Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Senator from Ohio has been looking for some time. I ask the Senator how much time he needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as I have available to my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, and I include, as cosponsors, Senator Lieberman, Senator Faircloth, Senator Boxer, Senator Helms, Senator Glenn, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Bingaman, Senator Moynihan, Senator Hatch, Senator Wellstone, Senator Akaka, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, Senator Inouye, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Bumpers, Senator Reed, Senator Smith of Oregon and Senator Rockefeller join me as cosponsors in the amendment; and Senator Chafee, the chairman of the committee. And all together, we have 23 bipartisan cosponsors. That is the way it ought to be because this is on behalf of the victims of drunk driving crashes--over 17,000 deaths and about one million injuries each year. This amendment, the Safe and Sober Streets Act, establishes the legal limit for drunken driving at .08 blood alcohol content in all 50 States. Establishing .08 as the legal definition of drunk driving is responsible, effective, and it is the right thing to do. This amendment, if enacted into law, will save lives. And it is our moral imperative, as legislators, to pass legislation that will make our communities, our roads and, of course, our families safe. This is the logical next step in the fight against drunk driving. It will build on what we started in 1984, when Democrats, Republicans, and President Reagan joined together to set a national minimum drinking age to 21. And since that time, we have saved over 10,000 lives. And contrary to the concern of the restaurant and the liquor business, those businesses have not gone under, like many warned us about at the time. Mr. President, the question before us is, should a 170-pound man be allowed to have more than four beers in 1 hour, on an empty stomach, and get behind the wheel of a car? And our answer is, absolutely not. This amendment goes after drunk drivers, not social drinkers. And while we are pushing for enactment of this legislation, I have had the honor of getting to know some families who have experienced the ultimate tragedy--the Frazier family from Maryland. Randy and Brenda's daughter Ashley, 9 years old, was tragically killed by a .08 drunk driver 2 years ago. This person's blood alcohol content level was .08. What we are trying to do is to establish the fact that .08 is a dangerous level for people on our roads and highways. The Fraziers have lent themselves courageously to this fight, to enact this .08 BAC level across the land. Last March, Randy Frazier issued a call to Congress, a call that I believe captures what this issue is all about. He said, ``It is time for leadership and action here in the 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-plus in an hour--now, that is on an empty stomach, Mr. President. That is not casual. That is not a casual level. An empty stomach, four beers in an hour--a 170-pound person is already impaired in their reaction to situations. They should not be allowed to get behind the wheel of a car and create a situation that is the antithesis of what we call the protection of the family. As we debate this issue, I want each of my colleagues to consider two things: First, ask yourself, have we done enough to combat drunk driving in this country? The answer to that question, in my view, is absolutely not. Second, is a person whose blood alcohol content is .08 percent a threat to themselves and others on the road? And the answer to that one, of course, is a resounding yes. Adopting this amendment will simply bring the United States of America into the ranks of most other industrialized nations in this world in setting reasonable drunk driving limits. Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, all have a .08 BAC limit. France, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands have a limit of .05 BAC--half of what we commonly have in our country. Sweden is practically down to zero--.02 BAC. We heard today from President Clinton. He is very aggressively supporting this amendment. Other supporters include Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater. They include organizations like the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Center for Disease Control; the American Automobile Manufacturers Association; Kemper Insurance; State Farm and Nationwide insurance companies; MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, of course; the American College of Emergency Physicians. I had a talk with a physician today at the White House when we presented this BAC .08 bill. And a physician, the head of an emergency room in the State of Wisconsin, told me that emergency rooms are sometimes so filled with drunk drivers who had been in accidents, that they cannot adequately calibrate the blood alcohol testing machine. The room is sometimes so filled from the victim's liquor-stained breath that they had to leave the room to set the calibration on the blood alcohol testing machine. Other supporters include the Consumer Federation of America, National Fire Protection Association--the list goes on--Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. And we have had newspaper editorials, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. I ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters and editorials in support of this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But more important than the scores of businesses, health and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of drunk driving--like, as I mentioned before, the Fraziers. They come from Westminster, MD. They lost their 9-year-old daughter Ashley. I have also gotten to know very well some people from New Jersey, Louise and Ronald Hammell of Tuckerton, NJ. They lost their son Matthew who was growing up in the full bloom of life--very positive, doing things for the community and others. He ultimately sought to be a minister, the wonderful young man. He was rollerblading on the other side of the highway from the car that became involved in his death, and that driver crossed over the yellow line dividing the two lanes of traffic, and came all the way to the shoulder and killed this young man, and so early in his life that he had not really yet begun to develop. Who opposes this amendment? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. The American Beverage Institute, the National Restaurant Association, the Beer Wholesalers, what is it that they have in mind when they oppose this? They say that ``Oh, we're going to lose business,'' that you ought to be targeting the chronic heavy drinker. Well, we are after the heavy drinker. That is why we have those roadblocks. And it is sometimes very hard to stop those who are so addicted to a substance that they cannot control themselves and wind up harming others. But does that mean that we ought not to bother because some get away with it? We know that we have to have traffic rules, we have to have red lights. Some people do not obey them. But the fact of the matter is, the majority is well-served by having rules that protect the public. Organizations, Mr. President, which support this amendment have one thing in mind--the public's interest, the health and safety of our communities and of our roads and of our families. Organizations who oppose this amendment have one interest in mind--they only care about protecting their narrow special interest. We have to make that judgment here. Drunk driving continues to be a national scourge that imposes tremendous suffering on the victims of drunk driving crashes and their loved ones. In 1996, 17,126 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. About one million people were injured in alcohol-related crashes. And I point out, Mr. President, that in the worst year of the Vietnam war--an event that scarred the hearts and the minds of people across our country--in 1 year, the worst year in Vietnam, we lost just over 17,000 people. So here, every year, we lose 17,000-plus people in drunk driving crashes. And it compares to the worst year of a war that left our Nation in mourning for many years. Every one of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented had the driver decided to call for a ride, hand the keys to a friend, or do anything other than taking that wheel. When that person takes that wheel, it is as if they are carrying a gun. The only question--when is that thing going to go off? It is no different. Murder is murder, and the victim is just as dead whether it comes from a drunk driving accident or whether it comes from the pulling of a trigger. Deaths and injuries that are due to drunk driving are not ``accidents.'' They are predictable and preventable. Every 30 minutes someone in America--a mother, a husband, a child, grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol-related crash. In the United States, 41 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol- related. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. The first step in combating this epidemic is to inject the sense of sanity in our Nation's drunk driving laws and by enacting the Safe and Sober Streets Act. The amendment we have in front of us will go a long way toward reducing the deadly combination of drinking and driving. Mr. President, my amendment, which would have the effect of lowering this Nation's tolerance for drinking and driving by 20 percent, is what ought to be considered now. This amendment requires all States to define the point at which a driver would be considered to be drunk as .08 blood alcohol content. Fifteen States already have .08 BAC and would be unaffected by my amendment. My State of New Jersey does not have a .08 BAC, nor does the State of my chief colleague in this, Senator Mike DeWine, from Ohio, who is well aware of that deficiency in the State law. Mr. President, .08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to draw the line in fighting drunk driving. Despite what we are all hearing from special interests and their lobbyists, at .08 a person is drunk and should not be driving. Their reaction is impaired. They can't stop quick enough; they accelerate too fast; they turn too erratically. In fact, Congress, in its wisdom, set the limit for commercial motor vehicle drivers at .04 BAC in the 1980s. So, Congress clearly understands the connection between the consumption of alcohol and the critical ability needed to drive a vehicle safely on our highways. Mr. President, .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: You are in your car, driving on a two-lane road at night. Your child is traveling with you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver in this case is a 170-pound man who just drank five bottles of beer in an hour on an empty stomach in a bar. If he were driving in Maryland, he would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, he would be. Does it make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt of laws when we are dealing with drunk driving. We had the privilege of hearing the chief of police of Arlington County, VA, today at the White House. He talked about what has happened since Virginia reduced its BAC level to .08. They saw a marked improvement in the reduction of deaths on their highways. Here was someone who had the practical responsibility, the practical knowledge of seeing these victims, of tending to the injured people. He said it works. Let's do it. Regarding this amendment, .08 utilizes what sound science and research proves, and interjects some reality in our definition of drunk driving and applies it to all 50 States so someone can't drink more and drive in New York than in New Jersey, or in this case, someone drinking in Maryland and driving to Virginia when their blood alcohol level is beyond .08. Mr. President, there are 10 facts that demonstrate the need for this amendment: Fact No. 1: Drunk driving continues to be a shameful epidemic that destroys our families and communities: 17,000 deaths each year to drunk driving. Isn't 17,000 too many? Each year in this country more people are killed in alcohol-related crashes than are murdered by firearms. Families and friends of drunk driving victims experience tremendous grief which changes their lives forever. Moreover, deaths and injuries from alcohol-related crashes have an enormous economic impact as well. Alcohol-related crashes cost society over $45 billion every 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 costs, insurance, lost productivity, and social services. The problem exists, and we must do more to reduce drunk driving. The American people agree. Reducing drunk driving is the No. 1 highway safety issue for the American people. Mr. President, here is a chart reflecting a Lou Harris poll conducted 1 year ago that found that 91 percent of the respondents believe that the Federal role in assuring highway safety is critical. What do Americans consider to be the No. 1 highway safety problem? Fifty-two point nine percent look at drunk driving as the No. 1 highway safety problem; 18.6 percent look at drivers who exceed the posted speed limit by more than 15 miles per hour; 13.7 percent, young or unexperienced drivers; 6.2 percent, elderly drivers; 5.7 percent, highways in poor condition. The poll showed the two principal causes of problems on our highways are drunk driving and those who are speeding, with drunk driving overwhelmingly the most feared matter for highway safety. Fact No. 2: It takes a lot of alcohol for a person to reach .08, contrary to what most people think and contrary to information being given out by the alcohol lobby. I want to clear this up. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Safety Council, a 170-pound man would have to drink four and one-half drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC; a female weighing 137 pounds would have to have three drinks in 1 hour, no food, and she is still below .08. The male, at 170 pounds, drinks four drinks and is still below .08. We are not talking about the kind of drinking that is a casual single glass of wine with dinner, contrary to what the lobbyists would have you think. Mr. President, people with .08 BAC are drunk. Or as others say, they are blitzed, wasted, trashed, bombed. The last thing they should do is get behind the wheel. We used to use an expression around the country, and I remember hearing it often, ``Let's have one more for the road.'' That is the last thing that we want to encourage. That is out. That happy hour is long since gone. Fact No. 3: Virtually all drivers are seriously impaired at .08 BAC and shouldn't be driving. Here is a chart from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They say at .08, concentrated attention, speed control, braking, steering, gear changing, lane tracking and judgment are impaired. When you get down to even lower levels, half of what the current level is in 35 States in the country, .05, you are talking about problems with tracking, divided attention, coordination, comprehension, and eye movement. We are not looking to abolish social drinking. We are not looking to create a new temperance in society. What we are saying is that .08 is dangerous if you are driving. Fact No. 4: The risk of being involved in a crash increases substantially by the time a driver reaches .08 BAC. The risk rises gradually with each BAC level, but then rises rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their system. In single vehicle crashes, drivers with BAC's between .05 and .09 are 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers with a BAC of zero. Fact No. 5: .08 BAC laws have proven to reduce crashes and fatalities. One study of States with .08 BAC laws found that the .08 BAC laws reduced the overall incidence of alcohol fatalities by 16 percent. In other words, the involvement in fatal crashes is pervasive when alcohol is taken before the driver gets behind the wheel. This study also found that .08 laws reduced fatalities at higher BAC levels, meaning they had an effect on extremely impaired drivers. Separate crash statistics have confirmed that finding. When the National Highway Traffic Highway Safety Administration studied the effect of .08 in five States--California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont--it found significant reductions in alcohol-related crashes in four out of the five States, ranging from 4 percent to 40 percent when compared to the rest of the States with .10 BAC laws. You may hear that there is no ``objective evidence'' showing that .08 works. We have heard statements like that before from the tobacco industry, always declaring it is not proven, it is not sure, and it is not certain, but the person who is dead is dead and the family that is broken-hearted stays broken-hearted for life. Fact No. 6: Lowering the BAC limit to .08 makes it possible to convict seriously impaired drivers whose levels are now considered marginal because they are at or just over the .10 BAC, and the judge says, in many cases, ``OK, you are at 0.11; listen, watch yourself and don't do it again.'' Drinking and driving is a serious offense which should be handled by the appropriate authorities. Because .08 BAC laws are a general deterrent and have proven to deter even heavier drinkers from driving, the public has an increased awareness and understanding of what it takes to be too impaired to drive. After Virginia passed the law I mentioned before, not only did traffic fatalities go down but arrests also were reduced. Mr. President, .08 laws are not the problem. They are the solution. Fact No. 7: Most other Western countries already have drunk driving laws that are .08 or less. Here are some of the countries: Canada and Great Britain are .08; Australia varies between .05 and .08; Austria, .08; Switzerland, .08; France, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Finland, .05; Sweden, .02. Are we owned by the liquor-producing establishment? Are our families to be governed by rules established by the liquor lobby? I think not. This amendment would bring us into the civilized world when it comes to drunk driving laws. Most other countries have adopted these laws because they work. For example, over the past few years France has systematically reduced its legal limit for drunk driving and has seen measurable results. In France, the country that is first in per capita wine consumption, a motorist can have his or her license revoked at .05 BAC and can be jailed if caught driving at .08 BAC. It is estimated that 33 percent of all traffic fatalities in France are alcohol-related. Fact No. 8: The American people overwhelmingly support .08. When the question is asked, Would you be in favor of lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers to .08, 66 percent of the males said yes, 71 percent of the females said yes; the female, the mother, the one who inevitably feels most pain in a family when there is a loss, 71 percent said, Please, America, stop this; get the blood alcohol limit down to a sensible point. And as we saw even at .05 people's actions are impaired. So what we are doing is the right thing here. We hope we can get the liquor people and some of the restaurant people and beer wholesalers to come on over, join us, and be the kind of corporate citizens that we know you would like to be. So NHTSA surveys all show that most people would not drive after having two or three drinks in 1 hour and believe that the limit should be no higher than that which would get them there. Fact No. 9: We need a national drunk driving limit. The best approach is the one we employ because it works. This amendment is written the same way as the 21-year-old drinking age law. If the medical and scientific evidence show that a person is impaired at .08 BAC and should not be driving, why should someone be deemed to be drunk in one State but not the other? If they cross the State boundary and kill somebody, that person is just as dead, and that family is just as wounded. This bill will save lives, and it is a much more compelling argument than any other. As President Reagan said when he signed the 21 minimum drinking age bill into law, ``We know that drinking, plus driving, spells death and disaster . . . The problem is bigger than the individual States . . . It's a grave national problem, and it touches all our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no misgivings . . .'' President Reagan, who was strictly a person who liked to limit Federal power, said that. ``. . . we have no misgivings about this judicious use of Federal power.'' Sanctions, which is what we are proposing, work and soft incentives do not work. Since .08 BAC laws were part of the incentive grant program in 1993, only a handful of States have adopted .08. Incentive grant problems are the alcohol industry's best friend because they rarely have positive effects. Most telling, no single State lost highway funds as a result of the 21 drinking age law, and we expect no State to lose highway funds from the zero tolerance law. Some initiatives are important enough to employ that tool. Fact No. 10: Based on past history, adopting .08 will not hurt the economy. There is no evidence that per capita consumption of alcohol was affected in any of the five .08 BAC States examined by NHTSA. A different, four-State analysis conducted by several alcohol industry organizations showed virtually no effect on overall consumption. In the alcohol industry analysis, Maine, which adopted .08 in 1988, saw a slight dip in alcohol consumption in 1988, but restaurant sales actually increased 11 percent. Restaurants and the alcohol industry should support this bill because they care about their patrons. They don't want to hear about someone who just left their establishment and wound up killed on a road a few miles away. I don't care how much somebody drinks. They can drink until they fall off the bar stool; but just don't get behind the wheel of a car. This is a reasonable amendment. We are not talking about prohibition. Remember, when you are in a bar and look at a table full of people, .08 applies to only one of those people--the driver. As my colleagues read the materials disseminated by the opponents of this measure, you have to think to yourself, is .08 the right or the wrong thing to do? You can only have one conclusion if you care about your constituents. Don't get tangled up in whether this is too broad a reach for the Federal Government. Is it too broad a reach when the Federal Government saves lives, or when the Federal Government enacts environmental legislation that takes lead out of public buildings? Is it too much of a reach when the Federal Government posts warnings about air quality? Not at all. So don't get fooled by the alcohol lobby's machinations out there, saying, ``You can't prove it. It's not so. You should work on the chronic alcoholic.'' Yes, we want to work on the chronic alcoholic, but we want the casual drinker, someone who doesn't realize that when they get to .08, they are in dangerous territory when they get behind the wheel. So I hope my colleagues will all join in and support this amendment. Consider what the Wall Street Journal said: Safe alcohol levels should be set by health experts, not the lobby for Hooter's and Harrah's. The Lautenberg amendment isn't a drive toward prohibition, but an uphill push toward a health consensus. Mr. President, the Senate has heard my policy arguments. The facts are on our side. I want all Senators to weigh those facts carefully. But I also want them to think about one other issue--not a fact, but a person. I want them to think about the Ashley Fraziers in their State. The child in this photograph was 9 years old. We heard her mother and father talk about her today. This accident took place about 2 years ago. They still mourn every day. When her mother Brenda talked about Ashley, she said they still set a table for four, even though they know there are only going to be three people sitting at that table, because they don't want to forget Ashley. Ashley was killed by a woman, underage, driving with a .08 blood alcohol content. Mr. President, I hope that Senators and the American people can see this child, because there isn't any one of us who is a parent or a grandparent who doesn't so treasure the life of a child like this that we would give our own lives to protect her. We are not being asked to give our lives; we are being asked to give our judgment, we are being asked to give our support. Two years ago, Ashley's parents heard a noise and saw a sight that they will never forget. She said this morning at the White House, in the presence of the President, that they want to make sure that this never happens to other people. They were unselfishly baring their souls, anguish, and grief to prevent the possibility of someone they don't even know from losing a child like this beautiful young girl. This was a tragedy. Stop and think about the senseless death of this 9- year-old. It pulls our heartstrings, all of us. I ask all Senators to think of this when they vote on this amendment. Think of a family's pain when they lose a child, a loved one, and help us to try to prevent this from happening again. I urge my colleagues to support the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment to keep drunk drivers off the roads and keep them away from our kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the Chair mind repeating the time available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understood the manager on the other side to say he would be willing to accommodate by yielding time from his available time to other proponents. I ask the Senator from Ohio how much time he thinks he needs?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to praise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have fought long and hard to get campaign finance reform legislation on the Senate floor. Like them, I have fought hard for progressive campaign finance reform legislation since I have been in the Senate. Regrettably, opponents of campaign finance reform are once again using parliamentary tactics to try to block passage of the McCain- Feingold campaign reform legislation. This is unfortunate because a majority of the Senate favors the McCain-Feingold proposal. Because of the steadily growing amount of money spent on political campaigns and its adverse impact on public attitudes and governing, achieving the goals of McCain-Feingold is of paramount importance. McCain-Feingold would ban ``soft money,'' the very large, unregulated contributions that individuals, corporations and labor unions have been making in ever greater amounts to political parties. Under existing election laws, these contributions are permitted to promote general political party activities, such as voter registration, voter education and efforts to encourage voters to turn out on election day. However over the past several years, these large soft money contributions have become a means of donors and parties circumventing limits on campaign contributions to individual candidates. The two national political parties and state parties have used these funds to purchase TV ads that specifically mention candidate names and essentially amount to advertising by political parties or groups on behalf of individual candidates with money that the candidates cannot use themselves for this purpose. Advocacy ads of this nature, fueled by large and undisclosed contributions, are a means of circumventing campaign finance restrictions on the size of contributions to individual candidates. I support limits on very large campaign contributions to candidates, in order to prevent undue influence by special interests on those who govern. The McCain-Feingold bill would uphold existing limits by banning soft money and requiring that independent expenditures for so- called issue advocacy advertisements by political parties or advocacy groups deal exclusively with issues, rather than being designed to persuade the public about a particular candidate. McCain-Feingold re- defines ``express advocacy'' as any broadcast television or radio communication that mentions the name of a Federal candidate within 60 days of an election. Parties and groups that meet the new guidelines would be required to finance their ads in accordance with Federal election laws. This reform does not stifle free speech. It just closes a loophole that has developed in our election laws which permits unlimited, soft money expenditures to be made to buy advertisements for or against specific candidates. The bill does not in any way prevent groups or parties from publishing scorecards or voter guides. Mr. President, I am and have always been a staunch advocate of free speech and very protective of First Amendment rights. I agree with legal scholars that the McCain-Feingold bill does not restrict free speech, but is important for reducing the influence of big, special interest money in our campaigns and political system. The amount of money now flowing through our electoral system is enormous and breeds a deep cynicism in the public. We need to break the choke of special interest money on the nation's Capitol and restore America's faith in our election system. The McCain-Feingold bill will help cleanup American politics. It will ban unlimited, unregulated soft money that is compromising our electoral system. It will also make other improvements in our election system. For example it will begin to regulate shell organizations that exist to circumvent existing campaign laws. Many of these front organizations claim that they are independent but they are not. They are simply tools of the political parties and special interests and are primarily engaged in electioneering. In 1997, political parties raised $67 million dollars in soft money-- more soft money than ever before raised in a non-election year and more than double what was raised in 1993. The largest single soft money check written in the last half of 1997 was for $250,000 to the Republican National Committee. And who wrote this check? Phillip Morris. Does anyone in the Senate believe that allowing tobacco companies to write unlimited checks to political parties is a good idea? Especially at a time when Congress is considering comprehensive tobacco legislation? Congress is now considering legislation that could mean that the tobacco companies would have to forgo billions of dollars of profits. Yet while we debate possible special legal protections for this outlaw industry, our campaign finance system allows them to write unlimited checks to our political parties. This is wrong. Mr. President, last year, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held hearing after hearing about the problems associated with soft money. We all witnessed the disturbing testimony and all of the abuses that were prevalent in both parties during the 1996 election. Now we have a chance to do something about soft money. Unfortunately, some of the same Senators who were highlighting the problems associated with soft money last year in Committee hearings, are now the ones filibustering the McCain-Feingold bill that will get rid of soft money. This is tragically ironic. We must continue the fight to clean up our political system. The American people believe that our political system is corrupt and we need to clean it up. Mr. President, I urge the Republican leadership to let us have a full debate on campaign finance reform. Let us vote on McCain-Feingold and the Senate will pass it and the President will sign it. So, I urge my colleagues to reject these parliamentary tactics to kill the McCain-Feingold bill and allow it to become law. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a 1996 law that requires the Navy to maintain two antiquated battleships in its reserves, even though they will never again see even one more day of battle. This provision requires the Navy to maintain two Iowa-class battleships as mobilization assets, even though the Navy will never again rely on them to protect American interests. The Iowa-class battleships were commissioned during World War II. They were built at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt to be the American Navy's fastest battleship, and their 16-inch guns were designed to pummel our adversaries' shores. There is no doubt that these battleships are of significant historical importance to the American military heritage. They represent America's pride in its Navy. They symbolize our admiration for those who worked so hard to build and serve aboard our battleships. In 1995, the Navy determined that all four of the World War II era Iowa-class battleships in its arsenal--the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin--were no longer essential to our national defense. Subsequently, the Navy struck these four ships from the Naval Vessel Register. The laws governing the disposal of ships stricken from the Register allow the Navy to donate these ships to states, local communities, and non-profits for display as memorials and museums. Thus, in 1995, the Navy was set to begin the process of donating all four ships. But the Senate Armed Services Committee disagreed with the Navy's decision to release these ships, the Committee included a provision in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act mandating that the Navy maintain at least two of the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register. The Navy subsequently chose the USS New Jersey and the USS Wisconsin to comply with this provision. The bill I am introducing today would repeal this requirement, enabling the Navy to once again strike these ships from the Register and make them available for donation to interested communities. Mr. President, I hope the members of this distinguished body will approve my proposal to repeal this law. It makes sense from a national defense perspective. Navy Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy has no plans to reactivate these ships. In a recent letter to the Appropriations Committee, he wrote, ``the Navy does not intend to return the ships to service. . .'' They will never again fire their 16- inch guns to support an amphibious landing or operation ashore. They will never again serve as a platform for surface fire-support. Instead, they will only continue to sit, mothballed at Naval ports, awaiting a call to duty that they will never hear. This bill also makes sense from a fiscal perspective. According to Navy estimates, the cost of maintaining these ships is approximately $200,000 per ship per year. To date, the Navy has already spent close to $1 million to mothball ships that will never again be reactivated for purposes of national defense. I see no sense in the federal government's paying for the Navy to keep ships ready for a war in which it will never call them to serve. The American taxpayer deserves a better deal. Although these ships have been deactivated for good, they can still continue to be of immense public benefit. On the eve of the twenty- first century, many of our nation's waterfront cities are struggling to resurrect their economies. The federal government spends millions each year on projects to help revitalize blighted waterfront communities. Since the laws governing the disposal of former Navy assets allow their donation, we are presented with a unique opportunity to contribute to the economic development of our cities--at no further cost to the federal government. Many of our communities want to compete to berth a ship on their shores, as a museum and memorial, to anchor a waterfront development project. But the 1996 law is depriving these communities of a chance to undergo major revitalization efforts. The citizens of New Jersey recognized the economic development potential of these battleships many years ago. My constituents have been preparing for the return of the USS New Jersey as the only Iowa- class battleship which may be berthed as an educational museum and memorial in her namesake state. Tens of thousands of volunteers have devoted countless hours to this long-standing, state-wide project. The New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey Commission, which has undertaken an ambitious fundraising effort to obtain the USS New Jersey. To date, the Commission has secured approximately $3 million for this effort through sales of a ``Battleship New Jersey'' license plate, a state income tax check-off, and private donations. But New Jersey's efforts are hamstrung by the 1996 law requiring the Navy to maintain the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register. Repealing this law will have a three-fold public benefit. First and most obvious, we will no longer need to provide funding in our defense budget for ships that will never be reactivated. This alone warrants the support of my proposal. Second, we will contribute to the economic development of our cities at no further cost to the federal government. And third, we will enable generations of Americans to honor the history of our battleships by facilitating their display as memorials and museums. Forcing the Navy to keep the Iowa-class battleships ready for war is the equivalent of forcing NASA to keep the Apollo rockets ready to blast off into space. As we all know, the Apollo project was undertaken to send Americans to the moon. Will we ever want to send an American to the moon again? Probably--but not in an Apollo rocket. Even though advances in technology have rendered the Apollos relics of the American determination to succeed, their preservation at locations throughout the country allows the public to admire and appreciate their legacy. And NASA doesn't have to keep paying for them. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the members of the Armed Services Committee to pass this bill. It is good for the American taxpayers and our national defense, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to speak in strong support of the HEALTHY Kids Act, which was introduced by Senator Conrad. Senator Conrad chaired our tobacco task force, on which I served as vice chairman, and I thought, as did most on our side, that he did an incredibly thorough job in researching the issues and hearing from the various affected parties. Mr. President, this bill today reflects the consensus of our task force. It is the vision of the Senate Democrats and has cosponsors from all sectors of the Democratic Party. Although some of us differ on certain specific points, all of us who are cosponsoring this legislation agree that this bill contains the right approach to tackling the devastating health problems that come from smoking cigarettes. At the heart of this proposal is a per pack price increase of $1.50. This price increase will be phased in over three years and then indexed to inflation to maintain a deterrent effect on youth smoking. I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, with this aspect of the HEALTHY Kids Act because it was adopted from a bill I introduced last year, the Public Health and Education Resource Act, which is S. 1343. I believe now--as I did then--that if we are serious about reducing teen smoking, we have to increase the price swiftly and dramatically. It seems to have the most deterrent effect of all measures on youth because when the price goes up that far they cannot afford to pick up the habit, for which we are grateful. This bill also includes much of the bill that Senator Kennedy sponsored, and that I had the opportunity to support as a cosponsor, again representing the views of several of our Members to be included in this consensus package. The focus of any tobacco legislation must be on improving the health of future generations of Americans, and this bill accomplishes that very clearly. In addition to funding various programs that will reduce teen smoking and benefit the well-being of children, it provides unfettered FDA jurisdiction. As the President has stated many times, full FDA power over these deadly products is essential. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee I am also pleased that this bill is consistent with the President's budget proposal. Both approaches recognize that comprehensive tobacco legislation requires a strong investment in America's children. Our approach keeps children away from this addictive product, improves their health, provides adequate child care and gives them a learning environment that fosters health and knowledge and progress. That is a real investment in our children, and that is the focus of the Healthy Kids Act. Mr. President, I often hear that we in Congress cannot pass any legislation that the tobacco industry does not first agree to support. They speak as if Big Tobacco has some sort of veto right over legislation affecting their industry. I must tell you. I fail to find in the Constitution of the United States--or in any of the Senate rules--any provision that gives them the right to veto legislation. The Congress not only has a right--but a duty--to rein in on an industry that has been out of control targeting our children for addiction and lying about the dangerous nature of their products. Mr. President, there has also been a great deal of talk about providing special protection against liability to this industry. First of all, one must question why in the world this industry, which has engaged in more corporate misconduct than any other, deserves unprecedented special protection from civil liability. Secondly, this industry continues to this day to hide from the public critical information about tobacco's effect on our health. Congress shouldn't even consider limited civil liability protections until we have full and absolute disclosure from the companies. It is time for them to stop hiding behind false claims of privilege and come clean with the American people. Mr. President, this bill, the Healthy Kids Act, presents Congress with a historic opportunity. I welcome, very sincerely, my friends from the other side of the aisle to cosponsor this bill, to work with us, as I know that they want to, to question perhaps the methodology or process. But I hope that won't stand in the way. We both want to save children's lives. We want to invest in their future. It has to be a bipartisan goal. I expect that many of our friends on the Republican side will join us at some point. Mr. President, as can be expected in any omnibus legislation, some Senators will disagree on specific provisions of the bill. In fact, I have some reservations about certain provisions of this act, such as the secondhand smoke restrictions, which I believe could be tougher. But I ask all of my colleagues to keep their eye on the big picture-- reducing tobacco's seductive grip on our kids. Their target--it is very clearly understood--is to get 3,000 kids a day to start smoking because they know once you start it is hell to try and stop. And we don't want to permit them to get a grip on our children, on their lives, on their health, or on their habits. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will be working together in a bipartisan way. We will make this happen if we can possibly do so. And I invite all of our colleagues to join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a 1996 law that requires the Navy to maintain two antiquated battleships in its reserves, even though they will never again see even one more day of battle. This provision requires the Navy to maintain two Iowa-class battleships as mobilization assets, even though the Navy will never again rely on them to protect American interests. The Iowa-class battleships were commissioned during World War II. They were built at the request of President Franklin Roosevelt to be the American Navy's fastest battleship, and their 16-inch guns were designed to pummel our adversaries' shores. There is no doubt that these battleships are of significant historical importance to the American military heritage. They represent America's pride in its Navy. They symbolize our admiration for those who worked so hard to build and serve aboard our battleships. In 1995, the Navy determined that all four of the World War II era Iowa-class battleships in its arsenal--the USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin--were no longer essential to our national defense. Subsequently, the Navy struck these four ships from the Naval Vessel Register. The laws governing the disposal of ships stricken from the Register allow the Navy to donate these ships to states, local communities, and non-profits for display as memorials and museums. Thus, in 1995, the Navy was set to begin the process of donating all four ships. But the Senate Armed Services Committee disagreed with the Navy's decision to release these ships, the Committee included a provision in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act mandating that the Navy maintain at least two of the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register. The Navy subsequently chose the USS New Jersey and the USS Wisconsin to comply with this provision. The bill I am introducing today would repeal this requirement, enabling the Navy to once again strike these ships from the Register and make them available for donation to interested communities. Mr. President, I hope the members of this distinguished body will approve my proposal to repeal this law. It makes sense from a national defense perspective. Navy Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy has no plans to reactivate these ships. In a recent letter to the Appropriations Committee, he wrote, ``the Navy does not intend to return the ships to service. . .'' They will never again fire their 16- inch guns to support an amphibious landing or operation ashore. They will never again serve as a platform for surface fire-support. Instead, they will only continue to sit, mothballed at Naval ports, awaiting a call to duty that they will never hear. This bill also makes sense from a fiscal perspective. According to Navy estimates, the cost of maintaining these ships is approximately $200,000 per ship per year. To date, the Navy has already spent close to $1 million to mothball ships that will never again be reactivated for purposes of national defense. I see no sense in the federal government's paying for the Navy to keep ships ready for a war in which it will never call them to serve. The American taxpayer deserves a better deal. Although these ships have been deactivated for good, they can still continue to be of immense public benefit. On the eve of the twenty- first century, many of our nation's waterfront cities are struggling to resurrect their economies. The federal government spends millions each year on projects to help revitalize blighted waterfront communities. Since the laws governing the disposal of former Navy assets allow their donation, we are presented with a unique opportunity to contribute to the economic development of our cities--at no further cost to the federal government. Many of our communities want to compete to berth a ship on their shores, as a museum and memorial, to anchor a waterfront development project. But the 1996 law is depriving these communities of a chance to undergo major revitalization efforts. The citizens of New Jersey recognized the economic development potential of these battleships many years ago. My constituents have been preparing for the return of the USS New Jersey as the only Iowa- class battleship which may be berthed as an educational museum and memorial in her namesake state. Tens of thousands of volunteers have devoted countless hours to this long-standing, state-wide project. The New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey Commission, which has undertaken an ambitious fundraising effort to obtain the USS New Jersey. To date, the Commission has secured approximately $3 million for this effort through sales of a ``Battleship New Jersey'' license plate, a state income tax check-off, and private donations. But New Jersey's efforts are hamstrung by the 1996 law requiring the Navy to maintain the Iowa-class battleships on the Naval Vessel Register. Repealing this law will have a three-fold public benefit. First and most obvious, we will no longer need to provide funding in our defense budget for ships that will never be reactivated. This alone warrants the support of my proposal. Second, we will contribute to the economic development of our cities at no further cost to the federal government. And third, we will enable generations of Americans to honor the history of our battleships by facilitating their display as memorials and museums. Forcing the Navy to keep the Iowa-class battleships ready for war is the equivalent of forcing NASA to keep the Apollo rockets ready to blast off into space. As we all know, the Apollo project was undertaken to send Americans to the moon. Will we ever want to send an American to the moon again? Probably--but not in an Apollo rocket. Even though advances in technology have rendered the Apollos relics of the American determination to succeed, their preservation at locations throughout the country allows the public to admire and appreciate their legacy. And NASA doesn't have to keep paying for them. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the members of the Armed Services Committee to pass this bill. It is good for the American taxpayers and our national defense, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to speak in strong support of the HEALTHY Kids Act, which was introduced by Senator Conrad. Senator Conrad chaired our tobacco task force, on which I served as vice chairman, and I thought, as did most on our side, that he did an incredibly thorough job in researching the issues and hearing from the various affected parties. Mr. President, this bill today reflects the consensus of our task force. It is the vision of the Senate Democrats and has cosponsors from all sectors of the Democratic Party. Although some of us differ on certain specific points, all of us who are cosponsoring this legislation agree that this bill contains the right approach to tackling the devastating health problems that come from smoking cigarettes. At the heart of this proposal is a per pack price increase of $1.50. This price increase will be phased in over three years and then indexed to inflation to maintain a deterrent effect on youth smoking. I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, with this aspect of the HEALTHY Kids Act because it was adopted from a bill I introduced last year, the Public Health and Education Resource Act, which is S. 1343. I believe now--as I did then--that if we are serious about reducing teen smoking, we have to increase the price swiftly and dramatically. It seems to have the most deterrent effect of all measures on youth because when the price goes up that far they cannot afford to pick up the habit, for which we are grateful. This bill also includes much of the bill that Senator Kennedy sponsored, and that I had the opportunity to support as a cosponsor, again representing the views of several of our Members to be included in this consensus package. The focus of any tobacco legislation must be on improving the health of future generations of Americans, and this bill accomplishes that very clearly. In addition to funding various programs that will reduce teen smoking and benefit the well-being of children, it provides unfettered FDA jurisdiction. As the President has stated many times, full FDA power over these deadly products is essential. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee I am also pleased that this bill is consistent with the President's budget proposal. Both approaches recognize that comprehensive tobacco legislation requires a strong investment in America's children. Our approach keeps children away from this addictive product, improves their health, provides adequate child care and gives them a learning environment that fosters health and knowledge and progress. That is a real investment in our children, and that is the focus of the Healthy Kids Act. Mr. President, I often hear that we in Congress cannot pass any legislation that the tobacco industry does not first agree to support. They speak as if Big Tobacco has some sort of veto right over legislation affecting their industry. I must tell you. I fail to find in the Constitution of the United States--or in any of the Senate rules--any provision that gives them the right to veto legislation. The Congress not only has a right--but a duty--to rein in on an industry that has been out of control targeting our children for addiction and lying about the dangerous nature of their products. Mr. President, there has also been a great deal of talk about providing special protection against liability to this industry. First of all, one must question why in the world this industry, which has engaged in more corporate misconduct than any other, deserves unprecedented special protection from civil liability. Secondly, this industry continues to this day to hide from the public critical information about tobacco's effect on our health. Congress shouldn't even consider limited civil liability protections until we have full and absolute disclosure from the companies. It is time for them to stop hiding behind false claims of privilege and come clean with the American people. Mr. President, this bill, the Healthy Kids Act, presents Congress with a historic opportunity. I welcome, very sincerely, my friends from the other side of the aisle to cosponsor this bill, to work with us, as I know that they want to, to question perhaps the methodology or process. But I hope that won't stand in the way. We both want to save children's lives. We want to invest in their future. It has to be a bipartisan goal. I expect that many of our friends on the Republican side will join us at some point. Mr. President, as can be expected in any omnibus legislation, some Senators will disagree on specific provisions of the bill. In fact, I have some reservations about certain provisions of this act, such as the secondhand smoke restrictions, which I believe could be tougher. But I ask all of my colleagues to keep their eye on the big picture-- reducing tobacco's seductive grip on our kids. Their target--it is very clearly understood--is to get 3,000 kids a day to start smoking because they know once you start it is hell to try and stop. And we don't want to permit them to get a grip on our children, on their lives, on their health, or on their habits. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will be working together in a bipartisan way. We will make this happen if we can possibly do so. And I invite all of our colleagues to join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to voice my opposition to this bill. Mr. President, I certainly have respect for our former President, Ronald Reagan. I served in the Senate during his two terms as President and we worked together on many pieces of legislation. One of my proudest achievements was the passage of the national minimum drinking age bill that established a national drinking age of 21. That law, which President Reagan proudly signed, is credited with saving nearly 1,000 young lives each year. I am thankful to President Reagan for being a part of that fight. While I did not agree with him on a number of other issues, I do respect him and believe his legacy is a powerful one. However, Mr. President, Washington National Airport in Alexandria, is already named after a great American--George Washington, our first president. George Washington's role in our nation's history and in this area's history is rich and well documented. George Washington, the father of our country, the man who led our troops against the powerful British army, the man who chaired the Constitutional Convention, the man who lived a short 15 miles away at Mount Vernon in Virginia, certainly does not deserve to have his name stripped from the airport, and replaced by another, which this bill would effectively do. If this legislation passes, most people will refer to it as Ronald Reagan airport, and President Washington's name will rarely be associated with this facility again. Mr. President, a short time ago, Congress named the second largest federal office building in the nation--second to the Pentagon--after Ronald Reagan. Naming the Federal Triangle Project in downtown Washington the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center is a fitting tribute to President Reagan, who signed the authorization for that project into law, and who believed strongly in free trade. In the wake of honoring President Reagan with that naming, this bill is not necessary. Mr. President, I have other concerns with this legislation, and I believe that those issues would also concern President Reagan. There is a serious question as to whether it is appropriate for Congress to change the name of Washington National Airport. The bill would impose Congress's will upon the local authorities by forcing them to change the airport's name. This would be done with no input from the local communities. No hearings. No votes. No discussion. No opportunity for public comment. Simply put, the airport authority must adopt the name as determined by Congress, the federal government. This clear mandate from the federal government, imposed on the local communities, is precisely what President Reagan would object to. His legacy is clear on this matter. We should not offend that legacy in an attempt to honor the man himself. I am not ruling out any legislation with respect to this issue, but the underlying bill will have to be improved before I will vote for it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Washington Post and the New York Times also editorialized against this dark-of-night assault just this past week. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these and previous editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss the report pending that should come over from the House of Representatives in the next while on the appropriations bill that relates to the Commerce, State, Justice Departments. And part of what is in this report that we expect to see relates to the importation of surplus military weapons that were manufactured in the United States and, many years ago, were sent abroad as part of our military assistance program. Now, although there was initially no bill or report language on the issue in either the House or the Senate bills before conference, the issue has nevertheless consumed an enormous amount of time over the past few weeks, and it has generated some significant controversy. I have had a deep interest in this subject because I believe that when we load this society of ours up with more guns, we ought to know why we are doing it. It has been the policy of three administrations--Reagan, Bush, and now the current Clinton administration--to ban foreign governments from exporting to our shores and selling these American-made military weapons that we gave or sold them at sharp discounts to help us fight common enemies, and sell these weapons to the U.S. commercial markets. Nonetheless, the National Rifle Association and the gun importers supported an attempt--in the dark of night, I point out--to slip a provision into the conference agreement on this bill to overturn this longstanding policy and allow military weapons made for military use to flood America's streets. The administration strongly opposed this attempt. In fact, the President's senior advisers, at one point, said they would recommend that the President veto the bill--this important bill--to finance our Justice Department, our State Department, and our Commerce Department-- if it included an amendment to allow foreign governments to export large quantities of military weapons for commercial sale in America's cities and towns. They don't restrict whose hands these fall into. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the OMB director, Franklin Raines, on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Fortunately, Mr. President, the provision was not included in the conference agreement that the Senate will consider later this evening and these dangerous military weapons will not flood our streets. This is a huge victory for the American people. Mr. President, the weapons at issue were granted or sold to foreign governments, often at a discount, through military assistance programs, and some were given to or left in foreign countries during wars. They are called curios or relics because they are considered by some to have historic value or are more than 50 years old. One of them I carried in World War II when I was a soldier in Europe. It was an M-1 carbine. It may be a curiosity now or a relic. But I can tell you it was there to be used for my protecting myself or to kill the enemy. Fortunately, neither happened. But I carried it by my side when I served on the European Continent. But they are not innocuous antiques or museum pieces. They remain deadly weapons. Proponents of allowing the importation of these weapons argue that they are historic firearms that are not dangerous. In fact, the amendment would have flooded the market with millions of lethal killing weapons. Under the amendment that was rejected, 2.5 million, semiautomatic military weapons--including the M-1 carbine, M-1 Garand, and M-1911 pistol--would have flooded the streets. The M-1 carbine can easily be converted into an illegal, fully automatic weapon. These semiautomatic military weapons may be old, but they are lethal. Thirteen American police officers have recently been murdered with M- 1's and M-1911's. In New Jersey in 1995, Franklin Township Sgt. Lee Gonzalez was killed by Robert ``Mudman'' Simon during a routine stop. Simon was a Warlocks motorcycle gang member. Simon, who had just committed a robbery, shot Gonzalez twice, once in the head and once in the neck, using an M-1911 semiautomatic pistol. That's the same weapon that would be imported under the rejected amendment. In Texas in 1991, Pasadena police officer Jeff Ginn was killed with an M-1 carbine. He was responding to a call about smoke coming from a house in the neighborhood he was patrolling. Ginn found Marvin Harris holding a woman hostage in her own home. When he saw police officer Ginn, Harris shot him in the leg. Ginn hobbled to the front of the house, where he leaned up against a tree, begging not to be shot again. Harris murdered officer Ginn by shooting him in the temple and the abdomen with the M-1 carbine. In New Hampshire--the home State of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Judd Gregg, who knows only too well of the impact of the use of that weapon--Sgt. James Noyes of the New Hampshire State Police was killed in the line of duty with an M-1 carbine in 1994. And there are many innocent civilians who have been threatened and murdered with these weapons as well. In 1995 and 1996, M-1's and M-1911 weapons were traced to more than 1,800 crimes nationwide. Already, nearly 1,000 crimes have been traced to these weapons in 1997. Allowing the importation of large numbers of these killer weapons would undermine efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. And everybody would like to have that done. I can tell you. It doesn't matter what State or what kind of community--rural or urban. That is the biggest fear that people have; that is, that they will lose a loved one to a violent act, or someone will pick up a gun, or either randomly or directly shoot one of their children, brother, sister, mother or father. This would also reduce the cost of weapons, because there would be a marketplace filled with 2.5 million--the maximum capacity for exportation--making them more accessible to criminals. It would also provide a windfall for foreign governments at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. The weapons were paid for by the American taxpayer and were provided to foreign governments through our assistance program. The market value of the 2.5 million that can be traced to foreign governments exceeds $1 billion. That adds insult to injury. Allowing millions of U.S.-origin military weapons to enter the United States would profit a limited number of arms importers and would not be in the overall interest of the American people. These weapons are not designed for hunting or for shooting competitions; they are designed for war. Foreign countries should not be permitted to sell these weapons on the commercial market for profit. There is no doubt foreign governments would make a handsome profit from their sale in the commercial market. Consequently, countries that the United States assisted in times of need, such as South Korea and the Philippines, and even a country like Iran could make a profit out of these sales. Imagine permitting weapons to be imported into this country that would send dollars back to Iran. It is an outrage. In lieu of approval of an amendment to import these weapons, the administration is being asked to provide a report on the curios or relics issue. The report will provide information about the quantity of applications and articles that have been approved for importation as well as an estimate of the number of firearms available for importation from overseas. It will also explain how an M-1 carbine can be converted into an illegal machinegun or assault weapon. I have no problem asking the Government to prepare a report for the use of the House or the Senate. But I would like to make sure that this is a balanced report, that it doesn't simply list statistics. But I want to explain why it is important for the President and Secretary of State to retain their authority to retain control over firearms granted or sold by the Government exclusively for foreign military use and never intended for private use. I would also encourage the administration when it submits a report to include information about applications in the Bush and Reagan administration as well. After all, this administration is upholding a policy that was first established by President Reagan and upheld by the Bush administration. I believe the administration should include in the report a description of any law enforcement or grand jury investigations of alleged illegal conduct related to the importation of M-1 or M1911 firearms. A grand jury previously investigated one attempt to import these weapons by a company with a peculiar name called Blue Sky. There were serious allegations that the law was manipulated for personal gain, and the investigation ended when the lead witness mysteriously died in a plane crash. The American people have the right to understand what happened in this inquiry. The report I believe also--this is an expansion on what is in the report requested of the administration. It is something I didn't agree with. But we are at a very late point in time when these bills have to be considered. So we have accepted this report against, frankly, my best judgment. The report also should provide an analysis of the number and types of weapons that have been added to the curios or relics list since 1980, the process by which those weapons are added to the list, and the entities that have petitioned to have weapons added to the list. The American people have the right to understand more about the way military weapons are designated as curios and relics. Finally, I believe it should include a comprehensive overview of the number of homicides and violent crimes committed against police officers and against civilians with M1's or M1911's, regardless of the manufacturer, or any other firearm on the curios or relics list. Though curios and relics may have some historical interest for collectors, many of these firearms remain of concern due to crime. Mr. President, I am delighted that this effort to overturn U.S. policy behind closed doors in the dark of night was defeated. And just to clarify, for the information of those who might not understand our arcane way of operation, there is a bill, and in the bill there is a mandate that certain things be done. Report language is suggested on top of that bill but does not have the effect of law. That is what I am talking about here--this report language, not the bill itself. I am delighted, again, that this effort to overturn U.S. policy behind closed doors was defeated. It would have been an insult to the American people to overturn a longstanding policy behind the closed doors of the Appropriations Committee. I have introduced legislation, S. 723, to repeal a loophole in the Arms Export Control Act that could enable these weapons to enter the country under a future administration. I hope that my colleagues will support this bill. In the meantime, Mr. President, this is a victory for the American taxpayer and a victory for all concerned about safety. I hope we reject the notion that we ought to take back and pay for things that we gave away, or that we sold at sharp discounts. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Finally, a coalition of 50 organizations including Handgun Control, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, opposed this effort to overturn the policy of three administrations on this issue. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of their letter on the issue.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the work of Straight and Narrow, a non-profit organization headquartered in Paterson, New Jersey, which has been a pioneer in the field of substance abuse treatment with impressive results. Straight and Narrow serves more than 750 people a day, almost all of them poor. Its services cover the whole spectrum of the substance abuse field, from effective prevention services for young people to treatment of the chemically dependent. Straight and Narrow's programs have been proven to deliver effective treatment at a significantly lower cost per patient than most treatment programs. National studies of Straight and Narrow's work have concluded that its results have far exceeded those of other approaches to substance abuse treatment. Straight and Narrow is currently working in conjunction with the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the National Development and Research Institutes [NDRI] on a research and demonstration proposal to develop a national model of Straight and Narrow's approach to substance abuse treatment. This proposal includes clinical trials of the use of patient work combined with psychological counseling, family therapy, education, job training, and after care for treatment of substance abusers from disadvantaged backgrounds, including non violent prisoners. Mr. President, I am proud of Straight and Narrow's accomplishments in New Jersey, and I believe that it would be most advantageous for the Federal Government to assist in the development of a model for the implementation of Straight and Narrow's programs on the national level. I believe that Straight and Narrow's proposal is one that the Department of Justice should seriously consider supporting, and I hope the Department will give this proposal serious consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senators D'Amato, Moynihan, and Torricelli that addresses the growing problem of cargo theft. This crime, which covers the interstate theft of cargo from ports, airports, rails, and roads, causes losses as high as $10 billion a year in the United States. The ``Cargo Theft Deterrence Act of 1997'' increases the incentive for prosecutors to pursue this crime and for defendants to cooperate with law enforcement. Furthermore, this legislation clarifies what is covered by existing law. Cargo theft continues unabated as criminals discover that the risks of getting caught and prosecuted are far lower than for comparably lucrative crimes. This tends to be an under-reported crime that has received a relatively small amount of attention by Congress. I believe this must change. Mr. President, let me cite a few statistics that should demonstrate to my colleagues the seriousness of this crime and why we should act. In 1994, the dollar value in goods stolen from a single tractor-trailer rig in New Jersey was higher than all of the bank robberies combined in my state for that year. While certain regions of the United States, such as New Jersey/New York, Southern California, and South Florida, sustain higher cargo theft losses than others, consumers nationwide are affected. For example, one industry group estimated that computers cost an average of $150 more because of cargo theft, and that approximately $3.5 billion of computers, chips, and software are stolen annually. The risk management director for one computer company said that ``it's a rare company that hasn't ever lost a truck.'' Most people do not realize that the value of computer chips per pound is higher than gold. And, unfortunately, the resale value of stolen items is much higher than what one might believe. Many of these goods end up overseas while others are sold in the same city. Mr. President, virtually no product is safe from this crime. While theft of computers and computer products, fragrances, and designer clothes are not uncommon, items ranging from frozen seafood, pineapple pulp, cough drops, refried beans, and insulation have been reported stolen. The industry maxim of ``cargo at rest is cargo at risk'' is no longer a truism--all cargo is a risk--and contrary to the belief that this is a victimless crime, an alarming number of tractor trailers have been hijacked. This occurred just several weeks ago in New Jersey, when a truck was hijacked right after leaving a port. Fortunately the driver was unharmed though one million dollars' worth of clothes were stolen. Tighter measures taken by port authorities and manufacturers at their plants have caused such hijackings to increase. Mr. President, the need for this legislation is not a criticism of our law enforcement. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, for example, has made significant strides at curbing this crime in the New Jersey/New York region. Unfortunately, existing law does not provide an adequate deterrent because the penalties are not sufficiently severe nor is there an incentive for defendants to cooperate with prosecutors. Let me explain, Mr. President, what my legislation will do. It will bring efforts to fight this crime into the next century. Enacted in its earliest form in 1913, the statute that my bill modifies covers such older modes of transportation and distribution of cargo as wagons, depots, and steamboats. My bill recognizes the advances we have made in intermodal connections and transportation by adding such terms as ``trailer,'' ``air cargo container,'' and ``freight consolidation facility.'' The days of cargo theft from wagons are gone. Furthermore, the Cargo Theft Deterrence Act broadens the statute's coverage to clarify that cargo is moving as an interstate or foreign shipment at all points between the point of origin and the final destination. Merely because a container is temporarily at rest awaiting transport to its final destination should not prevent law enforcement from prosecuting a defendant under this statute. Existing law currently covers cargo moving as a part of interstate or foreign commerce. My legislation increases the penalties for convictions under this statute. Current law provides that those convicted of this provision shall be fined or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. My bill increases this maximum prison term to three. This statute, as currently written, requires the government to prove that not only did a defendant embezzle, steal, or unlawfully take the cargo, it must show that he did so with the intent to convert to his own use. This seems duplicative at best and is an unnecessary hurdle for the prosecutor to demonstrate. The Cargo Theft Deterrence Act eliminates the term, ``with intent to convert to his own use'' from this statute. Since we have removed this intent language, we have created the affirmative defense that the defendant bought, received, or possessed the cargo with the sole intent of reporting the matter to either law enforcement or the owner of the cargo. The Sentencing Commission is directed to provide a sentencing enhancement of two levels for this crime similar to enhancements made for offenses involving organized schemes to steal vehicles or if the offense involved more than minimal planning. This Act also requires the Attorney General to report annually to Congress on the progress made by law enforcement investigating and prosecuting this crime. Additionally, upon motion by the Attorney General, a court may reduce the penalties if a defendant cooperates with law enforcement. Use of informants is essential in reducing this crime and this provision creates an appropriate incentive. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation creates a Cargo Theft Advisory Committee that will study and make recommendations about the establishment of a national data base of information about this crime. A constant complaint by industry and law enforcement is that there is a lack of good data about cargo theft. Industry tends to under-report it and law enforcement frequently classifies it in such categories as theft, robbery, hijacking, and burglary. This Committee, which shall exist for one year and report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the President, will also review the desirability of creating a centralized office within the federal government to oversee efforts designed to curb cargo theft and to increase coordination with the private sector, and state and local law enforcement. Mr. President, I thought an advisory committee was the most prudent course because legitimate questions have been raised about whether this data base should be maintained by the public or private sector, who should be able to access it, and what information should be collected, yet remain confidential. Moreover, there are several logical agencies that could house an office on cargo security so I thought it is appropriate to have cargo security experts in both the public and private sector make this recommendation. Mr. President, I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this legislation and urge my colleagues to support this first step in addressing this crime that affects all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Equity and Public Involvement in Superfund Act of 1997 [TEPI]. Hazardous sites, the legacy of our industrial growth, litter the landscape across America. Many of those sites are toxic and pose real threats to the groundwater, the air and our water, and accordingly, our health and the health of the environment. The worst of those sites are so foul and so polluted that they are beyond the capacity of most States to handle. These sites, placed on the national priorities list for clean up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act commonly known as Superfund can take years to clean up and cost tens of millions of dollars to clean up. They are ticking time bombs that threaten the health and survival of entire communities. Over the years the hazardous waste clean up program has been heavily criticized as being too slow, involving too much litigation and too expensive. Congress addressed many of those problems in 1986, and Administrator Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has instituted many reforms to speed up the cleanup program. The results are dramatic. EPA has completed cleanup construction at 498 sites and more than 500 additional sites are in construction. Taxpayers have saved $12 billion because polluters responsible for these sites are performing or funding approximately 70 percent of Superfund long-term cleanups. But, problems remain, partly because big corporate polluters are using the present law to drag tiny merchants and other parties who are minor polluters, or innocents who merely sent solid waste to a municipal landfill, into expensive lawsuits. A recent story televised by ``60 Minutes'' on the Keystone landfill in Pennsylvania showed the scope of the problem. The story centered on Barbara Williams, the owner of the Sunny Ray Restaurant in Gettysburg, PA, who was being sued by the sites' toxic polluters for $75,000 because of the mashed potatoes she sent to the dump. Tiny gift stores, and other small businesses were dragged into a Superfund suit because they had sent regular trash to the Keystone Landfill. EPA Administrator Carol Browner is aware of this problem and has been trying to do something about it. She has offered expedited settlements, known as de minimis settlements, to more than 20,000 parties nationwide whose contribution to Superfund sites is comparatively small. She has also offered settlements for as little as $1.00, known as de micromis settlements, to parties whose contributions of hazardous waste to a site are minuscule, but whose payments to lawyers have been immense. While EPA has done an admirable job at ameliorating the aspect of the law that allows contribution litigation to happen, and indeed has deterred instances of egregious litigation, EPA can only do so much within the confines of the law and within the context of litigation. The law needs to be changed to put an end to these harassment suits. Since 1993, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee repeatedly has tried to bridge the differences that exist on Superfund and send a reform bill to the President. Mr. President, as the ranking Democratic member of the Superfund Subcommittee, I have spent many hours over the past several months with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the Superfund Subcommittee Chairman Senator Smith, Administrator Browner and Senator Baucus, the ranking Democratic member of the full committee. We've been negotiating a broad-based reform of the Nation's hazardous waste cleanup program. We have narrowed the differences between our views of how to fix Superfund. On October 22, 1997, Senators Chafee and Smith made a global proffer on each title of their chairman's mark. The next week, Senator Baucus and I made a counter to their proffer that made significant concessions on each title of the bill. We thought progress was being made. However, instead of responding to our last offer, the Republicans decided to end negotiations, at least for now. Mr. President, Superfund reform has taken too long and, as a result municipalities, small businesses and communities in and around Superfund and brownfields sites are paying a high price for our inability to address their needs. It has long been my position that we should move ahead in areas where we can agree, and not hold our citizens and communities hostage to remaining disagreements. Earlier this year, as I have before, I introduced S. 18, the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act. I have also introduced S. 1317, the Environmental Health Protection Act, to move ahead to protect the health of citizens living near Superfund sites. These are non- controversial bills that could pass without objection. It is unacceptable and unconscionable that we would continue to leave citizens subject to illness--and perhaps even death, by cancer--when we can take steps now to reduce those risks. As a companion to those measures, today I am introducing the Equity and Public Involvement Act to address liability issues that enjoy virtual universal support. This bill addresses those Superfund failings of which most constituents complain, and contains solutions that have been agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats for years. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today will bring relief to the thousands of small businesses and municipalities who have been swept into the Superfund litigation net by high-paid lawyers for big corporate polluters, even though those small businesses, churches and charities sent only municipal solid waste, common garbage, to the site. The provisions exempt individual homeowners, small business, and small nonprofits who have disposed only ordinary household trash. The provisions also limit the liability of big business and municipalities who have disposed household trash, consistent with an EPA draft policy, by allowing parties to cash-out on the basis of an easy-to-calculate formula that depends largely upon the volume of the trash these entities disposed, and the type of cleanup taking place at the site. Site did not have toxic pollutants driving up the cost of clean up. Plain and simple, these provisions prevent polluters from shifting cleanup costs to local taxpayers. The bill also provides protection for other businesses who sent small amounts of toxic waste to sites. Businesses which sent very small amounts--less than two barrels--will be exempt from lawsuits. Those who sent small amounts, but more than two barrels, will be subject to an expedited settlement process. For those small contributors and larger contributors of toxic waste, the amount they will have to pay will be cushioned by their ability to pay. The bill also protects landowners who live next door to hazardous waste sites by clarifying that they are not liable parties under the Superfund statute. In addition, the bill expands the public's ability to participate in the critical decisions concerning the cleanup in their neighborhoods. Throughout the negotiations, we have met extensively with community representatives and stakeholders on Superfund to learn what works and what doesn't. Stakeholders meetings with companies involved in multiple Superfund sites and cleanups at Department of Energy and Defense facilities showed that when communities near sites are involved early in the process, remedies are selected more quickly and there is more trust in the level of cleanup. Community representatives argued passionately for the right to be fully informed and involved in these critical decisions. To respond to this concern, this bill includes provisions that significantly increase community input at all Superfund sites and in all aspects of the process of remedying the ill effects of toxic sites. Included in this bill are provisions for technical assistance grants, known as TAG's, to communities to hire technical experts to help them interpret the often highly technical data. These provisions enjoy broad support. Mr. President, the liability reform provisions I have outlined and the community participation programs I have described are not controversial. Many were included in S. 8, a bill that Senators Chafee and Smith introduced with significant Republican support on the first day of the Senate session. However, that bill has not moved and negotiations on a broader bill have broken down, at least for the moment. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the Congress to move ahead to reform the law where we can agree, and continue to discuss and negotiate the issues on which there remains disagreement. The bill I am introducing today is simple: It frees the hostages of stalled Superfund negotiations--the small businesses, churches, municipalities and their taxpayers, as well as neighboring landowners caught up in Superfund liability who have been waiting for years for a Superfund reform bill. They should not be held hostage to forces intent on repealing the principle of polluter pays and weakening cleanup of our natural resources who have not let a bill go forward because they can't get their way on those issues. Mr. President, this bill does not address all of the issues on which we could move forward today with virtual unanimous support. But, in conjunction with other legislation I have introduced, it could solve many of the worst of Superfund's problems. This fall I introduced S. 1317, the Environmental Health Protection Act, to expand the public health aspects of hazardous waste cleanup. That bill allows the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] to study any location where there is concern that hazardous wastes threaten public health and requires that ATSDR work closely with State and local health officials in making its assessment. ATSDR is frequently criticized because its health assessments are completed too late in the process to be of any real value to local officials struggling to manage the health impact of a hazardous waste site on a community. S. 1317 changes the way EPA and the health authorities do their job. It requires EPA to notify local and State health officials early in the process that an investigation is commencing and to better coordinate their activities with local authorities so that EPA's proposed remedy better reflects local conditions and needs. Also, S. 1317 requires EPA to directly involve State and local health officials in deciding where and how to take samples at hazardous waste sites. State and local health officials are often the frontline experts. They have important first-hand information on how a toxic waste dump affects their community. Working with EPA, they can better determine and analyze possible health problems in a community and whether that pattern arises from a toxic waste dump. With this information, EPA can zero-in on those areas for additional sampling and further studies as well as design a site appropriate remedy that meets the special circumstances of the affected community. There is absolutely no reason why the Congress should not move ahead to approve S. 1317 now and every reason why we should. It would reduce health risks to our citizens and I know of no one who objects to it. On the first day of this Congress, last January, I introduced S. 18, the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997. This bill would make Federal grants for revolving loan funds used for remediation of brownfields available throughout the country. It would also protect innocent landowners and prospective purchasers of brownfield sites. Mr. President, if we could free this hostage, I know the Congress could move quickly to agree on brownfields legislation. Mr. President, we appear to be at a standoff in Superfund negotiations for the moment. If that remains the case next January when we reconvene, I hope the Congress will move ahead to enact this legislation, along with my brownfields, community participation and environmental health protection bills. I also think we should extend the Superfund excise and corporate income tax. The tax, which expired in 1995, brings in sufficient revenue to cover the entire fiscal year 1998 Superfund appropriation. Without the tax, industry is saving $26 million a week--an amount sufficient enough to encourage some of those businesses to oppose any reform if the cost of reform is reinstituting the tax. Mr. President, that tax must be reinstated. Mr. President, on the first days of the session this year, Senator Baucus and I joined EPA Administrator Carol Browner to urge the Senate to pass a brownfields bill immediately and not hold it hostage to a broader Superfund bill. I said at that time: We have a long way to go before we get a bill that enjoys bipartisan support, and that can be signed into law. We can't wait. We need to do something now, not only to help the environment, but to assist those urban areas which are struggling with economic recovery. . . . But that bill, because of the number of issues in controversy, will not pass quickly. And while many people believe that Superfund can only be passed as a comprehensive package, last year we did pass some Superfund provisions separately for lenders, fiduciaries and the Department of Defense. . . . In my view, we ought to sit down and quickly pass a brownfields bill. The sooner we do, the sooner we may be able to convert thousands of abandoned industrial sites into engines of economic development. Mr. President, those words are even more true today than they were in January. We've let an entire year go by, without results. Let's pass this bill, the brownfields legislation, and community participation and environmental health programs. Let's make Superfund a shield to protect our communities, not a sword used to hold them hostage. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing negotiations with Senators Chafee, Smith, and Baucus next year to address the broader issues. But with a full year behind us, I believe we should serve up to our constituents what we can now deliver. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be inserted into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senators D'Amato, Moynihan, and Torricelli that addresses the growing problem of cargo theft. This crime, which covers the interstate theft of cargo from ports, airports, rails, and roads, causes losses as high as $10 billion a year in the United States. The ``Cargo Theft Deterrence Act of 1997'' increases the incentive for prosecutors to pursue this crime and for defendants to cooperate with law enforcement. Furthermore, this legislation clarifies what is covered by existing law. Cargo theft continues unabated as criminals discover that the risks of getting caught and prosecuted are far lower than for comparably lucrative crimes. This tends to be an under-reported crime that has received a relatively small amount of attention by Congress. I believe this must change. Mr. President, let me cite a few statistics that should demonstrate to my colleagues the seriousness of this crime and why we should act. In 1994, the dollar value in goods stolen from a single tractor-trailer rig in New Jersey was higher than all of the bank robberies combined in my state for that year. While certain regions of the United States, such as New Jersey/New York, Southern California, and South Florida, sustain higher cargo theft losses than others, consumers nationwide are affected. For example, one industry group estimated that computers cost an average of $150 more because of cargo theft, and that approximately $3.5 billion of computers, chips, and software are stolen annually. The risk management director for one computer company said that ``it's a rare company that hasn't ever lost a truck.'' Most people do not realize that the value of computer chips per pound is higher than gold. And, unfortunately, the resale value of stolen items is much higher than what one might believe. Many of these goods end up overseas while others are sold in the same city. Mr. President, virtually no product is safe from this crime. While theft of computers and computer products, fragrances, and designer clothes are not uncommon, items ranging from frozen seafood, pineapple pulp, cough drops, refried beans, and insulation have been reported stolen. The industry maxim of ``cargo at rest is cargo at risk'' is no longer a truism--all cargo is a risk--and contrary to the belief that this is a victimless crime, an alarming number of tractor trailers have been hijacked. This occurred just several weeks ago in New Jersey, when a truck was hijacked right after leaving a port. Fortunately the driver was unharmed though one million dollars' worth of clothes were stolen. Tighter measures taken by port authorities and manufacturers at their plants have caused such hijackings to increase. Mr. President, the need for this legislation is not a criticism of our law enforcement. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, for example, has made significant strides at curbing this crime in the New Jersey/New York region. Unfortunately, existing law does not provide an adequate deterrent because the penalties are not sufficiently severe nor is there an incentive for defendants to cooperate with prosecutors. Let me explain, Mr. President, what my legislation will do. It will bring efforts to fight this crime into the next century. Enacted in its earliest form in 1913, the statute that my bill modifies covers such older modes of transportation and distribution of cargo as wagons, depots, and steamboats. My bill recognizes the advances we have made in intermodal connections and transportation by adding such terms as ``trailer,'' ``air cargo container,'' and ``freight consolidation facility.'' The days of cargo theft from wagons are gone. Furthermore, the Cargo Theft Deterrence Act broadens the statute's coverage to clarify that cargo is moving as an interstate or foreign shipment at all points between the point of origin and the final destination. Merely because a container is temporarily at rest awaiting transport to its final destination should not prevent law enforcement from prosecuting a defendant under this statute. Existing law currently covers cargo moving as a part of interstate or foreign commerce. My legislation increases the penalties for convictions under this statute. Current law provides that those convicted of this provision shall be fined or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. My bill increases this maximum prison term to three. This statute, as currently written, requires the government to prove that not only did a defendant embezzle, steal, or unlawfully take the cargo, it must show that he did so with the intent to convert to his own use. This seems duplicative at best and is an unnecessary hurdle for the prosecutor to demonstrate. The Cargo Theft Deterrence Act eliminates the term, ``with intent to convert to his own use'' from this statute. Since we have removed this intent language, we have created the affirmative defense that the defendant bought, received, or possessed the cargo with the sole intent of reporting the matter to either law enforcement or the owner of the cargo. The Sentencing Commission is directed to provide a sentencing enhancement of two levels for this crime similar to enhancements made for offenses involving organized schemes to steal vehicles or if the offense involved more than minimal planning. This Act also requires the Attorney General to report annually to Congress on the progress made by law enforcement investigating and prosecuting this crime. Additionally, upon motion by the Attorney General, a court may reduce the penalties if a defendant cooperates with law enforcement. Use of informants is essential in reducing this crime and this provision creates an appropriate incentive. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation creates a Cargo Theft Advisory Committee that will study and make recommendations about the establishment of a national data base of information about this crime. A constant complaint by industry and law enforcement is that there is a lack of good data about cargo theft. Industry tends to under-report it and law enforcement frequently classifies it in such categories as theft, robbery, hijacking, and burglary. This Committee, which shall exist for one year and report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the President, will also review the desirability of creating a centralized office within the federal government to oversee efforts designed to curb cargo theft and to increase coordination with the private sector, and state and local law enforcement. Mr. President, I thought an advisory committee was the most prudent course because legitimate questions have been raised about whether this data base should be maintained by the public or private sector, who should be able to access it, and what information should be collected, yet remain confidential. Moreover, there are several logical agencies that could house an office on cargo security so I thought it is appropriate to have cargo security experts in both the public and private sector make this recommendation. Mr. President, I look forward to the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this legislation and urge my colleagues to support this first step in addressing this crime that affects all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Equity and Public Involvement in Superfund Act of 1997 [TEPI]. Hazardous sites, the legacy of our industrial growth, litter the landscape across America. Many of those sites are toxic and pose real threats to the groundwater, the air and our water, and accordingly, our health and the health of the environment. The worst of those sites are so foul and so polluted that they are beyond the capacity of most States to handle. These sites, placed on the national priorities list for clean up under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act commonly known as Superfund can take years to clean up and cost tens of millions of dollars to clean up. They are ticking time bombs that threaten the health and survival of entire communities. Over the years the hazardous waste clean up program has been heavily criticized as being too slow, involving too much litigation and too expensive. Congress addressed many of those problems in 1986, and Administrator Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has instituted many reforms to speed up the cleanup program. The results are dramatic. EPA has completed cleanup construction at 498 sites and more than 500 additional sites are in construction. Taxpayers have saved $12 billion because polluters responsible for these sites are performing or funding approximately 70 percent of Superfund long-term cleanups. But, problems remain, partly because big corporate polluters are using the present law to drag tiny merchants and other parties who are minor polluters, or innocents who merely sent solid waste to a municipal landfill, into expensive lawsuits. A recent story televised by ``60 Minutes'' on the Keystone landfill in Pennsylvania showed the scope of the problem. The story centered on Barbara Williams, the owner of the Sunny Ray Restaurant in Gettysburg, PA, who was being sued by the sites' toxic polluters for $75,000 because of the mashed potatoes she sent to the dump. Tiny gift stores, and other small businesses were dragged into a Superfund suit because they had sent regular trash to the Keystone Landfill. EPA Administrator Carol Browner is aware of this problem and has been trying to do something about it. She has offered expedited settlements, known as de minimis settlements, to more than 20,000 parties nationwide whose contribution to Superfund sites is comparatively small. She has also offered settlements for as little as $1.00, known as de micromis settlements, to parties whose contributions of hazardous waste to a site are minuscule, but whose payments to lawyers have been immense. While EPA has done an admirable job at ameliorating the aspect of the law that allows contribution litigation to happen, and indeed has deterred instances of egregious litigation, EPA can only do so much within the confines of the law and within the context of litigation. The law needs to be changed to put an end to these harassment suits. Since 1993, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee repeatedly has tried to bridge the differences that exist on Superfund and send a reform bill to the President. Mr. President, as the ranking Democratic member of the Superfund Subcommittee, I have spent many hours over the past several months with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, and the Superfund Subcommittee Chairman Senator Smith, Administrator Browner and Senator Baucus, the ranking Democratic member of the full committee. We've been negotiating a broad-based reform of the Nation's hazardous waste cleanup program. We have narrowed the differences between our views of how to fix Superfund. On October 22, 1997, Senators Chafee and Smith made a global proffer on each title of their chairman's mark. The next week, Senator Baucus and I made a counter to their proffer that made significant concessions on each title of the bill. We thought progress was being made. However, instead of responding to our last offer, the Republicans decided to end negotiations, at least for now. Mr. President, Superfund reform has taken too long and, as a result municipalities, small businesses and communities in and around Superfund and brownfields sites are paying a high price for our inability to address their needs. It has long been my position that we should move ahead in areas where we can agree, and not hold our citizens and communities hostage to remaining disagreements. Earlier this year, as I have before, I introduced S. 18, the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act. I have also introduced S. 1317, the Environmental Health Protection Act, to move ahead to protect the health of citizens living near Superfund sites. These are non- controversial bills that could pass without objection. It is unacceptable and unconscionable that we would continue to leave citizens subject to illness--and perhaps even death, by cancer--when we can take steps now to reduce those risks. As a companion to those measures, today I am introducing the Equity and Public Involvement Act to address liability issues that enjoy virtual universal support. This bill addresses those Superfund failings of which most constituents complain, and contains solutions that have been agreed on by both Republicans and Democrats for years. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today will bring relief to the thousands of small businesses and municipalities who have been swept into the Superfund litigation net by high-paid lawyers for big corporate polluters, even though those small businesses, churches and charities sent only municipal solid waste, common garbage, to the site. The provisions exempt individual homeowners, small business, and small nonprofits who have disposed only ordinary household trash. The provisions also limit the liability of big business and municipalities who have disposed household trash, consistent with an EPA draft policy, by allowing parties to cash-out on the basis of an easy-to-calculate formula that depends largely upon the volume of the trash these entities disposed, and the type of cleanup taking place at the site. Site did not have toxic pollutants driving up the cost of clean up. Plain and simple, these provisions prevent polluters from shifting cleanup costs to local taxpayers. The bill also provides protection for other businesses who sent small amounts of toxic waste to sites. Businesses which sent very small amounts--less than two barrels--will be exempt from lawsuits. Those who sent small amounts, but more than two barrels, will be subject to an expedited settlement process. For those small contributors and larger contributors of toxic waste, the amount they will have to pay will be cushioned by their ability to pay. The bill also protects landowners who live next door to hazardous waste sites by clarifying that they are not liable parties under the Superfund statute. In addition, the bill expands the public's ability to participate in the critical decisions concerning the cleanup in their neighborhoods. Throughout the negotiations, we have met extensively with community representatives and stakeholders on Superfund to learn what works and what doesn't. Stakeholders meetings with companies involved in multiple Superfund sites and cleanups at Department of Energy and Defense facilities showed that when communities near sites are involved early in the process, remedies are selected more quickly and there is more trust in the level of cleanup. Community representatives argued passionately for the right to be fully informed and involved in these critical decisions. To respond to this concern, this bill includes provisions that significantly increase community input at all Superfund sites and in all aspects of the process of remedying the ill effects of toxic sites. Included in this bill are provisions for technical assistance grants, known as TAG's, to communities to hire technical experts to help them interpret the often highly technical data. These provisions enjoy broad support. Mr. President, the liability reform provisions I have outlined and the community participation programs I have described are not controversial. Many were included in S. 8, a bill that Senators Chafee and Smith introduced with significant Republican support on the first day of the Senate session. However, that bill has not moved and negotiations on a broader bill have broken down, at least for the moment. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the Congress to move ahead to reform the law where we can agree, and continue to discuss and negotiate the issues on which there remains disagreement. The bill I am introducing today is simple: It frees the hostages of stalled Superfund negotiations--the small businesses, churches, municipalities and their taxpayers, as well as neighboring landowners caught up in Superfund liability who have been waiting for years for a Superfund reform bill. They should not be held hostage to forces intent on repealing the principle of polluter pays and weakening cleanup of our natural resources who have not let a bill go forward because they can't get their way on those issues. Mr. President, this bill does not address all of the issues on which we could move forward today with virtual unanimous support. But, in conjunction with other legislation I have introduced, it could solve many of the worst of Superfund's problems. This fall I introduced S. 1317, the Environmental Health Protection Act, to expand the public health aspects of hazardous waste cleanup. That bill allows the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] to study any location where there is concern that hazardous wastes threaten public health and requires that ATSDR work closely with State and local health officials in making its assessment. ATSDR is frequently criticized because its health assessments are completed too late in the process to be of any real value to local officials struggling to manage the health impact of a hazardous waste site on a community. S. 1317 changes the way EPA and the health authorities do their job. It requires EPA to notify local and State health officials early in the process that an investigation is commencing and to better coordinate their activities with local authorities so that EPA's proposed remedy better reflects local conditions and needs. Also, S. 1317 requires EPA to directly involve State and local health officials in deciding where and how to take samples at hazardous waste sites. State and local health officials are often the frontline experts. They have important first-hand information on how a toxic waste dump affects their community. Working with EPA, they can better determine and analyze possible health problems in a community and whether that pattern arises from a toxic waste dump. With this information, EPA can zero-in on those areas for additional sampling and further studies as well as design a site appropriate remedy that meets the special circumstances of the affected community. There is absolutely no reason why the Congress should not move ahead to approve S. 1317 now and every reason why we should. It would reduce health risks to our citizens and I know of no one who objects to it. On the first day of this Congress, last January, I introduced S. 18, the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997. This bill would make Federal grants for revolving loan funds used for remediation of brownfields available throughout the country. It would also protect innocent landowners and prospective purchasers of brownfield sites. Mr. President, if we could free this hostage, I know the Congress could move quickly to agree on brownfields legislation. Mr. President, we appear to be at a standoff in Superfund negotiations for the moment. If that remains the case next January when we reconvene, I hope the Congress will move ahead to enact this legislation, along with my brownfields, community participation and environmental health protection bills. I also think we should extend the Superfund excise and corporate income tax. The tax, which expired in 1995, brings in sufficient revenue to cover the entire fiscal year 1998 Superfund appropriation. Without the tax, industry is saving $26 million a week--an amount sufficient enough to encourage some of those businesses to oppose any reform if the cost of reform is reinstituting the tax. Mr. President, that tax must be reinstated. Mr. President, on the first days of the session this year, Senator Baucus and I joined EPA Administrator Carol Browner to urge the Senate to pass a brownfields bill immediately and not hold it hostage to a broader Superfund bill. I said at that time: We have a long way to go before we get a bill that enjoys bipartisan support, and that can be signed into law. We can't wait. We need to do something now, not only to help the environment, but to assist those urban areas which are struggling with economic recovery. . . . But that bill, because of the number of issues in controversy, will not pass quickly. And while many people believe that Superfund can only be passed as a comprehensive package, last year we did pass some Superfund provisions separately for lenders, fiduciaries and the Department of Defense. . . . In my view, we ought to sit down and quickly pass a brownfields bill. The sooner we do, the sooner we may be able to convert thousands of abandoned industrial sites into engines of economic development. Mr. President, those words are even more true today than they were in January. We've let an entire year go by, without results. Let's pass this bill, the brownfields legislation, and community participation and environmental health programs. Let's make Superfund a shield to protect our communities, not a sword used to hold them hostage. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing negotiations with Senators Chafee, Smith, and Baucus next year to address the broader issues. But with a full year behind us, I believe we should serve up to our constituents what we can now deliver. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be inserted into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, millions of young people cry out for help. It would be irresponsible to turn our backs and do nothing when a solution is not only at hand--but has already proven a helping hand. The problem is ``at-risk'' youth. The solution is mentoring. Mr. President, let me give you some idea of the scope of the problem. Last month the census released a report that said half of America's 16 and 17 year olds are at-risk children. Half. That's 3.7 million children at just those two ages. Other estimates run as high as 15 million for children of all ages. Among the factors putting these children at risk are poverty and being raised in a single-parent family. Twenty-one percent of our children live in poverty--a six point increase since 1970. Twenty-eight percent live in one-parent households--a 16-percent increase since 1970. These ``at-risk'' children are more likely to drop out of school and be unable to find work. And that, Mr. President, is the path to drugs and crime. Mentoring is a proven way to reach out to these kids and provide them with caring role models who can help turn their lives around. Earlier this month, Attorney General Janet Reno reported that violent crime by teenagers had dropped for the second straight year. Among the reasons for the drop, General Reno cited the community mentoring programs that we created with the original Juvenile Mentoring Program, or JUMP, in 1992. Since its enactment, JUMP has funded 93 separate mentoring programs in more than half the states. The competition for JUMP awards is great: Over 479 communities submitted applications for the recent round of grants. JUMP grantees use a variety of program designs. Mentors include law enforcement and fire department personnel, college students, senior citizens, Federal employees, business people, professionals, and other diverse volunteers. The children are of all races. They come from urban, suburban, and rural communities, ranging in age from 5 to 20. In its first year, JUMP helped to keep thousands of at-risk young people in 25 States in school and off the streets through one-to-one mentoring. Mr. President, this program has proved popular and effective and that is why today Senator Coats and I are introducing the JUMP Ahead Act of 1997. I want to thank Senator Coats for his commitment and I am pleased that he is an original cosponsor of this bill. General Reno was not speaking idly when she touted the benefits of mentoring. A 1995 scientific study of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Programs bears this out. The study tracked 959 children in eight cities. Of the children studied, 40 percent came from broken homes, 27 percent had been abused, 28 percent came from homes where the spouse was abused, and 15 percent had suffered the death of a parent. This was a classic pool of at-risk children. The results after just 1 year were startling. Compared to children who were on a waiting list to enter the program, the children in the study abused alcohol 27 percent less, were 32 percent less likely to engage in violent behavior, and missed 52 percent fewer school days. These dramatic results were achieved at a cost of just $1,000 a match. Compare that to the $24,000 a year we're willing to spend to put someone in jail once they've dropped out of school and turned to crime or drugs. You are going to hear a lot of statistics today. But too often we lose sight of the human aspect of these numbers. So let me tell you the story of a single child. Recently, I hosted a conference on mentoring in my home State of New Jersey. There I met 11-year-old Kenneth Jackson. Once Kenneth had been a troubled student who was considered likely to drop out. Now, thanks to his mentor, Kenneth reads and does arithmetic at two grades above his actual sixth grade level. And the best news--Kenneth told me that now he thinks school is cool and that he never thinks about dropping out. It's hard to argue with success like that. Sadly, Kenneth's mentor--Dwight Giles--is no longer with us. He recently died of a heart attack. Dwight was a good friend and I mourn his passing. And I would like to dedicate this bill to his memory. Mr. President, we need to take this successful program to the next level. The JUMP Ahead Act reforms the basic successful structure of JUMP and increases funding to $50 million per year for four years and increases awards to up to $200,000. This initiative will not only vastly increase the number of mentoring programs able to receive grants, but will also create a new category of grants to enable experienced national organizations to provide technical assistance to emerging mentoring programs nationwide. The legislation also requires the Justice Department to rigorously evaluate the programs and document what is effective, and what is not. Finally, Mr. President, we like to talk a lot about pulling yourself up by your boot straps. But that doesn't mean much for a child unless you also provide a solid path to walk on. I grew up poor in Paterson, NJ. But I had rich role models in both my hard-working parents. Too many children today don't have that same blessing. Mentoring tells our at-risk kids that we as a nation care about them--that their lives are precious to us. Mentoring tells them that if they are willing to pull on those boots and try to walk away from a dead end life, they will not have to walk alone. Mr. President, I have told you the scope of the problem. And in America, when we have a problem we don't just wring our hands and say nothing can be done. We roll up our sleeves and get to work. Mr. President, with this bill we get to work for our children. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record and a summary of the study by the Big Brothers/Big Sisters be printed in the Record.