Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide permanent residency in the United States for 13-year-old Vova Malofienko and his family, residents of Short Hills, NJ. An identical bill is being introduced in the House of Represenatives today by Congressman Steve Rothman and Congressman Bob Franks. Vova Malofienko has leukemia from his having lived 30 miles from the Chornobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine during and after the infamous disaster. His leukemia is in remission only because of the emergency medical treatment he's received in the United States. Were Vova forced to return to Ukraine, the United States would be placing an innocent child near the front of the line on death row. Vova was one of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States in 1990--and when the seven others later returned to Ukraine, they died one by one because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not a child survived. On behalf of the Malofienkos, I ask my colleagues for their invaluable support for this legislation. We are a compassionate nation that should open its heart to Vova and his family, who came in dire medical need. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues a bit more about Vova and his family. Vladimir ``Vova'' Malofienko was born on 6/29/84 in Chernigov, Ukraine. His mother, Olga Matsko, was born on 9/29/59 in Piratin, Ukraine, and his father, Alexander Malofienko, was born on 12/25/57 in Chernigov, Ukraine. Vova was only 2 when the Chornobyl reactor exploded in 1986 and exposed him to radiation. He was diagnosed with leukemia in June 1990 at age 6. Vova and his mother came to the United States later in 1990 on a B-1 visitor's visa so that Vova could attend a cancer treatment camp for children, sponsored by the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. Vova was invited to stay in the United States to receive more extensive treatment and chemotherapy. In November of 1992, Vova's cancer went into remission. Vova's father, Alexander Malofienko joined the family in 1992, also on a B-1 visa. The Malofienko family is currently in the United States with extended voluntary departure through March of 1998. Alexander Malofienko's second application for labor certification is pending before the New Jersey Department of Labor. The first application for Labor certification was denied. Vova and his family desire to remain in the United States because of the extraordinary health concerns facing Vova. Regrettably, as I mentioned earlier, Vova is the only survivor from a group of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States together in 1990. The seven other children returned to Ukraine and have since died. Now that Vova is in remission, it would indeed be tragic to return him to an environment which would once again endanger his life. The air, food, and water in Ukraine are contaminated with radiation that people residing there for several years have grown accustomed to, but which could be perilous to Vova's weakened immune system. Furthermore, treatment available in Ukraine is not as sophisticated and up to date as treatment available in the United States. Before Vova came to the United States, no aggressive treatment for his leukemia had been provided. Although Vova completed his chemotherapy in 1992, he continues to need medical follow-up on a consistent basis, including physical examinations, lab work and radiological examinations to assure early detection and prompt and appropriate therapy in the unfortunate event the leukemia recurs. According to Dr. Peri Kamalakar, Director of the Valerie Fund Children's Center at Newark Beth Israel hospital, where Vova has received care, Vova's cancer is considered high risk with a threat of relapse. He is also at risk to develop significant late complications secondary to the intensive chemotherapy he received, including heart problems and secondary cancers. Another significant risk is relapse in the bone marrow, testis, or central nervous system. Dr. Kamalakar has concluded that Vova's chance for a permanent cure is considerably better if he stays in the United States. Every one of the risks to Vova's health would be magnified by what is only the recent emergence of the full effects of Chornobyl. Birth defects in the Chornobyl area have doubled. Thyroid cancer has increased 80 times--a rate too horrifying to comprehend. And the total number of children whose health will be at risk for the rest of their lives is over a million. Vova Malofienko has been embraced by all those who know him for his grace, dignity, and courage. He has also gained national attention by assisting with the philanthropic efforts of the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. It would be extremely disruptive to him and his family, in addition to causing great financial and emotional hardship, if they are not allowed to remain together in the United States in order to protect Vova's health. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in 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.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide permanent residency in the United States for 13-year-old Vova Malofienko and his family, residents of Short Hills, NJ. An identical bill is being introduced in the House of Represenatives today by Congressman Steve Rothman and Congressman Bob Franks. Vova Malofienko has leukemia from his having lived 30 miles from the Chornobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine during and after the infamous disaster. His leukemia is in remission only because of the emergency medical treatment he's received in the United States. Were Vova forced to return to Ukraine, the United States would be placing an innocent child near the front of the line on death row. Vova was one of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States in 1990--and when the seven others later returned to Ukraine, they died one by one because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not a child survived. On behalf of the Malofienkos, I ask my colleagues for their invaluable support for this legislation. We are a compassionate nation that should open its heart to Vova and his family, who came in dire medical need. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues a bit more about Vova and his family. Vladimir ``Vova'' Malofienko was born on 6/29/84 in Chernigov, Ukraine. His mother, Olga Matsko, was born on 9/29/59 in Piratin, Ukraine, and his father, Alexander Malofienko, was born on 12/25/57 in Chernigov, Ukraine. Vova was only 2 when the Chornobyl reactor exploded in 1986 and exposed him to radiation. He was diagnosed with leukemia in June 1990 at age 6. Vova and his mother came to the United States later in 1990 on a B-1 visitor's visa so that Vova could attend a cancer treatment camp for children, sponsored by the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. Vova was invited to stay in the United States to receive more extensive treatment and chemotherapy. In November of 1992, Vova's cancer went into remission. Vova's father, Alexander Malofienko joined the family in 1992, also on a B-1 visa. The Malofienko family is currently in the United States with extended voluntary departure through March of 1998. Alexander Malofienko's second application for labor certification is pending before the New Jersey Department of Labor. The first application for Labor certification was denied. Vova and his family desire to remain in the United States because of the extraordinary health concerns facing Vova. Regrettably, as I mentioned earlier, Vova is the only survivor from a group of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States together in 1990. The seven other children returned to Ukraine and have since died. Now that Vova is in remission, it would indeed be tragic to return him to an environment which would once again endanger his life. The air, food, and water in Ukraine are contaminated with radiation that people residing there for several years have grown accustomed to, but which could be perilous to Vova's weakened immune system. Furthermore, treatment available in Ukraine is not as sophisticated and up to date as treatment available in the United States. Before Vova came to the United States, no aggressive treatment for his leukemia had been provided. Although Vova completed his chemotherapy in 1992, he continues to need medical follow-up on a consistent basis, including physical examinations, lab work and radiological examinations to assure early detection and prompt and appropriate therapy in the unfortunate event the leukemia recurs. According to Dr. Peri Kamalakar, Director of the Valerie Fund Children's Center at Newark Beth Israel hospital, where Vova has received care, Vova's cancer is considered high risk with a threat of relapse. He is also at risk to develop significant late complications secondary to the intensive chemotherapy he received, including heart problems and secondary cancers. Another significant risk is relapse in the bone marrow, testis, or central nervous system. Dr. Kamalakar has concluded that Vova's chance for a permanent cure is considerably better if he stays in the United States. Every one of the risks to Vova's health would be magnified by what is only the recent emergence of the full effects of Chornobyl. Birth defects in the Chornobyl area have doubled. Thyroid cancer has increased 80 times--a rate too horrifying to comprehend. And the total number of children whose health will be at risk for the rest of their lives is over a million. Vova Malofienko has been embraced by all those who know him for his grace, dignity, and courage. He has also gained national attention by assisting with the philanthropic efforts of the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. It would be extremely disruptive to him and his family, in addition to causing great financial and emotional hardship, if they are not allowed to remain together in the United States in order to protect Vova's health. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to highlight language in the Senate's committee report on the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS bill under the National Institute of Health's [NIH] National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID]. This language notes the significant research on emerging infectious diseases being conducted at the Public Health Research Institute [PHRI]. I would like to clarify that PHRI is a component of a scientific research and collaborative venture in New Jersey known as the International Center for Public Health, located at University Heights Science Park in Newark. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that the intent of the Senate's report language is to encourage NIAID to give appropriate consideration to proposals received from the International Center for Public Health, one component of which is PHRI. I would like to ask my colleagues Senators Specter and Harkin if they agree with this interpretation of the intent of the Senate language? Furthermore, I would like to ask my colleagues if they agree that the International Center for Public Health's efforts to create a world class research and treatment complex to address infectious diseases are consistent with the committee's objectives for the Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the NIH's NIAID?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joining Senators Kennedy and Durbin in introducing the Healthy and Smoke-free Children Act of 1997. Likewise, Senators Kennedy and Durbin are cosponsoring legislation I introduced last week, the Public Health and Education Resource Act, S. 1343, or PHAER. As we join forces behind comprehensive tobacco legislation to reduce smoking, especially among our young people, and to enhance the public health, we urge Senators of both parties to unify behind our approach. It is a simple and straightforward but effective model for drastically reducing the 400,000 preventable deaths each year in our country caused by a deadly addiction to nicotine. Mr. President, it's time for Congress to act. We have the legislative packages to get started. The message we are sending out today is clear: the goal of comprehensive tobacco legislation is to prevent kids from becoming hooked on tobacco--not to get the tobacco companies off the hook. Our legislation would raise the price of cigarettes by $1.50 per pack in order to reduce teen smoking and fund critical public health programs. It explicitly prohibits the industry from deducting the cost of increased excise taxes from its corporate tax payments. With the proceeds of the tax, states will receive back funds for public health and children's programs, including health, education, and smoking cessation programs aimed at both children, teenagers, and adults. Further, our bill will fund a significant increase in medical research. To increase industry incentives to reduce teen smoking, the legislation we are introducing today will impose penalties on companies which fail to meet teen smoking reduction targets. Finally, recognizing the potential dislocation to tobacco farmers that could flow from a reduction in national smoking rates, our bill provides transitional assistance to farmers and displaced tobacco workers. Mr. President, of critical importance, our legislation affirms the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as a drug and drug delivery device. It gives FDA explicit authority over the advertising, marketing and sale of cigarettes. It also calls for larger and more explicit warning labels on cigarettes and ingredient disclosure, drawing on legislation I introduced earlier this year, and permits states to enact more restrictions on tobacco. It also incorporates the essence of the Smokefree Environment Act which I also introduced earlier this year, to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. The President has called for comprehensive tobacco legislation that gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate nicotine. He has also called for a $1.50 increase in the price of cigarettes to deter teen smoking and help pay for a variety of public health programs. Our legislation accomplishes that. Mr. President, the tobacco industry has been trying to convince the Congress and the public that the only way to accomplish the President's goals is through its proposed settlement with the state Attorneys General. We know that this is not the case. Our legislation offers a more efficient and effective way of serving the public health. The Congress can move ahead without permission from the tobacco industry and we should do just that. Mr. President, our proposals embody the goals outlined by the President and embraced by the public health community. In fact, a broad range of groups supported the introduction of S. 1343, the PHAER Act, when I introduced it. These groups include Action on Smoking and Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and Partnership for Prevention and Physicians for Social Responsibility. Mr. President, these bills eliminate the tobacco industry as the middleman in achieving public health goals. We have laid out an ambitious, but achievable, program for reducing smoking and death and illness. Congressional action on comprehensive tobacco legislation should live up to the standards we have established. Beyond taking strong, preventive steps to reduce smoking domestically, we should also pursue legislation affecting our tobacco companies' commercial activities overseas. If we don't, in the next few decades we will experience a worldwide health epidemic attributable to tobacco. Earlier this year, I introduced S. 1060, the Worldwide Tobacco Disclosure Act, to require warning labels on exported packages of cigarettes and to codify current trade policies that prevent government agencies from promoting tobacco sales overseas and from weakening public health measures undertaken by foreign governments. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us on the public health side of this fight by endorsing our comprehensive tobacco legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to comment on S. 1454, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 1997, which the Senate adopted last night. This bill allows States to obligate funds for six months, to ensure that transportation funding continues to flow for highways, mass transit and safety programs. In addition, this bill will enable continued operation of the United States Department of Transportation. Each state will be assured access to transportation funds equaling at least 50 percent, and not more than 75 percent of the state's total transportation funding in FY1997. Moreover, states will have until May 1, 1998, to obligate those funds. No state will be able to obligate Federal funds after that date. Every member should understand that this approach essentially creates another transportation funding crisis in only a few short months. This is far from a comfortable situation. Next year, when we take up the ISTEA reauthorization bill, we will be in the middle of the FY99 budget discussions and a decision about whether to allocate new funds that may become available as a result of improved budget projections. So, the debate over ISTEA, and the reality of another funding cutoff, will likely coincide with discussions over the FY99 Budget Resolution. As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Budget Committee, I can assure you that I will be doing my best to make additional investment in our transportation infrastructure a high priority during these discussions. Mr. President, when it became clear over one month ago that there was not enough time to fully debate a multi-year authorization bill, I starting calling for enactment of a short-term extension of ISTEA. This was the logical approach toward ensuring that States' transportation funding would not run dry. The States need additional funds now to meet their immediate transportation needs. ISTEA expired over a month ago, and although States have funding left over from previous years, these available funds will begin to run dry very soon for many States. Highway safety programs have been particularly hard hit because they have no leftover funding. Mass transit programs have no funding reserves. A straightforward reauthorization of ISTEA for six months is, to me, the easiest and fastest way to proceed. A House bill to do just that is currently pending on the Senate calendar. By simply continuing current law, this short-term extension also bypasses the controversy caused by enacting changes to the existing funding formulas or apportionments. In addition, passage of the House extension bill would allow us to immediately send this legislation to the President, rather than having to begin new discussions in a conference with the House. However, I understand that controversy is in the eye of the beholder, and there is a feeling among many in this body that allocation of new money will inevitably result in a discussion of formulas. So here we are. Mr. President, in the absence of a six month extension of current law, I reluctantly support the Bond compromise, which identified those needs that had to be addressed in a stop-gap measure. Mr. President, it is imperative that by the time Congress adjourns this year, both the House and Senate agree on an approach and send a bill to the President that can be signed into law. It is clear to most, that failure to enact some stopgap measure before we adjourn will have a severe impact on the transportation programs of the States. All State plans for new transportation construction, maintenance, and repair activities will be stopped. State transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, safety programs, and State planning and bidding activities will immediately suffer from funding shortages. Without a bill, important agencies within USDOT will shut down by mid- to late December. As a result, no projects involving Federal funding could go forward. This would have a huge impact on the States. Federal funds pay for over half the capital costs of State and local highway projects. The situation is even more bleak for all the other programs authorized under ISTEA--the safety programs, Intelligent Transportation Systems program, research programs, and--something very important to my state--the federal transit program. There are no funds left over to continue these programs. Perhaps the most distressing effect of our failure to act is the safety risk imposed on our constituents, as drunk driving prevention programs, truck and bus safety enforcement, bridge inspections, and highway/rail crossing projects are suspended. For safety reasons alone, we must ensure that some authority is extended. This bill does just that. While this bill is important, I do have some concerns. Under this bill, States would have the flexibility to shift unobligated balances among programs to ensure that states can use their scarce funds where they are most needed. For instance, a State could use its left-over CMAQ or enhancement funds to pay for a highway construction project. Language is included to prevent States from abandoning the responsibility to pay back the accounts from which they transferred funds. I remain concerned that these pay-back provisions will not be honored. States must be strictly required to pay back all of these transfers, including transfers from their CMAQ accounts, otherwise valuable programs, critical to our Nation's health and welfare, may be depleted. We must watch this closely to ensure that the program is protected. Mr. President, this bill authorizes the additional funding needed to keep crucial safety programs running, to allow States to continue their transportation projects and plans, to keep the U.S. Department of Transportation operating, and to continue the federal transit program for six months. Although this bill will most likely lead to yet another funding crisis in the near future, I want to do all I can to make sure that the Senate does not adjourn without somehow addressing the lapse in transportation funding. I prefer a straight extension of current law, and urged Senator Lott to bring it up. However, he rejected that path. Since that option is not before the Senate, I support this proposal as an acceptable compromise to carry us over until an ISTEA reauthorization bill is passed into law.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I believe will encourage many of our trading partners to improve their protection of American intellectual property rights. This is not an insignificant matter, Mr. President. It is estimated that American companies lose approximately $50 billion every year from intellectual property violations. This theft not only affects a company's bottom line, it means losses to America's competitiveness, and, most importantly, it means loss of American jobs. The ``Rights of Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997,'' or RIP-OFF, will require participants in the Generalized System of Preferences program to expedite their implementation of the intellectual property agreement contained in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In addition, to continue as a GSP beneficiary, a country must fully comply with the terms of any bilateral or other multilateral intellectual property agreement it has with the United States. Mr. President, the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS, requires signatories to improve and better enforce the rights of intellectual property holders. Unfortunately, too many countries are able to delay implementation of TRIPS for an inordinately long period of time. Developing countries have until 2000 and least developed countries are permitted to delay some TRIPS requirements for as long as 2006. The United States simply cannot afford to permit piracy to continue unabated for such a lengthy period. The GSP program enables certain products from developing countries to be exported to the United States duty-free. Through the years, Congress has conditioned the receipt of these tariff preferences on such factors as whether a country enforces arbitral awards in favor of US citizens, whether it affords internationally recognized worker rights to its workers, and whether it harbors terrorists. Although GSP beneficiaries are supposed to provide 'adequate and effective' intellectual property protection, it is an amorphous standard that has only been used a handful of times against countries, and then, only for a limited period of time, and with limited success. By tying the GSP program to expedited implementation of TRIPS and full compliance with agreements they have negotiated with the U.S., countries will know what they must do and by when to continue receiving GSP benefits. It also demonstrates our commitment to protecting American intellectual property rights overseas. My legislation conforms to current law, which provides the President with the discretion, via a waiver, to continue or extend GSP benefits to a country that does not comply with the requirements of this bill by allowing a waiver. The President has every right to determine that designating a country as a GSP beneficiary is in the national economic interest of the United States. I thought it was important to maintain the existing flexibility in this program. My bill will also enable our government to provide support and technical assistance to countries having difficulty meeting their intellectual property protection requirements. The GSP program provides countries with a benefit, not a right. Congress continues to downsize the federal government. Resources are scarce. In this climate, it is inappropriate to provide GSP benefits to countries that do not uphold our intellectual property rights. Industries reliant upon strong intellectual property protection, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and motion picture companies, for example, are among this country's most competitive. We should be fostering this competitiveness by using appropriate tools to protect our innovators. Mr. President, this legislation will accomplish this goal. This legislation is very similar to a bill I introduced several years ago with Senator Roth. The modifications I have made account for the time countries have already had to commence changes to their intellectual property laws and regulations. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the standards provided in TRIPS should be the floor for intellectual property agreements, and that our government should continue seeking stronger protection for American intellectual property owners. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted into the Record along with letters of support.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation I believe will encourage many of our trading partners to improve their protection of American intellectual property rights. This is not an insignificant matter, Mr. President. It is estimated that American companies lose approximately $50 billion every year from intellectual property violations. This theft not only affects a company's bottom line, it means losses to America's competitiveness, and, most importantly, it means loss of American jobs. The ``Rights of Intellectual Property Owners Fairness Facilitation Act of 1997,'' or RIP-OFF, will require participants in the Generalized System of Preferences program to expedite their implementation of the intellectual property agreement contained in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In addition, to continue as a GSP beneficiary, a country must fully comply with the terms of any bilateral or other multilateral intellectual property agreement it has with the United States. Mr. President, the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS, requires signatories to improve and better enforce the rights of intellectual property holders. Unfortunately, too many countries are able to delay implementation of TRIPS for an inordinately long period of time. Developing countries have until 2000 and least developed countries are permitted to delay some TRIPS requirements for as long as 2006. The United States simply cannot afford to permit piracy to continue unabated for such a lengthy period. The GSP program enables certain products from developing countries to be exported to the United States duty-free. Through the years, Congress has conditioned the receipt of these tariff preferences on such factors as whether a country enforces arbitral awards in favor of US citizens, whether it affords internationally recognized worker rights to its workers, and whether it harbors terrorists. Although GSP beneficiaries are supposed to provide 'adequate and effective' intellectual property protection, it is an amorphous standard that has only been used a handful of times against countries, and then, only for a limited period of time, and with limited success. By tying the GSP program to expedited implementation of TRIPS and full compliance with agreements they have negotiated with the U.S., countries will know what they must do and by when to continue receiving GSP benefits. It also demonstrates our commitment to protecting American intellectual property rights overseas. My legislation conforms to current law, which provides the President with the discretion, via a waiver, to continue or extend GSP benefits to a country that does not comply with the requirements of this bill by allowing a waiver. The President has every right to determine that designating a country as a GSP beneficiary is in the national economic interest of the United States. I thought it was important to maintain the existing flexibility in this program. My bill will also enable our government to provide support and technical assistance to countries having difficulty meeting their intellectual property protection requirements. The GSP program provides countries with a benefit, not a right. Congress continues to downsize the federal government. Resources are scarce. In this climate, it is inappropriate to provide GSP benefits to countries that do not uphold our intellectual property rights. Industries reliant upon strong intellectual property protection, pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and motion picture companies, for example, are among this country's most competitive. We should be fostering this competitiveness by using appropriate tools to protect our innovators. Mr. President, this legislation will accomplish this goal. This legislation is very similar to a bill I introduced several years ago with Senator Roth. The modifications I have made account for the time countries have already had to commence changes to their intellectual property laws and regulations. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the standards provided in TRIPS should be the floor for intellectual property agreements, and that our government should continue seeking stronger protection for American intellectual property owners. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted into the Record along with letters of support.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the compromise Amtrak reauthorization bill being offered by Senator Hutchison. Passage of this bill brings us one step closer to putting Amtrak on firm footing by extending authorization for 5 years, and most importantly, by giving Amtrak $2.3 billion in tax credits for much-needed capital investments. But let's not pretend we are completely solving the problem today. The General Accounting Office has warned us over and over again that making Amtrak self sufficient will be difficult and that realistically we have to look at continued investment in the system beyond the year 2002. Mr. President, our national transportation system is crucial to our economy. And a national rail system is a crucial part of any national transportation plan. But over the years we have consistently shortchanged Amtrak. For instance, over the course of this decade, Germany has decided to invest nearly $70 billion on what is already an excellent railway system in a country a fraction of the size of the United States. What have we done? Well, since 1971, we've invested just $19 billion in Amtrak. And now we are preparing to phase out operating subsidies entirely. I think this is unrealistic. Mr. President, let me put this in perspective. We continue to subsidize every other form of transportation. Over the past 15 years, in relative terms, we've increased spending on highways by 73 percent and aviation by 170 percent, while we have cut Amtrak's funding 62 percent. As we starved our national rail system during most of this decade, service declined and so did ridership. Between 1994 and 1996 Amtrak went from 21.1 million passengers to 19.7 million --meaning Amtrak lost even more revenue and was being sent into a downward spiral toward bankruptcy. And those 1.4 million riders Amtrak lost still had to get to their destinations somehow and that likely meant more cars, buses, or planes in our already congested airports and highways. Coming from the State of New Jersey, I can speak first hand about the importance of Amtrak to my State and the rest of the northeast corridor. The New York/New Jersey metropolitan area is one of the most congested in the nation. A recent study said that every day people waste more than 2 million hours in traffic--2 million hours a day. To put that number into perspective, that means that people here will waste more time in traffic in a single year than the man-hours to build the entire Continental railroad. And if Amtrak wasn't there, another 11 million people would be dumped onto our roads. How many billions of dollars would we have to spend widening roads in order to accommodate this new traffic? How much time and money would trucking companies, businesses and commuters lose as a result of increased traffic and congestion? I do not think that anyone can legitimately make the argument that highway users do not benefit from Amtrak's operations. Amtrak does not just reduce congestion on our highways. It carries over 40 percent of the combined air-rail market between Washington and New York. Loss of Amtrak service in this corridor would require another 7,500 fully booked 757 jetliners to carry Amtrak's passenger load each year. How many billions would we have to invest in our air infrastructure to accommodate these travelers? Mr. President, while I've spoken about my region, Amtrak is also a national passenger rail system that provides important service in areas of the country that are not as congested. In many cases, Amtrak provides residents of small rural towns with their only form of intercity transportation. Each year, some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak for transportation between urban centers and rural locations. Amtrak provides service in 45 of the 50 States. Ask any Amtrak passenger, traveling through the State of Montana, perhaps stopping off at Havre, on their way to Glacier National Park, whether Amtrak is important to them. Of course it is. Mr. President, this agreement in front of us today strikes a compromise on very difficult labor issues. It asks Amtrak's workers to make signficant concessions. Mr. President, I worked hard to make these funds available to Amtrak. During the budget negotiations, I worked with Senators Roth and Domenici to include a reserve fund for Amtrak to allow us to make additional capital funding available in future legislation. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Roth and Moynihan, the Finance Committee found a way to provide this funding in the tax reconciliation bill through a $2.3 billion tax credit. Mr. President, I would like to end by commending all of those who worked so feverishly to put this compromise together. In particular, Senators Kerry, Hollings, Lott, Hutchison, McCain, Roth and Breaux deserve special recognition for their efforts and leadership in this matter. I urge my colleagues to support this Amtrak reauthorization compromise. I think this step we take today to begin rejuvenating our national rail system might someday be considered just as historic as the century-old congressional decision to build it in the first place. But we must not kid ourselves. More will need to be done if Amtrak is to thrive, not just survive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when a child is murdered, families are devastated and communities are rocked to their very core. When a murderer is prosecuted, grieving parents and siblings are forced to relive the often brutal details of the most profound tragedy imaginable. And, if a conviction is obtained, in too many instances, the families of a young victim must repeatedly relieve the crime every time the murderer goes before a parole board. The families of murder victims, especially murdered children, need closure. They need to know that they can put the horror and a tragedy behind them. They need to know that they can begin rebuilding their lives. But most importantly, they need to know that the person responsible for the crime will never bring harm and grief to another family. This is why, Mr. President, I am today joining my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, in introducing legislation that will significantly increase the penalties on criminals convicted of a Federal crime where a child under the age of 14 is killed during the commission of that crime. I also want to commend and acknowledge Congressman Bob Franks, also from New Jersey, who introduced similar legislation in the House. Mr. President, this legislation is a Federal companion for an important New Jersey law called Joan's Law. Joan's Law was named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Joan D'Alessandro, who was raped and murdered in 1973. Joan's murderer, a man who lived across State lines and actually had the gall to participate in the family's desperate search for their missing daughter, was located, convicted of the crime, and sentenced to 20 years in State prison. He is now eligible for parole, and has twice sought release since his incarceration. To their horror, frustration, and understandable anger, Joan's family has repeatedly had to fight parole for this cruel killer. They have been forced to relive this tragedy again and again and to beg that others be protected from the brutal individual who ripped apart their family. The bill we are introducing today will impose a similar, equally severe and necessary penalty--life imprisonment--on anyone convicted of committing a Federal crime where a child, 14 years of age or younger, dies as a result of that crime. The bill sends a strong message that our society will not tolerate nor forgive the brutal acts of a criminal who takes a young life. This bill sends the message in no uncertain terms that society will take the steps necessary to protect itself from cold-blooded killers who victimize children. This bill will help to protect all of our families and children from the repeat offenders who, all too often, insinuate themselves into our communities and prey on defenseless children. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Senator Torricelli and I in support of this bill and to work for its fast enactment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when a child is murdered, families are devastated and communities are rocked to their very core. When a murderer is prosecuted, grieving parents and siblings are forced to relive the often brutal details of the most profound tragedy imaginable. And, if a conviction is obtained, in too many instances, the families of a young victim must repeatedly relieve the crime every time the murderer goes before a parole board. The families of murder victims, especially murdered children, need closure. They need to know that they can put the horror and a tragedy behind them. They need to know that they can begin rebuilding their lives. But most importantly, they need to know that the person responsible for the crime will never bring harm and grief to another family. This is why, Mr. President, I am today joining my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, in introducing legislation that will significantly increase the penalties on criminals convicted of a Federal crime where a child under the age of 14 is killed during the commission of that crime. I also want to commend and acknowledge Congressman Bob Franks, also from New Jersey, who introduced similar legislation in the House. Mr. President, this legislation is a Federal companion for an important New Jersey law called Joan's Law. Joan's Law was named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Joan D'Alessandro, who was raped and murdered in 1973. Joan's murderer, a man who lived across State lines and actually had the gall to participate in the family's desperate search for their missing daughter, was located, convicted of the crime, and sentenced to 20 years in State prison. He is now eligible for parole, and has twice sought release since his incarceration. To their horror, frustration, and understandable anger, Joan's family has repeatedly had to fight parole for this cruel killer. They have been forced to relive this tragedy again and again and to beg that others be protected from the brutal individual who ripped apart their family. The bill we are introducing today will impose a similar, equally severe and necessary penalty--life imprisonment--on anyone convicted of committing a Federal crime where a child, 14 years of age or younger, dies as a result of that crime. The bill sends a strong message that our society will not tolerate nor forgive the brutal acts of a criminal who takes a young life. This bill sends the message in no uncertain terms that society will take the steps necessary to protect itself from cold-blooded killers who victimize children. This bill will help to protect all of our families and children from the repeat offenders who, all too often, insinuate themselves into our communities and prey on defenseless children. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Senator Torricelli and I in support of this bill and to work for its fast enactment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last spring, various State attorneys general announced that they had reached a global agreement to settle ongoing State lawsuits against the tobacco industry in exchange for certain concessions by the industry aimed at reducing teen smoking. This truly historic agreement followed a persistent effort by President Clinton to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine and develop strategies to stop the addiction of our children to this deadly drug. President Clinton is the first President in our Nation's history to take on the tobacco industry on behalf of the American people and he deserves enormous credit for his bold and relentless leadership on this issue. Since the announcement of the global tobacco settlement, President Clinton, his health advisers, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, our leading public health groups, and many of us in the Congress have reviewed the proposed settlement. While the attorneys general pushed the industry as hard as they could, they had to make significant compromises along the way to keep the industry at the bargaining table. An examination of their deal with the industry reflects the limits under which they were operating and shows that the settlement is flawed in many respects. The Congress, Mr. President, is in an entirely different position vis-a-vis the tobacco industry. The Congress has no need to make the kinds of concessions to the industry that the attorneys general did. The Congress does not need permission from the industry to take steps to reduce teen smoking and put an end to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths each year. We don't have to settle. Our job is to develop legislation in the public interest and promote the public health. Mr. President, virtually no one in the Congress today supports the settlement proposed by the industry and the attorneys general. The settlement is dead. It is gone with Joe Camel. After extensive review, President Clinton recommended to the Congress that we enact comprehensive tobacco control legislation, and focus on the public health--not the tobacco industry's interests. Mr. President, I share President Clinton's deep reservation about the settlement as a framework for this legislation. Instead, I would like to propose an alternative framework for my colleagues and others in the public health community to consider. I hope it will influence our deliberations next year, and contribute to the enactment of effective and comprehensive tobacco legislation. Mr. President, this approach is not premised on the notion of a deal with the industry. Instead, it attempts to build on the extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable work of Drs. Kessler and Koop, and many other public health experts and economists, who have studied these questions for a long time. It is a public health measure, pure and simple. Mr. President, today Representative Jim Hansen and I are introducing the Public Health and Education Resource Act--or the PHAER Act. The PHAER Act is, in some ways simple and straightforward. It goes right at the problem. It would raise the excise tax on tobacco by $1.50, consistent with the President's recommendation on pricing. It specifically targets the revenues raised to public health, with an emphasis on reducing youth smoking rates. This bipartisan, bicameral proposal is intended to serve as the blueprint for accomplishing the public health goals that the President and public health leaders have outlined. Mr. President, the overarching goal of the public health community is to decrease the rate of tobacco addiction in children. I believe the PHAER Act is the simplest and most direct way to accomplish that goal. Every health expert concludes that the single most effective way to reduce youth consumption of cigarettes is to increase the price. According to the Congressional Research Service, a $1.50 increase in the price of cigarettes will result in a 45-percent reduction in youth smoking rates. The President has made this a prerequisite to any tobacco legislation. So, Mr. President, the question before Congress is how to accomplish this price increase and serve our public health interests. The tobacco settlement would raise prices by funneling money through the tobacco companies to accomplish a price increase. This approach relies on the industry to raise the price--which is a Catch-22. If the industry does raise the price by a $1.50, then there is no guarantee that all of these revenues will go toward the public health. In fact, health experts and the Federal Trade Commission have concluded that under the proposed settlement, the companies would make a substantial profit from such a price increase--as less than half of the $1.50 would actually go toward settlement payments. On the other hand, the companies might not ever raise their prices to a point that actually makes a real dent in teen smoking. They could choose to simply raise it high enough to cover their settlement costs-- estimated at 62 cents per pack. Neither of these outcomes are positive for America's health. That is why the only fair way to accomplish these goals is through the PHAER Act I am introducing today. Mr. President, we know that an increase in excise taxes is the single most effective step we can take to reduce teen smoking, and through PHAER we can ensure that every penny of the price increase is targeted to programs that will further reduce illegal youth tobacco consumption and promote other critical public health priorities. This is the most effective and reliable mechanism to guarantee that prices go up and that revenues are targeted to the proper programs. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. Senators from both sides of the aisle have stated that the excise tax is the most efficient and effective way to reduce teen smoking and decrease the cost of tobacco illness in our country. This is one of the few taxes that people actually support increasing. It is one of the few taxes that can be directly linked to positive policy goals. Now, all we need is the will to act. Mr. President, we propose a revenue pipeline to the public health rather than relying on the Rubik's cube payment scheme offered by the industry. Under my bill, excise tax increases will turn teenagers away from cigarettes and the proceeds of the increase will go directly to benefit America's health. These funds are targeted to public health and educational programs to further reduce teen tobacco addiction. Our PHAER tobacco excise tax increase will be phased in over 3 years. Each year the fee will increase by 50 cents until it reaches $1.50. Once at $1.50, the PHAER fee will be indexed for inflation to guarantee that its price-deterrent effect continues to be strong enough to maintain the reduction in teen tobacco use. Mr. President, many have stated that a price increase alone will not sustain a long term decrease in youth tobacco addiction, and they are right. That is why the revenues from the PHAER fee will be targeted to public health programs, with an emphasis on those that will directly decrease the number of kids who begin to smoke every day. Three-quarters of PHAER funds will be disbursed at the State and local level for health and education programs that bring home to young people the deadly consequences of smoking. These funds will be distributed to the States with the supervision and assistance by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We should set out national goals for reducing teen smoking, and insist on accountability, but we should also give States the flexibility to develop the best programs for their people. Mr. President, each State will be able to design teen smoking cessation programs that are most effective for its particular circumstance. An average of $15 billion per year will be available for these States programs. Eligible uses include smoking cessation programs and services, school and community-based tobacco education and prevention programs, counteradvertising campaigns, expansion of the children's health insurance program created in the budget act, and other public health purposes. Mr. President, it is critical that smoking cessation and addiction treatment programs be put into place, and the PHAER Program will do that. I hear a great deal of talk about adult choice. Well, most adults who smoke are not really choosing to smoke--they are addicted. It is not merely a habit--it is an addiction as powerful as the addiction to cocaine. And as the price of cigarettes goes up, we should put a system in place that will help bring addicted smokers off nicotine. Cessation and treatment programs should be available to all Americans, regardless of their income. Mr. President, these programs will be coordinated at the State level and the States will have flexibility to design their own programs. The States vary widely in the patterns of tobacco use. Some States have youth cigarette consumption rates reaching catastrophic levels; other States have a more pressing problem with chewing--or smokeless-- tobacco. Mr. President, the remaining 25 percent of PHAER funds--an average of $5 billion per year--will be available at the Federal level to expand critical research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. They will also be used to adequately fund tobacco control programs at the Food and Drug Administration and to assure that tobacco farmers, factory workers, and their communities will not suffer economic devastation as we move to reduce smoking. The PHAER Act would also contribute to tobacco prevention programs at the Veterans' Administration, the Drug Czar's office, and across the world through assistance to international programs. PHAER would also fund Medicare prevention programs and premium and cost-sharing assistance for low- income Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, all of these goals--and many more--can be accomplished, and we do not need to ask the tobacco industry's permission to do it. We just need to raise the tobacco excise tax and use the revenues to promote clear public health objectives. Mr. President, the reason we can accomplish these goals is that the PHAER fund will raise $494 billion over 25 years--an average of nearly $20 billion per year. This estimate is based on the tobacco consumption curve developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a realistic calculation of the revenues that will flow from this excise tax boost, even given anticipated reductions in tobacco consumption. Mr. President, this revenue projection of $494 billion over 25 years is much more reliable than the $368.5 billion figure projected by the tobacco industry and State attorneys general as a result of their proposed settlement. Those numbers are full of holes and deceptions. The Federal Trade Commission recently found that the much-publicized $368.5 billion figure so widely associated with the proposed tobacco settlement failed to take into account the effect of reduced consumption of tobacco on the industry's payment obligations under the terms of the settlement. A more realistic estimate would peg the proceeds of the proposed tobacco settlement closer to $250 billion over 25 years. Mr. President, when you look at real numbers, it is clear that the PHAER Act will provide States with considerably more funds than the proposal by the tobacco industry and the attorneys general. Finally, Mr. President, our bill includes a series of sense-of-the- Senate provisions. We include them in the bill to reflect our recognition that comprehensive tobacco legislation should include a broader range of measures than the revenue proposals in PHAER. These provisions state that any final legislation should include: stiff penalties to serve as an incentive for the industry to stop targeting kids, full authority for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco, disclosure of documents, restrictions on secondhand smoke, ingredient and constituent disclosure and a ban on the use of Federal Government resources to weaken nondiscriminatory public health laws abroad. Already this year, several key pieces of tobacco legislation have been introduced that should be part of congressional action next year on tobacco. I have introduced the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act, dealing with ingredient labeling, the Smoke-Free Environment Act, which would restrict secondhand smoke, and the Worldwide Tobacco Disclosure Act, which would set out our international trade policy on tobacco. I have also cosponsored Senator Durbin's legislation, the No Tobacco for Kids Act, which would set up real penalties to stop the industry from targeting kids. In addition, along with Minnesota State Attorney General Humphrey and others, I have called for a full disclosure of hidden documents from the industry, including those that have been fraudulently concealed under the cloak of the attorney-client privilege. I have asked relevant committee chairmen to subpoena documents being held by Minnesota courts because Congress must have the unfiltered truth before we legislate on such a critical issue. Hopefully, Mr. President, the State of Minnesota will do what the Congress of the United States has so far failed to do. Minnesota--which did not sign on to the supposedly ``global'' tobacco settlement--is expected to go to trial in January. That case should bring significant information to light--information on tobacco and health that will be critical to crafting appropriate legislation in Congress. Mr. President, opponents of strengthening the proposed tobacco settlement assert the industry will ``walk away'' if any legislation is too favorable to the public health. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States, only duly elected U.S. Senators could vote in this Chamber, and only Members, staff, and former Members could have access to the floor. As far as I'm concerned, the tobacco industry can walk anywhere it wants to--but not onto this floor to cast votes for or lobby against this legislation. Mr. President, all of us were elected to serve the people of our individual States and the Nation as a whole. There are few things that I could do for the people of New Jersey--especially the young people and their parents--that are more critical than preventing children from inhaling a deadly and addicting toxin into their body. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the PHAER legislation. It is not time to strike a deal with Big Tobacco, but rather it is time to make a healthy future real for America's kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters I have received from public health groups supporting the approach taken in this legislation be entered into the Record. This includes a letter from the ENACT Coalition, which is signed by the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. In addition, I am inserting letters from the American Lung Association and the National Association of Counties, which also indicated support for the introduction of the PHAER legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the bill, a fact sheet, and a chart reflecting how many more lives would be saved under the PHAER Act as opposed to the tobacco industry's proposed settlement into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last spring, various State attorneys general announced that they had reached a global agreement to settle ongoing State lawsuits against the tobacco industry in exchange for certain concessions by the industry aimed at reducing teen smoking. This truly historic agreement followed a persistent effort by President Clinton to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine and develop strategies to stop the addiction of our children to this deadly drug. President Clinton is the first President in our Nation's history to take on the tobacco industry on behalf of the American people and he deserves enormous credit for his bold and relentless leadership on this issue. Since the announcement of the global tobacco settlement, President Clinton, his health advisers, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, our leading public health groups, and many of us in the Congress have reviewed the proposed settlement. While the attorneys general pushed the industry as hard as they could, they had to make significant compromises along the way to keep the industry at the bargaining table. An examination of their deal with the industry reflects the limits under which they were operating and shows that the settlement is flawed in many respects. The Congress, Mr. President, is in an entirely different position vis-a-vis the tobacco industry. The Congress has no need to make the kinds of concessions to the industry that the attorneys general did. The Congress does not need permission from the industry to take steps to reduce teen smoking and put an end to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths each year. We don't have to settle. Our job is to develop legislation in the public interest and promote the public health. Mr. President, virtually no one in the Congress today supports the settlement proposed by the industry and the attorneys general. The settlement is dead. It is gone with Joe Camel. After extensive review, President Clinton recommended to the Congress that we enact comprehensive tobacco control legislation, and focus on the public health--not the tobacco industry's interests. Mr. President, I share President Clinton's deep reservation about the settlement as a framework for this legislation. Instead, I would like to propose an alternative framework for my colleagues and others in the public health community to consider. I hope it will influence our deliberations next year, and contribute to the enactment of effective and comprehensive tobacco legislation. Mr. President, this approach is not premised on the notion of a deal with the industry. Instead, it attempts to build on the extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable work of Drs. Kessler and Koop, and many other public health experts and economists, who have studied these questions for a long time. It is a public health measure, pure and simple. Mr. President, today Representative Jim Hansen and I are introducing the Public Health and Education Resource Act--or the PHAER Act. The PHAER Act is, in some ways simple and straightforward. It goes right at the problem. It would raise the excise tax on tobacco by $1.50, consistent with the President's recommendation on pricing. It specifically targets the revenues raised to public health, with an emphasis on reducing youth smoking rates. This bipartisan, bicameral proposal is intended to serve as the blueprint for accomplishing the public health goals that the President and public health leaders have outlined. Mr. President, the overarching goal of the public health community is to decrease the rate of tobacco addiction in children. I believe the PHAER Act is the simplest and most direct way to accomplish that goal. Every health expert concludes that the single most effective way to reduce youth consumption of cigarettes is to increase the price. According to the Congressional Research Service, a $1.50 increase in the price of cigarettes will result in a 45-percent reduction in youth smoking rates. The President has made this a prerequisite to any tobacco legislation. So, Mr. President, the question before Congress is how to accomplish this price increase and serve our public health interests. The tobacco settlement would raise prices by funneling money through the tobacco companies to accomplish a price increase. This approach relies on the industry to raise the price--which is a Catch-22. If the industry does raise the price by a $1.50, then there is no guarantee that all of these revenues will go toward the public health. In fact, health experts and the Federal Trade Commission have concluded that under the proposed settlement, the companies would make a substantial profit from such a price increase--as less than half of the $1.50 would actually go toward settlement payments. On the other hand, the companies might not ever raise their prices to a point that actually makes a real dent in teen smoking. They could choose to simply raise it high enough to cover their settlement costs-- estimated at 62 cents per pack. Neither of these outcomes are positive for America's health. That is why the only fair way to accomplish these goals is through the PHAER Act I am introducing today. Mr. President, we know that an increase in excise taxes is the single most effective step we can take to reduce teen smoking, and through PHAER we can ensure that every penny of the price increase is targeted to programs that will further reduce illegal youth tobacco consumption and promote other critical public health priorities. This is the most effective and reliable mechanism to guarantee that prices go up and that revenues are targeted to the proper programs. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. Senators from both sides of the aisle have stated that the excise tax is the most efficient and effective way to reduce teen smoking and decrease the cost of tobacco illness in our country. This is one of the few taxes that people actually support increasing. It is one of the few taxes that can be directly linked to positive policy goals. Now, all we need is the will to act. Mr. President, we propose a revenue pipeline to the public health rather than relying on the Rubik's cube payment scheme offered by the industry. Under my bill, excise tax increases will turn teenagers away from cigarettes and the proceeds of the increase will go directly to benefit America's health. These funds are targeted to public health and educational programs to further reduce teen tobacco addiction. Our PHAER tobacco excise tax increase will be phased in over 3 years. Each year the fee will increase by 50 cents until it reaches $1.50. Once at $1.50, the PHAER fee will be indexed for inflation to guarantee that its price-deterrent effect continues to be strong enough to maintain the reduction in teen tobacco use. Mr. President, many have stated that a price increase alone will not sustain a long term decrease in youth tobacco addiction, and they are right. That is why the revenues from the PHAER fee will be targeted to public health programs, with an emphasis on those that will directly decrease the number of kids who begin to smoke every day. Three-quarters of PHAER funds will be disbursed at the State and local level for health and education programs that bring home to young people the deadly consequences of smoking. These funds will be distributed to the States with the supervision and assistance by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We should set out national goals for reducing teen smoking, and insist on accountability, but we should also give States the flexibility to develop the best programs for their people. Mr. President, each State will be able to design teen smoking cessation programs that are most effective for its particular circumstance. An average of $15 billion per year will be available for these States programs. Eligible uses include smoking cessation programs and services, school and community-based tobacco education and prevention programs, counteradvertising campaigns, expansion of the children's health insurance program created in the budget act, and other public health purposes. Mr. President, it is critical that smoking cessation and addiction treatment programs be put into place, and the PHAER Program will do that. I hear a great deal of talk about adult choice. Well, most adults who smoke are not really choosing to smoke--they are addicted. It is not merely a habit--it is an addiction as powerful as the addiction to cocaine. And as the price of cigarettes goes up, we should put a system in place that will help bring addicted smokers off nicotine. Cessation and treatment programs should be available to all Americans, regardless of their income. Mr. President, these programs will be coordinated at the State level and the States will have flexibility to design their own programs. The States vary widely in the patterns of tobacco use. Some States have youth cigarette consumption rates reaching catastrophic levels; other States have a more pressing problem with chewing--or smokeless-- tobacco. Mr. President, the remaining 25 percent of PHAER funds--an average of $5 billion per year--will be available at the Federal level to expand critical research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. They will also be used to adequately fund tobacco control programs at the Food and Drug Administration and to assure that tobacco farmers, factory workers, and their communities will not suffer economic devastation as we move to reduce smoking. The PHAER Act would also contribute to tobacco prevention programs at the Veterans' Administration, the Drug Czar's office, and across the world through assistance to international programs. PHAER would also fund Medicare prevention programs and premium and cost-sharing assistance for low- income Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, all of these goals--and many more--can be accomplished, and we do not need to ask the tobacco industry's permission to do it. We just need to raise the tobacco excise tax and use the revenues to promote clear public health objectives. Mr. President, the reason we can accomplish these goals is that the PHAER fund will raise $494 billion over 25 years--an average of nearly $20 billion per year. This estimate is based on the tobacco consumption curve developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is a realistic calculation of the revenues that will flow from this excise tax boost, even given anticipated reductions in tobacco consumption. Mr. President, this revenue projection of $494 billion over 25 years is much more reliable than the $368.5 billion figure projected by the tobacco industry and State attorneys general as a result of their proposed settlement. Those numbers are full of holes and deceptions. The Federal Trade Commission recently found that the much-publicized $368.5 billion figure so widely associated with the proposed tobacco settlement failed to take into account the effect of reduced consumption of tobacco on the industry's payment obligations under the terms of the settlement. A more realistic estimate would peg the proceeds of the proposed tobacco settlement closer to $250 billion over 25 years. Mr. President, when you look at real numbers, it is clear that the PHAER Act will provide States with considerably more funds than the proposal by the tobacco industry and the attorneys general. Finally, Mr. President, our bill includes a series of sense-of-the- Senate provisions. We include them in the bill to reflect our recognition that comprehensive tobacco legislation should include a broader range of measures than the revenue proposals in PHAER. These provisions state that any final legislation should include: stiff penalties to serve as an incentive for the industry to stop targeting kids, full authority for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco, disclosure of documents, restrictions on secondhand smoke, ingredient and constituent disclosure and a ban on the use of Federal Government resources to weaken nondiscriminatory public health laws abroad. Already this year, several key pieces of tobacco legislation have been introduced that should be part of congressional action next year on tobacco. I have introduced the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act, dealing with ingredient labeling, the Smoke-Free Environment Act, which would restrict secondhand smoke, and the Worldwide Tobacco Disclosure Act, which would set out our international trade policy on tobacco. I have also cosponsored Senator Durbin's legislation, the No Tobacco for Kids Act, which would set up real penalties to stop the industry from targeting kids. In addition, along with Minnesota State Attorney General Humphrey and others, I have called for a full disclosure of hidden documents from the industry, including those that have been fraudulently concealed under the cloak of the attorney-client privilege. I have asked relevant committee chairmen to subpoena documents being held by Minnesota courts because Congress must have the unfiltered truth before we legislate on such a critical issue. Hopefully, Mr. President, the State of Minnesota will do what the Congress of the United States has so far failed to do. Minnesota--which did not sign on to the supposedly ``global'' tobacco settlement--is expected to go to trial in January. That case should bring significant information to light--information on tobacco and health that will be critical to crafting appropriate legislation in Congress. Mr. President, opponents of strengthening the proposed tobacco settlement assert the industry will ``walk away'' if any legislation is too favorable to the public health. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States, only duly elected U.S. Senators could vote in this Chamber, and only Members, staff, and former Members could have access to the floor. As far as I'm concerned, the tobacco industry can walk anywhere it wants to--but not onto this floor to cast votes for or lobby against this legislation. Mr. President, all of us were elected to serve the people of our individual States and the Nation as a whole. There are few things that I could do for the people of New Jersey--especially the young people and their parents--that are more critical than preventing children from inhaling a deadly and addicting toxin into their body. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the PHAER legislation. It is not time to strike a deal with Big Tobacco, but rather it is time to make a healthy future real for America's kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters I have received from public health groups supporting the approach taken in this legislation be entered into the Record. This includes a letter from the ENACT Coalition, which is signed by the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, National Association of County and City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. In addition, I am inserting letters from the American Lung Association and the National Association of Counties, which also indicated support for the introduction of the PHAER legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the bill, a fact sheet, and a chart reflecting how many more lives would be saved under the PHAER Act as opposed to the tobacco industry's proposed settlement into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, all across America toxic time bombs lurk beneath the soil. Many of our families find their futures poisoned by a long-gone industrial past. And sadly we've made our families--especially our children--the canaries in the coal mine. Only after they've been stricken, do we move on the danger. We need to change our emphasis. Mr. President, we should help local communities meet the health treats bubbling up from toxic waste sites. That is why I am today introducing the Environmental Health Protection Act--legislation to require the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ASTDR] to actively work with local community health and safety leaders both to design and train local health authorities to better manage a potential toxic hazard and to design site-specific remedies and monitoring systems. Today, the ranking member of the Environmental and Public works Committee, Senator Baucus, is joining with me in introducing legislation to significantly boost the role that public health considerations play in Superfund decisions. Mr. President, the potential health hazard posed from toxic waste dumps is great and growing. According to a recent study of 136 Superfund toxic waste sites by the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry [ASTDR], more than half the sites they examined represent serious, ongoing public health hazards. ATSDR placed an additional 23 percent of toxic waste sites in an indeterminate hazard category because they potentially pose a long- term risk to human life. Communities and community leaders must have the tools and resources to meet these potential disaster--just like we prepare communities to meet potential natural disasters. ATSDR recently determined that 11 million Americans reside within 1 mile of the 1,309 Superfund National Priority List [NPL] sites. These families are at particular risk from the hazardous substances wafting through the air they breath or oozing into water they drink. The problems that communities face from toxic waste dumps are immense and complicated by the need for specialized knowledge, training and skills to address toxic waste problems. Dr. Barry Johnson of the ATSDR recently testified before the Superfund Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the kinds of health problems communities face. He told the committee that: ATSDR health investigations at hazardous waste sites across the country found that nearby residents were exposed to increased health risk from a wide variety of maladies including: birth defects; nerve damage; skin disorders; leukemia; cardiovascular abnormalities; respiratory problems, and immune disorders. Two sets of studies in my home State of New Jersey--one carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the other by the New Jersey School of Medicine and Dentistry--showed an increase in cancer cases in counties surrounding hazardous waste sites. The New Jersey Medicine study by Dr. G. Najem found that age-adjusted gastrointestinal cancer morality rates were higher in 20 of New Jersey's 21 counties than national rates. An ATSDR 1995 study of residents of Forest City and Glover, MO, who live near Superfund sites, showed an increase in reports of breathing disorders and decreased pulmonary function; especially among nonsmoking women. Compilation of studies in California report the occurrence of an increased risk of birth defects in the children of women living near the State's 700 hazardous waste sites. The results of another recent study funded by ATSDR and performed by the New Jersey Department of Health, are particularly disturbing and, understandably, have frightened many of my constituents in the town of Maywood, NJ. The study reviewed data gathered on 15,000 residents living near Superfund sites and found the incidence of brain cancers running at 50 percent above the expected level. In addition, the study found cancer clusters--areas with unusually high rates of certain forms of cancer--existing in Ocean County and distressing 50 percent increase in various kinds of childhood cancers. In short, ATSDR research demonstrates how important it is to the health of Americans living near Superfund sites to clean up those sites as quickly as possible. And this is no small task. Communities struggling to come to grips with the potential health hazards of a toxic waste dump are too often left to fend for themselves. No one agency is specifically charged with coordinating the various health-relief efforts these families need. Currently, EPA uses a risk assessment process to write plans for dealing with the problems posed by toxic sites. As a result, the selection of containment as a remedy rather than removing the toxins from a site has grown to 30 percent of the EPA remedy decisions. If containment is to work for the communities surrounding Superfund and other toxic sites, we must increase health monitoring and provide other health care assistance, advice, and tools to those living with near these sites. Congress established ATSDR specifically to address possible health problems arising from Superfund sites. Now is the time to use what we have learned and to actively involve local communities in their efforts to meet the health challenges posed by the hazardous waste sites. This bill requires ATSDR to do just that. First, my bill both allows ATSDR to study any location where there is concern that hazardous wastes threatens public health and requires that ATSDR work closely with State and local health officials in making its assessment. Presently, Mr. President, State and local health and environmental officials are only required to be involved at sites listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's national list of priority sites--the National Priority List [NPL]. By mandating that ATSDR work with the State and local officials from the get-go at any potential site, we will be insuring the understanding, cooperation, and consultation necessary to effective environmental cleanup exists in a community. Second, critics frequently complain that ATSDR's health assessments are completed too late in the process to be of any real use to the local officials struggling to manage the health impact of a hazardous waste site on a community. This bill 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 its activities with local authorities so that EPA's proposed remedy better reflects local conditions and needs. Third, this bill requires EPA to directly involve State and local health officials in decisions concerning analysis and sampling methods used at hazardous 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 patterns in a community and whether that arises from a toxic waste dump. With this information, EPA can zero-in on those areas for additional sampling and further studies and design a site appropriate remedy that meets the special circumstances of the affected community. Fourth--and this is critically important--better training and up-to- date information are essential to helping communities deal with hazardous waste sites. This legislation will ensure that State and local health officials receive the training and technical information they need to diagnose and treat environmental health problems, and it will also empower local authorities to help EPA make appropriate, site- specific decisions about clean up remedies. Fifth, this bill requires that when EPA selects to leave toxic wastes in place, then EPA must work with local health officials to design a site specific health monitoring program. This will be paid for by the parties responsible for the hazard, and those requirements will become an enforceable part of any clean up agreement. It will no longer be adequate for a polluter to simply build a fence around a toxic waste site and hope the toxins stay in and community residents stay out. EPA's remedy must now ensure that the health of the residents in the line of fire is protected first, foremost, and always. And, when EPA revisits a site to evaluate whether the clean up is working, EPA will now specifically have to consider the recommendations of local health officials on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the solution. Since the Superfund amendments of 1986, the communities near hazardous waste sites have appealed to us to strengthen the public health requirements of the law. A major focus of our efforts in cleaning up toxic waste must be the health of our people. This bill will put community health and safety back at the top of the Superfund agenda. It will increase the information available to the public and cooperation between public health officials at all levels of government. It will result in health considerations being made a central part of any discussions of clean up strategies and effective long-term monitoring of toxic waste sites. This bill will ensure that the remedy chosen by EPA better protects the millions of Americans who live around our nation's hazardous waste sites. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, all across America toxic time bombs lurk beneath the soil. Many of our families find their futures poisoned by a long-gone industrial past. And sadly we've made our families--especially our children--the canaries in the coal mine. Only after they've been stricken, do we move on the danger. We need to change our emphasis. Mr. President, we should help local communities meet the health treats bubbling up from toxic waste sites. That is why I am today introducing the Environmental Health Protection Act--legislation to require the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ASTDR] to actively work with local community health and safety leaders both to design and train local health authorities to better manage a potential toxic hazard and to design site-specific remedies and monitoring systems. Today, the ranking member of the Environmental and Public works Committee, Senator Baucus, is joining with me in introducing legislation to significantly boost the role that public health considerations play in Superfund decisions. Mr. President, the potential health hazard posed from toxic waste dumps is great and growing. According to a recent study of 136 Superfund toxic waste sites by the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry [ASTDR], more than half the sites they examined represent serious, ongoing public health hazards. ATSDR placed an additional 23 percent of toxic waste sites in an indeterminate hazard category because they potentially pose a long- term risk to human life. Communities and community leaders must have the tools and resources to meet these potential disaster--just like we prepare communities to meet potential natural disasters. ATSDR recently determined that 11 million Americans reside within 1 mile of the 1,309 Superfund National Priority List [NPL] sites. These families are at particular risk from the hazardous substances wafting through the air they breath or oozing into water they drink. The problems that communities face from toxic waste dumps are immense and complicated by the need for specialized knowledge, training and skills to address toxic waste problems. Dr. Barry Johnson of the ATSDR recently testified before the Superfund Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about the kinds of health problems communities face. He told the committee that: ATSDR health investigations at hazardous waste sites across the country found that nearby residents were exposed to increased health risk from a wide variety of maladies including: birth defects; nerve damage; skin disorders; leukemia; cardiovascular abnormalities; respiratory problems, and immune disorders. Two sets of studies in my home State of New Jersey--one carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the other by the New Jersey School of Medicine and Dentistry--showed an increase in cancer cases in counties surrounding hazardous waste sites. The New Jersey Medicine study by Dr. G. Najem found that age-adjusted gastrointestinal cancer morality rates were higher in 20 of New Jersey's 21 counties than national rates. An ATSDR 1995 study of residents of Forest City and Glover, MO, who live near Superfund sites, showed an increase in reports of breathing disorders and decreased pulmonary function; especially among nonsmoking women. Compilation of studies in California report the occurrence of an increased risk of birth defects in the children of women living near the State's 700 hazardous waste sites. The results of another recent study funded by ATSDR and performed by the New Jersey Department of Health, are particularly disturbing and, understandably, have frightened many of my constituents in the town of Maywood, NJ. The study reviewed data gathered on 15,000 residents living near Superfund sites and found the incidence of brain cancers running at 50 percent above the expected level. In addition, the study found cancer clusters--areas with unusually high rates of certain forms of cancer--existing in Ocean County and distressing 50 percent increase in various kinds of childhood cancers. In short, ATSDR research demonstrates how important it is to the health of Americans living near Superfund sites to clean up those sites as quickly as possible. And this is no small task. Communities struggling to come to grips with the potential health hazards of a toxic waste dump are too often left to fend for themselves. No one agency is specifically charged with coordinating the various health-relief efforts these families need. Currently, EPA uses a risk assessment process to write plans for dealing with the problems posed by toxic sites. As a result, the selection of containment as a remedy rather than removing the toxins from a site has grown to 30 percent of the EPA remedy decisions. If containment is to work for the communities surrounding Superfund and other toxic sites, we must increase health monitoring and provide other health care assistance, advice, and tools to those living with near these sites. Congress established ATSDR specifically to address possible health problems arising from Superfund sites. Now is the time to use what we have learned and to actively involve local communities in their efforts to meet the health challenges posed by the hazardous waste sites. This bill requires ATSDR to do just that. First, my bill both allows ATSDR to study any location where there is concern that hazardous wastes threatens public health and requires that ATSDR work closely with State and local health officials in making its assessment. Presently, Mr. President, State and local health and environmental officials are only required to be involved at sites listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's national list of priority sites--the National Priority List [NPL]. By mandating that ATSDR work with the State and local officials from the get-go at any potential site, we will be insuring the understanding, cooperation, and consultation necessary to effective environmental cleanup exists in a community. Second, critics frequently complain that ATSDR's health assessments are completed too late in the process to be of any real use to the local officials struggling to manage the health impact of a hazardous waste site on a community. This bill 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 its activities with local authorities so that EPA's proposed remedy better reflects local conditions and needs. Third, this bill requires EPA to directly involve State and local health officials in decisions concerning analysis and sampling methods used at hazardous 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 patterns in a community and whether that arises from a toxic waste dump. With this information, EPA can zero-in on those areas for additional sampling and further studies and design a site appropriate remedy that meets the special circumstances of the affected community. Fourth--and this is critically important--better training and up-to- date information are essential to helping communities deal with hazardous waste sites. This legislation will ensure that State and local health officials receive the training and technical information they need to diagnose and treat environmental health problems, and it will also empower local authorities to help EPA make appropriate, site- specific decisions about clean up remedies. Fifth, this bill requires that when EPA selects to leave toxic wastes in place, then EPA must work with local health officials to design a site specific health monitoring program. This will be paid for by the parties responsible for the hazard, and those requirements will become an enforceable part of any clean up agreement. It will no longer be adequate for a polluter to simply build a fence around a toxic waste site and hope the toxins stay in and community residents stay out. EPA's remedy must now ensure that the health of the residents in the line of fire is protected first, foremost, and always. And, when EPA revisits a site to evaluate whether the clean up is working, EPA will now specifically have to consider the recommendations of local health officials on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the solution. Since the Superfund amendments of 1986, the communities near hazardous waste sites have appealed to us to strengthen the public health requirements of the law. A major focus of our efforts in cleaning up toxic waste must be the health of our people. This bill will put community health and safety back at the top of the Superfund agenda. It will increase the information available to the public and cooperation between public health officials at all levels of government. It will result in health considerations being made a central part of any discussions of clean up strategies and effective long-term monitoring of toxic waste sites. This bill will ensure that the remedy chosen by EPA better protects the millions of Americans who live around our nation's hazardous waste sites. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, view this report as does my friend and colleague and chairman of the subcommittee. It reflects what I think is a good outcome after being forced to work with less resources than I would like to see devoted to transportation. But that is life in the present fiscal climate and consistent with our determination to have a balanced budget by 2002. As a matter of fact, the news is fairly good on that front. We may actually achieve that balance before then. But, meanwhile, we are taking the appropriate steps to our transportation bill to conform with the responsibility that we have undertaken as a result of the budget agreement. We spent a lot of time and energy trying to ensure that transportation would be treated as the appropriate priority, as we see it. And it has some very positive results. The Coast Guard is going to get a 12.7 percent boost so that it can continue to execute its many essential missions. Funding for FAA will increase by almost 10 percent. Within that amount, we have rejected the proposal by the administration to cut airport improvement grants by more than 33 percent. Instead, we have provided an increase for airport grants of more than 16 percent. Funding for Federal-aid highways went to a historically high level of $21.5 billion. This increased funding will be especially critical as we address the many vexing challenges that currently surround the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, or ISTEA II, or whatever the name is that we are going to give the next 6-year or 5-year program. Funding for formula assistance for the Nation's transit systems will increase by 16.3 percent. I want to point out that in my view this includes a balanced approach in addressing the needs of all of our States in all transportation modes. When the bill was first marked up, I voiced concern that while we were providing a much needed increase in funding for highways, the needs of the transit agencies were not getting appropriate attention. I am pleased to say that between the amendment I offered during full committee consideration of the bill and the final deliberations of the conference committee, the increase in formula funding for transit was brought to a level comparable with the increases in formula funding provided for other infrastructure investment programs in the bill. Moreover, I am pleased that the conference agreement includes my amendment to provide greater flexibility to all transit agencies, large and small, in the use of the Federal transit formula funds. Mr. President, all in all, as I said, I think it is a good outcome. The funding level for Amtrak is one that concerns me because Amtrak plays such an important part in the transportation of people throughout the Northeast corridor--and other parts of the country as well but predominantly in the Northeast corridor, and were we not to have Amtrak, which could be the outcome if we failed to fund it properly, we would need 10,000 additional flights of 737's a year between Boston and Washington and New York to accommodate the requirements for transportation. So that certainly does not look to be an outcome we can tolerate. But nevertheless the Congress has insisted on cutting Amtrak's operating subsidy at a much faster rate than they say they can absorb. Almost 3 years ago, the leadership of Amtrak developed an operating plan to reduce its dependency on Federal operating support. Their plan called for reduced appropriations in each and every year for 6 years. Unfortunately, for the last 2 years, the Congress has insisted on cutting Amtrak's operating subsidy at a much faster rate than Amtrak said it could absorb. Their financial status, therefore, is in dire straits. The bill initially laid down proposed some truly severe cuts, some of which could certainly put Amtrak into bankruptcy. But the subcommittee amended the funding level for Amtrak's operations account in the subcommittee and the full committee to get that level up to $344 million, which was the level requested by the administration. Also, Chairman Shelby agreed to hold a special hearing of the subcommittee to take a fresh look at Amtrak's operating needs. I am pleased to say that the final conference agreement includes the full $344 million for Amtrak's operations as passed by the Senate. It also includes needed boosts in Amtrak's critical capital accounts, and it will only be through this kind of capital investment that Amtrak can one day become free of Federal operating subsidies, which I, and I am sure all of us here, would like to see. However, we are not, I warn all Members, ``out of the woods'' with Amtrak. Amtrak has to gain access to more than $2 billion which was provided in the recently enacted tax bill so it can make the kind of capital investments that will bring us a real first-class passenger railroad, and we need to find a mechanism to do that without exacting punitive measures against the hard-working employees at Amtrak. On another issue, more parochial perhaps, Mr. President, I call attention to that portion of the conference agreement which pertains to the closure of Bader Field Airport in Atlantic City, NJ. The conferees carefully reviewed the statutory provisions pertaining to Bader Field as well as another airport that deserves to be closed. And after careful review, it was determined that statutory language was not necessary for the FAA to make the necessary findings. So I am pleased that the conference agreement continues our progress toward the closure of these airports as soon as possible. I want to take a minute, Mr. President, to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Shelby, for his ability to work closely with others to try to resolve disputes and see if we could do the best possible job with the resources that were available to us, and I think he has done just that. It was a pleasure working with him. As Senator Shelby noted, I was once the chairman of the committee, and I promised that should I become chairman again I would work with Senator Shelby just as carefully and courteously as he has worked with me. He has been consistently fair-minded in the distribution of funds between transportation modes and between projects. He has sought to accommodate the priorities of all Members of the Senate. That has been the longstanding tradition in the Transportation Subcommittee and it continues to be the tradition under Senator Shelby's leadership. I close by thanking my staff also, Peter Rogoff, and thank Senator Shelby's chief of staff, Tom Young, and Wally Burnett. It is a pleasure getting this done, and I am pleased to see that we have come fairly close to the beginning of the fiscal year in having a transportation bill which can take care of our needs for next year.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to the following detailee to my staff: Mr. Peter Neffinger.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct, and it is an appropriate deficiency to note. By the way, as the Senator talks about the State of Maryland and a change in formula, ours goes from 2.82 to 2.41. There is a difference of more than 15 percent in just that change in formula. The Senator was not in the Chamber when I talked about the fact that if changes were necessitated in formula, they should have been debated at length. They should have had the appropriate kind of committee reviews. I know the Senator sits on the committee where transit needs are considered. We have the Commerce Committee involved with aviation and rail, we have the Environment Committee on which I sit and under whose auspice this bill is presented for highway and road travel. To suddenly change that formula without considering the national aspects of the requirements that Maryland has imposed upon it or that New Jersey has imposed upon it--Maryland happens to be in a critical location in terms of our defense needs. If there is an emergency, we have to be able to move troops and equipment through in a hurry. That readiness costs something to maintain. There is also a requirement, I know the State of Maryland shares with New Jersey an interest in having high-speed rail service pass through your State and commuter rail service. Look at the success we have seen just with the establishment of WAMATA. The investments in those areas are critical if we are going to have a national perspective. Can you imagine a system to serve the Capital and environs that isn't contributed to in significant measure by the Federal Government? As it happens, it is, but it describes very poignantly the need that exists when you participate in a national scheme.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I had an opportunity earlier today to talk about that. I will soon yield to my good friend from Montana. I had an observation earlier today in a discussion that we had in miniconference out here that more money is more money, except that if more money comes and we continue to lose our share, it doesn't do what we think it ought to do, which is to improve the system generally, but not at the expense of our respective States. That is really the nub of our discussion. If the Senator from Montana is asking if I will yield for a response, I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hear the Senator from Montana's interests and concerns. I know that he is sincere. We have worked together for many years, as I had with the chairman of the committee. But if this bill goes as it is, the chances for recovery, I think, are pretty slim. And once in place, we will be running uphill to try and recover. What I would rather see is some kind of a consensus developed that includes the States that are now disadvantaged. I was looking at the States and I see that percentage points in a State that borders both of our States--Pennsylvania--is down to 20-some percent from its formula share from where it was --22 percent, I think. We can't deal in this room, at the moment, with the poor fate that befell Pennsylvania. I don't know how their Senators are going to respond to it. I think if an adjustment is going to be made in the formula, there has to be a period of transition so that States are held harmless from where they were as adjustments take place. This isn't to suggest that review is out of order, not at all. I think reviews of the formula are always in order. But I think the Senator from Maryland made an important contribution to this debate when he highlighted the national interests and national obligations that some of our States have, being corridor States, as expressed earlier by the Senator from Illinois. A corridor that runs east and west produces a lot of traffic through the State of Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I will. (Mr. ALLARD assumed the chair.)