Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman for permitting me to send those amendments to the desk. We are ready to proceed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I send to the desk. One is for Senator Kohl from Wisconsin and the other is for Senator Durbin and Senator Chafee. I send these to the desk and ask they be held pending further action.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, which expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should not grant immunity to the tobacco companies as part of comprehensive tobacco legislation. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from New Hampshire for offering this sense of the Senate. It's a clear statement on a critical issue. Mr. President, there is no valid reason to give the tobacco industry special protections from liability. The tobacco industry, for decades, has lied to the American people. It's intentionally boosted the addictive power of its products to hook consumers. And, worst of all, it's conspired to illegally market its products to children. The end result of all this fraud and deception is that millions of Americans have died prematurely. Families have lost mothers. Fathers. Grandparents. Brothers. Sisters. And all too often, these families watched helplessly as their loved ones smoked themselves to death, unable to break this deadly addiction. Now. Mr. President, the tobacco industry is asking for a special favor. They want to be shielded from liability for the harms they've caused. A shield that hasn't been granted to any other industry. Mr. President, why would Congress give special immunity to the tobacco industry, of all industries? Well, the main argument you hear is that Congress must let the industry off the hook because otherwise they'll keep marketing tobacco to our kids. It's as if the industry has a gun to our heads. Or, more precisely, the heads of our children. Well, Mr. President, that's an outrageous threat. And I don't think we should give in to it. After all, the U.S. Government doesn't negotiate with terrorists. And the same should be true for those who threaten to market deadly drugs to our children. I also would point out, Mr. President, that if we did give the industry the broad liability restrictions that it wants, we still wouldn't get much in return. And it's important to understand why not. The tobacco industry has said that it would be willing to give up advertising to kids if we give it immunity. But the tobacco manufacturers can't make an agreement on behalf of all those who might want to advertise. So, instead of RJR buying ads, its distributors could. Or retailers. Or anyone else. These others would not be bound by any agreements entered into by manufacturers. It's also important to remember that many constitutional experts believe that these agreements could be ruled unenforceable. So we could discover later that we have compromised the legal rights of tobacco victims, and gained absolutely nothing in the process. Mr. President, instead of giving special breaks to the tobacco industry, Congress should be developing legislation that keeps our kids away from tobacco. That helps adults kick the habit. And that saves lives. We need legislation that will increase the price of cigarettes to at least $1.50 per pack--as the Budget Committee agreed, in a bipartisan vote. We need legislation to give FDA the authority to regulate tobacco as a drug. Legislation to fund anti-teen smoking programs, smoking cessation programs, counter advertising, and other anti-tobacco initiatives. Mr. President, there's no reason to give the tobacco industry veto rights over that kind of legislation. None. Mr. President, this is the Senate of the United States of America. And our job is to do what is right for the American people. It is to do what we can to save lives. And if the tobacco industry doesn't like it--frankly, that's too bad. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. Let's not give the tobacco industry a special handout. This is an industry that has lied to the American people. It's an industry that's directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans. And they should be held accountable. There just is no excuse for letting them off the hook.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2167, as Amended

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the manager if we can take a couple of minutes to lay down some amendments here--I think people have had a chance to look at them and know what they are--so that we are in the order to be considered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have the two that were cleared by Senator Burns and Senator Kerry. We can do those. I was talking about in advance of Senator Kyl's amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before we go on to the Senator from Colorado, I, too, have an amendment to be sent up to the desk on behalf of the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, and ask that it be placed in the order for such time as it is called up.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we continue in morning business, as has just been requested by the Senator from Ohio.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to say a couple of words about the dialog that Senator DeWine and I have had, working together, about the reduction of the blood alcohol content to .08. I listened very carefully to the information he just gave regarding repetitive assaults on excessive alcohol in this one case even, at the fairly reduced level of .085. It kind of forecast a tale that would have an unfortunate outcome. I think it is important, as we consider legislation on ISTEA that carries this prohibition of driving over .08 blood alcohol content, we ought to review the case and see what it is we are discussing because I, too, in the State of New Jersey and around the country, have been subjected to criticism from the restaurant associations, the Alcoholic Beverage Association, and others who say, ``What do you want to do, take away social drinking and friendliness?'' We have only one mission, and I share this with the distinguished Senator from Ohio on this particular issue. That is to protect the lives of between 500 to 700 people a year, it is predicted, and also to send out notice that drinking and driving is an unacceptable condition in America. Mr. President, .08 certainly is a level which, I think it is fair to say, has conclusively been established as the beginning of significant impairment behind the wheel, including slowness in adjusting to different speeds, braking, turning. It happens enough. We lose 17,000 people a year, Mr. President, to traffic accidents that involve alcohol. Over 40,000 to 41,000 people are killed each and every year. I use a reference fairly frequently that, in the worst year of Vietnam--when this country was, if not in virtual mourning, certainly in virtual internal turmoil about what was happening there--in its worst year, we lost about 17,000-plus people in Vietnam, and every year we lose 17,000-plus people on our highways and it doesn't get the same kind of public reaction as it did when we were engaged in combat in a cause that our people served but one that had us challenging the policy decision that got us there in the first place. There can't be any challenge here. It is such an easy thing. I was the author of the uniform drinking age bill that raised the age to 21 across the country. We had had modest alcohol requirements in legislation offering incentives for States to get this thing done-- reduce, make sure you had your road checks, and make sure you were cautioning people about driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving while intoxicated. It never quite did the trick. But we found out when we raised the drinking age to 21, and we said those States that don't do it will be subjected to penalties by virtue of a loss of the highway or infrastructure funding that they may get, we had a devil of a time. It took a long time to persuade some places, like Washington, DC, which was making the callous calculation about whether or not revenues derived from tavern receipts, restaurant receipts, would be more than that which they would lose if they failed to raise the drinking age to 21. They finally agreed, and we had the unanimous support of all 50 States and the District of Columbia. I am pleased to report that it is estimated that over 15,000 lives are saved as a result of a minimum drinking age of 21. Imagine, 15,000 families that don't have to mourn, 15,000 families that don't even want to contemplate what it might be like to have an empty place at the table. We both have heard from the Frazier family in Maryland that lost a 9- year-old daughter. Her name was Ashley Frazier. When you see her parents and her sister talk about the emptiness that surrounds that household, about the place at the table where the mother sits occasionally because they want to be reminded that Ashley was a significant part of their everyday lives--they set the table for four, and only three of them are there for dinner. I have watched Mrs. Frazier compelled to tell her story through tears because she doesn't want another family to have to go through that experience. Her daughter was killed at 8 o'clock in the morning by a woman who was just over .08, who drove up on the sidewalk as Ashley and her mother were waiting for the schoolbus to pick her up. She describes in the most horrifying language how she felt when she heard the impact and realized what happened to her daughter. So, Mr. President, this is a pursuit that we are going to continue to engage in, the Senator from Ohio and I and many others who supported us when we had the vote on the issue here, because it is the right thing to do. The one thing that I can't believe is that the Licensed Beverage Association wants to stand up and challenge whether or not .08 is really an impairment. Mind you, it takes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Education, over four beers, four drinks, four highballs--over four--4\1/2\, to be precise--for a 170-pound person on an empty stomach to reach the .08 level. Now, that sounds like fairly heavy drinking. A woman of roughly 135 pounds would have to take 3\1/2\ drinks for her to get to .08 in 1 hour on an empty stomach. That is pretty significant drinking. And so we say to the Restaurant Association, Why? ``Well, it could ruin our business and throw all of these people out of work.'' Well, Mr. President, I can tell you this-- we heard the same appeal or the same challenge in 1984 when the drinking age was raised to 21, and the Restaurant and the Licensed Beverage Association said, ``You are going to ruin business in this country.'' I don't know whether anybody has noticed an absence of restaurants or hospitality spots in our society since 1984, but I can tell you that I haven't. I don't think anyone else has. Just read the list of the better restaurants and of the new beverages that come out, the new concoctions, mixed drinks. They are not going to lose any business with this either. And if they do, so what? If they save somebody's child from dying because someone was too drunk to drive, then that is a price that ought to be paid. I, frankly, think that if they are serious about this and they remind their bartenders and servers and people are reminded through campaigns that when you get to .08, you can't go behind that wheel--not without risking serious punishment, perhaps loss of a license and something even worse if it is repeated. And so, Mr. President, so many times we go through the legislative process here and we forget, at times, the impact that it has on a family or on an individual. It becomes too much a calculation of other things than the right thing. We ought to do this. I am hoping that as ISTEA moves along, we will not only have .08 in there but we will have it with the measures that we have introduced and said, at the end of 3 years, if you haven't reduced your blood alcohol level acceptance to .08, you lose 5 percent, and if it goes for another year, you lose 10 percent. But at the end of 6 years, you still state A, B, or C, and you still have the opportunity to reclaim those funds that you would have lost, because we are giving it that much latitude. The program begins 3 years out and goes until 6 years without permanent loss of funding. So I commend the Senator from Ohio for his interest and his attention to the details. As a prosecutor, we heard him say, he saw too much of the mayhem that is produced from someone getting behind the wheel who is unfit to drive. I look forward to working with him on this issue and other issues in which we share a common interest. I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the Gregg amendment No. 2168.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy's name be added as a cosponsor to the Conrad amendment No. 2174.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for conceding this opportunity for Senator Murray. I do not know whether the Senator from New Mexico has any further business. We have nothing.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that. At the same time, just to make sure that we have the appropriate, usually competent staff that we always have working with us when we do our committee work, I ask unanimous consent that Sue Nelson and Amy Abraham, who are analysts with the Budget Committee, be given full floor privileges for the duration of all debate on the budget resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true, Mr. President. And we have a designee, a member of the Budget Committee, who will represent us to make the process available, make the resolution available for laying down amendments. There is not going to be any problem with that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for initiating some movement now. We want to try to get this budget done. We do not, however, want to deprive any of our Members, be they Republican or be they Democrat, from the opportunity of offering amendments in accordance with the procedure as we know it, with the time consumed, again, according to the structure for budget resolution consideration. But I want to make sure for those Members who want to start the process that we give them the courtesy of using time in accordance with their need and that we don't deliberately invade the response time because we want to consume time to be able to get the process really underway. First of all, I ask whether or not we can start the debate on Monday somewhat later--if we are here late, we will be here late; we are willing do that--whether we can start perhaps at 1 o'clock or 12 o'clock? We are going to consume 10 hours on Monday. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee whether that is a problem.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from our side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to join in offering this amendment to address a serious problem in my state. This amendment is very timely. This week, I have been working with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee on Superfund reauthorization. I strongly believe that the Superfund reauthorization bill before the Committee will severely undermine the concept that the polluter should pay for the waste it created, which is what this amendment before us now is all about. The Federal government is long overdue in reaching an adequate resolution of claims against W.R. Grace & Co., for the cleanup of the Wayne Superfund Site in New Jersey. There seems to be no end to the headaches experienced by the residents of Wayne Township over this site and over the lack of any settlement. Between 1955 and 1971, the W.R. Grace & Company owned and operated a thorium extraction operation in Wayne Township. In 1984, because of the threat to the public's health from potential groundwater contamination, the site was placed on the Superfund National Priorities List and is now being managed by the Corps of Engineers under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). That same year, 1984, W.R. Grace provided a payment of $800,000 and signed an agreement with the Federal government. This agreement stated that the government can still pursue legal action against the company under applicable laws, which would include Superfund. In the meantime, cleanup costs for this site continued to escalate, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. As the costs continued to mount, I became convinced that the government had not done all it could to help alleviate this burden on the taxpayers. Since 1995, I have worked to get the government to bring this company to the negotiating table. In September of that year I wrote to then-Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary requesting that DOE consider pursuing additional funds for cleanup from private parties. At my urging, in November 1995, the Departments of Energy and Justice finally brought W.R. Grace, the former owner and operator of this site, to the table to discuss a settlement. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a letter I received from DOE in November 1995 which showed its commitment to get W.R. Grace to come to the table.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to thank the managers of this bill, Chairman Stevens and Ranking Member Byrd, as well as Senators Bond and Mikulski, for agreeing to a provision of critical importance to southern New Jersey's AIDS afflicted community. This provision allows for the administration of Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding for four southern New Jersey counties by the State of New Jersey. New Jersey's AIDS community has raised concerns about the current administration of HOPWA funding to four southern New Jersey counties: Camden, Gloucester, Salem, and Burlington. In order to better serve the needs of southern New Jersey's AIDS community, this provision gives the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the statutory authority to delegate the administration of southern New Jersey's HOPWA funding to the State of New Jersey. This provision will help improve the implementation of housing services for southern New Jersey's AIDS afflicted, and I am pleased that the managers of the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill have agreed to include this change. Again, I thank them for their work on this matter.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We continually hear from the Administration that they are making progress and that a final resolution of the Wayne settlement is imminent. Today, I rise to reiterate my strong opposition to a final settlement that would permit W. R. Grace to escape appropriate responsibility for its share of the pollution. This amendment reminds the Attorney General that we not only want to see progress, but that we demand a settlement that adequately reimburses the taxpayers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to suspend temporarily the rate of duty on four products produced by a constituent, AlliedSignal Inc. I am introducing a separate bill for each of the four products. The first is organic luminescent pigments, dyes, and fibers that are used in products requiring security and anti- counterfeiting technology. Unlike other pigments and dyes, these luminescent compounds are designed on a proprietary basis for one specific anti-counterfeiting application. The current duty is 5.9%. The second product, 4-Hexylresorcinol, has a variety of applications, including in throat lozenges, topical antiseptics, and other pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications. The current duty is 5.8%. Potassium hexafluorozirconate and hexafluorozirconium acid are used in the treatment of aluminum alloys in a variety of applications, including aerospace. The current duties are 3.1% and 4.2%. Finally, polymethine sensitizing dyes are used to improve the spectral response of photo-sensitive emulsions on photographic films. These dyes are complex organic molecules, and each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis to the customer's specifications. The current duty is 6.8%. I have received assurances from AlliedSignal that there is no commercial US manufacturer for any of these products. Furthermore, each of the products was included in the United States Trade Representative's ``zero list'' of chemicals whose U.S. tariffs it tried to eliminate, in exchange for concessions from trading partners, during the November 1997 APEC Ministerial meeting. In a chemical industry-wide review of the zero list, no U.S. company objected to the proposed elimination of these products' duties. Suspending the duties of products that are not produced in the United States helps our companies maintain their global competitiveness. This benefits our manufacturers as well as American workers and consumers. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to suspend temporarily the rate of duty on four products produced by a constituent, AlliedSignal Inc. I am introducing a separate bill for each of the four products. The first is organic luminescent pigments, dyes, and fibers that are used in products requiring security and anti- counterfeiting technology. Unlike other pigments and dyes, these luminescent compounds are designed on a proprietary basis for one specific anti-counterfeiting application. The current duty is 5.9%. The second product, 4-Hexylresorcinol, has a variety of applications, including in throat lozenges, topical antiseptics, and other pharmaceutical and cosmetic applications. The current duty is 5.8%. Potassium hexafluorozirconate and hexafluorozirconium acid are used in the treatment of aluminum alloys in a variety of applications, including aerospace. The current duties are 3.1% and 4.2%. Finally, polymethine sensitizing dyes are used to improve the spectral response of photo-sensitive emulsions on photographic films. These dyes are complex organic molecules, and each one is typically designed on a proprietary basis to the customer's specifications. The current duty is 6.8%. I have received assurances from AlliedSignal that there is no commercial US manufacturer for any of these products. Furthermore, each of the products was included in the United States Trade Representative's ``zero list'' of chemicals whose U.S. tariffs it tried to eliminate, in exchange for concessions from trading partners, during the November 1997 APEC Ministerial meeting. In a chemical industry-wide review of the zero list, no U.S. company objected to the proposed elimination of these products' duties. Suspending the duties of products that are not produced in the United States helps our companies maintain their global competitiveness. This benefits our manufacturers as well as American workers and consumers. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an old friend and successful businessman on the occasion of his retirement as Chair and CEO of Atlantic Energy, Inc. Jerry and I both have strong roots in Paterson, New Jersey. We grew up there, and our fathers worked together in the silk mills. Being from Paterson, of course, we were both destined for success! Jerry began working at Atlantic Electric in 1961, first in various managerial positions and then working his way up to Chairman and CEO. Eventually, Jerry rose to the position of Chairman and CEO at Atlantic Energy, the holding company formed in 1987 which incorporated Atlantic Electric. Besides Jerry's achievements at work, he has several professional and civic affiliations. He holds everything from memberships to chairmanships in organizations such as the New Jersey Utilities Association, the New Jersey Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce and the Noyes Museum Board of Directors. Again, I congratulate Jerry for his devotion to Atlantic Energy for over 35 years, and I extend my warm wishes to his wife Carol and his three children, Michael Jacob, Melissa Kuperminc and Marlene Sandstrom.