Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I could not agree more. What has happened is the proposed formula is a much more mathematical exercise. It says if you put in this dollar's worth of gas tax, that you have to get back your dollar's worth of investment in the highways. On the other hand, States like yours and States like mine get a far less return on our total tax dollars, those dollars sent to the Federal Government, than many or most States in the country. In my case, we happen to be number 50 in return on dollars that we send down to Washington. This was one place that there was an opportunity to regain some of the advantage that was rightfully ours, and it is being ignored. So to answer the Senator's question, there are many conditions that ought to be evaluated in terms of a national transportation investment that go beyond simply the dollar-for-dollar return on gas tax. It ought to consider what contribution does the State of Maryland, does the State of Rhode Island, does the State of New Jersey make to the national economy, to the national well-being as a result of having its roads available and open and in decent condition so that traffic that goes from place to place--from the market, from the farm to the port, from the factory to the airport--what kind of a return ought we to get for that? What kind of compensation ought we get for that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield for a response.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a question to the Senator from Indiana. Is there currently a time agreement?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I ask further how much time is left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can hardly wait, and I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I can make some brief remarks about the judge that we just confirmed here in the Senate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have an hour reserved on the cloture motion on S. 830.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield that hour to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to put in a unanimous-consent request to yield the hour of time that I have to Senator Kennedy on the cloture vote on S. 830.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the House of Representatives yesterday an amendment that would have allowed foreign governments to export to the United States for commercial sale millions of lethal military weapons the U.S. previously made available to them was dropped from the Treasury Appropriations bill. I have vigorously opposed this amendment in the Senate, and have worked to keep it out of Senate Appropriations bills. I congratulate Representatives McCarthy, Lowey, Kennedy, Shays, and Maloney for successfully working to delete the provision from the House bill. As my colleagues may know, the amendment was originally adopted during the House Appropriations Committee markup of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 without discussion or debate. Last year a similar amendment was slipped into the Senate version of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill, but it was not included in the final version of the spending law. It has been the policy of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration's not to permit these American made military weapons to be exported for commercial sale in the U.S. market. The Administration strongly opposed the amendment to allow foreign governments to export them for commercial sale. So did a coalition of fifty organizations, including the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Handgun Control, Inc., and the Violence Policy Center. I ask that a copy of a letter from these organizations be printed in the record. I also ask that copies of editorials from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Times of Trenton, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The weapons that would have flooded our streets had this amendment been approved were granted or sold to foreign governments, often at a discount, through military assistance programs, and some are even ``spoils of war.'' Their market value exceeds $1 billion. The State Department estimates that 2.5 million such weapons have been granted or sold to foreign governments since 1950. About 1.2 million are M-1 carbines, which are semiautomatic weapons that can easily be converted to illegal, fully automatic weapons. The weapons at issue are called ``curios or relics'' because they are considered to have historic value or are more than 50 years old. But they are not innocuous antiques. These military weapons may be old, but they are lethal. Ten American police officers have recently been killed with these dangerous weapons. And in just two years the weapons were traced to more than 1800 crimes nationwide. Allowing the importation of large numbers of these lethal weapons would have undermined efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. It would have reduced the cost of the weapons, making them more accessible to criminals. Enactment of the provision could also have provided a windfall for foreign governments at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. Under the proposal, our government's ability to require foreign governments which received American manufactured weapons to return proceeds of the sales to the United States Treasury would have been severely limited. Consequently, countries that the U.S. assisted in times of need, such as South Korea and the Philippines, could have made a handsome profit off of our weapons. Even countries like Iran and Vietnam could have profited. Allowing more than two million U.S.-origin military weapons to enter the United States would profit a limited number of arms importers but would not be in the overall interest of the American people. These weapons are not designed for hunting or for shooting competitions; they are designed for war. Our own Department of Defense does not sell these weapons on the commercial market for profit in the United States. Foreign countries should not be permitted to do so either. I'm delighted that this provision has been dropped from the House version of the bill. I have introduced legislation, S. 723, to repeal a loophole in the Arms Export Control Act that could enable these weapons to enter the country under a future Administration. I hope the Congress will approve this bill. In the meantime, Mr. President, this is a huge victory for the American taxpayer and a victory for all concerned about safety. The material follows: [From the New York Times, Sept. 9, 1997] The Surplus Gun Invasion Gun dealers, with the enthusiastic support of the National Rifle Association, are once again trying to sneak through Congress a measure that could put 2.5 million more rifles and pistols onto American streets and provide a handsome subsidy for weapons importers and a few foreign governments. This bill, introduced with disgraceful stealth, should be pounced on by the Clinton Administration and all in Congress who are concerned about crime. The bill is an amendment to the Treasury Department's appropriation, which may come to a vote in the House this week. It would allow countries that received American military surplus M-1 rifles, M-1 carbines and M1911 pistols to sell them to weapons dealers in the United States. The countries--allies and former allies such as the Philippines, South Korea, Iran and Turkey--got the guns free or at a discount or simply kept them after World War II, or the Korean and Vietnam wars. Current law requires them to pay the Pentagon if they sell the guns and bars Americans from importing them. The new bill would change both provisions. The N.R.A. argues that the guns are merely relics. But they are not too old to kill. In 1995 and 1996 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms traced these models to more than 1,800 crime sits. Senator Frank Lautenberg, the bill's main opponent, says these guns have killed at least 10 police officers since 1990. M-1 carbines can be converted to automatic firing, and all the M-1's are easily converted into illegal assault weapons. Republicans attached a similar bill to an emergency spending measure last year but took it out under pressure from the White House. President Clinton should threaten to veto the Treasury appropriation if the measure remains.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Hollings and Thurmond to temporarily suspend the rate of duty imposed on imported ferroboron. Ferroboron is the key raw material in amorphous metal electrical power distribution transformer cores. Transformers using these cores reduce energy losses and greenhouse gas emissions associated with these losses by 60 to 80 percent when compared to other transformer core technologies. This provides both increased energy conservation and decreases environmental degradation in those developing nations where the most promising market opportunities exist. While these benefits are tangible and significant, they, and the extensive research and development that yielded them, are costly. An amorphous metal transformer has an initial cost 20 to 30 percent higher than the less energy efficient and environmentally friendly transformers it seeks to replace. Fortunately, because of its many benefits, the total owning cost of an amorphous metal transformer over its 20- to 30-year life is far lower than the initially cheaper competition. Reducing the cost of an important and costly raw material, by suspending the duty paid on it, helps to ensure the cost- competitiveness of the end product in the export markets. This is good for manufacturers, for American workers, and for our economy. Mr. President, I have received assurances from my constituent, AlliedSignal, Inc., that there is no U.S. manufacturer of ferroboron, thus, this legislation does not adversely affect any American business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Hollings and Thurmond to temporarily suspend the rate of duty imposed on imported ferroboron. Ferroboron is the key raw material in amorphous metal electrical power distribution transformer cores. Transformers using these cores reduce energy losses and greenhouse gas emissions associated with these losses by 60 to 80 percent when compared to other transformer core technologies. This provides both increased energy conservation and decreases environmental degradation in those developing nations where the most promising market opportunities exist. While these benefits are tangible and significant, they, and the extensive research and development that yielded them, are costly. An amorphous metal transformer has an initial cost 20 to 30 percent higher than the less energy efficient and environmentally friendly transformers it seeks to replace. Fortunately, because of its many benefits, the total owning cost of an amorphous metal transformer over its 20- to 30-year life is far lower than the initially cheaper competition. Reducing the cost of an important and costly raw material, by suspending the duty paid on it, helps to ensure the cost- competitiveness of the end product in the export markets. This is good for manufacturers, for American workers, and for our economy. Mr. President, I have received assurances from my constituent, AlliedSignal, Inc., that there is no U.S. manufacturer of ferroboron, thus, this legislation does not adversely affect any American business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this bill. I am pleased that the conferees included several projects important to the quality of life and safety at New Jersey's military installations, and I thank the conferees for their efforts to ensure that New Jersey's defense infrastructure needs received adequate funding. I appreciate the willingness of the conferees to provide funding for three important projects at McGuire Air Force Base. The bill includes $9.954 million for an Air Mobility Operations Group Warehouse, which will increase the efficiency of the base's mobility operations. Additionally, it includes $35.217 million for an ambulatory health care center replacement. This new facility will house a full-service outpatient operation and provide adequate space for clinics, ambulatory surgery, ancillary services, storage, offices, and administration. It will improve the quality of care provided to our military personnel. I am also pleased the conferees included $8.8 million for a new fire station at McGuire. McGuire's current fire station is inadequate to provide the fire protection and response to aircraft casualties that its mission requires. This facility has inadequate communication and alarm equipment, insufficient vehicle storage areas, deficient living quarters, and inadequate space for training and administrative duties. Due to these conditions, in certain situations, I am told that the base cannot respond simultaneously to a fire emergency and a 911 call. The funding provided for a new fire station will improve the base's ability to respond more adequately and will allow firefighters to execute emergency response operations in a more efficient and timely manner. For Fort Monmouth, another important military installation in New Jersey, I am pleased the conferees included $2.05 million for a new fire station. The fort's fire station is currently housed in a World War II vintage structure. This station is charged with protecting the base's numerous research and development facilities, as well as its over 1,000 military family housing units. The funding provided for a new fire station will ensure that facilities on the base are adequately protected, and that the Fort Monmouth community has access to the timely response and fire protection services it deserves. This project is vital to the safety of the entire Fort Monmouth community, and I am pleased the conferees agreed to provide funding for this important project. I also appreciate the willingness of the conferees to include funding for two important projects at Picatinny Arsenal. I am pleased they provided $7.3 million to build 35 units of family housing on the base. The existing units have deteriorated since they were constructed in 1940. Most of these units are undersized and lack basic conveniences such as air-conditioning. Their electrical, plumbing, and heating systems are poorly configured and inefficient. The funding provided by the conferees will improve the existing living conditions and the quality of life for the enlisted and their families. It will produce units of family housing that meet current standards of quality of life, energy conservation, size, and safety. I am also pleased the conferees agreed to provide $1.3 million in design funding for a new software engineering facility at Picatinny. This funding will allow Picatinny to consolidate the design, development, testing, configuration control, field release and maintenance of weapon systems, simulators, and trainers. It will result in reduced cost for the Army and will improve efficiency in the software engineering process. These projects are vital to the safety and quality of life of New Jersey's defense infrastructure. Again, I thank the conferees for their support of these important projects in the fiscal year 1998 military construction bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Durbin-Collins amendment to repeal Big Tobacco's rebate in the tax reconciliation bill. I will speak about this critical amendment in a minute, but first I would like to talk about an issue that was raised on the floor last night. That issue is whether Congress should subpoena hidden tobacco documents. Mr. President, we need to know the truth about nicotine and tobacco. That is why I, along with Senator Leahy and many of our colleagues, have asked the chairmen of the various committees with jurisdiction over portions of the settlement, to subpoena critical documents that the tobacco industry has conspired to hide from the American people. In debate on the floor yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee raised the issue of whether to subpoena these documents. The senior Senator from Utah has long been dedicated to saving our children from the dangers of tobacco. He has been outspoken about the critical need to reduce teen smoking rates. Yet, the chairman questioned the necessity of Congress subpoenaing these documents which have been kept from the public because they were falsely stamped attorney-client privilege. The chairman raised some valid concerns, and I would like to respond. Mr. President, we are at a critical juncture in the war between the tobacco companies and the public health. The tobacco industry wants the American people to disarm. They want to strip Americans of their right to seek punitive damages for harm caused by the tobacco industry's deceitful practices. The industry wants Congress to grant it unprecedented protections from legal liability. In return, the American people are promised a reform of our public health laws that will protect loved ones in the future from the dangers of tobacco addiction and illness. It would be up to Congress to write these laws. That is a heavy responsibility. In order to properly execute this responsibility, we owe it to the American people to collect the most complete information about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on human health. Through our subpoena power, we have the ability to collect this information. We need information on whether a safer cigarette could be manufactured, or if we can produce a less addicting form of nicotine. Mr. President, that information is in the hands of the tobacco industry, and they have consistently hidden it from the American people for decades. If we are to enter into a legislative settlement with this industry, then it must come clean with Congress and the American people. Since it has not done so yet, we should start issuing subpoenas for the truth. Mr. President, some have suggested that the document disclosure provisions in the proposed settlement are sufficient. However, I strongly disagree. The proposed settlement would merely set up a clearinghouse for documents already produced in court cases. In other words: it discloses nothing new. Mr. President, we have learned more details in recent weeks about how the tobacco companies routinely funneled documents through their lawyers in order to fraudulently mark them as attorney-client privileged. In fact, many of these documents relate to health concerns and were simply given to the lawyers to cloak them in a false shroud of the attorney-client privilege. These are the most critical documents. They hold the keys to saving millions of lives. Congress has the power to subpoena and examine these documents before we enact a legislative settlement. We need that information to craft effective public health policy. The settlement would allow the industry to delay court review of these documents for years after a settlement is enacted. Now, review of these documents might be time consuming. The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in his floor statement yesterday, noted that over 33 million pages have been collected in the State of Minnesota's suit against the tobacco industry. Our estimate is that we'll find the information we need in at most 1\1/2\ million pages. The Minnesota attorney general, in preparation for his trial against Big Tobacco, has bound, numbered and indexed around 500,000 pages into a volume called the Minnesota Select Set. This set of documents contains critical information we need in order to draft appropriate public health legislation. We should subpoena this set. In addition, the Minnesota court hearing the case has collected around 1 million pages of material that the industry has claimed is privileged. However, we know that the Industry has a history of falsely claiming this privilege in order to hide critical health information. It is unclear how many pages are in the privileged set, but it has been estimated to be about 1 million pages. Both of these sets are being held in warehouses in Minneapolis and London under the control of a Minnesota court. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that my subpoena request is for, at most, about 1\1/2\ million pages. Although this is a lot of material, one need only watch another child light up a cigarette to realize it is well worth the time. Let me put this into perspective: The Governmental Affairs Committee has subpoenaed over 10 million pages of documents from the AFL-CIO alone in its campaign finance investigation. This subpoena request for tobacco industry documents is about the lives of American children. Isn't that worth the time needed to carefully review these documents? Why rush into a settlement in 50 days with an industry that has lied to America for 50 years? Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the request of Senator Leahy and myself to the chairmen of relevant Senate committees to subpoena these hidden tobacco industry documents. I hope that this discussion clarified this issue for my colleagues. Now, Mr. President, I would like to address the Durbin-Collins amendment to repeal the provision in the tax reconciliation bill that granted a $50 billion giveaway to the tobacco industry. This clause should never have been snuck into that bill and it is time to remove it. This provision of the recently enacted tax reconciliation bill would divert $50 billion away from the public health and into the pockets of Big Tobacco. If comprehensive tobacco legislation is eventually enacted, Big Tobacco will write 50 billion off the top of their payment obligations. This shortfall could mean billions of dollars in programs to keep kids away from cigarettes will be lost. It could mean billions of dollars in smoking cessation programs will not be paid for. In any settlement, the tobacco industry must pay its fair share. If the industry gets a $50 billion break in the settlement, that cost will have to come out of taxpayer's pockets. That is unacceptable. The tobacco companies shouldn't get a rebate. They're not a car dealership--they're a drug dealership. There are those who say that this rebate was part of the proposed settlement deal. Well, that's news to the attorneys general who negotiated it. They never signed off on such an arrangement. Mr. President, this is another example of why we can't trust this industry. After claiming to act in good faith, they scheme behind closed doors to undermine the American people. As we embark on public health legislation for the next century, let's work to keep this process out in the open and get rid of the smokey back room deals on tobacco. Mr. President, I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Durbin- Collins Amendment and join us in repealing the $50 billion credit for Big Tobacco. The last thing the tobacco industry is entitled to is a rebate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for the courtesy. I will not talk long now. It is my understanding this is the only vote that has been registered for consideration at this juncture, and I assume that there will be time between the vote on the Sessions amendment and the underlying Durbin amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will not be rushed into doing something, get it behind us, get it over with. There is much too much to be gained by a thorough review of all of the documents, and we should not ask the President of the United States to come down here pell-mell, willy-nilly with a bill for us to consider and pass. If it takes time, I think that time can be valuably used despite the fact that I would like the assault on our children to stop as quickly as possible. I do not want any more seduction of our children to pick up smoking because the tobacco industry knows, in their spurious attempts at trying to ensure their marketplace, they have directed their marketing at children, trying to get 3,000 kids a day to pick up the smoking habit so a million a year of new smokers will be there to replace that market which is affected by those who are dying prematurely. So, Mr. President, I look forward to an extended debate. I hope that the Durbin-Collins amendment will be supported overwhelmingly to show the American people that we are not going to knuckle under to the machinations of the tobacco industry. We are not going to let it get through the front door or the back door. We want to close down what the tobacco industry has been doing to our citizens for these many years, and it is perhaps going to take more time than would be thought to be necessary to arrive at a proper settlement. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just want to register my support for the Durbin-Collins amendment to repeal big tobacco's rebate in the tax reconciliation bill that granted a $50 billion giveaway--$50 billion giveaway--to the tobacco industry. The condition that has created so much suspicion about the tobacco companies and their industry is that there is no time, no time at all when they come forward cleanly, let the smoke clear away, and offer direct and candid explanations about what it is they have been up to all these years. I will have some comments later about the speech given last night by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. He asked for a quick conclusion--let's get going. He asked that the President send down a bill that we can discuss and vote on, get it done with. Well, Mr. President, this attack on the American people's health has been going on for decades, more than 50, 60 years. I remember when I was a soldier and part of the ration kit that I got to be used as an emergency food supply had some cigarettes stuck in it. It was so much a part of our structure, so much a part of our culture that cigarettes became more valuable than currency in some of the countries during the Second World War. So there is a lot of information that has been accumulated over a lot of years, and contrary to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Utah last night, I think we ought to take our time. I think we ought to make sure that we have the most complete review of millions of pages of information. I think that we can find what we want within a group of documents about 1.5 million pages long. They are called the Minnesota Select Set. There has been a consolidation of information to fewer pages than the full 33 million that the court in Minnesota is going to have for review. Last night, the distinguished Senator from Utah talked about 33 million pages. He said, what do we need that for? Well, I think it is quite clear to people within earshot here and who have been watching what has been going on in the Capitol when the committee now reviewing campaign expenditures or campaign revenue raising, fundraising, has requested over 10 million documents for review from the AFL-CIO alone, by the Senator who is chairman of that committee, Senator Thompson. So, Mr. President, we are talking about a very complicated piece of agreement. We have by the most conservative yardstick probably 5 million people killed as a result of smoking, who died prematurely as a result of smoking. We know that 430,000 die each year from respiratory- related conditions--lung cancer, you name it, emphysema. We learned recently from a study by the Harvard public health school that 50,000 heart attacks per year, fatal heart attacks per year, take place among those who are subjected to passive smoking, not smoking themselves. So again by the most conservative of calculations we say that some 500,000 people have been dying as a result of smoking-related illness. If I might ask, Mr. President, my friend from Illinois for another minute.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the May 27, 1997 31st anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Guyana. The word ``Guyana'' is an indigenous word that means land of many waters. But Guyana is also a land of many peoples, with East Indians, Africans, Chinese, Amer-Indians, and Europeans counted among its ancestors. Guyana is also a country that embraces freedom of religion, which allows Christians, Muslims, and Hindus to worship side by side. My colleagues may be aware that Guyana achieved independence and observed its first free and fair election in 1992, after more than three centuries of British, French, and Dutch colonialism. Guyana's first constitution bore the influence of British legal traditions, and former President Jimmy Carter supervised the team of international observers to guarantee the fairness of the 1992 elections. Guyana's three decades of unpopular and repressive rule slowed economic progress, but Guyanese are working to overcome these hurdles. I hope that they will succeed. Guyanese-Americans have much to be proud of. Their history is rich, and I hope the future of Guyana will be bright.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, if I might, I don't know, is the time reserved just generally?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The question my colleague from New York State raises is a very complex one. Because we want to continue a peace process. I spent some time in Ireland. I visited in the north. We made investments in that society, in the northern section, so that people could elevate their standard of living and reduce some of the anger and the rage. And we continued. I was pleased to see, in the last couple of days, discussions taking place that include the Sinn Fein, with some Members of the Senate and so forth, to try to say, ``Stop the killing, stop the killing.'' I met with people in New Jersey, and we disagreed on the tactic that was being used, the violence in the North, to try to bring about the kind of equality that all of us like to see for our families and our friends. Thusly, I am reluctant to say just offhand that we ought to simply cut off the relationship. I have faith that the Palestinian people also want peace. I don't think that they, any more than anyone else, likes the prospect of a son or a daughter dying in a conflict. There are those madmen--we have them in our society; we saw it in Oklahoma--people who are part of our culture who do something that is so outrageous. We see it in violence around the country all too frequently. We just saw it in New Hampshire. I will say this, though, that I think the Senator confirms what I was talking about, and that is, we have to, as they say, tighten the screws. We cannot have a Hamas operating under one disguise in one place doing a good deed here and there--and I don't care how many good deeds they do--if the alternative is to have another branch of that organization that kills people, those who might disagree with them, while they tend to the needs of others who are indigent medically, troubled, et cetera. So we have to make sure that if you want to be a friend of the United States, if you want us to work with you in any continued way of support for democracy, for economic betterment, that you have to leave out any assistance or any encouragement for terrorism, and that means reacting to terrorist acts by saying, ``We condemn it and we condemn those who did it,'' and not hedge what they are saying, not permit them to say, ``Well, we don't like terrorism, but, in this case, maybe''--baloney. What we say is, if anybody participates in any support of terrorism, they can't be friends of ours and they can't derive any benefit from it. I will relinquish the floor with a word of encouragement for Secretary Albright to continue her effort, for all the peacemakers to continue their efforts, to try to get by this but at the same time to make certain that those who commit terrorist deeds know that they cannot sit at the table at the same time that the peacemakers do. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from New York. I commend him for his ever-present concern about the well-being of our friends around the world, Israel in this case, and his staunch defense of freedom and democracy against terrorism. I thank him for his initiative today. It is heartbreaking for all of us, when we see innocent people carried away in stretchers, and the mayhem and the destruction that terrorists visited upon Jerusalem this day. It is not a unique happening. It has gone on for too long. The attempt to suggest that this is a way to obtain peace, or to coerce friends who want democratic societies throughout the Middle East, kind of modeled on what Israel has done--it is a democratic society, as my friend and colleague from Connecticut said. They elected a Prime Minister. It is not for us to agree or disagree. It is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, it is a democratic society. And what we try to do is encourage the Palestinian Authority to take democratic leadership and represent law and order and defend against terrorism. But we have been grossly disappointed of late. I was in Israel 2 years ago in April when a bus was exploded by a terrorist. On that bus was a young woman from New Jersey whose family I now know very well. She died in a few days; 21 years old, an innocent victim. She wasn't there trying to hurt anybody. She was there because she was interested in studying Hebrew and the history of the Jewish people. Sometime later another young woman, also from New Jersey, was killed in a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv--just a random explosion, someone willing to take his life, convinced that he would be rewarded for killing himself and killing others. The one thing we have to insist on in this country is we should not talk to anybody who, in addition to a formal relationship with us, supports terrorism. Syria by way of example. We have an ambassador there. They have representation there. But they are on a list of countries that support terrorism. And we ought to say listen, if that is the way you are going to conduct your life, in terms of the region that you exist in, that you want to encourage terrorism on the one hand and be a friend of this great democracy on the other, it's no go. We ought to say that to countries all around the area. If you in any way-- even those that we have established some friendships with--if you in any way encourage or inflame the fire of violence and terrorism, our relationship is going to change. We cannot sit by and simply pour our hearts out and say, ``Isn't it sad? Somebody lost a son, somebody lost a daughter, mother, father, sister.'' It has to be more overt than that. We have seen what happens with terrorism. We have seen it in our own country. It shocked everybody, in Oklahoma, the Port Authority building in New York, the Trade Center. It is frightening. It is a disgusting, revolting act. Think of it, that someone feels justified, for political or personal reasons, to take others' lives in the name of a cause. We ought not let it be misunderstood, that we will never, never, never accept a handshake on one hand from someone who is going to support terrorism with the other hand.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to restore funding to the Food and Drug Administration so it can enforce its rule in the war on teen smoking. At stake are the lives of millions of our children. This rule prohibits--nationwide--the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18. It also requires retailers to check the ID of any purchaser of tobacco who appears to be under the age of 27. Isn't this just common sense as matters of both public policy and public health? Apparently not. Madam President, if I wasn't seeing this with my own eyes, I would not believe anyone doubted the need to fund FDA enforcement of this rule. The rule against teen smoking is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. It was validated by a North Carolina judge. Yet, here we are on the floor of the U.S. Senate, trying again to save this rule from obliteration. Madam President, the tobacco lobbyists have spread a great deal of money and misinformation about the need for this initiative. I would like to clear the air. The tobacco lobby has been telling Senators that we should wait until we pass settlement legislation before we fund the FDA's teen smoking enforcement efforts. That is nonsense. The ultimate disposition of the proposed settlement--which is far from being in place--has nothing to do with this fight against teen smoking. Nothing. The settlement negotiations, assumed that these rules would be in place and fully funded. Once you eliminate this nonsense, it comes down to a basic question. Should we simply sit back and watch 3,000 kids a day pick up an addiction that will kill or cripple many of them? Or should we fund this program and start saving lives? The money we approve today is a bargain compared to what we'll be forced to spend in later years on treating smoking-related illness. Everyone, including the tobacco companies, says they are against teen smoking. Our Nation's parents, the medical community, and public opinion support the President's fight against teen smoking. And make no mistake about it. If you vote against this funding, you gut the President's plan and take a stand for tobacco and against America's kids. I therefore urge you to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.