needed to demonstrate the U.S. Congress' resolve and continued leadership on this issue. The bill would create a level competitive playing field for carriers utilizing our market. And, most importantly, it would protect the health and safety of all those who fly internationally. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am introducing the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1996, which would prohibit smoking on international flights to and from the United States by domestic and foreign carriers. Mr. President, more than 50,000 studies have established the scientific evidence incriminating cigarette smoking as a direct cause of death and disability. Volumes of evidence also document similar health effects as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. For example, in 1991, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health placed environmental tobacco smoke in its most significant category of human carcinogens. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that environmental tobacco smoke causes some 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 12,000 other cancer deaths each year. In addition, the EPA believes that 70 percent of the lung cancer deaths attributable to environmental tobacco smoke are due to exposures outside of the home. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure leads to coughing, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function in nonsmoking adults. While these symptoms may seem minor in nature, their effects on individuals can have permanent health and financial consequences. It is estimated that flight attendants lose about $10,000 per year in salary if they are unable to work on international flights on which smoking is still allowed. Mr. President, in September 1992, the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] passed a nonbinding resolution urging governments to take the necessary steps to ban smoking on all international flights as a safety and health measure. The resolution calls for the ban to be in place no later than July 1, 1996. I am hopeful, but not confident, that the ICAO resolution will be successful. This past summer, ICAO released a working paper on the progress being made toward the implementation of its international smoking ban resolution. While developing the working paper, ICAO asked its more than 300 members to indicate their intentions with respect to implementation of the smoking ban. Of the 67 replies, 34 countries gave either no indication of their intentions or indicated they were going to delay implementation. Another 10 countries indicated implementation plans were under study. Only 24 countries stated that they would implement the smoking ban. Based upon replies to this questionnaire, some have estimated that just 13 percent of all ICAO members will take the steps necessary to ban smoking on international flights. Mr. President, from the perspective of the United States, the potentially low rate of participation of other countries in an international smoking ban should be unacceptable. The United States and its carriers have repeatedly demonstrated their support for an international smoking ban. As the result of an agreement between the United States, Canada, and Australia, passengers traveling between these countries need not suffer through a smoke-filled flight. About a year ago, the Department of Transportation provided eight U.S. carriers with an antitrust waiver so they could discuss implementing a voluntary transatlantic smoking ban. Despite their unanimous resolve to move toward a smoke-free environment, the participating carriers were unable to reach an agreement. Many were unwilling to ban smoking because of perceptions about competitive pressures from foreign carriers who are unwilling to voluntarily ban smoking. Mr. President, I have been active for many years in efforts to ensure clean cabin air for airline passengers. In 1988, I sponsored legislation that banned smoking on domestic flights of 2 hours or less. This law protected approximately 80 percent of all domestic passengers from the documented effects of environmental tobacco smoke. In 1989, based upon the success and popularity of the 2-hour smoking ban, Congress expanded the ban to include nearly all domestic flights. Mr. President, this legislation would extend the protection now enjoyed by domestic passengers and flight attendants to those who fly into and out of this country. I wish other countries would enter into multilateral smoking-ban agreements on their own so this bill would be unnecessary. However, that does not seem likely. Therefore, this bill is needed to demonstrate the U.S. Congress' resolve and continued leadership on this issue. The bill would create a level competitive playing field for carriers utilizing our market. And, most importantly, it would protect the health and safety of all those who fly internationally. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capitive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1995, a bill to stop what are known as canned hunts--the cruel and inhumane business in which a customer pays to shoot a tame, captive exotic animal in a fenced-in enclosure for entertainment, or to collect a trophy. Mr. President, canned hunts do not involve hunting, tracking, or shooting skills. In such an operation, the client merely hands over a check, walks to within yards of his prize, aims carefully to avoid the head, and shoots, killing the unsuspecting exotic animal. This is not sport--it is easy slaughter for a price. Sportsmen do not support this, and neither should we. Mr. President, imagine this: A black leopard, raised in captivity, is released from a crate in the presence of a paying hunter and is immediately surrounded by a pack of hounds. The cat, virtually defenseless because it has been declared and is greatly outnumbered by the hounds, tries to escape by running under a truck. The hounds follow the leopard who then darts from under the truck slightly ahead of the pack. The customer gets his shot--and his trophy. Mr. President, in the United States today, there are estimated to be more than 1,000 private hunting ranches where exotic mammals are shot for a fee. Many of these hunting ranches have a land area of 1,000 acres or less--some are less than 100 acres. The animals are tame targets for hunters and the proprietors of these operations offer a guaranteed kill opportunity for their clients. It is called no kill, no pay. The animals are shot at point blank range--with bow or firearm--and have no chance of eluding a hunter. These hunting operations provide a laundry list of potential trophies for hunters. For a fee, a hunter can kill whatever animal he or she wishes. Gazelles typically sell for $800 to $3,500; Cape buffaloes, $5,000; angora goats, $325; Corsican sheep, $500; red deer, $1,500 to $6,000. The rarer the animal--lions and tigers, for instance, the higher the price. I want to emphasize, Mr. President, that most sportsmen decry these despicable practices as unsporting. They say that canned hunts make a mockery of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by former President Teddy Roosevelt that maintains records of North America's big game, takes the position that ``hunting game confined in artificial barriers, including escape-proof fenced enclosures or hunting game transplanted solely for the purpose of commercial shooting'' is ``unfair chase and unsportsmanlike.'' In 1994, in the publication Outdoor America, the magazine of the pro-hunting Izaak Walton League, Maitland Sharpe, the organization's executive director at the time, stated that this practice ``tarnishes all hunting, all hunting. . . .'' The American Zoo and Aquarium Association [AZA] forbids its membership organizations from selling, trading, or transfering zoo animals to hunting ranches, though the prohibition too often is ignored. The AZA opposes canned hunts, and has written to Members of Congress that it ``(a) deplores and is opposed to canned hunts of exotic animals and (b) supports the prohibition of interstate practices which allow exotic animals to be killed in such hunts.'' Mr. President, exotic hunting ranches threaten native wildlife populations with the spread of disease. If these ranch animals escape, they can transmit diseases to native wildlife. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, stated in January of this year, ``Tuberculosis and other diseases documented among game ranch animals in surrounding states'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' This is one reason why Wyoming bans canned hunts. Other States also ban these hunts, including California, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. However, States that permit these operations import exotic mammals from other States--including those that prohibit canned hunts--and victimize these animals in unsporting canned hunts. Federal legislation is needed to ban the interstate trade in exotic mammals for the purpose of shooting them for a fee to collect a trophy. Federal legislation is also needed because exotic mammals are not carefully regulated by the States. Exotic mammals often fall outside the traditional range of responsibility for State fish and game agencies. They fall outside the purview of State agriculture departments. Exotic mammals--not being native wildlife or livestock-- are in a sense, caught in regulatory limbo. This lack of oversight by State agencies allows canned hunt operators to exploit these animals for profit. My legislation is identical to a similar bill that has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1202. The bill would ban only those operations of 1,000 acres or less in which tame animals are shot for a fee for the purposes of collecting a trophy. Larger hunting ranches, where the animals are provided with some room to maneuver, are exempt. The hunting of native wildlife would not be affected in any way. The House bill has attracted strong bipartisan support, with over 100 cosponsors to date. Mr. President, this legislation is needed to put a stop to this amoral, cruel business. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my friend and colleague from New York not only for allotting me some of the time to respond to this conference report, but also for his long-time work, scholarly review of the problems of families, welfare, and balance in our society. Few have paid as much attention to the issue as has the distinguished Senator from New York. Oddly enough, however, whenever I am doing something with the Senator from New York, whether I sit on the Environment Committee or another committee, he always has more knowledge than anyone else. I am still trying to figure out how he does it, but he does it very well. This is just one example of many. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report. I think it is a terrible Christmas present to give the children in our country. If this bill becomes law, many children in this Nation will wake up on Christmas day with no safety net and hardly any prospect of anything pleasant in the Christmas stocking. This piece of legislation represents the worst, I think, of Speaker Gingrich's agenda. It rips at the safety net, tears it to shreds. These poor children fend for themselves, and it violates the most basic values of our country. Mr. President, all of us here constantly extoll the justified virtues of this Nation of ours, the greatest country on God's Earth. But what a paradox. Here we are, the wealthiest country in the world, no exceptions, and despite our prosperity, 9 million children are so poor that their families are on AFDC assistance. Mr. President, there is no question that the current welfare system needs reform. I think there are many avenues of reform that are not fully explored. I think we want to encourage family structuring. I think we have to think in terms of letting someone who is on welfare-- typically a woman with children--who perhaps meets someone that she would like to share her life with and provide her own family network, we immediately say to her, ``Well, you are off the welfare assistance, you are out of the health care program.'' What you do is you cut off your opportunities when you form this union, and you are in far worse shape than you otherwise would be. That does not encourage family togetherness. What it does do is it encourages a kind of deception and says, ``OK, you maintain your address; I maintain my address; and we will cohabitate, but we will not violate the rules.'' I think we ought to be looking at that kind of program. We ought to help welfare recipients find productive work. I am all for that. I do not think we ought to punish the poor kids who are on AFDC. Mr. President, this bill is not a serious policy document. It is a budget document. It is a downpayment on the Republican tax break that targets the benefits for the millionaires and other wealthy Americans. We found out what the thinking is when I proposed an amendment one night that said, tell you what we will do, friends in the U.S. Senate. We will limit any tax break to those who earn under $1 million. Well, the outcome of the vote is in the Record. We did not get any Republican votes on that one. They said that even if you earn over $1 million, if a tax break comes along, you have to get your share. We know what we face. I had the opportunity yesterday morning to be on one of the early- morning local shows with a freshman Republican Congressman from the other body, and we start our discussion and the first thing he says is, ``We are committed to providing that tax break.'' That overrides almost every other consideration. That is why we are here, wringing our hands, pleading the plight of those who face Christmas without an income, with a great deal of uncertainty, 280,000, roughly, Federal employees who give their all whenever they are asked, but now suddenly we have decided that they are good pawns to play in this chess game. Why? So they can force this reconciliation bill down the throat of the administration. It is a terrible game to play, I think. The focus is on the tax break. Included in that will be those who are dependent on welfare who will suffer significantly if the program, as prescribed now, through the conference committee, goes through. If you make $350,000 a year, the GOP reconciliation bill includes an $8,500 tax break. It is nice but certainly not necessary. I think it is painful because it comes from other people who do not have the means to get by on a day-to-day basis. I want to talk for a moment about some of the facts with this legislation. The proponents talk about philosophy, giving States flexibility. It sounds good, but I found out there is kind of a catch- all situation here that says it is the bureaucracy--they do not say it is the bureaucracy, stupid; sometimes they say that--but it is the bureaucracy. That is the evil force that commands everything here. It may be a bureaucracy, but I do not know how you conduct a business or a structure of any kind without having people who work there--in this case, we are talking about people who are told to carry on policy in a particular fashion--and perhaps they need more training, perhaps we have to alter the policy. To conceal the fact that we are going to be shortchanging the recipients, the dependents on the welfare assistance, by calling it a block grant is, I believe, hypocrisy. The fact is that an HHS study shows this legislation--I was reminded about it in a letter I have included among my precious papers, a letter from the Senator from New York, just a short paragraph, talking about the children that will pay a price for the legislation that passed this body the first time with 11 Democrats and one Republican voting the other way. Mr. President, 1.2 million to 2 million children will be facing hunger in roughly 7 years. That is hardly a way to design a program-- punish the children, move 1 million to 2 million of them into poverty, into hunger. This is based on conservative assumptions. In all likelihood, the figure will be somewhat higher. I wish all Senators would fully appreciate what we are doing. Living below the poverty line is not a particularly pleasant experience. Having tried it myself as a child, I did not like it. My parents did not like it. The poverty level for a family of three, a woman and two children in this country, is $11,800 a year. How many people here believe that they could properly raise two children on $11,800 a year? It is not possible. This bill also cuts food stamp funding by over $32 billion. These cuts, literally, as I said earlier, will take the food out of the mouths of our children. Unfortunately, this bill is not the end of the pain for our Nation's children. The budget reconciliation is yet another assault on our children. The Republican budget bill ends the guarantee of health care for poor children. The bill's Medicaid cuts will mean that about 4 million kids--to use the expression--will be denied health care coverage. The cuts in the earned-income tax credit will mean that the parents of 14.5 million children, parents making under $30,000 a year, will get a tax increase on average of $332 a year. Mr. President, $332 does not seem like a lot of money. But to a poor family it is an enormous sum. Working parents could use this money to buy the basic food, books, clothing, and pay for rent. I think it is unconscionable that our friends in the Republican majority are asking this of our children while providing a $8,500 tax break for people who make over $350,000 a year. Republicans say they are making these deep cuts to help the children, the next generation. If I were the children I would say to them, ``Thanks; no thanks. Do not do us any favors. Just kind of keep us in balance now. Make sure we get the appropriate nutrition so we can learn and be productive citizens.'' The one thing I think that is really fallacious in what I hear going around here is that, somehow or other, those who are poor, those who are, perhaps, different, are another group. They do not belong to us. One does not have to be a genius to know that we all have a stake in their well-being. It is our responsibility to protect them and help lift them out of poverty as if they were our own children, because we will pay the price--in many cases personally--for the lack of development that these children suffer. I do not know how many have been to Brazil, to Rio de Janiero, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, where poverty fills every sight that you see, whether it is the mountains or the sea or what have you. Little kids, abandoned by their families, who will steal from open tables in the restaurant. I saw it happen. Because they are so hungry, they do not know any bounds, by virtue of appropriate conduct. Hunger, cunning takes over at all levels. There was a shocking program the other night on ``Nightline'' about children who beg in the streets of Rio, who, when they get to be just a little more than 8 or 9 or 10 years old, they realize that their appeal for this baby face no longer has a salutary effect on the cups that they hold out for coins. Do you know what they do? They turn to prostitution at 9, 10, 11 years old. And they turn HIV positive in a hurry. And there is an epidemic of AIDS among little kids in Brazil, because they sell themselves. They do not know any other way to stay alive. That is hardly a picture that we ought to aspire to and I am sure we do not. Those who are against this, I am not suggesting in any way, are for that kind of condition. But that is the reality when you cut off food and shelter and some caring concern. These little people find ways to exist, ways that we do not like, ways that we do not approve of, especially when they get a weapon in their hands, and especially when they gang up on someone who they think has the means to help them out. That is why they are our responsibility, as well as some compassion in the hearts and souls of Americans. We have that as a people. So, Mr. President, I hope we will reconsider. I hope my colleagues will reject this legislation. Once again, I commend our colleague from New York for his distinguished leadership in so many things, but particularly with this piece of legislation on welfare. I commend the President, also, for his veto statement, and I hope we will be able to sustain it. Mr. President, this piece of legislation represents the worst of Speaker Gingrich's radical agenda. It tears the safety net to threads. It leaves poor children to fend for themselves. It violates the most basic values of our Nation. Mr. President, we live in the greatest nation on Earth. We are the wealthiest country in the world. But it is clear that some in our society do not share in this wealth. They are poor. They are jobless and in some cases homeless. And they must rely on public assistance to survive. In America, this is unacceptable. And we should be committed to improving their lives. Mr. President, there in no question that the current welfare system needs reform. But the central goal for any welfare reform bill should be to move welfare recipients into productive work. This will only happen if we provide welfare recipients with education and job training to prepare them for employment. It will only happen if we provide families with affordable child care. It will only happen if we can place them into jobs, preferably in the private sector or--as a last resort--in community service. But this welfare bill is not designed to help welfare recipients get on their feet and go to work. It is only designed to cut programs--pure and simple. It is designed to take money from the poor so that Republicans can provide huge tax cuts for the rich. That is what is really going on here. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the radical experiment proposed in this legislation will inflict additional problems on our society while producing defenseless victims. Those victims are not represented in the Senate offices. They are not here lobbying against this bill. They do not even know they are at risk. The victims will be America's children. And there will be millions of them. Mr. President, the AFDC Program provides a safety net for 9 million children. These young people are innocent. They did not ask to be born into poverty. And they don't deserve to be punished. These children are African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and white. They live in urban areas and rural areas. But, most importantly, they are American children. And we as a nation have a responsibility to provide them with a safety net. The children we are talking about are desperately poor, Mr. President. They are not living high off the hog. These kids live in very poor conditions. Mr. President, it is hard for many of us to appreciate what life is like for the 9 million children who are poor and who benefit from AFDC. I grew up to a working class family in Paterson, NJ, in the heart of the Depression. Times were tough. And I learned all too well what it meant to struggle economically. But as bad as things were for my own family, they still were not as bad as for millions of today's children. These are children who are not always sure whether they will get their next meal. Not always sure that they will have a roof over their heads. Not always sure they will get the health care they need. Mr. President, these children are vulnerable. They are living on the edge of homelessness and hunger. And they did not do anything to deserve this fate. Mr. President, if we are serious about reforming a program that keeps these children afloat, we will not adopt a radical proposal like this bill. We will not put millions of American children at risk. And we will not simply give a blank check to States and throw up our hands. Mr. President, this Republican bill isn't a serious policy document. It is a budget document. It is a downpayment on a Republican tax break that targets huge benefits for millionaires and other wealthy Americans. For those who make $350,000 per year, the GOP reconciliation bill includes an $8,500 tax break. Mr. President, if the Republicans were serious about improving opportunities for those on welfare, they would be talking about increasing our commitment to education and job training. In fact, only last year, the House Republican welfare reform bill, authored in part by Senator Santorum, would have increased spending on education and training by $10 billion. This year, by contrast, this welfare bill actually cuts $82 billion, including huge reductions in education and training. So what has changed? The answer is simple. This year, the Republicans need the money for their tax breaks for the rich. Mr. President, shifting our welfare system to 50 State bureaucracies may give Congress more money to provide tax breaks. But it is not going to solve the serious problems facing our welfare system, or the people it serves. To really reform welfare, Mr. President, we first must emphasize a very basic American value: the value of work. We should expect recipients to work. In fact, we should demand that they work, if they can. Of course, Mr. President, that kind of emphasis on work is important. But it is not enough. We also have to help people get the skills they need to get a job in the private sector. I am not talking about handouts. I am talking about teaching people to read. Teaching people how to run a cash register or a computer. Teaching people what it takes to be self-sufficient in today's economy. We also have to provide child care. Mr. President, How is a woman with several young children supposed to find a job if she cannot find someone to take care of her kids? It is simply impossible. There is just no point in pretending otherwise. Unfortunately, this bill does not address these kind of needs. It does not even try to promote work. It does not even try to give people job training. It does little to provide child care. All it does is throw up its hands and ship the program to the States. That is it. Mr. President, that is not real welfare reform. It is simply passing the buck to save a buck. And who is going to get the buck that is saved? The people the Republicans really care about: those who are well off. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment now to talk about some of the facts about this legislation. The proponents of this legislation talk about philosophy and giving States flexibility, but I would like to talk about the facts. The fact is that an HHS study showed that this legislation will force 1.2 to 2.1 million children into poverty. And this is based on conservative assumptions. In all likelihood, the figure will be much higher. Mr. President, I wish that all Senators would fully appreciate this. Living below the poverty rate is no fun. As I said, the poverty level for a family of three, a woman with two children, is $11,821 per year. Mr. President, How many people here think that they could raise two children well on $11,821 per year? Mr. President, not only does this analysis contain conservative assumptions, it also does not document what will happen to those children who already live in poverty. It is clear that they will also be harmed by this legislation because AFDC spending will be frozen at 1994 levels under this bill even though the cost of living for the poor will rise during the next 7 years. This bill also includes a mandatory 5-year cap for the receipt of benefits. Once this time period is completed, there is nothing left for a poor family. No job, no education, no income support--nothing. Mr. President, this seems like a benign provision but it will have harsh consequences for our children. The cap will mean that 3.3 to 4.3 million children will get no help after 5 years. They will have no income support. They could be homeless. Mr. President, I would like to point out that the 5-year cap is a maximum. It is an outer barrier. States can enact 1-, 2-, or 3-year caps and that will mean that even more children will have to go without assistance. Mr. President, this bill also cuts Supplemental Security Income [SSI] benefits for disabled children. Under this conference report, 300,000 disabled children will be denied benefits in the year 2002. Furthermore, approximately 500,000 children with disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis, would have their benefits cut in the year 2002. Mr. President, this bill also cuts food stamp funding by $36 billion. These cuts will literally take food right out of the mouths of our children. Mr. President, the children of this country belong to all of us. We all have a stake in their well being. It is our responsibility to protect them, as if they were our own children. And, Mr. President, I would point out that we don't take risks with our own children's well being. We do not say to them--you better shape up or we will put you out on the street without food. We protect our own children. And we want to do more to help them. Parents across this country work hard to make sure that their children will have a better life. This is the same philosophy we should take towards reforming our welfare system. We must protect our children and we must help them become better off. We can not do this by cutting millions of children off and forcing them into poverty. This will make them worse off--not better off. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and I urge the President to issue an emphatic veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Capitive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 1995, a bill to stop what are known as canned hunts--the cruel and inhumane business in which a customer pays to shoot a tame, captive exotic animal in a fenced-in enclosure for entertainment, or to collect a trophy. Mr. President, canned hunts do not involve hunting, tracking, or shooting skills. In such an operation, the client merely hands over a check, walks to within yards of his prize, aims carefully to avoid the head, and shoots, killing the unsuspecting exotic animal. This is not sport--it is easy slaughter for a price. Sportsmen do not support this, and neither should we. Mr. President, imagine this: A black leopard, raised in captivity, is released from a crate in the presence of a paying hunter and is immediately surrounded by a pack of hounds. The cat, virtually defenseless because it has been declared and is greatly outnumbered by the hounds, tries to escape by running under a truck. The hounds follow the leopard who then darts from under the truck slightly ahead of the pack. The customer gets his shot--and his trophy. Mr. President, in the United States today, there are estimated to be more than 1,000 private hunting ranches where exotic mammals are shot for a fee. Many of these hunting ranches have a land area of 1,000 acres or less--some are less than 100 acres. The animals are tame targets for hunters and the proprietors of these operations offer a guaranteed kill opportunity for their clients. It is called no kill, no pay. The animals are shot at point blank range--with bow or firearm--and have no chance of eluding a hunter. These hunting operations provide a laundry list of potential trophies for hunters. For a fee, a hunter can kill whatever animal he or she wishes. Gazelles typically sell for $800 to $3,500; Cape buffaloes, $5,000; angora goats, $325; Corsican sheep, $500; red deer, $1,500 to $6,000. The rarer the animal--lions and tigers, for instance, the higher the price. I want to emphasize, Mr. President, that most sportsmen decry these despicable practices as unsporting. They say that canned hunts make a mockery of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by former President Teddy Roosevelt that maintains records of North America's big game, takes the position that ``hunting game confined in artificial barriers, including escape-proof fenced enclosures or hunting game transplanted solely for the purpose of commercial shooting'' is ``unfair chase and unsportsmanlike.'' In 1994, in the publication Outdoor America, the magazine of the pro-hunting Izaak Walton League, Maitland Sharpe, the organization's executive director at the time, stated that this practice ``tarnishes all hunting, all hunting. . . .'' The American Zoo and Aquarium Association [AZA] forbids its membership organizations from selling, trading, or transfering zoo animals to hunting ranches, though the prohibition too often is ignored. The AZA opposes canned hunts, and has written to Members of Congress that it ``(a) deplores and is opposed to canned hunts of exotic animals and (b) supports the prohibition of interstate practices which allow exotic animals to be killed in such hunts.'' Mr. President, exotic hunting ranches threaten native wildlife populations with the spread of disease. If these ranch animals escape, they can transmit diseases to native wildlife. John Talbott, acting director of the Wyoming Department of Fish and Game, stated in January of this year, ``Tuberculosis and other diseases documented among game ranch animals in surrounding states'' pose ``an extremely serious threat to Wyoming's native big game.'' This is one reason why Wyoming bans canned hunts. Other States also ban these hunts, including California, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. However, States that permit these operations import exotic mammals from other States--including those that prohibit canned hunts--and victimize these animals in unsporting canned hunts. Federal legislation is needed to ban the interstate trade in exotic mammals for the purpose of shooting them for a fee to collect a trophy. Federal legislation is also needed because exotic mammals are not carefully regulated by the States. Exotic mammals often fall outside the traditional range of responsibility for State fish and game agencies. They fall outside the purview of State agriculture departments. Exotic mammals--not being native wildlife or livestock-- are in a sense, caught in regulatory limbo. This lack of oversight by State agencies allows canned hunt operators to exploit these animals for profit. My legislation is identical to a similar bill that has been introduced in the House, H.R. 1202. The bill would ban only those operations of 1,000 acres or less in which tame animals are shot for a fee for the purposes of collecting a trophy. Larger hunting ranches, where the animals are provided with some room to maneuver, are exempt. The hunting of native wildlife would not be affected in any way. The House bill has attracted strong bipartisan support, with over 100 cosponsors to date. Mr. President, this legislation is needed to put a stop to this amoral, cruel business. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Robb, Sarbanes, and Mikulski to introduce the Public Servant Priority Placement Act, a bill to assist Federal workers who lose their jobs as a result of downsizing. This legislation would require Government agencies to give priority consideration to these employees when filling vacancies. Mr. President, the Federal Government is in the process of significant downsizing, and that process is likely to intensify substantially in the coming years. Under current law, 272,000 civilian positions will be eliminated by fiscal year 1999. If an agreement is reached to balance the budget, that number probably will be much larger. Mr. President, it is easy for some to ignore the plight of these workers by talking derisively of so-called faceless bureaucrats. But all of these workers are human beings with families, bills to pay, and obligations to meet. For most, getting laid off is a painful and traumatic event. And for many, the financial implications are severe. Most dislocated employees are hard-working, talented, skilled, and dedicated individuals who have contributed much to our Nation. They did not lose their jobs because they were lazy, or because they did poor work. They were simply innocent victims of forces larger than themselves. Mr. President, in an effort to assist these employees, and to ensure that their talents are not lost entirely to the Government, agencies have developed their own placement programs for former employees. The most successful such program is the Department of Defense's Priority Placement Program, or PPP. Under the program, involuntarily separated workers are granted a preference when vacancies are filled. Since PPP's inception in 1965, over 100,000 DOD employees have been placed successfully elsewhere in the Department. Unfortunately, the program's placement rate has been reduced in recent years because fewer job opportunities have been available. In coming years, few Federal agencies are likely to excape the budget axe. Some agencies probably will be eliminated altogether. It is critically important, therefore, that Congress work to ensure that all displaced workers get the support they need. Mr. President, the Office of Personnel Management operates two government-wide placement programs that supplement the efforts of individual agencies. Yet OPM's programs are not sufficient, in part because agencies all too often do not grant any preference to workers displaced from other agencies. According to a 1992 report by the General Accounting Office, in fiscal year 1991, OPM's programs had 4,433 registrants and made 110 placements. Although OPM has made improvements to its programs since 1992, there clearly remains a need for a coordinated, mandatory, Governmentwide placement program. The Public Servant Priority Placement Act would direct OPM to establish such a program for RIF'd employees. It also would require agencies to institute their own intra-agency placement programs for these workers. Unlike the current placement programs, except for DOD's, agencies would be required to offer positions to dislocated workers if they are qualified. Under this legislation, if an agency has a vacancy it cannot fill internally, such as through a promotion, it would be required to offer that position to a qualified RIF'd employee of that agency who meets certain criteria relating to classification and pay, and who is located within the same commuting area. If no such employee exists, then that agency shall offer the vacancy to a comparably-situated, well-qualified RIF'd employee from another Federal agency. Should no RIF'd employee meet these criteria, then the agency may hire a person who is outside of the Federal Government. Mr. President, I introduced a very similar bill in the last Congress, and I am pleased that the concept has begun to attract support. A bipartisan bill was introduced a week and a half ago in the House, a component of which is almost identical to the bill we are introducing today. The Clinton administration also endorses the concept of a mandatory placement preference system. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday my good friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, made some comments, and particularly made reference to the so-called Lautenberg refugee program. Though Senator Simpson and I agree on some things and disagree sharply on some things, there is, on balance, mutual respect and I might even say affection. So where we disagree on this issue, it is because of a perspective on the issue. However, during his presentation on the floor, he used references such as the so-called Lautenberg refugee bill. He used adjectives like derelict or deficient, that this bill was no longer of any value, and I just would like to clear the record. Current law, under our immigration code, facilitates the granting of refugee status for certain historically persecuted groups. The existing law formally recognizes the historic experiences of certain persecuted religious minorities in the Soviet Union and Indochina, and the pattern of our denial of refugee status to members of those minorities entitles them to a relaxed standard of proof in determinations about whether they are refugees. The law lowers the evidentiary standard required to qualify for refugee status for Evangelical Christians, for Jews from the Soviet Union, certain Ukrainians, and some categories of Indochinese. Once a refugee applicant proves that he or she is a member of one of these groups, he or she has to prove a credible basis for concern about the possibility of persecution. Refugee applicants normally must establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The law has had a real and positive impact on refugee adjudication for persecuted individuals. In his comments to the Senate yesterday, Senator Simpson said that there is evidence that members of the Russian mafia are using the program to enter the United States. I want to be perfectly clear that the refugee program was not intended to enable criminals to enter our country. It was not designed to facilitate entry into the United States by those not qualified under the description of refugee status. Further, Mr. President, in my former life I was in the computer business and still have a lot of contact there. I have seen many of these people who have come, under the refugee exclusion, into the design and programming phases of the computer industry, many of them entrepreneurs. I have met those who, in a very short period of time, have learned enough of the English language to practice law and become physicians. So we dare not accept one generalization that those who are using the program are principally members of the Russian mafia, that the gangsters are using this, because if they are, then it is not the fault of those who are coming. It is my understanding that under United States law an applicant should be denied refugee status if our Government knows that he is a criminal, or for some reason or other is excluded from entry into the United States. So where does the responsibility lie? It lies with the INS or the State Department. They have to do a better job in weeding those people out based on current law. The refugee program was intended to help historically persecuted religious minorities, certainly not criminals. My friend, the Senator from Wyoming, also said the program is no longer necessary because we have good relations with Russia and that the program has been abused. As a matter of fact, I was stunned when I heard the Senator from Wyoming describe Russia as our best friend. I would say that is hyperbolic at least. Russia, our best friend? We want them to be a good friend, we want them to be an ally, but certainly one cannot say that they are now our best friend and that they are behaving like a democracy as we know it. And although he describes the program as being discredited, the fact is that it has served as a useful opportunity for those who are very concerned about what is going to happen and what has taken place in terms of their relationship with Russia and the former Soviet Union countries. There is still a tremendous amount of instability in that area, and although antiSemitism is no longer officially State sponsored, its roots run deep throughout the culture and its effects are felt in incidents across Russia and many of the other former Soviet Union countries. And now we are all made abruptly aware that on this coming Sunday, when elections are going to be held in Russia, there is a strong belief that those who are most likely to win seats are members of the Communist Party, avowed reformists. But the fact is we know that if people are looking fondly back to electing Communists to Government, with it goes a standard that has been set by those people for decades in that area. And so those who have been harassed in the past, who are likely to run into problems are very worried about what the future holds. So if there are some who seek to abuse the program, as Senator Simpson claims, it is the responsibility of our Government to weed out that abuse. We do not stop collecting taxes in this country if someone abuses the Tax Code. What we do is we go after them vigorously. And the same thing is true here. Our Government should eliminate the abuse if there is any in the program. It is not a reason to say that a program that has helped legitimate refugees is discredited. Mr. President, the House version of the State authorization bill includes a 1-year extension of this program, a program that has provided a useful escape valve for historically persecuted people who come to this country and make a contribution to our society. In light of existing instability in the former Soviet Union, I believe that this program ought to be extended for another year. What it takes is our conferees in discussion to agree with the House. I hope that will take place to give this program another year to work until we see what the conditions are going to be like in Russia in particular and some of the other countries of the former Soviet Union. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is very kind. I appreciate it. I will try to wrap up quicker than that because I also want to point out that this legislation will force State and local governments to bear extra burdens. The States will lose money that they badly need to protect the environment, and to comply with Federal requirements. Grants to clean up municipal sewage and industrial waste water emissions will be over $665 million less than the President requested. The administration's request for funding of safe drinking water initiatives will be cut by $225 million. This bill also will make devastating cuts in programs that protect our citizens from the hazards of abandoned toxic waste. It would reduce funds for hazardous waste cleanups by 20 percent. No new Superfund project starts would be allowed. Under this bill, toxic waste sites will be fenced and forgotten. Cleanups are complete or underway at nearly 800 sites across this country, and the rate of site remediation has increased significantly over the last 3 years. This bill will halt this progress in its tracks, threatening the health of communities and increasing long-term cleanup costs. And surely this is not what the public wants. Mr. President, when the House of Representatives initially approved this bill, it included 18 provisions designed to reverse or gut existing environmental law. The House has voted three times on these riders, ultimately reversing itself and removing these riders. It did so in the wake of a public outcry over the hijacking of this bill by special interests intent on weakening antipollution laws. Yet, like the genie out of the bottle, some riders live on. They are back. There are eight of them in this bill, one that attempts to limit the reach of the community right-to-know law. Another reverses the language of the Clean Water Act to remove EPA's authority to protect wetlands. This wetlands amendment was the subject of a New York Times front page story on Tuesday. Mr. President, our country has made enormous progress since the environmental movement was ignited by Earth Day in 1970. It is with considerable regret that I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report, and if it is sent to the President and he vetoes it, as he said he would, I hope that we can muster enough votes to sustain his veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report accompanying the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. This legislation would cut funding at the Department of Housing and Urban Development by more than one-fifth, and is yet another clear reflection of the misguided priorities that have driven the budget process this year. Mr. President, HUD today provides housing assistance to over 4 million households, including working families, seniors, and people with disabilities. Yet this only makes a dent in the housing needs of lower income Americans. Millions of our citizens are living in substandard conditions or are paying more than half of their incomes for housing. Countless others are homeless entirely. Unfortunately, this conference report not only fails to meet these pressing needs, but it is a step backward. And its proposed cuts will have a real impact on needy Americans throughout our Nation. This legislation virtually eliminates funding for incremental housing assistance, and slashes funding for homeless programs by a quarter. As a result, hundreds of thousands of families will continue to languish on public housing waiting lists. Many will be forced to live in substandard housing or on the streets. Meanwhile, Congress is about to pull the safety net out from under them, with cuts in nutrition, health care, education and other critical programs. The cuts in this legislation also will lead to the continued deterioration of our Nation's public housing stock, by cutting the modernization budget by one-third. Mr. President, this stock represents a $90 billion investment by our taxpayers. To allow it to deteriorate further is short-sighted. It also will mean that tens-of-thousands of our citizens will continue to live in substandard housing, as major repairs and renovations are canceled due to lack of funds. The conference report also includes a nearly 50-percent cut in funding for severely distressed public housing. This will inhibit efforts to revitalize our Nation's most troubled and most dangerous public housing developments. If there is one bright spot in the conference report, Mr. President, it is the inclusion of $290 million for the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Program, which I developed several years ago. This program has had great success in reducing crime in housing developments around the Nation. And I am encouraged that we are maintaining our commitment to this initiative in this legislation. Still, Mr. President, the cuts in housing proposed in this legislation are deeply troubling. Not only because of their impact on ordinary Americans. But because they are being proposed as part of a Republican budget with seriously misplaced priorities. Mr. President, the new majority in the Congress is committed to providing huge tax breaks for millionaires, $7 billion for the Pentagon that the generals don't even want, large subsidies for western ranchers and mining companies, and various other special interest giveaways. Meanwhile, they are slashing programs that provide assistance to the most vulnerable Americans, especially those in our cities. In my view, Mr. President, this reverse Robin Hood approach is inconsistent with true American values. I am sympathetic to calls for a balanced budget, Mr. President. But the pain must be shared, not targeted at our cities and the poor. Mr. President, the median income of households receiving Federal housing assistance is $8,000. This happens to be about the same amount that the Republicans want to provide in tax breaks to those with incomes over $350,000. What does this say about our priorities, Mr. President? In the 1960's, our Government declared war on poverty. In 1995, it seems that our Government has declared war on poor people. Mr. President, the millions of Americans with severe housing needs deserve better. And it is not enough to say that we don't have the money. If we have the money to provide huge tax breaks for millionaires, if we have the money to provide $7 billion to the Pentagon that our military does not even want, if we have the money to subsidize large mining and agricultural corporations, how can we say that we lack the money to ensure that ordinary Americans have a decent place to live? So, Mr President, I cannot support this bill and will vote against it. I call on President Clinton to veto the legislation, and continue to stand firm until Congress agrees to provide adequate funding for housing programs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand, by previous order, that I have 10 minutes available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the manager whether there are a couple more minutes available.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I doubt I will use all the time but I do want to take some minutes to discuss the VA/HUD conference report and some of the problems that I have with this bill. The Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, the chairman, and the distinguished ranking member from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, deserve commendation for their hard work on this legislation. It is a complicated bill, this one, because it contains several programs that could be described as critical by virtue of the respect and support that these programs have. When you talk about the Veterans Administration you talk environmental protection, you talk about housing--these are very, very important programs; FEMA, the disaster relief agency, and NASA. So, there is a lot of review. There is a lot of support for each one of the programs and the advocates fight hard for the programs that strike them as being the most important. But it just does not do the job. It is not the fault of the chairman or the ranking member. They have done their best in a very tough situation, but they just do not have enough funding to do these important tasks. They also had to contend with demands from the House of Representatives which continues to insist on deep cuts in environmental programs and housing and other high-priority programs. In the end, with regret, I am going to strongly oppose this conference report. It would cut funding at EPA by more than 20 percent. It is an area that I have done a lot of work in. Before the last election I was chairman of the Superfund committee, working on the environment, and I worked very hard on issues of clean air and clean water and various other environmental programs. The final bill reflects what, in my view, are skewed, grossly skewed priorities. The majority has repeatedly argued that the balanced budget in some accounts, like Medicare and Medicaid, are not actually being cut. What is being cut, they say, is the rate of increase. In the case of EPA, these are real cuts that are being proposed, real decreases, real attempts to turn back the clock on environmental protection. This legislation would slash the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 21 percent. One-fifth of its budget just taken away. To me, it is very simple. The effects are dirtier air, dirtier water, fewer toxic waste sites being cleaned up. I view the quality of our environment as a critical legacy for the generations that follow us: For my children, my grandchildren. If there is one thing I can do for them that will leave them a better America it is to help clear up the environment, to permit them to breathe the air that we take for granted and not be worried about contracting some respiratory condition; or drink the water and not jeopardize their health. To be able to fish in the streams and be able to swim in the ocean without debris floating all over the place. That is the way I see our environmental requirements. So, these are deep cuts that hurt. And I also point out this legislation is just the tip of the iceberg. The Republican long-term budget plan would have a devastating impact on environmental protection over the next several years. It would destroy EPA's ability to protect our environment and the public health. It would cripple enforcement of environmental laws. The one criticism that we hear constantly: Oh, that bureaucracy, they are all over us. They are all over business and they are all over citizens and they are all over communities. The fact of the matter is that environmental laws have worked surprisingly well for us. In a period of roughly 20 years, from 1973- 1974 until now, instead of 40 percent of our streams and tributaries being fishable and swimmable, we have gone up to 60 percent. And even in places like the Hudson River, which separates New York from New Jersey, we have begun to see some salmon coming back. We see some striped bass coming up the river. I do not know whether they are ready for eating, but they are there, and the populations are growing because the water is cleaner. Given half a chance, nature fights back, and very vigorously. But it does not take a lot of neglect for nature to return to a decrepit condition. So, if you do not have enforcement to make sure that compliance is honest, then the laws that are on the books as we all know here are worthless. The long-term budget plan would destroy EPA's ability to protect our environment and public health. It would severely set back the progress I just indicated we have made in recent decades, to protect and preserve our natural resources. The bill before us cuts EPA's enforcement function so deeply that it will give polluters a holiday from complying with the law. We have seen stories in the newspapers about EPA's inability to conduct the surveys that they have to, to see whether people are complying with the rules, or with the laws. We have seen situations where Superfund programs, Superfund cleanups are going to stop dead in their tracks. Enforcement programs are targeted for a cut of 27 percent. Mr. President, EPA is the environmental cop on the beat, and we would not cut law enforcement by a quarter, thank goodness. We would not cut FBI by a quarter, thank goodness. But this bill will cut the resources provided to stop environmental crimes by 27 percent. The question raised is how many children's health will be jeopardized as a result of those pollution laws not being enforced? Mr. President, some Members of the other body seem to believe that EPA's enforcement office does nothing more than sue innocent landowners. But if these cuts are enacted, those Members are going to come in for a rude surprise because EPA's enforcement office performs many functions that are important--not only for environmental protection, but for the efficient operation of many businesses. Beyond investigating allegations of violations in carrying out inspections, enforcement funding is used to approve permits for companies to take particular actions and that cut in enforcement funding is going to cause severe dislocations in the private sector as they wait and wait for permits to take up a new product or a new location. When companies change the way they produce products, their pollution emissions often change as well. And, if so, they have to obtain a permit from EPA. Mr. President, what is going to happen when EPA's enforcement staff is cut by 27 percent? We can easily tell what is going to happen. There are going to be major delays in issuing permits. That is going to have a negative impact on many companies' balance sheets. Mr. President, if this kind of cut is enacted, it can almost be guaranteed that next year Senators will come to the floor and blame this problem on an inefficient EPA. But EPA is not going to be the culprit. The culprit will be the Congress and the resource that it supplied for these functions. To get some feel for what a 27-percent cut will mean in terms of weakened environmental enforcement, consider what happened at EPA since the recently enacted continuing resolution reduced funding temporarily by a comparable amount. No new criminal investigations were started, and some of the ongoing investigations into criminal activity were delayed because the staff from EPA could not travel to these locations. EPA stopped a major investigation into the fraudulent sale of adulterated gasoline in Texas, and will be forced to halt all mobile source inspections and investigations. EPA canceled all inspections of laboratories designed to ensure the integrity of health effects data. There is just no getting around the fact that cutting the enforcement budget will have serious negative impacts. It will mean more pollution. It will mean responsible companies that comply with the laws will be at a competitive disadvantage with their less honorable competitors. It will mean a less healthy environment for our children.