Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let us fulfill the commitment that was made not implicitly but specifically to protect the retirement benefits of today's younger Americans. Let us do the right thing. SOS: Save Social Security first. Thank you. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Madam President, I will just take a few minutes out of the distinguished Senator's time to illustrate what is being discussed here in as direct and simple terms as possible. This chart really does it. For years now, the Senator from South Carolina has been sounding the alarm. He has been the Paul Revere of Social Security for years now. He is always calling our attention to the fact that, yes, we now have enough to fund the needs of the Social Security payout program, the beneficiaries. But look out for the future, watch out, there is a train wreck coming. And he works at it all the time to make it abundantly clear. I hope the message gets through. He endorses, as we do, and as our friends on the other side of the aisle said today--and I will use the word perhaps ``admitted'' today--the best idea is to save Social Security first. Well, frankly, I was a little astounded at what I heard here. In the same breath, they said we are taking in more than we need to spend for Government, so essentially let's get rid of that which is left over. I wonder if the same proponents of that type of a policy would say to their kids, ``Listen, kids, if you have more money than you need today, spend it.'' I doubt it. Would you, if you were running a business, decide that if you had more than you needed for today's expenses, you would go ahead and spend it? I ran a big corporation before I came here. One of the things that we always tried to do was to make sure that we were putting away the funds necessary for long-term investment, for new programs, for new marketing, for new production, to make sure that we would be ready for the future to stay competitive. That is what we are saying now. We are saying, yes, yes, to tax relief for hard-working Americans. But the first thing that we committed to do is to make sure that we save Social Security. I use the term ``SOS,'' which is the international call for help--save our security, save our Social Security--SOS. The Senator from South Carolina has been the one who stood here in the face of all kinds of opposition and worked hard to make sure that the message got through. Finally, it is getting through. And now, as it gets through, we want to spend it. Here is the picture in very simple terms. In the 5 years, including 1999 to 2003, we will have a surplus that includes Social Security-- includes Social Security. I repeat, we take in on Social Security more than we spend; thus, we are able to portray a surplus--$520 billion in 5 years. Now, if we take out the Social Security surplus--that means the funds that the people pay in through their payroll taxes--we wind up with a $137 billion deficit. So we ought not to continue this sleight of hand, as I call it, which is what is helping us to create these surpluses. From 1999 to 2008, the surplus is Social Security; $1.540 trillion is created because we include the Social Security balance in there. And if we follow the policy that we have developed now, we will use those funds to project the life of Social Security off into the future--into the foreseeable future, beyond 2070. If we don't use the Social Security surplus, we wind up, in this same period of time, with $31 billion compared to $1.5 trillion. So when I hear that, yes, we want to save Social Security, oh, absolutely; we want to send the message out to those who will come of retirement age in the years ahead that it will be there for you. But it can't be there for you if we spend it now, if we go ahead and do as we have heard said and subscribe to the Republican policy of huge tax cuts, as it comes over from the House. Get rid of this surplus; get rid of it now; let everybody feel good; let everybody believe this is good business practice --while we go broke in the process and create debts that we will never be able to meet. So I hope that we will take the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina and get it passed. I like the amendment that we hear about from the Senator from New Hampshire because in it they say very clearly, save Social Security first. The language is precise: ``and return all remaining surpluses to the American taxpayer.'' So there is first and there is second. The second part of this is returning the surpluses to the American taxpayer. Everybody wants to see tax relief available to those who are working and trying to take care of their families' needs and provide education and job opportunities. But we can't do it with this kind of hocus-pocus that we are seeing here. Nobody here who understands financial balance sheets would permit this kind of thinking to overtake their judgment if they were running a business. I would not, and I know the Senator from South Carolina would not, and our colleagues on the other side would not do it, either. But when you sprinkle it with a little bit of politics in there, the tune changes, and the tune is: Spend it while you got it, baby. That is what is being said here on the floor of the Senate. I think, frankly, it is the kind of a message that the American people will see through. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note with interest that all Members on the floor now are members of the Budget Committee, which I think is particularly significant, because we are here talking about not only Social Security and our obligation to make the system solvent--to create a degree of confidence that, looking out into the future, we are going to be able to say to people, some who have already worked a dozen years: Worry not, we are here going to solve the problem of the question of solvency on the Social Security fund and it will be there for you --but we are also, at the same point, talking about the work done to get ourselves to a balanced budget point and, beyond that, to develop the surplus stream that we now see flowing very mightily. The fact is, I think the Senator from South Carolina has worked so hard for so many years on the independence and on the solvency of the Social Security trust fund that he is almost ``Mr. Social Security.'' No questions are raised about Social Security when the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, isn't there defending the system and defending the right of those who expect to have the benefits to have them there at the time they need them. We shouldn't start spending those projected surpluses that look like they are going to be in abundance until we confront our biggest long- term challenge, and that is to make sure that we have done the things necessary to solve the questions about the Social Security trust fund. We need to ensure that younger Americans can benefit from the system, just as their parents and their grandparents are benefiting today. Once we fix that Social Security system and we have really done the job, we can consider using any remaining surpluses to provide real tax relief to ordinary Americans, to put more money in the pockets of struggling middle-class families. Yes, they are enjoying this prosperity that we have, but I don't know many of them who feel like their heads are that well above water that they can provide the education their children will need to help ensure that they, too, will have a decent quality of life, one that is better than those who are working now. They need some help, and we want to do it. We have a commitment that, first, we are going to start putting that money into the Social Security system, so that in the later years they have the reliability of the pension fund, of the Social Security fund. When we have done that, then we can, again, help the middle-class families afford education, health care, and take care of our infrastructure. The point of this amendment is to say, before we start raiding projected surpluses, that we have some hard work to do. We ought to make the decisions that say to our young people, ``Your retirement is going to be there,'' to do exactly what it is that the President pledged when we saw the surplus coming, and that is, save Social Security first. Social Security isn't just another Government program, it is the most important social insurance program in our Nation. It has dramatically reduced poverty among older Americans, and it provides a critical safety net for those who suffer from disabilities or the death of a family member. Keep in mind that a majority of American workers have no pension coverage other than Social Security; that is it. Nearly a third of all seniors get 90 percent or more of their income from the program. Without Social Security, more than half of the elderly would live in poverty. It is absolutely critical that we maintain this safety net for future generations. Yet, Social Security's long-term viability is now threatened by the impending retirement of the baby boomers. Unless we act, the trust fund will become insolvent in the year 2032. Do we want to say to people who have already worked a dozen years of their life, on average, that you can start to envision life in your later years without the help that comes from Social Security? We can't let that happen. Given the importance of solving the Social Security problem, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have supported the concept of ``saving Social Security first.'' In fact, I remind my colleagues that the Senate already has approved a budget resolution that proposes to save all future budget surpluses. I didn't support that resolution because, like some other Democrats, I felt it shortchanged important priorities like education and child care and created procedural obstacles to comprehensive tobacco legislation. But I did support the resolution's fundamental approach on the use of surpluses. The budget resolution said that all new spending and all new tax breaks will be fully offset, and it was the right thing to do. My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, especially the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee who sits here now, Senator Domenici, deserve credit for a job well done. He worked hard, as we all did, to get this budget into balance and to make sure that we start on the road to developing some surpluses and protecting Social Security. Unfortunately, some Members are now suggesting that, ``OK, we have some money in the bank; it looks like it is going to be there; let's start spending the projected surpluses.'' Frankly, I think it is a peculiar irony that we see some of those who are most concerned about fiscal discipline, sound fiscal policy, are now saying, ``Hey, this is the time to start getting rid of these surpluses.'' I don't understand that when we are so deep in the hole. No one would advise a family or a business owner to do the same thing. When you have debt on your hands-- and we have plenty of it, and it was noted by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire that most of that debt belongs to the Social Security trust fund--I don't understand what it is that suddenly has impelled these folks to want to now spend the money. The weakening of the budget discipline seems to be based in part on new budget projections released only last week by CBO. They are now estimating surpluses in future years will be larger than originally anticipated. It is great news. According to the CBO, the unified surplus this year will be $63 billion, and by 2008 that figure will grow for that year to $251 billion. These figures are cause for celebration and they are cause for pride. They show that the disciplined policies we have adopted since President Clinton took office, including last year's bipartisan budget agreement, are working. Members on both sides of the aisle deserve credit for that. But CBO's new projections should not be used as an excuse to throw fiscal discipline out the window. They don't change the fact that Social Security still faces real, long-term problems. The trust fund, I repeat, will become insolvent, based on current projections, in 2032. We have to do something about that before we squander any of the projected budget surpluses. I fully support providing tax relief to ordinary working Americans. I want to strengthen at the same time our Nation's commitment to education and health care. But there isn't any reason why we can't provide tax relief or invest more in education, and we can do it today if we pay for it. What we ought not to do is start treating future surpluses as a giant piggy bank for an excuse to abandon the fiscal discipline that got us to the good condition we are in today. I also note that if Congress goes on a wild spending spree, the costs will not be limited to the long term. We could also trifle with investor confidence, and that then could create an upset in the market, about which everyone is concerned. People will be watching and saying, ``When is the downturn going to come?'' It could threaten our economy. Importantly, raiding the surplus could undermine, once again, this great opportunity that we have to secure Social Security for those in the long-, long-term future. It would be unfair to those baby boomers and other young Americans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. Let's maintain our commitment to fiscal discipline. Let's continue the long-term thinking that got us to the good position we are in today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin in introducing the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act of 1998. This legislation will build on the incredible success of the original Brady Act, which I cosponsored. Since that law went into effect in February 1994, our hard-working law enforcement officers have prevented more than 240,000 felons, domestic abusers, and mentally ill people from buying guns. In 1997 alone, 69,000 prohibited purchases were stopped. Because of the Brady Act, and the Domestic Violence Gun Ban which I authored, over 6,000 criminals convicted of domestic violence offenses were prevented from buying a gun last year. These laws are working. They are saving countless lives, helping to protect women and children, and making our streets safer. Just imagine how much more gun violence there would have been, if these gun purchases had not been stopped. And the Brady Act does more than just stop handgun purchases--it helps the police put violent criminals behind bars. Consider just a few examples: The Brady Law stopped a handgun sale in Colorado to a man who was wanted for armed robbery in the State of Washington. As a result of the Brady check, he was arrested in Colorado and extradited back to Washington. In Utah, an individual trying to purchase a handgun from a pawn dealer was arrested by the Salt Lake City Police Department on a felony warrant held by the State of Colorado for aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Incredibly, criminals continue to try to buy guns at gun stores. But thanks to the Brady Law, they do not get the deadly tools of their trade, and lives are saved. The legislation I am introducing today will build upon this success. As my colleagues know, the five-day waiting period for handgun purchases will expire in November of this year, and be replaced with a computerized background check system. While we all hope that this computerized system will work well, there are some potential problems. The Department of Justice and the FBI have done a good job centralizing most crime record, but some information, like restraining orders and mental health records, will not be available through the system. Our bill will ensure that no criminals slip through the system, by requiring that the Brady forms be sent to the chief law enforcement officer where the buyer resides. This requirement will give local police the opportunity to look through local records and determine whether the buyer is a prohibited purchaser. This legislation will also provide a 72-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. By maintaining a brief ``cooling off'' period, we can help prevent crimes of passion and suicides. When you consider that 20 percent of funds used in murders are purchased in the week before the crime, this provision will help save lives. Mr. President, these are sensible provisions that will help reduce gun violence in our nation. And make no mistake about it, there is much work to be done. In the United States, firearm violence is currently the second leading cause of injury-related death, behind automobile-related fatalities. This violence is increasing at an alarming rate. By the year 2003, firearm fatalities are projected to become the United States leading cause of injury-related death. Violence is taking a terrible toll on our children. Homicide is the third leading cause of death for youths 5 to 14 years old and the vast majority of these homicides were committed by firearms. Mr. President, our nation can do better. We can and we must stop the gun violence on our street. The Brady Waiting Period Extension Act will help us toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, have I been yielded time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Four.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Iowa and commend him for raising this issue and for presenting a way--that has been thus far deterred from becoming law--of reducing teen smoking. That is the mission here. We have already seen the leadership kill the comprehensive tobacco bill. So in the wake of the tobacco bill's death, the only existing nationwide program to reduce the teen smoking of cigarettes is an FDA rule. The FDA program needs this additional funding. We went through extensive debate. I do not know whether the Senator from Oklahoma is still on the floor, but he voted for this when we considered it before. Those who oppose this funding once again stand to say no to protecting our kids, to trying to reduce teenage smoking. They are standing directly or inadvertently with the tobacco industry. Mr. President, the FDA rule prohibits--nationwide--the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. Without sufficient enforcement money, the rule is unnecessary because it will lack the teeth to force retailers to comply. Friends of big tobacco have already blocked our attempt to pass a comprehensive effort to reduce teen smoking, and now what we will see is tobacco's influence once again prevailing here. They are going to be able to thwart our existing efforts to control teenage smoking. What is their mission? Their mission is to get 3,000 kids every day to buy a pack of butts that is going to ruin their health in not too many years. So the money that we approve today is a bargain compared to what we will be forced to spend in later years in treating smoking- related illnesses. Mr. President, this is a fairly simple issue. If we adhere to what we say is our code of conduct--and that is to reduce teen smoking--then the rest of this debate is superfluous, I must tell you. Yes, we ought to try to find a way to pay for it that is as directly connected to the FDA rule as possible. That is what we have attempted to do here. But whether or not you are supporting this amendment has little to do with the funding issue; it has to do with whether or not we really believe that stopping teen smoking is a good objective. I hope that we will see that in a vote that is soon to come, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin in introducing the Brady Waiting Period Extension Act of 1998. This legislation will build on the incredible success of the original Brady Act, which I cosponsored. Since that law went into effect in February 1994, our hard-working law enforcement officers have prevented more than 240,000 felons, domestic abusers, and mentally ill people from buying guns. In 1997 alone, 69,000 prohibited purchases were stopped. Because of the Brady Act, and the Domestic Violence Gun Ban which I authored, over 6,000 criminals convicted of domestic violence offenses were prevented from buying a gun last year. These laws are working. They are saving countless lives, helping to protect women and children, and making our streets safer. Just imagine how much more gun violence there would have been, if these gun purchases had not been stopped. And the Brady Act does more than just stop handgun purchases--it helps the police put violent criminals behind bars. Consider just a few examples: The Brady Law stopped a handgun sale in Colorado to a man who was wanted for armed robbery in the State of Washington. As a result of the Brady check, he was arrested in Colorado and extradited back to Washington. In Utah, an individual trying to purchase a handgun from a pawn dealer was arrested by the Salt Lake City Police Department on a felony warrant held by the State of Colorado for aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Incredibly, criminals continue to try to buy guns at gun stores. But thanks to the Brady Law, they do not get the deadly tools of their trade, and lives are saved. The legislation I am introducing today will build upon this success. As my colleagues know, the five-day waiting period for handgun purchases will expire in November of this year, and be replaced with a computerized background check system. While we all hope that this computerized system will work well, there are some potential problems. The Department of Justice and the FBI have done a good job centralizing most crime record, but some information, like restraining orders and mental health records, will not be available through the system. Our bill will ensure that no criminals slip through the system, by requiring that the Brady forms be sent to the chief law enforcement officer where the buyer resides. This requirement will give local police the opportunity to look through local records and determine whether the buyer is a prohibited purchaser. This legislation will also provide a 72-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. By maintaining a brief ``cooling off'' period, we can help prevent crimes of passion and suicides. When you consider that 20 percent of funds used in murders are purchased in the week before the crime, this provision will help save lives. Mr. President, these are sensible provisions that will help reduce gun violence in our nation. And make no mistake about it, there is much work to be done. In the United States, firearm violence is currently the second leading cause of injury-related death, behind automobile-related fatalities. This violence is increasing at an alarming rate. By the year 2003, firearm fatalities are projected to become the United States leading cause of injury-related death. Violence is taking a terrible toll on our children. Homicide is the third leading cause of death for youths 5 to 14 years old and the vast majority of these homicides were committed by firearms. Mr. President, our nation can do better. We can and we must stop the gun violence on our street. The Brady Waiting Period Extension Act will help us toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it has been inquired all around the country, by many people, as to whether or not the tobacco industry won its fight here in the Capitol. Did they bowl us over? Did they get the Congress to knuckle under? Are they so powerful that, over the will of the American people, the tobacco industry prevailed? And we say no. There is an amendment that has been offered by the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, that would give us a chance in the Senate to choose between the tobacco industry, the tobacco lobby, their friends, and our Nation's children. This amendment would put a real dent in a public health catastrophe that has touched nearly every American family. There are few of us who have not heard about the ravages of tobacco on a friend or relative, or seen people we know weakened from respiratory conditions caused by the use of tobacco--smoking, and how it changed the structure of their lives, how they are unable to do the things that they used to do: participate in sports, play actively with their children or their grandchildren--or how they suffered premature death. Too often, on the Senate floor, we have heard opponents of the tobacco bill parrot the propaganda of the tobacco industry. I would like to take a moment to review the real issues in this debate. The tobacco industry still lives in a privileged regulatory environment set up by its backers throughout decades. We have now learned something about what they discussed in the privacy of their boardrooms, in the privacy of their records, in the privacy of their marketing schemes, knowing full well that if they manipulated their product, if they introduced more nicotine, if they changed the advertising, that they could capture the market replacements that they needed to maintain their profits and their revenues. They knew if they tweaked their ads in a certain way, they could get young people to pick up smoking. Joe Camel became better known, it was said, than Mickey Mouse. The reason the industry targets our children and engages in other corporate misbehavior is that, aside from the courts, the industry does not face any real oversight of their actions, despite their devious actions to fool the public. The tobacco amendment that we have before us would put oversight in place. That is the primary reason that the industry's friends killed the bill last month. They killed it because they didn't want to have their market opportunities reduced. They didn't want to let the children, the young people in our society, get by, live normal lives, without their life expectancies being impaired. They didn't want to protect the families and the well-being of our citizens, because it meant cash to these folks. It meant that their market might shrink a little bit, that their stock prices might go down, that their salaries might be decreased. They didn't care about the damage they wrought--not at all. We see it in testimony, some of which was given under oath, which has some questions surrounding it. This amendment would establish unfettered FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products, so people would know what is there, so people would know that smoking can really do a job on you. I know many people have talked about the importance of FDA jurisdiction, but I want to describe what it really means. It means that the Federal Drug Administration has the capacity to enforce their anti-teen-smoking efforts. It means that they will have clear statutory authority to enact the appropriate constitutional advertising restrictions to protect children. FDA authority also means that smokers will know what chemicals and additives are put into the cigarettes they smoke. We did some research in my office on this subject and found out there are some 500 ingredients that are in a pack of cigarettes and some of these things are really toxic. We restrict their use in normal functioning in our society because we know how dangerous they are. When our constituents enter their local grocery or drug stores, cigarettes and other tobacco products are the only products meant for human consumption that do not disclose their ingredients. We ask it of food products. We are getting stricter all the time about what you have to worry about with meat and how you have to cook it and treat it. So, too, with vegetables. We see advertisements: ``Organically grown.'' But when it comes to tobacco, they put up, to use the expression, a pretty heavy smokescreen. Last year I introduced a bill to inform consumers about the ingredients and chemicals in tobacco products. Although we know that most smokers are aware that cigarettes are ``bad for you,'' I don't think the vast majority of smokers, or citizens, realize that there is arsenic and benzene and lead in the smoke they consume. These are things we prohibit. We prohibit the use of lead in paint today. We prohibit the use of benzene in products where it used to be routine. And arsenic--everybody knows that arsenic is a poison. Not only will the FDA require, under this amendment, the tobacco companies to disclose the presence of these chemicals, but it will also make sure the tobacco industry takes appropriate steps to decrease these poisons in their products. For years, the tobacco companies hid health secrets and secretly manipulated the ads as to the nature of their products. Under strong FDA jurisdiction, the tobacco industry will have to play by the rules. And, like other industries that produce drugs, they are going to be subject to the appropriate oversight to protect the consumers, to protect our citizens. It is long overdue. One thing we have to remember in the argument with the tobacco companies, the arguments that we have with them, is that this is not just another business, this is a business whose products are going to kill you if you use them, and there is no denying that. This is a business that is designed to make an addict out of you--addicts, over 45 million in America today. If this business was conducted in a less auspicious place than a boardroom of a tobacco company, and if it was a group of individuals who said, ``We have a way to weaken America and here is the plot: We can kill over 400,000 Americans every year, and no one is going to say anything to us. Further, we cannot only encourage people to use the product, but we can start with them when they are children.'' Do you know what? They will be more addicted to this product than many of them are addicted to illegal drugs. If we do this, we can cost America $100 billion in lost productivity and in health care costs; we can attack the American Nation, killing 400,000 people in a year, more than eight times the number that we lost in Vietnam in all the years of that war, a period of time when almost all America went into mourning about the loss of these young lives, these brave people; 58,000 died there--and here we lose 400,000 people a year, more than all of the wars that this country fought in this century. In one year, we kill more Americans with tobacco than those lost in combat in the 20th century. Mr. President, this amendment is going to require the tobacco products and advertisements to have large, clear warning labels that will send a strong message to kids about the real consequences of smoking. We are not just going to say ``could be dangerous to your health.'' And we are not going to permit it to be in colorful ads to make the young people feel like this is the macho image, this is the cool image that they want to portray. These warning labels will not be hidden in small type on the side of a pack of cigarettes. These labels will be prominently displayed in large type on each side of the pack of cigarettes. They will contain simple, truthful messages about the dangers of the product: Cigarettes are addictive; cigarettes cause cancer; and smoking can kill you. All true. All to the point. These new warning labels will add a strong dose of truth to the industry's deceitful billboards and other ads. They are not going to continue to see the guy on horseback roping the cattle or the champion swimmer or the champion athlete. No, those are bogus claims. We don't believe those anymore. But the problem is there has been an impression created in the minds of America that goes back decades, and smoking appeared to be cool. Every movie actor and every movie actress not too many years ago would have a cigarette hanging out of their mouth. When I was a soldier in the Army and I was in the war zone, they made sure we had in our rations little packs of cigarettes, little sleeves with three or four cigarettes, as I remember, in each of them, free, to make sure you felt good about what you were doing. At the same time, they were creating addictions that we now wrestle with in our veterans population. What we want to see is the Surgeon General's warning clear and concise, clear and perceptible, instead of the industry lies like ``Alive with Pleasure.'' We have seen that on billboards. It ought to read: ``Dying with pain,'' ``Dying too early,'' ``Unable to compete,'' ``Unable to function,'' ``Unable to take care of your family,'' ``Unable to stay with your children as they grow,'' because tobacco is dragging you down all the way. This amendment will require a truthful health warning to be printed on 20 percent of the billboard service. See it: ``Cigarettes kill''; ``Dying with pain.'' That is the message that has to be out there, not this deceitful message that says, ``You are going to feel good.'' There was a time, I remember, when they used to say doctors smoke one brand more than any other, because it had the real taste, it was good, it made you feel good. The tobacco industry and their friends don't want us to deliver this message to the public. This amendment, Mr. President, contains strong look-back provisions that were improved by an amendment approved overwhelmingly by this body 66 votes to 29. I want to explain this look-back provision. It says that if you haven't gained the objective--and that is to reduce the number of teenagers who are picking up smoking--you and your company are going to have to pay and pay substantially. It is going to put teeth in our effort to dramatically reduce teen smoking. The real experts on marketing cigarettes to children are the tobacco companies themselves. So let them work to reduce that number. They have done a masterful job, and now they have to undo it. Mr. President, we know that the most efficient and effective way to dramatically reduce teen smoking is to raise the price, and this amendment will do that. A variety of factors contribute to a teenager's decision to try that first cigarette or to chew that first bit of spit tobacco. I know, because I smoked for 25 years. I took up smoking when I was a teenager, and I sure reinforced the image when I served 3 years in the U.S. Army. But we know that once you begin--tobacco companies know--most citizens don't realize that the first cigarette or the 15th or the 20th cigarette that you smoke is the reaction that says you are going to do this for the rest of your life whether you like it or not. How many people have we ever met in our lives--I know I have met, I will say, thousands who said to me, ``Boy, I quit once for 3 months, but then something happened, and I started again.'' Or ``I tried 100 times to stop smoking, and every time I have it licked, I come back to it.'' We know that addiction is the tobacco industry's game. That is what they want to do: Get you addicted, and then the marketing is easy. Mr. President, another issue I have long been involved with is secondhand smoke. As many of my colleagues know, I, with the help of then-Congressman Durbin, now Senator Durbin, authored the legislation that prohibited smoking on airplanes. It is now 11 years ago. It was the first real dent in the tobacco industry lobbying armor, and it was the first step toward the eventual goal of an overall national standard on secondhand smoke. We know, and I see it all the time when I talk to people, if I tell them that I was the author of the smoking ban in airplanes, boy, they love it --``That is the greatest thing you have done.'' When I am searching for applause, speaking to an audience, I always tell them that and they all applause. These are people who remember how unpleasant it was to be in an airplane filled with tobacco smoke. The result is that secondhand smoke is very dangerous to the health and well-being of people. A Harvard study said that there are 50,000 fatal heart attacks a year that result from secondhand smoke--fatal heart attacks, secondhand smoke, other people's smoke. This amendment makes serious headway in protecting the public from the dangers of secondhand smoke. The tobacco industry has spent millions on propaganda and fake science reports to the contrary of the belief that breathing other people's smoke is not merely an inconvenience, it is a deadly poison. Mr. President, although the disease caused by secondhand smoke often takes years to manifest itself in most adults, that is not the case for young children. Secondhand smoke creates immediate health risks for children. Exposure to smoking increases a child's risk for respiratory illnesses and infections, impaired development of their lungs and middle-ear infections. Further, about half of all the childhood cases of asthma, chronic bronchitis and wheezing are attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke. It was really ironic when we were writing laws here that would prohibit smoking in places around the country, public buildings, et cetera, schools, places that children inhabit, and yet, smoking was allowed until very recently in the Capitol Buildings, on the Senate side absolutely. I thought to myself, how can I ask my people to work in an environment where they have to breathe someone else's secondhand smoke and know that I am doing the right thing, when smoking was allowed in the halls in other areas. It used to bother me that a pregnant woman working in my office would have to walk through the halls, and it would be like walking through a smoker's lounge. I know that she did not want to do it. And I did not want her to have to do it. So we have a chance, Mr. President, to say to the tobacco industry, ``Listen, lay off our kids. Stop it. We want you to be as concerned about this as the public health community is.'' I hope that my colleagues will support this, the Daschle amendment, to provide our children with a fighting chance against the seductions offered by the tobacco industry. Its time will come. The game isn't over. What happens when the game is delayed in sports is, there is always a penalty that gets offered. That is the same thing that is going to happen here. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Industrial Emergency Notification Act of 1998. The bill will require the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require that employers notify local emergency officials, like police and fire departments, in the event of workplace emergencies. Passage of this bill will help prevent accidents such as the explosion that took the lives of five men three years ago at Napp Technologies in Lodi, New Jersey. One mark of our progress as a society is the extent to which we can guarantee every working man and woman a safe, healthy workplace. No one should have to risk their health and safety to make a decent living. Sadly, the Napp explosion showed us how far we have to go. Among other things, the Napp explosion showed the loopholes that exist in current OSHA regulations. On the day of the explosion, after the chemical mixture started smoking, Napp management clearly knew they had a chemical emergency on their hands, yet they ordered the evacuation by word of mouth rather than by alarm, resulting in a lack of notification to the fire department. Then, still without notifying local emergency officials, which even common sense would have dictated, they sent the workers back in to their deaths. After all this, one would think OSHA would have had the basis for a strong enforcement action against Napp. Yet after the explosion, OSHA officials were unable to cite Napp for not contacting local emergency officials because there was no clear enforceable requirement to do so. Current OSHA standards on workplace emergencies and emergency response require employers to coordinate with local response authorities, leaving the final decision for notification to employers' discretion--rather than specifying clear minimum criteria for notification. The compliance directive recently released by OSHA on this standard elaborates on this requirement, but fails to close this gap. The Industrial Emergency Notification Act of 1998 will require OSHA to require that employers notify local emergency officials in the event of workplace emergencies. OSHA shall specify, as appropriate, the circumstances under which emergency notification is required, such as workplace evacuation. Also, the legislation will codify OSHA's recent compliance directive, which requires employers to develop emergency response procedures in cooperation with local emergency officials. It is both possible and important to list the circumstances under which local emergency officials should be notified, rather than leaving such notification to the discretion of a potentially harried business manager. Also it is vital that OSHA's authority include the ability to take appropriate enforcement action against negligence, after inadequate notification and the resulting workplace injuries or deaths. Finally, in addition to the importance of this legislation in improving workplace safety, to the extent that local emergency officials can help control the chemical releases associated with workplace emergencies, this legislation will provide important environmental protection benefits as well. The bill is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, the International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Industrial Emergency Notification Act of 1998. The bill will require the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to require that employers notify local emergency officials, like police and fire departments, in the event of workplace emergencies. Passage of this bill will help prevent accidents such as the explosion that took the lives of five men three years ago at Napp Technologies in Lodi, New Jersey. One mark of our progress as a society is the extent to which we can guarantee every working man and woman a safe, healthy workplace. No one should have to risk their health and safety to make a decent living. Sadly, the Napp explosion showed us how far we have to go. Among other things, the Napp explosion showed the loopholes that exist in current OSHA regulations. On the day of the explosion, after the chemical mixture started smoking, Napp management clearly knew they had a chemical emergency on their hands, yet they ordered the evacuation by word of mouth rather than by alarm, resulting in a lack of notification to the fire department. Then, still without notifying local emergency officials, which even common sense would have dictated, they sent the workers back in to their deaths. After all this, one would think OSHA would have had the basis for a strong enforcement action against Napp. Yet after the explosion, OSHA officials were unable to cite Napp for not contacting local emergency officials because there was no clear enforceable requirement to do so. Current OSHA standards on workplace emergencies and emergency response require employers to coordinate with local response authorities, leaving the final decision for notification to employers' discretion--rather than specifying clear minimum criteria for notification. The compliance directive recently released by OSHA on this standard elaborates on this requirement, but fails to close this gap. The Industrial Emergency Notification Act of 1998 will require OSHA to require that employers notify local emergency officials in the event of workplace emergencies. OSHA shall specify, as appropriate, the circumstances under which emergency notification is required, such as workplace evacuation. Also, the legislation will codify OSHA's recent compliance directive, which requires employers to develop emergency response procedures in cooperation with local emergency officials. It is both possible and important to list the circumstances under which local emergency officials should be notified, rather than leaving such notification to the discretion of a potentially harried business manager. Also it is vital that OSHA's authority include the ability to take appropriate enforcement action against negligence, after inadequate notification and the resulting workplace injuries or deaths. Finally, in addition to the importance of this legislation in improving workplace safety, to the extent that local emergency officials can help control the chemical releases associated with workplace emergencies, this legislation will provide important environmental protection benefits as well. The bill is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Organizations, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, the International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have the same time available to us on this side as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico had, which would have added about a half a minute or so.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask consent we add a minute to the----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the present situation in terms of time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In 20 seconds, Mr. President, what we have seen tonight is a charade. What they did was spread DDT here. First delay, then destroy, then terminate any action on tobacco. That is the mission. This Budget Act is not--is not--violated. Everything here is paid for. And I hope that we will vote to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object. You have 40 seconds left? No objection. You asked for a half minute, and went over.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to a good friend and exceptional leader in the business community, Gerald H. Lipkin, as he is honored with B'nai B'rith International's Corporate Achievement Award. B'nai B'rith, one of the oldest Jewish organizations in our nation, has long recognized model citizens for their contributions in the areas of business, politics, philanthropy and the arts. By conferring this prestigious award for Corporate Achievement on Gerry Lipkin, B'nai B'rith is recognizing his contributions to his community, his business savvy and generosity. Gerry, like me, came from humble beginnings, he from Passaic and I from Paterson. But we both made our way in the world of business. From a young age, Gerry knew what his passion was as he worked his way through school, earning an undergraduate degree in economics at Rutgers University as well as a master's in business administration at New York University. His business acumen is exemplified by his success at Valley National Bank, a leading financial institution with 97 branches in Northern New Jersey. Gerry began his career there in 1975 as Senior Vice President, and steadily rose to hold the joint positions of Chairman, President and CEO. Valley National has been nominated by U.S. Banker's magazine as the second most efficient bank and eighth overall best performing banking company out of America's 100 largest. Beyond his business accomplishments, Gerry's philanthropic contributions to New Jersey and to causes across the globe are widely acknowledged, as is his keen sense of humor! Gerry has been a staunch supporter of an organization close to my heart. For 15 years he has been involved with the Lautenberg Center in Jerusalem, Israel, serving as a board member and supporting its work on cancer and immunology research. I founded the Lautenberg Center at Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical Center in 1968. And twenty years later, Gerry was honored with the ``Torch of Learning Award'' in 1988 for all that he has contributed. Gerry's volunteerism does not end there. He is also a trustee of the Beth Israel Hospital in Passaic, where he has served for 21 years, and sits on the board of trustees of Daughters of Israel Geriatric Center. Gerry is on the nominating committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Foundation Board of William Paterson College, which honored him with its Legacy Award in 1994. Mr. President, Gerry and I also both share a love of trains. Gerry's are miniatures, while I have an affinity for larger ones. At this point, I think Gerry has more trains than Amtrak, so maybe I should take transportation pointers from him in the future. I couldn't be happier to extend my congratulations to Gerry, and his wife Linda, for receiving this great honor. And I want to thank B'nai B'rith for recognizing Gerry's professional success and his exemplary service to New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the May 26, 1997 thirty-second anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Guyana. To the people indigenous to the region, the word ``Guyana'' means land of many waters. But Guyana is also a land of many peoples-- Guyanese count East Indians, Africans, Chinese, Amer-Indians, and Europeans counted among their ancestors. Now there is also a growing community of Guyanese-Americans, many of whom make their home in New Jersey. My colleagues may be aware that Guyana achieved independence and observed its first free and fair election in 1992, after more than three centuries of British, French, and Dutch colonialism. Guyana's first Constitution bore the influence of British legal traditions, and former President Jimmy Carter supervised the team of international observers to guarantee the fairness of the 1992 elections. Guyana's three decades of unpopular and repressive rule slowed progress in the nation, but Guyanese are working to overcome these hurdles. I hope that they will succeed. Guyanese-Americans have much to be proud of. Their history is rich, and I hope the future of Guyana will be bright.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee for their support for the New Jersey Urban Core, and for their support for mass transit nationwide. They are true champions of investing in a sound and balanced transportation system.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Banking Committee. Mr. President, the ISTEA conference report includes language that reauthorizes a very important mass transit project in my state. The New Jersey Urban Core project provides critical links in a rail system that is the backbone of the transportation system of the Northeast and the nation. The Urban Core project links all of New Jersey's rail lines and builds new ones where necessary, to establish one comprehensive and coordinated rail transportation system within the state. Mr. President, the Conference Report makes a number of changes to the authorization of this important project. The report adds new projects as elements of the Urban Core and makes a number of critical changes. The conference report is silent on the future of full funding agreements. Do the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Banking Committee, who authored the Mass Transit title to the next surface transportation authorization bill, agree that it is important that the Secretary and the State of New Jersey enter into full funding grant agreements sometime in the next six years, for those elements of the Urban Core that can be demonstrated to be under construction by September 30, 2003? Is it your intention to urge the Secretary to work with the State of New Jersey over the next two years to sign full funding grant agreements?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would first like to thank the managers of Conference Report. Both Senators Chafee and Baucus have worked day and night trying to produce a fair and balanced Conference Report. They have done their best to try to accommodate my views. We did not always agree on every issue, but they both tried to work with me and engage in a constructive dialogue when we differed. I would also like to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Warner. He put in a substantial effort to try to create a consensus that would satisfy the need for this critical legislation. And I would like to thank Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes for their diligence and hard work on the mass transit title. Because of their commitment, this bill represents a balanced transportation bill. Mr. President, I offer some comments to indicate my specific views on how this good bill will help my State of New Jersey. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have been working on the ISTEA reauthorization bill this entire Congress. I have been fighting for increased investment in our nation's infrastructure, a balanced transportation system and critical safety programs. Overall, on balance, this is a good bill--good for the country and good for New Jersey. It includes $173 billion for highways and $41 billion for mass transit nationally over six years. As the Ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, I worked hard to increase mass transit funding by almost a third compared to the 1991 ISTEA bill. Overall, this translates to over $4 billion to New Jersey for highways and over $2 billion for mass transit over the six year life of this bill. As a result, New Jersey will receive an increase of over $1 billion in transportation funding as compared to the 1991 ISTEA bill. Mr. President, the ISTEA bill, like any bill that provides funding to the States, became a battle between regions. Western Senators argued that their needs were greatest because of the sheer miles of highways in their states. Southern Senators suggested that they had population growth and they needed increases. The so-called donor states were pushing a ``minimum allocation'' that would revise the formula that prevailed over the past six years. Mr. President, obviously, I pushed hard for increased investment in my region and my state. The Northeast states face tremendous infrastructure needs over the next six years. Since we are the oldest region in the country with the highest density and greatest volume of traffic, our infrastructure needs are great. This problem is compounded by harsh weather conditions, intense congestion and air quality. Mr. President, I didn't get everything I wanted for New Jersey. However, this bill does provide substantial increases in funding for New Jersey for highways and mass transit. It also includes funding for over 40 highway and mass transit projects for my state. I fought to keep all of the my colleagues in the House of Representatives' projects in the final bill. The Senate bill originally did not include any special projects, but I am pleased that a few of them were included in the Conference Report at my request. The first project is an emergency heliport on Cooper Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, which will speed up rapid emergency service for hospital patients in the region. I am also pleased with funding to construct a roadway network using the former Bergen Arches rail corridor going from east to west in Hudson County, New Jersey. The Bergen Arches project will provide congestion relief and will allow the demand for development of the Hudson County waterfront--the so-called ``Gold Coast''--to move at its rapid pace. Mr. President, anyone who is familiar with my work in the Senate knows that I don't relent when it comes to standing up for my constituents and my state. I feel my responsibilities to the people who sent me here as a sacred obligation and I would never agree to anything that is detrimental to our needs. Mr. President, this legislation is all about compromise. And this Conference Report is not perfect for my state, but, in the end, the substantial increases in highway and mass transit funding will reduce congestion, increase productivity, clean the air, and improve the quality of life so I will support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I hope the Senate will approve it without delay. This legislation will impose sanctions against entities--individuals, companies, and research facilities--that have provided Iran with the technology and materials required to develop ballistic missiles. Those identified as assisting Iran --or as attempting to do so at least once--will be subject to sanctions for two years. These entities will be ineligible for export licenses for arms or controlled goods and technology. Additionally, they will not be eligible to receive U.S. assistance. The President would be authorized to waive sanctions if he determines that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to do so or if additional information which demonstrates that the alleged acts were not committed by the sanctioned person is available. The need for this legislation is clear. There is growing evidence that Russian companies and research facilities continue to provide Iran with the technological assistance and the materials necessary to develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. forces in the Middle East and our stalwart ally Israel. According to public reports, with the help of Russian entities, U.S. officials estimate that Iran could deploy the medium range Shahab 3 missile within 12 to 18 months. That missile is capable of targeting Israel, other Arab countries in the Middle East, and U.S. troops in the region. According to public sources, Iran could also deploy the Shahab 4 missile within three years. That missile reportedly would be able to reach targets in Europe. The Russians are not building these missiles for the Iranians. Rather, Mr. President, they are providing the material and training necessary for the Iranians to develop an indigenous capability. Make no mistake about it. The development of these Iranian missiles will be very destabilizing in the Middle East. Mr. President, to its credit, the Administration has made the transfer of missile technology a very high priority in dealings with Russian officials, including the recent talks between Vice President Gore and former Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. Special Envoy Wisner has worked on this issue aggressively, and the State Department's Robert Galluci has been doing the same. I commend them for the attention they have focused on this very sensitive matter and the effort they have made to persuade Russia to clamp down on exporters. Clearly, some progress has been made. On January 22, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin issued an Executive Order stating the Russian government's intention to set policies that will more effectively control the exports of technology to Iran. Nonetheless, public reports indicate that the cooperation is ongoing and that the transfers continue. Because the stakes are so high, we don't have the luxury of time. And while I hope the Administration's efforts will succeed in persuading the Russians to clamp down on these technology transfers, this Senator believes time is running out. The missiles being developed by the Iranians are capable of delivering chemical weapons throughout the Middle East. They are lethal. They threaten U.S. troops. They threaten our ally Israel. And in the long run, they will threaten our European allies. America needs to use every appropriate tool in its arsenal to prevent the Iranians from developing these missiles which will threaten our interests in the region. And we need to use those tools now. Mr. President, the sanctions in this legislation provide another tool. They are appropriately targeted against the entities--the companies, individuals, and institutes--that are cooperating with the Iranians. They are not targeted at the Russian government. If used effectively, these sanctions--or the threat of these sanctions--can help the Administration in its efforts to clamp down on those entities that are cooperating with the Iranian government. For the stake of promoting stability in the Middle East, I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have to get on with the task of passing the $1.50- per-pack fee. I point out to you, Mr. President, and those who can see it, that the price of cigarettes in major industrial nations is quite a bit different than we have here in the United States: Norway, $6.82 a pack; Denmark, $5.10 a pack; United Kingdom, $4.40. Down we get to the U.S.A., with a current price of about $1.94. We know one thing, Mr. President. We have heard it in testimony and statements given by colleagues in the Chamber that the way to stop teen smoking most abruptly, to give them a jolt so that they will bolt, is to raise that price and raise it quickly and sufficiently. And $1.50 a pack will do it. With the $1.50 a pack, we can see substantial reductions in the number of those who start smoking. And I hope that when the votes are counted here, people will look and see how their Senators voted to see whether or not they are going to stay with the tobacco companies or whether they are going to stay with the families and protect the children who will be dependent upon tobacco in the future.