Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator makes a statement that if this fee was not paid, it would enable the family to spend--I think the figure used was $1,600 on food and clothing. The Senator said that earlier. And if the addict is using the money to buy cigarettes, that certainly doesn't free up any additional spending power unless the Senator sees another way to do it. I am not quite sure I understand where the Senator goes with that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the Senator like to give me a chance to show mine?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wish the Senator the same good fortune, I say to my colleague. I thank him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator before said that $1,600 a year that the person would pay in additional taxes would prevent them from having the ability to spend it on food and clothing, et cetera. But, eventually, over a period of time that would be a cost which does not exist altogether for a million teenagers, and they would, therefore, be able to exchange the money not used to buy cigarettes, if they were able to close out on the smoking addiction, to be used for other things; is that not true?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for allowing me part of the time in the remaining minutes for the debate on this amendment. Mr. President, I want to say, first, just a quick note to my colleague now in the Senate, formerly in the House, Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois, that at the time we worked on the smoking ban in airplanes, it looked like a hopeless quest. Everyone said, ``You will never get it by.'' We worked, we pleaded, we cajoled, and we tried everything that we knew. But the odds on the other side were formidable against us. And finally we were able, through consensus, to develop a bill that took a 2-hour ban on smoking in airplanes with the promise that after a study of about 18 months we would reconsider and look at what the consequences were. Well, it was overwhelmingly popular across the country. People began to demand that we stop smoking in airplanes altogether. Some said, ``How can you suggest that a 2-hour ban is all right but a 4-hour plane ride is full of smoke?'' And so it was by popular demand that we were able to get that kind of a ban in place. And I remind my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, in April, the month just closed, we had the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the smoking ban in airplanes. I can tell you, if there is one thing that gets you an applause line when you are doing a town meeting or meet in front of a group, when you say you were part of the authorship of the smoke ban in airplanes, people say thank you, thank you, thank you, and tell you tales about not being able to fly before, having respiratory problems, asthma, you name it, could not get in an airplane, and today they feel as if they have been freed. Well, it is the same thing here. This debate, frankly, I must tell you, Mr. President, borders at times on the silly. We have to make a decision here about what we are going to do about protecting the health of our people from the ills caused by tobacco and nicotine. And we have come to a conclusion, a sad conclusion, that we cannot change the course of action. I say this, and I say it with terrible regret. We cannot change the habits of some 40 million-plus Americans who are addicted to tobacco and nicotine. How they got started is a debate of and by itself, whether it was like it was with me in the Army when they used to give us in our emergency rations, in case we got separated from our units or had to depend on that for our sustenance--you always had a four-cigarette pack that you could call on in the event of an emergency when you needed a smoke. People were always waiting for the smoking lamp to go on so that they could smoke. It was encouraged. It was part of our psyche. I can tell you also, as one who smoked for 20-some years, that stopping was no easy chore. It is not easy for the 40-plus million Americans who are hooked, stuck, can't get out of the tobacco habit. I haven't yet met anyone who smokes who hasn't said to me: You know, I stopped a dozen times. I once stopped for 3 weeks. I once stopped for 4 weeks. And then my brother had the car accident. Or, my team lost on the baseball diamond and we all started smoking and sitting around and moaning--here we are, can't get away. But we can get away from it if we help our children not to start smoking in the first place, if we can stop them before they take the first puff, the second puff, or the 20th puff on a cigarette, because we know that the hook takes like that, like a fish after bait. And that is what the tobacco companies are doing. They are trolling. They are fishing with bait for more smokers. They now have a campaign on, a campaign to deceive the American people, a campaign to say that they are just another business and that all these jobs of the people who work in the tobacco industry will be lost and the taxes will be lost. And meanwhile, what they do we wouldn't accept from anybody offshore who wanted to attack our America, kill 400,000 people a year, maim lots of others, render them at times unable to conduct their normal activities, lost productivity from their jobs, et cetera, and get a tax deduction besides--besides all other things, to be able to deduct the cost of addicting people, seducing children. It is an outrage. Part of the campaign now is very interesting. I get mail, as we all do, from constituents. I have a letter here from a fellow named Jack McDonnell, Rutherford, NJ, which, by the way, is also the home of Tom Pickering, Deputy Secretary of State, a great diplomat. Mr. McDonnell writes: My family received a letter today from the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The letter was addressed to my mother, and requested that she write to you protesting the proposed tobacco legislation . . . Unfortunately, she could not respond herself. She died this February after a long and horrible struggle against emphysema. My father, another ex- smoker, has been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. My family understands the real costs involved here, and the cost of smoking far exceeds the costs of this legislation. Now, what happened is the tobacco companies--and the companies I will read off here include Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, Lorillard, Philip Morris, Inc., RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, United States Tobacco Company. They send a letter out to people and they write: Dear Mr.-- In this case, Robert Martin-- Since you registered your support for the proposed resolution reached last year between the tobacco industry and Government officials, private plaintiffs' lawyers, and members of the public health community, Washington has decided to press an agenda based on politics. Politics, not reason. Washington has been overtaken by politicians' insatiable desire to tax and spend. Not by the insatiable desire of a mother and father to save the well- being of their child, not in terms of families who want to keep the family together and do not want to see grandpa with emphysema when he gets to be an age when he could still be functioning normally. No; they describe the insatiable appetite of the politician. Well, Mr. Martin writes to me. They gave him a postcard to which he could affix a signature and send it to my office. And it says: Dear Senator Lautenberg: I strongly urge you to oppose any tobacco legislation that raises taxes, produces a black market in cigarettes, threatens nearly 2 million American jobs and expands the Federal bureaucracy. Reject these things. And it is signed with his name. He wrote underneath that postcard. He sent me a sample of the postcard. Dear Senator Lautenberg: I received this item in the mail. As you can see, I was polled over the telephone by a machine. The material given over the phone was very misleading the way that it was presented. I am against smoking and like to see it abolished. I am a lung cancer survivor. Keep up the good work. And it carries the signature of Bob Martin. He says: If there is anything that I can do to be of help, please call. And he lists his phone number. So that is the kind of campaign that is going on with these tobacco companies, designed to deceive the public that this is a major kind of public interest campaign that the citizens are rising up against. Let them tell the real story. Let them talk about the 400,000 deaths. Let them talk about the lung disease.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I could have 1 more minute, please.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for allowing time for me to make a few concluding remarks here, because I want to discuss an amendment that is one of those offered and pending. It is the Gregg-Leahy amendment. I want to express my opinion on this because I think this is a cornerstone issue in terms of this piece of legislation, the tobacco bill altogether. I simply do not believe that we should provide special legal protection to the tobacco industry. This isn't a vote about holding together a coalition, as is often described, or some other purpose other than determination as to how this country conducts itself vis-a-vis its tobacco policy. This is going to be a straight vote, up or down, about providing this industry with unprecedented legal protections. Now, I described it before as kind of a cornerstone issue, because if these special protections that are being talked about in this bill, eliminating immunity for this industry that certainly doesn't deserve immunities in my eyes, tobacco companies, if the bill stands unmodified, unamended, tobacco companies will get special legal protection for having such things as arsenic in its products. But another industry that might use arsenic in its products would not enjoy such protection. They would have to list their product, be very specific, get permission to use it, et cetera. Why in the world would we want to do that--because arsenic is a very dangerous material among the many materials, 500 items, that are included typically in a cigarette. Why, of all the industries that we have in the United States, would we want to provide special legal protection to the tobacco industry? We are talking about an industry that has continuously lied to Congress, lied to the American people, deceived them about what might happen if they picked up, started smoking cigarettes. The average person wouldn't have the foggiest idea--warnings could be dangerous to health. It doesn't say it is almost guaranteed to make you an addict. It doesn't say if you took these ingredients apart, there are many that are quite toxic. If the labels on the package said you might die if you do this, you might die early, you might die at a prime time in your life when you would like to be with your family and your friends, when you would like to be able to enjoy life, be able to do the things that you do athletically or functionally or vocationally, it doesn't say on there, hey, listen, if you start this, first of all, you will be spending thousands of dollars a year to support this habit. Having been a smoker, I am somewhat of an expert on the subject. I am not a zealot. I don't say that just because I took the cure, so to speak, that other people have to take it. But I know what it is that got me around to ceasing my smoking habit, and it was the love of a child. It was when my youngest daughter of three children, who was about 7 or 8 years old, came up to me one night when I lit a cigarette after a meal and said ``Daddy, why do you smoke?'' And I said, ``Well, I enjoy it. It is restful, makes me feel good.'' And she said--this is a child in first or second grade--and she said, ``Today we learned if you smoke you get a black box in your throat.'' She said, ``Daddy, I love you. I don't want you to have a black box in your throat.'' This is after I had been smoking some 20 years. I smoked before I went in the Army and I made sure I smoked when I was in the Army. When I was overseas during the war, I was used to trading butts with my friends. I would take a puff, they would take a puff. Smoking was part of your life--not only part of your life, it was part of your resources. It was a currency. You could trade it for some fresh fruit. You could trade it for a bottle of water--we didn't drink much bottled water in those days, but whatever you chose to have. It was currency. It was more valuable than the French franc or the Dutch guilder--places I was stationed--or the Belgium franc, or the mark, for sure. So here I smoked and this child brought me to my senses, my daughter. I tried to stop, I would say at least a dozen times. She convinced me in that little message--``I love you. I don't want you to have a black box in your throat.'' All I could think about were those beautiful big eyes looking at me the next couple of days and that was the end of my smoking. Thank goodness that child did me an enormous favor. But the industry didn't let me know that. The industry didn't let me know at the time that I might develop an illness, emphysema, some other respiratory problem, maybe a fatal heart attack that couldn't be predicted because of smoking. They never told me anything about those things. They said life is more beautiful, life is glamorous. You could be a cowboy on a horse or a great skier. I happen to be, it has nothing to do with my smoking, but the fact of the matter is that all of those things give you images that are deceitful, dishonest, and shouldn't be allowed to be out there with impunity, because if someone falls for that story, someone falls for that image, they wind up in deep, deep trouble, killing 400,000 people a year in this country. That is not a very credible industry, I must tell you. They don't tell you that. So this industry knew that its products caused cancer. They wouldn't acknowledge it. I sat at hearings galore. I was part of one hearing where we had the scientist in front of us from one of the tobacco companies, a man with incredible credentials if you looked at his curriculum vitae. He had gone to great schools and he had done wonderful things. I asked him what happened when they tested the products on humans, and he said, ``We didn't do human research.'' I almost fell off the chair. I said, ``You didn't?'' All of these studies, by then 60,000 reports on the dangers of smoking had come out. But this company, one of the biggest, said scientists representing him said, ``Oh, no, we didn't.'' I said, ``What did you do in your research?'' He said, ``We did some research on animals.'' I didn't pursue that because I am sure those animals didn't fare very well. This is an industry that deliberately targeted our children, not for a good purpose, not for better health, for worse health, to try to addict them. If it was an illegal drug, we would be after these guys and they would be thrown in jail for long, long sentences. But they targeted our kids. They went to your children and my children and said: ``Smoke and you are going to be a hero among your peers. Smoke and you will be beautiful. Smoke and you will be desirable.'' All deceit, all lies, all determined, at no matter what cost, to grab that child, get him or her smoking. They knew they could put money in the bank. They could probably take it to the bank as collateral for loans very easily, because that person, with rare exception, was hooked. That is why we have over 45 million people today who can't quit. I say they can't quit because I never met a smoker yet of any duration-- not once--and I meet people all the time, but not once have I met a smoker who didn't say they would like to quit smoking. They tried. They have gone to clinics, wore patches, and they have done this and that. But every time they stop for a while, something else comes up, some situation comes up, and they start all over again. That is what they want our kids to do. They want our children to be their marker. In all kinds of testimony given--some of it willingly and some unwillingly--by edict of the courts, especially in Minnesota, information has come out that they new bloody well they were targeting kids, and they new doggone well that they alter the nicotine content and make that addiction even firmer. They knew very well that people got cancer and they knew very well that people got sick. They didn't give a darn. They had one thing in their eyes: Cash. And they went after it, and they were willing to seduce children to do it. In many other cases, if anybody touches a hair on a child's head, they go off to jail. If they dare say something improper to a child, they get punished. These guys wanted to seduce 3,000 kids a day, a million a year, to start smoking because they knew that they made that cash register ring. This industry, that purposely pushed its product on to all American children, focused often on African Americans, or minority children, who seemed to be a little susceptible. Now they find out it is not just the minority children, it is all children that are susceptible. This industry is being investigated by the Justice Department. What kind of precedent does that set? Because what we are talking about in this bill is immunity from lawsuits for damage created by the smoking habit which they were fooled into beginning. So with all of that, and being investigated by the Justice Department, we say we want to protect them in the event of a lawsuit? We don't want to protect anybody else, like car manufacturers, food manufacturers, or house builders. Food manufacturers have to list everything. They are all subject to redress of their rights through the courts. That is the way it ought to be. But here we want to do something different. So if this is a condition, why shouldn't we give all white-collar criminals special protection? We could extend it to drug dealers as well. The Gregg-Leahy amendment will keep the legal system right side up. It will prevent Congress from rewarding the corporate outlaws who are the tobacco industry. Unless we pass this amendment, we are going to undermine the rights of Americans who have been harmed by the tobacco industry's deliberate conduct. These people are dying of lung cancer, heart disease, and they are often debilitated in wheelchairs or in hospitals. They become sick because they were nicotine addicts, which has the same pharmacological qualities as cocaine and heroin. Mr. President, these people should not have their rights abridged, and the tobacco industry should not get unprecedented legal protection. I ask my colleagues to support the Gregg-Leahy amendment. Don't let the tobacco industry get away with this, because, again, I think this talks about the value of having this legislation. If they are free of their appropriate responsibility under the law, if they are free by virtue of a limitation on immunity, they are going to have a bonanza here, and we ought not to permit it. This amendment is not a deal- breaker, but it breaks a sweetheart deal for the tobacco industry. I hope that when the votes are counted here, the American people will be watching to see what the favorite industry of this body is. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My daughter called at 8:30 saying that she had the baby at home at 5:30. Thank you very much for the kind words.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a dear friend and treasured community leader in Southern New Jersey, George Norcross II. George and I shared many experiences and values and each of us ended up in public service. We both grew up in a poor, urban environment, he in Camden, and I in Paterson. We both lost our fathers at a very young age, but continued to attend high school while beginning to work. We both served in the military during World War II, he in the Navy and I in the Army. After George returned from the war, he built a career in union organizing efforts and community service. His was a voice of strength and determination for working families in Camden County--and what a loud voice it was! He fought tooth and nail for union workers, never without a cigar in hand. But his rough exterior was complemented by his caring heart, and the effectiveness of his work with organized labor was reinforced through his numerous philanthropic activities. The Union Organization of Social Services, of which George became president in 1955, reflected his marriage of organized labor and charity work. The mission of UOSS is to deal with drug and alcohol abuse, job training, food banks, disaster relief, clothing drives and blood banks within its community. George was also active in the United Way his entire life, serving as its general chairman in 1992 and as chairman emeritus after his retirement. His involvement with this organization led to the United Way's Labor Support Committee, which raised millions of dollars for charity. As a touch negotiator, a coalition builder, and someone who always got the job done, George's unrivaled union leadership will never be forgotten. He served as president of the AFL-CIO Central Labor Union for 16 years, was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1448, and became the international representative of the International Union of Electrical Workers. George and I shared the conviction that educational opportunity is critical to a robust and stable democracy. George's dedication to providing educational opportunities to others led to his creation of the Peter J. McGuire Scholarship Program in conjunction with the American Federation of Teachers. These scholarships, presented every year at New Jersey's Labor Day celebration, benefit children of Southern New Jersey union members. And if my schedule didn't permit me to attend this annual event one year, I would get an earful from George! George's union leadership and sense of civic responsibility have benefitted countless New Jerseyans, including students able to go school on scholarship, people in need who receive help, and workers with grievances whose rights are defended. George Norcross will be dearly missed. I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to Carol, George's wife of 43 years, and his four sons, George III, John, Don and Phil. I know I will continue to cross paths and work with them on behalf of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this obviously is going to be a fairly long debate. We are going to hear about everything from tax policy to love of country to how we deal with our budgets. We are going to hear all kinds of things. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished friend and colleague from Massachusetts in proposing the $1.50 amendment, if I can call it that, that both he and I have had a longtime interest in. I want to make some comments on the entire bill before I go into the specifics of the $1.50. Senator Kennedy has been the leader in all matters of health and concern for young people, always out in the front, helping to defend what is right in our country. I have great respect for him and I am pleased to share this particular interest in reducing teen smoking. Today we begin consideration of legislation that is long overdue. It tackles one of the most important health issues of our time, because today we begin the questions to finally reform the way tobacco products are sold in this country and the way the tobacco industry operates. Getting to this point has not been an easy journey. Despite the fact that the tobacco industry has for decades engaged in shameless corporate conduct, the Congress has never acted in a comprehensive way to get this industry under control. However, we have now reached a point where the American people no longer tolerate inaction on this issue. I have been fighting to protect Americans from the dangers of smoking for over a decade in the U.S. Senate, along with the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin. We authored the first ban on smoking in airplanes in 1987. Just a few weeks ago, we celebrated the tenth anniversary of the implementation of that legislation. Frankly, I believe that ban, that opportunity for people to fly and to travel in that close space free of tobacco smoke, was a catalyst for further antitobacco activity. They saw how pleasant it was. When people rode on airplanes, they saw how nice it was to have smoke-free travel, freedom from other people's tobacco smoke. Many who suffered from allergies, or had respiratory problems, or just couldn't endure being trapped in a smoking airplane cabin finally felt free to travel by airplane in what they considered a personally safer environment. But, despite the wishes of the American people, we had a tough time getting that legislation in place. It was a long, tough battle. We argued. We negotiated. We finally settled for a 2-hour ban, with the promise that we would wait 18 months for studies to come in. But the interest of the public was so overwhelming that we didn't have to wait 18 months. It began to become a cry across the country: Please, if you are going to ban smoking in airplane flights for 2 hours, for goodness sake, if it is a 6-hour flight, give us a break. And we immediately changed what had been a 2-hour ban to a 6-hour ban and now all flights across this country and many across the ocean. But despite the wishes of the American people, the tobacco industry has been able to use its power and its influence to stop real reform of tobacco industry behavior until this week. Now, we are poised to finally act in a comprehensive way to tackle the major problems this industry has caused our Nation. First and foremost is the issue of teen tobacco use. Mr. President, newly released industry documents show how the tobacco industry specifically and deliberately targeted our kids for addiction. They knew what they were doing. They put up fancy drawings and beautiful pictures of healthy people riding horseback and playing sports. They knew what was happening. They knew very well they were creating addiction for the children. They were seducing them into picking up the smoking habit. In addition, the industry's very own documents talk about ways to further entrap young smokers into a lifetime of addiction by manipulating the quality of nicotine in these cigarettes. The documents recently revealed also contain strategies on how to spread fake science to confuse their customers about the health effects of tobacco products. Mr. President, not only did the industry commit these acts but it came before the Congress and lied about it. Now these very same companies have decided that they are going to fight back against the popular will. They are going to fight back against the Congress' final awakening to the evils of smoking and to do something about it. They have decided that they are going to take a chance and spend $50 million or more for deceit with a misleading advertising campaign to stop the Senate action this week. You have seen it on TV. You hear it on the radio. You see it in print: After all, we were willing to pay $500 million. After all, we want to be proper citizens. But the Senate and the House want to take away our right. They want to invade people's lives. It is for that very reason that we have to act now and pass strong comprehensive tobacco legislation. The Senate must prove to the American people this week that we have broken from the past; we will no longer trade the future of our children for cold, hard tobacco industry campaign cash. This is effectively our Bastille Day. The reign of the tobacco industry on Capitol Hill must end today, now. We have an opportunity to prove to the American people that big tobacco's free ride is over. Mr. President, there are going to be lots of votes for us this week to prove our good faith. The chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and the committee itself have given us a foundation to build on. I congratulate them and thank them for this and commend them for all of their hard work. But we have more heavy lifting to do, because what we see in front of us has to be amended and has to be expanded in order to do the job that we want to see done. Our Nation's leading health experts tell us that we have a way to go this week before this bill should be approved by the U.S. Senate. Names that Americans trust, like Dr. C. Everett Koop, Dr. David Kessler, tell us that this bill needs improvement. That is why it is imperative that the Senate adopt amendments that will be offered to put some more teeth into this bill. We will have votes this week on the Kennedy-Lautenberg amendment that would call for a $1.50 price increase on a pack of cigarettes to really discourage youth smoking. We will also vote on whether Congress should provide this industry with special protections on legal liability. Additionally, we will likely vote on look-back surcharges to see whether or not the companies will use all of their skills and knowledge to reduce teen smoking. And we will likely vote on preemption of local laws and on advertising restrictions. These will all be key votes, and the American people will be watching. I will not make my final decision on this legislation until I see the outcome of these votes and see what difference the amendments make in the quality and the extent of this bill. I hope, Mr. President, we can head into the Memorial Day weekend proud of what we did this week. As we remember our brave men and women who sacrificed their lives fighting for our country, I ask my colleagues to join the fight to protect our people from premature death and sickness as we would have if a foreign invader was to declare war on us and in 1 year killed more than 400,000 Americans--400,000 Americans. It is more deaths in 1 year than all of the combat deaths in all of the wars fought by Americans in the 20th century. We are looking at World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other wars fought in this century. Once again, more Americans die each and every year from tobacco-caused disease than died in combat in all of the wars that I have just mentioned. So we want to fight back against the attackers, as we should. What if we were invaded by a foreign enemy? Now is the time to respond to a call to arms. Mr. President, this $1.50 amendment will test whether or not we are serious about cutting teen smoking or whether we are going to once again appease the industry. If we are serious about cutting teen smoking, then we must raise the price of cigarettes by at least $1.50 a pack. We have to get to that level quickly, within 3 years. I want to point out on this chart what we understand. The source of this is the Department of the Treasury. It says the number of children who will be deterred from smoking based on these prices: A $1.10 increase will stop 3 million kids from picking up the smoking habit; a $1.50 increase will stop 3.75 million children from picking up the smoking habit. We know that once they start--we have seen it on the chart displayed by the Senator from Massachusetts about when people start smoking at a very young age. I know I did. It took me some 25 years to recognize what a foolish thing I was doing. I didn't recognize it until my youngest daughter said one day, ``Daddy, we learned in school today that if you smoke, you will get a black box in your throat, and I love you, and I do not want you to have a black box in your throat. Daddy, please stop smoking.'' Within 3 days I stopped smoking, after numerous attempts. The number of children whose lives will be saved by the cigarette price increases is 1 million at $1.10; $1.50, 1.25 million people--1.25 million children whose lives will be saved by responding to that pressure from the price increase. We have heard everything here today about tax increases and how we are taxing those unfortunate people of modest income. The Senator from Arizona said everybody loves their children just as much regardless of their income class. The fact is we would like, all of us, to see the cessation of smoking or the reduction of smoking among children. One of the things that happens as we discuss this $1.50-a-pack possibility is that we would then be extracting from those whose use costs us more because of their habit to pay for some of the costs that they incur. If someone wants to use their car more often, they buy more gasoline. They pay a higher price. If they want a bigger house, they pay a higher price. If they want to use more fuel to warm or cool their house, they pay a bigger price. If they use more of the health care system, they should pay a bigger price. It is an unfortunate reality, but smoking costs this country $50 billion a year in increased health costs--$50 billion a year. And we are talking about something that is considerably less of a tax, less of a cost on those companies and the individuals who pick up the smoking habit. We want to stop people from smoking. Just think about it. We heard talk about the fact that this is a tax increase on hard-working families. Well, hard-working families ought to be interested in the money that they save. Imagine if we stopped people from smoking. Here we say a million and a quarter people. It will cost them over $2,000 a year, or they will save $2,000 a year as a result of dropping the smoking habit. Two packs of cigarettes a day, estimated at the lowest, perhaps $4 a pack, if the $1.50 increase goes into effect. But let's say it is $3 a pack. Three dollars a pack, twice a day; $6 times 7, $42 a week, times 52 weeks a year; over $2,000 a year that poor, hard- working families could very well use to buy other things they need far more than cigarettes. Smoking among children and teens has reached epidemic proportions. Three thousand children begin smoking each and every day, and a third of them, 1,000, will die prematurely as a result of the smoking habit. Every year we lose over 400,000 Americans to tobacco-related illness and over 90 percent of them started as kids. The managers' amendment claims to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes $1.10 in 5 years, but the public health community tells us that $1.10 just won't do the job. The goal we have set in Congress is to cut teen smoking in half, and if you examine the $1.10 proposal, it is clear that it doesn't cut it. Independent economists tell us that a $1.10 increase will only result in a 33-percent reduction in teen smoking over 5 years. Hallelujah, I would love to see that happen--even that. But on the other hand, these same economists say a $1.50 price increase will result in the 50-percent reduction target in 5 years. What an accomplishment that would be. Imagine that in a few years when those kids who would have started smoking are not smoking. More than 200,000 Americans who would have otherwise died would be alive. Families would not be grief stricken at the loss of someone they care about because of the smoking habit, or watch someone who was a good athlete unable to function, unable to run, unable to breathe without lots of labor because we were in this early stage able to stop teen smoking. The reason we are not focused on adults so much in this as teen smoking is because it doesn't have the same impact on adult smokers. We have over 40 million people who are addicted to tobacco. I never met anybody who is a smoker who will not tell me about the number of times they stopped and how long. They remember those as key moments in their life: I once stopped for 2 weeks, for 2 solid weeks I didn't have a cigarette. What do you think? And then I was watching the ball game or my friend Charlie at the office had a problem and got sick and I started smoking again. And I will be darned; I just haven't been able to stop. But one of these days I am going to do it, I promise you that. I wish I could. Talk to people who stand outside buildings all over America who are prohibited by the rules from smoking in the building and you see them puffing away. I was one. I don't make fun of them, I promise you that. See them standing out there in the cold weather freezing to finally get that puff on the cigarette. The other day I took the train from Philadelphia to Newark, and I watched a fellow get off the train, light up quickly on the platform, take two or three drags on the cigarette and chuck it and get back in the train. He is not happy with his habit. He may have been happy to have a puff on that cigarette, but I assure you, when that man thinks about what he is doing, he is not happy that he is an addict. No addict, whether illegal drugs or tobacco, is happy with the condition, but they are committed to it. And so our mission is to stop them before they start, because it is unrealistic to say stop after they have been doing it for a long time. You can never get to it. So what we will do is make an investment now that will start to pay off 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, when we will see our costs for health care and our costs for lost productivity will diminish considerably, and maybe even end, and we will be looking at a Nation that is considerably healthier. Why should the Senate stand for half measures? Public health organizations and Drs. Koop and Kessler agree that the price of tobacco products must be increased by at least $1.50 in 3 years, and be continuously indexed, by the way, for inflation. Otherwise, we will fall short of meeting our goals of cutting teen smoking in half. A variety of factors contribute to a teenager's decision to try that first cigarette or chew that first bit of spit tobacco, as we call it. But the price of tobacco is a critical factor. The higher the price, the less likely the child will be to continue to use tobacco. Again, the U.S. Department of the Treasury says it--the number of children who will be deterred from smoking if we adjust the prices, according to this chart. I would also like to ask my colleagues not to be fooled by the industry's deceptions that this price increase will bankrupt them. I remind my colleagues that these are the same folks who testified before Congress under oath that nicotine is not addictive. The tobacco industry made $7.2 billion in profit in 1997. And according to an MIT analysis, a $1.50 price increase would not bankrupt the industry by any stretch of the truth or imagination. In fact, the MIT analysis shows an industry profit of $5.2 billion with a $1.50 price increase. And further, the industry claims that this price increase will create a black market. Well, this black market looks like a red herring to me, I must tell you. We can pass tough antismuggling laws that will prevent a black market. It doesn't, unfortunately, hurt the tobacco companies if their product is sold in a black market. I want everybody to keep that in mind. If company X sells its products and it gets by without the $1.50 user fee imposed on it, they still get the same profit back in Winston Salem, NC, or wherever they are based. So that black market, so to speak, is not something that, frankly, I see making the tobacco companies very unhappy. In fact, the managers' amendment includes antismuggling language that I coauthored. This language is tough. It will go a long way towards cracking down on smuggling--the same way we have cracked down on alcohol smuggling in recent years. This $1.50 proposal has bipartisan support. I offered it as a sense of the Senate in the Budget Committee, and it passed overwhelmingly. It passed in the Budget Committee. A similar proposal passed with a bipartisan vote last week in the Finance Committee. There is a bipartisan Hansen-Meehan bill in the House that also increased the price by $1.50 over 3 years. Mr. President, this amendment has bipartisan support because the American people strongly support it. A recent poll by the American Cancer Society showed that 59 percent of the American people support a $1.50 price increase--people who are going to be affected by it. I think it is time for the full Senate to pass a $1.50 price increase and protect our children once and for all. We are going to see it in the voting. That voting is a public document that everyone can see, a public action that everyone can see. I am going to close in just a couple of minutes here. I listened to the debate. I listened to the cries that this is just another scheme, a scheme to tax the public so those of us who are responsible for legislation and operation of Government can spend the money. That is the biggest hoax in the world. Nobody, this Senator or any other Senator, on the right, on the left, in the Republican Party or the Democrats, enjoys spending the public's money. That is pure baloney, as we say in polite circles. We don't like taxing anybody. But people who smoke cause this society to spend $100 billion a year as a result of their smoking. We have the unfortunate experience of seeing a loved one die, or with a tracheotomy, as we saw last week at a hearing here. We heard a woman who was induced to represent a tobacco company as a model when she was 17 years old, and she said her employer said unless you smoke also, actually smoke, you don't quite have the real action that shows the satisfaction a smoker gets. And now she smokes through a tracheotomy in her throat. She was barely able to utter the sounds. It was pathetic, Mr. President, to see that happen. I also had the benefit of a hearing where we had a famous male model for one of the tobacco companies who said he is dying. He said he was so ashamed of himself, when he went into the doctors office, went in for surgery, and the doctor said to him, ``For goodness sake, don't smoke for a couple of weeks before you get to the hospital, whatever you do,'' and his doctor caught him smoking in the waiting room, waiting to be admitted to the hospital so he could have a lung taken out. That is how addicting tobacco is. We ought not feel sorry for the people who run the tobacco companies. They ought to be ashamed. They ought to pay the price. It is time for them to come clean with the American public and say, ``OK, we have done it wrong. We have made a mistake. We want to cooperate.'' Instead, they are mounting all kinds of spurious campaigns to try to deceive the public that the Senate, that the Congress, is trying to hurt them or hurt their families. It is not true. We ought not let them get away with it. So when I hear the stories, oh, we are going to just tax the American public, and a recitation of when these tax increases go through--I would like to recite just a few numbers in response. There has never been a time in the history of this country when the economy is better than it is these very days, and it is better because we took some specific actions. It is better because we had a balanced budget on our agenda, and we approved one last year. I am a member of the Budget Committee and we saw it happen. We decided we were going to control our expenses. And the economy is booming. Look at the stock market. Look at interest rates--low; stock market, high. Interest rates, low; mortgage rates, low; home ownership high--we have not ever seen that kind of affluence in this society. Everybody is not participating. I am not saying that at all. But to suggest that we have done things wrong in this country, in the management of this economy, and that what we have done is just picked people's pockets and taken the money and thrown it away is nonsense and the public will see through it. They are not going to believe that stuff. They have heard it before. They have seen it before. They know their children have a chance at a good job, they have a chance to get an education, that health care for their grandparents is going to be more assured, Social Security has moved up in its solvency-- 2032 is the prospect. It is incredible. People can feel a lot better about their lives. And longevity? Mr. President, I hate to admit how old I am, but I can tell you if you want to run or jog or go skiing or do all the other things, I am there, because there is an opportunity in this country to have a full life as one ages. I was a soldier in World War II. I served 3 years in the Army. I count my blessings every day for the good health I have seen and the five--and sixth grandchild, maybe today or maybe tomorrow that child will arrive. I can't wait for my daughter to say, ``Hey, Dad, we have a new one in the family.'' I can assure you that child will never smoke if the parents or the grandparents have anything to say about it. We want our children to be healthy. That is the purpose of this. It is to bring health to the younger part of our society so that, as they age they, too, can enjoy their grandchildren, enjoy their life, be in good health, do whatever they want to do--run, dance, whatever, and feel good about the life they have led. That is the kind of America we have today. That is the kind of America that developed because it had leadership and a willingness to pay the price with some tough votes, some which I didn't make that I wish I had. So I want to see us pass this to tell the American people we are finished fooling around. We mean it when we say we want to stop teen smoking. We mean it when we say we are going to eliminate this scourge from our society. And we mean it when we stand up here and we vote and we say: OK, let the public see how we are doing it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel. As we do so, we also remember the tragedy of the Holocaust and the events that culminated in the creation of a Jewish homeland. I rise today to submit a measure to honor an individual who stands in the highest esteem of the citizens of Israel, and throughout the world. I am pleased to be joined by the senior senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in submitting this measure calling on the Postal Service to issue a stamp commemorating the life of Oskar Schindler. Millions of people around the world know the story of Oskar Schindler, whose heroism was brought to light by the author Thomas Keneally and the film maker Steven Spielberg. During the Nazi occupation of Poland, Oskar Schindler demonstrated that one person truly could make a difference. He saved the lives of over 1,200 Jewish men, women, and children, while risking his own life and that of his wife. Mr. Schindler also rescued approximately 100 Jewish men and women from the Golezow concentration camp, who were trapped in a sealed and freezing railroad car. Two of the individuals whose lives were saved by Oskar Schindler are residents of New Jersey. Before the war, Abraham Zuckerman lived in Krakow, Poland. In 1942, he was sent to the Plaszow concentration camp where he faced unspeakable horrors and certain death. While he waited out his days toiling in a coal yard, one day, to his great fortune, Mr. Zuckerman was told that he was one of the fortunate individuals whose name appeared on ``Schindler's List.'' Mr. Zuckerman was relatively safe for a little more than a year, but when Schindler's factory in Krakow was liquidated, he was sent to a concentration camp at Mauthausen and later Gusen II, where he was finally liberated. Meanwhile, Mr. Zuckerman's close friend Murray Pantirer was sent to another concentration camp, Gross-Rosen, after Plaszow was shut down. On his third day there, he was chosen as one of 900 workers for Schindler's new factory in Brinnlitz, Czechoslovakia. Both men later emigrated to the United States. They have lived in New Jersey since shortly after the war where they started a home building business. To honor Mr. Schindler, these men are responsible for over 20 Schindler Courts, Terraces and Plazas all over the Garden State. Mr. President, we recognize that Mr. Schindler was a human being, not infallible like many heroes. But his bravery has truly made him stand out and worthy of honor. There is nothing I can say that could describe him any better than in the words of Mr. Zuckerman. ``I am one of the Survivors and I owe my life to the courage and strength of this great man. He was not a diplomat or a politician, he was a very good manipulator. He had the courage and the knowledge to save over 1200 Jews from death. He managed somehow to fool the Germans into thinking he was on their side when all along he was going behind their backs to save the Jews. His life was always in danger but still he persisted to do what he knew to be the right thing, he saved the Jews anyway he could. He bartered, he lied, he used his own money, he did everything humanly possible to save us. He was very unselfish as his life could have ended at any time but still he did all he could to save the Jews.'' Mr. President, Senator Specter and I are submitting this resolution today to call on the Postal Service to issue a stamp commemorating the life of Oskar Schindler. Such a stamp would bring the story to millions of people. It would help us all understand that one individual can make a difference in the lives of others. We understand that we face somewhat of an uphill battle as Mr. Schindler is not a citizen of the United States. The Postal Service tells me that its policy is to issue stamps that depict American subjects. But we say in response that Mr. Schindler's life was largely devoted to the pursuit of freedom, to opposing tyranny, and to humanitarianism. These qualities certainly represent the American ideal and we believe that Mr. Schindler deserves the honor that the Postal Service has bestowed on other individuals who stood for these ideals. I am pleased to sponsor this important measure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine. Senator DeWine has experience as a prosecutor. He has seen what happens when alcohol and driving try to mix. The result is terrible tragedy so often. His work here, together with mine, has enabled us to assemble a bipartisan group to support our effort to reduce the blood alcohol content to .08 at which point someone can be declared driving while impaired. Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Nation's most deadly drunk driving crash. On the night of May 14, 1988, a bus packed with sleeping children was driving south on Interstate 71 to the First Assembly of God Church in Radcliff, KY. Thirty-five girls, twenty-eight boys, and four adults were returning from a day at the King's Island amusement park near Cincinnati. According to newspaper accounts, the group said a short prayer before they began their return trip. I quote him. He said, ``Please grant us a safe trip. May God have his hand on this bus.'' That is what he prayed. But prayers were not enough that day. At 10:55 p.m., as the bus neared the northern Kentucky town of Carrollton, the driver of the bus spotted a pickup truck barreling north in his southbound lane. Moments later a collision and the bus burst into flames. Twenty-four children and 3 adults were killed in that devastating schoolbus crash, and 30 more were injured. The lives of so many families and friends were destroyed. The current president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Karolyn Nunnallee, lost her daughter Patty in that terrible crash. She was on television this morning trying to explain the impact of losing that child. This day across the Nation thousands of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters will join in a moment of silence to honor those thousands of victims who die on our highways each year at the hands of drunk drivers. We will honor Patty and the others who died that night and those who were injured during this moment of silence. Sadly, the death toll visited upon us by drunk driving mounts up each year with an appalling clock-like efficiency. Every 30 minutes a family loses a loved one to a drunk driver. That means in the decade since the Carrollton crash 175,000 people have died. That is almost twice the population of the capital of my home State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ. These deaths need not have happened. If we also take into consideration that each of these victims had family and friends, we are talking about more than--more than--a million people grief stricken, which is more people than who live in Washington, DC. And this grieving should never have occurred. Drunk driving also takes an enormous economic toll, as well, on our Nation. Alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion each year. One alcohol-related fatality is estimated to cost society about $950,000; and an injury averages about $20,000 in emergency and acute health care costs, long-term care and rehabilitation, police and court services, insurance, lost productivity, and social services. Just look at this toll of needless death, needless grief, and needless spending. These facts should move us to rage. And our rage should move us to action. Mr. President, we can act. Right now, the House-Senate conference committee is meeting to resolve the competing ISTEA reauthorization bills. I sit on that conference committee. As part of this process, the Congress is going to make one decision--will we get tougher on drunk driving and enact laws that will save lives or will we fall prey to the liquor and restaurant lobbyists? Mr. President, this body has spoken about this issue. Two months ago, the Senate passed an amendment to prohibit open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles. It adopted a tough program to combat repeat offenders of drinking and driving. And by a 2 to 1 margin, the Senate voted to set a strict national drunk driving standard at .08 blood alcohol content. The Senate voted 62 to 32 for this life-saving measure. The House was not even able to vote on this issue. They were prevented from it. We can ask the question, Why? But we must carry the will of the Senate--of the people--through to completion. We want ``.08 in '98.'' We are now at the crossroads, and it is time to decide. The question comes up, Why? Why aren't the House Members permitted to vote on this issue? Well, it stops at a committee over there. The process is different than it is over here, and they do not even have to let a piece of legislation come up on the floor. And why? Why would they say no to a vote on this issue when parents lose children and children lose parents across this country in numbers that compare to our worst year in Vietnam? In full combat we lost about 17,000 of our soldiers. In our country every year we lose more than 17,000 people to drunk driving, and it does not have the same impact on our society. So we have to say, Why is it that it does not? If after coming so close we fail to enact .08 this year, the American people should charge this Congress with something I will call ``VUI,'' voting under the influence of the liquor lobby. That is where it stops. They say, ``You're going to kill our business,'' that ``You're going to arrest social drinkers.'' No, no, no. We are not saying anybody can't drink. They can drink as much as they want. They can fall off the bar stools, as long as they don't fall on me or my kids. The issue is whether, after having had a blood alcohol content level of .08, they ought to get behind a wheel. And we say no. I think the Senator from Ohio made it very clear. He said if he watched someone at a party or someone at a dinner, or something like that, have four drinks in an hour--a man my size would have five--on an empty stomach, to have your child get in the back seat of a car with that driver, I would say never, never. That is what we want to say across this country. Because every family is entitled to that kind of safety and security. In 1984, President Reagan signed a bill that I wrote over here to make the national drinking age 21 and eliminate blood borders. Those are the borders between States with different drinking ages. Since then, more than 10,000 lives have been saved, enough to fill a small town. That is 10,000 families that did not have to mourn or grieve the loss of a child or a parent or a brother or a sister--10,000 people. That is a lot of people. Now we have a different kind of blood border--the blood alcohol border. Right now a driver legally drunk in one of 16 .08 States merely has to drive over the border and--poof--he is legally sober again. We know that is wrong. And we know once you are over .08 you are too drunk to drive in any State. Consider this: Someone, again, of my height having had four glasses of wine in an hour--five glasses of wine; again, I am a little heavier than the average; five glasses of wine in an hour --on an empty stomach. That is too much. We are not saying, again, that people cannot drink. We are saying they cannot drink and drive. Think about the 6,000 families who will be spared the devastating loss of a loved one to a drunk driver over the course of a decade if we pass .08. Think of what it means. Thousands of parents now destined to lose a child will be able to read their little ones to sleep instead of looking at an empty bed; children now destined to lose a parent will wake up in a full and loving home. One year ago, Randy Frazier called the Congress to action. Randy's daughter, Ashley--people from Maryland--was killed by a .08 drunk driver. Randy said, ``It is time for the leadership and action here in Congress to draw a safer, saner, and more sensible line against impaired driving at .08. If we truly believe in family values, then .08 ought to become the law of the land. Four beers in an hour''--four glasses of wine in an hour, on an empty stomach--``and getting behind the wheel of a car, in our estimation, is one definition of family violence.'' Mr. President, it is decision time. The question is whether we are going to vote with our conscience. Are we going to vote under ``VUI,'' voting under the influence of the alcohol lobby? They poured people into this town. The Restaurant Association had 130 as reported by a newspaper, 130 lobbyists come in. They swarmed all over the House, and they got people to change their minds. Then they got people, as I said earlier, to be able to hold that bill from getting consideration. That is not the way law ought to be decided when it comes to American families. And we hope we are going to stand up to our responsibility as we pause to honor the victims of drunk driving. Let us be moved to action. We must enact tough drunk driving laws this year. It has to be ``.08 in '98.'' I yield the floor. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to extend my congratulations to Deborah Miller on her 14 years of outstanding service to the Solomon Schecter Day School of Raritan Valley in East Brunswick, NJ, where she currently serves as Director. Deborah has decided to leave the school to pursue her own education, and I want to wish her continued success in her future endeavors. While I'm sure that everyone at Solomon Schecter is saddened by Deborah's departure, her eagerness to earn a Ph.D. in Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary is a fitting next step in Deborah's already distinguished academic career. After finishing her undergraduate work at Barnard College, Deborah went on to earn a Masters in Jewish Education and a Day School Principals Certificate from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Deborah has been a devoted educator and administrator during her many years teaching. Since her arrival at Solomon Schecter Day School 14 years ago, Deborah has done everything to develop the school and make it a complete success. While Deborah has served as Director, the school has been nationally recognized for its excellence in education. It is particularly well known for its integration of Jewish and General Studies curricula and its ``immersion'' Jewish Studies courses in Hebrew. The school has also grown in size during Deborah's tenure. It originally taught students in pre-kindergarten through 6th grade. Now the school teaches 7th and 8th graders as well. When Deborah started, there were 180 students enrolled. Now there are 315. As if Deborah didn't have enough to keep her busy, her extracurricular activities are equally impressive. Outside of Solomon Schecter, Deborah teaches Jewish Studies to adults in neighboring educational facilities and synagogues. She also happens to be a well- known author of children's fiction. She currently has written five books for children about Judaism. Her style is clever and fun-loving, and her books are enjoyed by all ages as a result. Deborah's departure from Solomon Schecter Day School may be bittersweet, but she has a great deal to look forward to as she continues to learn about Jewish literature, history and the Torah. The lucky ones are not only those who have known her at Solomon Schecter, but those students who will have the privilege of being in Deborah's classroom when she returns to teaching full time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr President, I rise today to congratulate the students of East Brunswick High School, national champions of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution. This program, administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the Department of Education, is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Competing against 50 classes, the East Brunswick High School students demonstrated their superior knowledge of the Constitution in three days of simulated Congressional hearings in which students were required to apply constitutional principles and historical facts to contemporary situations. These young scholars worked diligently to reach and win the national finals by winning local competitions in my home state of New Jersey. I am proud to recognize the distinguished members of the class representing New Jersey: Mian Amy, Michael Carr, Daniel Cohen, Michael Cohen, Stacie Dubin, Andrea Feit, Naomi Finkelstein, Christian Forsythe, Hillary Gallanter, Gina Gancheva, Heather Gershen, Brett Gursky, Denise Heitzenroder, Rachel Katz, Terry Lin, Jonathan Meer, George Mossad, Amanda Rosen, Joel Pruce, Niyati Shah, Naseer Siddique, Michael Sturm, Robert Thompson, Howard Wachtel, Ari Waldman, Jamie Yonks, Joanna Young. I would also like to recognize their teacher, John Calimano, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class. The district coordinator, Robert Strangia, and the state coordinator, Evelyn Taraszkiewicz also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the class win the national finals. I commend these constitutional experts for their great achievement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor and didn't relinquish it. But I understood in the earlier request the Senator from Pennsylvania made that people would be permitted to speak for 10 minutes in morning business. The yielding of time to other Senators, I would assume, has to come off of that 10 minutes, if we are to follow the unanimous consent agreement as laid out.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first just a brief commentary, if I might, to say that Senator Roth and Senator Kerrey did the country a wonderful service by the reform measure that was put through to try to assure the public that Congress listens, the Government listens, that people should be treated fairly at all times; that there is no excuse for rudeness and inappropriate pressure on those people who pay their taxes. They are the constituents and we are here to serve them. I commend both Senators, the managers on both sides, Senators Roth and Kerrey, for a job well done.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a matter that is triggered by something I read in the newspaper this morning. I saw it in the Washington Post and I saw it in the New York Times, a statement that House Speaker Gingrich made when he held a press conference in which he criticized the Clinton administration's handling of the peace process. Now, he, like any one of us in the Congress, has a right to disagree with the administration on policy, but I think it is dangerous, destructive, certainly demagogic, to say that ``America's strong-arm tactics would send a clear signal to the supporters of terrorism that their murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel.'' That is an outrageous statement to make because it accuses President Clinton. Further in his statement, and I quote him here: Now it's become the Clinton administration and Arafat against Israel, Gingrich said at a Capitol news conference. He also released a letter he sent to President Clinton saying that ``Israel must be able to decide her own security needs and set her own conditions for negotiations without facing coercion from the United States.'' As Israel celebrates its 50th anniversary, Speaker Gingrich said the Clinton administration says, ``Happy birthday. Let us blackmail you on behalf of Arafat.'' In his letter he gave the quote that I just read about America's strong-arm tactics, sending ``a clear message that terrorism was an acceptable tool in forcing concessions from Israel.'' Mr. President, I know Israel very well. I had the good fortune over a 3-year period to serve as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal. That is the fundraising arm that helps local institutions within the Jewish community, as well as Israel. This was over 20 years ago when Israel was getting on its feet. I know lots of people there. I know many people who have lost a son, lost a daughter. I know many people who visit in the hospitals regularly where their children or their friends or their loved ones are in a condition that keeps them hospitalized because of wounds they received during the wars. I was able to visit Israel within a couple of days after the 1973 war was concluded while they were still searching for bodies on both sides, Egypt and Israel, in the Sinai desert, and I talked to people who regret so much that they are forced at times to inflict pain on their neighbors to protect themselves. The Israelis have lost some 20,000 soldiers in wars since that country was founded--50 years. That is a short period of time. In the whole of the 20th century, the United States will have lost less than 400,000 soldiers in combat. I was in Europe during the war. I served in the Army in World War II. Mr. President, 20,000 Israelis is the equivalent of 1 million soldiers, 1 million fighters lost in the United States on a comparative basis--1 million. Could you imagine the heartbreak in this country that would exist if we lost a million soldiers in a period of 50 years? It would tear us apart. Mr. President, I make this point. I served here under President Reagan, I served here under President Bush, and I knew President Carter very well because I had tried to help them at times when I was running a company in the computer business. They have been good friends to Israel because Israel and the United States have many common interests--the strength of a democracy, the ability to withstand adversity and come up providing freedom at all times for their citizens. But there has never been a better friend in the White House among the four Presidents I just mentioned than President Clinton. President Clinton has approached Israel from the mind as well as the heart. He understands what the relationship of Israel to the civilized world, to the democratic world, means. And he insists that they be permitted to negotiate on their own. But as the President and the administration and the State Department tried to permit the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate their own terms, we were called back; we were called in to act as a go- between. I don't even want to use the term ``as a negotiator'' because it is up to the parties to negotiate. But we have been called on to try to facilitate the negotiations. And that has been the mission. And so, Mr. President, I think it is outrageous that President Clinton, that this administration be declared as someone alongside terrorists, encouraging Arafat, encouraging those who would destroy Israelis. It is an outrage, it is demagoguery at its worst, and I don't think that kind of debate ought to be used, whether it is to gain votes or whatever else one can gain from those kinds of statements. It doesn't further the cause of peace, and it doesn't help our friendship with any of the countries in the area. It is the wrong way to go. Mr. President, I believe--and I know that people in Israel believe-- they have to have peace because it is unlike some other parts of the world where the absence of peace doesn't necessarily mean violence or war. There are tense relations in many parts of the world with one country alongside the other where there is no killing between them. It doesn't mean that there is affection. It doesn't mean that there is necessarily diplomatic or economic pursuits between these places. But in that area, I think most people are convinced that if it is not peace, it is violence, it is war. That is a condition that every one of us wants to see avoided. And so I hope we can take some comfort in the fact that we, the United States, are trying to be helpful to all parties there. We have worked very hard to make sure that Israel has the ability to call upon us when she needs a friend in world forums. We are friendly and supportive of Egypt and Jordan and even attempt to try to get the Palestinian Authority to renounce parts of their covenant that says they want to destroy Israel. Yes, we don't like that. But to suggest, on the other hand, that President Clinton is someone who wants to send Israel a threatening message that comes from the terrorist side of the equation is unfair and, again I say, outrageous. So I hope the Israelis and the Palestinians will be able to pursue a peaceful discourse. No one--no one--knows what Israel needs by way of its security better than the people of Israel. They have to make that decision. It is not going to be made in Washington, it is going to be made in Jerusalem. It is going to be made between the parties, and we have to let them do that, but recognize that they want us to play a role. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while Senator Byrd is here, I would like to take this opportunity to make just a few remarks, daring to venture into the lion's den because of the eloquence that Senator Byrd brings to his thought and to his speech. I have been a long-time admirer of Senator Byrd. I have been here 16 years. As I looked around the room, I noted that there were only six others who had been here as long as I have, which gives me a relative senior status, although the Chamber wasn't filled, and I regret that it wasn't because I know that everybody responds the same way as I do when Senator Byrd speaks. You always learn something of quite an incredible nature, and we are always in awe of his intellect and his memory. I will never forget my earliest days here when I went in to visit Senator Byrd because I was anxious to serve on the Appropriations Committee. And Senator Byrd gave me a treatise on English kings, reaching back, I think, somewhere before William the Conqueror. I am not going to try to duplicate anything that Senator Byrd said by way of recall, but I remember that that was in the 1000s, I guess. And I listened while Senator Byrd talked about Ethelberht and all of those, and how each one succeeded the other and how each one died and how long each one served. I walked out shaking my head, and I said, ``What is there about this man that enables him to remember so much for such a long period of time?'' Senator Byrd cast his 15,000th vote this day, and he is our Babe Ruth, there is no doubt about that, having accomplished things that none other before him ever accomplished. But it is not just the votes. As the Senator said, it is the quality; it is the kind of votes that we are casting. I asked Senator Byrd before he stood up to make his remarks did he have any regrets. And he repeated publicly what he said to me privately--there were a few. But I think he probably remembers darned near every vote that he has cast. He certainly remembers those that were of major magnitude. There are a few of us in this room, Senator Byrd, who are not going to cast 15,000 votes. I would like to do it, but I may have to do it from some place on high. Not only do we treasure Senator Byrd's presence here, but for me one of the great honors of having served in this body, and I consider it a tremendous honor; I come from immigrant parents. They came early in the century as little children, but their aspirations were limited, never suspecting, though always believing that it could happen to their son, that I would have the distinction of serving in this body. Senator Byrd reminds us that only 1,840-some have ever served here since the founding of this country. And when I opened my desk top, I saw that one of the names in there was Truman, Missouri, and wherever I moved, Senator Byrd, I have always taken that desk with me. So there is so much honor and so much grace that falls our way, but one of the great honors for me has been to serve with you, Senator Byrd, master of all about the Senate. I don't think anyone ever loved the body with the same depth of interest, not just affection, as Senator Byrd has shown us in his years here. It is always an uplifting experience to listen to Senator Byrd talk about the Senate and to bring us to our dignity by asking us once in a while to sit down and cast our vote from our seats. It is for me, relatively seasoned, a refresher about the dignity of this body and the removal from the squabble and the hostility that sometimes has occasion to rise here. It doesn't make it any less of a distinction or a privilege to serve here, but every now and then, Senator Byrd, I thank you for bringing us back to our senses about where we are in this great Nation of ours and how fortunate we are to have known one another. But you, Senator Byrd, have, I think--I come out of the computer business--probably been a model for those who wanted to construct a computer that would have vast memory, quick response, and developed intelligence, not artificial at all but real, and I salute you on this 15,000th vote to say that I know, for as long as I serve in this body, you will continue to inspire and encourage all of us, and I thank you for the contribution you have made to the country and to me as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment to S. 1186, the ``Workforce Investment Partnership Act.'' My amendment will provide a mechanism for 59 U.S. cities currently administering locally-tailored workforce development services under the Job Training Partnership Act to retain their designation as Service Delivery Areas (SDAs). This amendment allows those 59 cities that are existing SDAs, with successful job training programs, to appeal to the Secretary of Labor if the Governor of their State denies their request to retain SDA status. Without my amendment, 59 cities, with 200,000 people or more, that had previously been SDAs but whose populations are under the new 500,000 threshold, would have to specially request SDA designation from their State. Among others, these cities include Denver, Colorado; Fort Worth, Texas; Long Beach, California; Akron, Ohio; Omaha, Nebraska; and two cities in my state of New Jersey, Jersey City and Newark. If Governors have sole discretion to terminate SDA designations, successful and long standing community job training programs would be terminated. This could be disruptive to cities that are taking leadership roles in implementing welfare-to-work job training programs to meet welfare reform goals. I support the goal of S.1186 to consolidate job training and employment programs into a more efficient workforce development system. I believe that creating an appeal mechanism for existing SDA designated cities with productive programs, like Newark and Jersey City, will enhance this legislation's objective to meet that goal. I want to thank the bill's managers, Senators DeWine and Wellstone, as well as the Ranking Democratic Member on the Labor Committee, Senator Kennedy, for working with me on this issue. They should be congratulated on creating a strong, bipartisan bill. I am grateful that Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy and Secretary Herman have committed their support to this provision when S.1186 goes to conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. As the Congress has considered this issue, I have evaluated the arguments for and against NATO expansion. There are compelling arguments on both sides. However, on balance, I have concluded that this round of NATO expansion should be supported. The first question I asked myself in making this vitally important decision is whether expanding NATO serves America's national security interests. I concluded that it does. America has fought two brutal world wars in Europe, and we have thousands of troops stationed in Bosnia. Our vital interests in promoting European stability and democracy are clear. I believe that NATO expansion will promote stability in Europe. The mere possibility that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic might be invited to join NATO created a strong incentive for them to resolve peacefully longstanding ethnic and border disputes and to improve ties with their neighbors. Hungary, for example, concluded Basic Treaties on Understanding, Cooperation, and Good-Neighborliness with Slovakia and Romania in 1996, and its relations with Romania are greatly improved. Clearly, Europe is more stable as a result, and that is good for America. While I hope tensions will not arise in the future among any of these new members, they may. If these countries are not NATO members, our ability to prevent tensions from boiling over into full-blown conflicts will be more limited. Experience has shown that NATO can play a constructive role in resolving conflicts between members, helping reconcile former adversaries like France and Germany and moderating tensions between Turkey and Greece. It could play the same role in mediating conflicts between new member countries. NATO strength has come from the fact that it is not only a security alliance but also a political organization. Just as it has been a force for stability in Europe, so it has been a force for democratic development. Now that the Cold War is over, that political role will be increasingly important. By including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in NATO, the U.S. and NATO will have a greater ability to influence the continued democratic development of these countries. Furthermore, expanding NATO will advance America's long sought goal of defense burden sharing. We've spent a considerable amount of time in the Senate debating the costs of NATO. But few have talked about the benefits of including three countries that are willing and prepared to share the defense burden in the Alliance. Already prospective members are working with NATO through the Partnership for Peace program and serving with American troops in Bosnia. All three would have supported American air strikes in Iraq. They're willing to pay their fair share and contribute to the collective defense. The West ought to welcome them. The second question I asked in making this decision, Mr. President, was whether each of the prospective NATO countries meets the five criteria articulated in 1996 by then Secretary of Defense Perry: commitment to democratic reform; commitment to a free market economy; good neighborly relations; civilian control of the military; and military capability to operate effectively with our other NATO allies. I am satisfied that each of the countries the Senate is being asked to approve for NATO membership meets these criteria. In Poland, where communism once reigned, democracy is flourishing. Seven free and fair elections have been held since 1989, and two democratic changes in the government have taken place. A new Polish constitution has been approved in a popular referendum. The judiciary is independent, and the press is free. As a result of Poland's economic reform program, the country currently has one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. The private sector is thriving and currently accounts for about two-thirds of GDP and about 60% of the country's work force. Poland has good relations with all seven of the states it borders. Its new constitution codifies civilian control as well as parliamentary oversight of the military. And American officials have determined that Poland has the most capable armed forces in Eastern Europe. Hungary receives high marks on each of these criteria as well. A stable, parliamentary democracy, Hungary has had two democratic changes of government since 1989 in free and fair elections. Its governmental institutions are stable, and its judiciary is independent. Since 1989, the country has implemented price and trade liberalization, extensive privatization and instituted important legal changes. That almost one-third of all foreign direct investment in Central and Eastern Europe has been attracted to Hungary speaks to the strength and attractiveness of its economy. After many years of tension, Hungary has made tremendous strides in improving its relations with neighboring countries, such as Romania, where large concentrations of ethnic Hungarians reside. New Treaties with Slovakia and Romania include important provisions on ethnic minority rights and reconfirms Hungary's commitment to respect existing borders. Importantly, Hungary's military is under civilian control, and its armed forces are reorganizing to meet NATO standards. Finally, Mr. President, there is the Czech Republic, a parliamentary democracy which has held three free and fair elections since 1989. Vaclav Havel, a former political prisoner and human rights advocate, serves as President and conscience of the country. The economy of the Czech Republic has been so transformed that nearly 80% is currently in private hands, an astonishing amount for a formerly centrally planned economy, and 65 percent of the GDP is generated by the private sector. Since 1991, the Czech Republic has operated on a balanced budget. Relations between the Czech Republic and its neighbors, including Germany and Slovakia, are sound. And the Czech military is under civilian control. As a Member of the Helsinki Commission, I am aware of the issues that continue to form a part of the U.S.-Czech bilateral dialogue, including property restitution problems and discrimination against the Romani minority. At the same time, I believe that Czech leaders are committed to resolving these problems and I am committed to working with the Czech Government until they are. I am keenly aware, Mr. President, that there are some risks involved in expanding NATO and that many are deeply concerned about the impact that expanding NATO will have on our relations with Russia. I have thought long and hard about this risk. I have discussed it at length with Undersecretary Pickering, and I have concluded that while NATO expansion may create some complications in our relations with Russia, those difficulties can be managed. Despite the fact that most of the Russian political elite say they oppose enlargement, Russia continues to pursue a cooperative relationship with the U.S. Public opinion polls in Russia reveal that the vast majority of the Russian public would rather cooperate with than confront the enlarging Western alliance. Even on arms control issues, progress is being made with the Russians despite the debate over NATO expansion. For example, Russia has continued to implement START I reductions in strategic forces. In fact, I am told that Russia is dismantling its strategic nuclear forces more rapidly than the Treaty requires. Despite the fact that NATO was well on its way to expansion, at the March 1997 summit in Helsinki, President Yeltsin agreed to the outlines of a START III accord, and he agreed to urge the Duma to ratify START II. Importantly, there are signs that the Duma will move forward and ratify the START II agreement this summer because, according to Duma speaker Seleznev, it ``meets Russia's interests.'' There are other positive signs regarding arms control. While NATO expansion was being debated, Russia ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. It also continued to work with the U.S. on adaptation to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. While I do not have a crystal ball, and I cannot predict the future of arms control, I am encouraged by these signs. They indicate to me that this round of NATO expansion will not derail arms control. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. Expanding NATO will erase Stalin's artificial dividing line. Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia ended up, against their will, on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain after the Second World War. Now that democracy is flourishing in each of these countries, it is to America's advantage to erase that dividing line and bring them into the NATO alliance. We expanded NATO in 1952 when we allowed Greece and Turkey to join. We expanded it in 1955 when we allowed Germany to join. And we expanded it in 1982 when we invited Spain to join. We should expand it now by allowing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate an esteemed New Jerseyan, Rabbi Jack M. Rosoff, on the occasion of his retirement after 34 years of service at Congregations B'nai Israel in Rumson, New Jersey. I really got to know Rabbi Rosoff when he organized a community-wide response to acts of vandalism committed against B'nai Israel and the neighboring Catholic church in Rumson. I spoke at the rally that Rabbi Rosoff put together condemning the desecration, and was very moved by his dedication to fighting bigotry. Rabbi Rosoff's accomplishments during his tenure at B'nai Israel, for which he has just been elevated to Rabbi Emeritus status, are almost too numerous to mention. He has multiplied the membership of his congregation by hundreds and provided Sunday school opportunities for over 300 students. He developed the Israel Scholarship Program there, enabling all students in their junior year to spend six weeks in Israel. Beyond those achievements, Jack has been a counselor and friend to the members of his synagogue. He has rejoiced with them in times of happiness and has been a comfort in times of grief. Rabbi Rosoff has served on the boards of various organizations in Monmouth County, including Riverview Hospital, the Mental Health Association, the Day Care Center, the Clergy Advisory Council of the local Planned Parenthood, as well as being the founding member of the Greater Red Bank Interfaith Council. Rabbi Rosoff should be honored by all of us not only for his 34 years of service to B'nai Israel, but for his community-wide leadership and civic involvement. I am pleased to congratulate him again on his retirement, and wish him well in this next chapter of his life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to add a provision to the Brady Handgun Background Check Form to enforce the prohibition that persons under a restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or child cannot purchase a gun. The Background Check Form, used by law enforcement and gun dealers to enforce the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, currently requires a purchaser to answer questions on whether he or she falls into one of the categories prohibited from purchasing a gun. The form asks whether the purchaser has been convicted of a felony, has been declared mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution, is an illegal alien, fugitive from justice or an illegal user of drugs--all of which would disqualify the person from lawfully purchasing a gun. However, there is one very important disqualification not listed on this form. The 1994 Crime Act prohibits a person under a restraining order for harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner or the child of that partner from purchasing a gun. But this disqualification is not on the Brady Background Check Form--in fact it is the only disqualification not on the Form. Dealers, law enforcement agencies, and purchasers rely on the form to provide notice as to who is prohibited from purchasing a handgun, and law enforcement agencies use the form as a guide in making background checks. This omission on the Brady Form means persons under restraining orders for harassing, stalking and threatening their partners and their partner's children can more easily obtain a gun even though it is illegal for them to do so. My legislation is necessary because all changes to the form are required to be done by legislation rather than by regulation or order. This simple change to the Brady Check List can mean the difference between life and death for women and children across America. Domestic violence in the United States remains the number one threat of injury to women ages 15 to 44, and hundreds of thousands of women are forced to obtain restraining orders to protect themselves and their children from abusive partners every year. More than twice as many women are shot and killed each year by their husbands or intimate partners than by strangers. Mr. President, Congress has already recognized that persons who are under restraining orders for harassing, stalking, and threatening their spouses, partners, and children should not be able to buy a gun. This simple bill will help to enforce this important prohibition to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a real and serious threat to their partners and children. Every year we see tragic incidents of victims of domestic violence who have obtained restraining orders only to be murdered by their partner. I hope you will join me and support this worthy bill to protect victims of domestic violence from the dangers that follow when their abusive partner gains access to a gun. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.