Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 4 be set aside and that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997, to require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to issue minimum safety and security standards for federally licensed firearms dealers. Mr. President, incredible as it may seem, there are no Federal minimum standards for security of premises and merchandise at gun shops. In fact, a gun dealer must meet only minimal qualifications to obtain a gun dealers' license. An applicant need only be 21 years of age, not be prohibited by law from possessing or transporting firearms, and maintain a business premises in compliance with any State law. Once a dealer gets a license, the only Federal requirements are that dealers keep accurate records of purchases and sales, and have the books available for yearly inspection by the ATF. Basically, that is it. No safety or security requirements, no safety inspections. This is simply not good enough. Guns are being stolen from licensed gun dealers at an alarming rate. These guns pose an increasingly significant public safety problem. Clearly, by definition stolen guns are available to criminals. In fact, studies have found that between 10 and 32 percent of guns used in the commission of a crime are obtained as a direct result of theft, while an approximately equal number of guns used during a criminal act were stolen before being used in a crime. Mr. President, stolen guns from gun shops are a significant source of guns used in violent street crimes. For example, everywhere we see the growing problem of the so-called ``smash and grab'' burglaries from retail gun outlets, where thieves either drive through or otherwise smash the windows of gun shops and steal large quantities of firearms in a matter of minutes. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, 19 gun stores were looted and robbed of about 4,000 guns. One pawnshop lost 970 guns, while another outlet was robbed of 1,150 guns. An ATF report reveals that these guns continue to be recovered on the street. Mr. President, guns are not stolen from licensed gun dealers only during a riot. Recently, it has been reported that thieves stole 75 firearms from a store in Washington State after killing the owner, and then sold about 40 of the stolen guns on the streets of Seattle that night. In my own State of New Jersey, we also recently witnessed a sickening murder committed with a gun stolen from a gun shop. This past April, 24-year-old Jeremy Giordano and 24-year-old Georgio Gallara of Sussex County, NJ were shot down in cold blood by two young thugs. No robbery was involved, no motive discovered, just murder for the sake of murder. And these killings were only possible because the murderers were able to steal two high-powered handguns from a local shop. They simply smashed the store's front window and smashed the locked glass display case where the guns were stored overnight. The theft was over in a few brief minutes, the criminals long gone by the time the police arrived at the gun shop. Mr. President, there must be a better way. It is time that our laws recognize that guns are not ordinary merchandise--they are deadly weapons. It is just common sense that criminals should be denied easy access to an arsenal of weapons. Mr. President, this country is already awash in a sea of gun violence. Every 2 minutes, someone in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes, someone dies from a gunshot wound. In 1994 alone, over 15,000 people in our country were killed by handguns. Compare that to countries like Canada, where 90 people were killed by handguns that year, or Great Britain, which had 68 handgun fatalities. Mr. President, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that by the year 2003, gunfire will have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States. In fact, this is already the case in seven States. Mr. President, given the severity of our Nation's gun violence problem, we need to find new ways to reduce the number of guns on our streets. Although we cannot totally end gun theft, there is much we can and should do. We can prevent predators from getting guns so freely and frequently through theft. So, Mr. President, this bill will require the ATF to use its expertise to craft reasonable and needed regulations to ensure that gun shops better secure the weapons and ammunition they sell from theft. I hope this proposal will receive strong, bipartisan support, even from those hostile to any gun-related legislation. This bill will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is a goal I believe all of us share. And this legislation is the least we can do. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Gun Shop Safety Act of 1997, to require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to issue minimum safety and security standards for federally licensed firearms dealers. Mr. President, incredible as it may seem, there are no Federal minimum standards for security of premises and merchandise at gun shops. In fact, a gun dealer must meet only minimal qualifications to obtain a gun dealers' license. An applicant need only be 21 years of age, not be prohibited by law from possessing or transporting firearms, and maintain a business premises in compliance with any State law. Once a dealer gets a license, the only Federal requirements are that dealers keep accurate records of purchases and sales, and have the books available for yearly inspection by the ATF. Basically, that is it. No safety or security requirements, no safety inspections. This is simply not good enough. Guns are being stolen from licensed gun dealers at an alarming rate. These guns pose an increasingly significant public safety problem. Clearly, by definition stolen guns are available to criminals. In fact, studies have found that between 10 and 32 percent of guns used in the commission of a crime are obtained as a direct result of theft, while an approximately equal number of guns used during a criminal act were stolen before being used in a crime. Mr. President, stolen guns from gun shops are a significant source of guns used in violent street crimes. For example, everywhere we see the growing problem of the so-called ``smash and grab'' burglaries from retail gun outlets, where thieves either drive through or otherwise smash the windows of gun shops and steal large quantities of firearms in a matter of minutes. During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, 19 gun stores were looted and robbed of about 4,000 guns. One pawnshop lost 970 guns, while another outlet was robbed of 1,150 guns. An ATF report reveals that these guns continue to be recovered on the street. Mr. President, guns are not stolen from licensed gun dealers only during a riot. Recently, it has been reported that thieves stole 75 firearms from a store in Washington State after killing the owner, and then sold about 40 of the stolen guns on the streets of Seattle that night. In my own State of New Jersey, we also recently witnessed a sickening murder committed with a gun stolen from a gun shop. This past April, 24-year-old Jeremy Giordano and 24-year-old Georgio Gallara of Sussex County, NJ were shot down in cold blood by two young thugs. No robbery was involved, no motive discovered, just murder for the sake of murder. And these killings were only possible because the murderers were able to steal two high-powered handguns from a local shop. They simply smashed the store's front window and smashed the locked glass display case where the guns were stored overnight. The theft was over in a few brief minutes, the criminals long gone by the time the police arrived at the gun shop. Mr. President, there must be a better way. It is time that our laws recognize that guns are not ordinary merchandise--they are deadly weapons. It is just common sense that criminals should be denied easy access to an arsenal of weapons. Mr. President, this country is already awash in a sea of gun violence. Every 2 minutes, someone in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes, someone dies from a gunshot wound. In 1994 alone, over 15,000 people in our country were killed by handguns. Compare that to countries like Canada, where 90 people were killed by handguns that year, or Great Britain, which had 68 handgun fatalities. Mr. President, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that by the year 2003, gunfire will have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States. In fact, this is already the case in seven States. Mr. President, given the severity of our Nation's gun violence problem, we need to find new ways to reduce the number of guns on our streets. Although we cannot totally end gun theft, there is much we can and should do. We can prevent predators from getting guns so freely and frequently through theft. So, Mr. President, this bill will require the ATF to use its expertise to craft reasonable and needed regulations to ensure that gun shops better secure the weapons and ammunition they sell from theft. I hope this proposal will receive strong, bipartisan support, even from those hostile to any gun-related legislation. This bill will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is a goal I believe all of us share. And this legislation is the least we can do. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the product liability bill passes in its current form, the tobacco industry will get what it wants, and the American public will receive nothing in return. As reported out of the Commerce Committee, the product liability bill will cap punitive damages and eliminate joint and several liability in tobacco liability cases. This would be another sweetheart deal for big tobacco, and it would undercut the state attorneys' general. This is unacceptable. And what will America lose if we don't pass my amendment? Mr. President, I say perhaps millions of lives. The tobacco industry is on the verge of agreeing to stop marketing to American children, to stop lying and hiding the truth from the American public, to commit to actual target numbers for reduction of teen smoking, to subject themselves to appropriate regulation by the Food and Drug Administration and to back real reforms that will put teeth into laws that prohibit the sale of cigarettes to kids. Do we in Congress want to throw that away forever? Do we want to give big tobacco the green light to continue seducing and addicting our children? I certainly hope not. Mr. President, that is why it is critical that we pass my amendment, which would exempt tobacco products from the restrictions on liability covered by the product liability bill. Regardless of how any Senator feels about the overall goals of the product liability bill, exempting tobacco is the right thing to do. We should not sell out our Nation's public health to the tobacco lobby. Congress should not provide the tobacco industry with a back door deal through the product liability bill. To prevent this from happening, we must attach my amendment. Mr. President, some of my colleagues might ask: ``Why should we give tobacco litigation a carve-out from the restrictions of this bill?' The answer is simple and rather straightforward: The tobacco industry is unlike any other American industry. No other industry in this country kills over 400,000 Americans each year. No other industry has conspired to deviously addict children to its product. No other industry has submitted such highly questionable testimony to Congress and the courts. Is this Congress prepared to undercut unprecedented public health programs and give the tobacco industry the sweetheart deal they have been dreaming of? Is Congress going to bail out the industry once again? The American people won't tolerate it. Mr. President, this Senator will do everything I can to prevent that from happening. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to remove tobacco litigation from the restrictions of the product liability legislation. It is the right thing to do for the public health, for our State's highest law enforcement officials, and most important, for our kids.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment I am submitting today to the product liability bill to protect the Nation's public health from the dangers of tobacco. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin and Senator Wyden. Without this amendment, the product liability bill provides the tobacco industry with a backdoor escape hatch from the settlement negotiations in which they are currently engaged. Without this amendment, the tobacco industry will not have to make concessions to the public health community that could save millions of American lives. Mr. President, 36 States have now gone to court to recover the millions of dollars in Medicaid and other health care costs that were a direct result of the tobacco industry's deceitful and deadly practices. Thousands of Americans who have been grievously injured by tobacco products, and the loved ones of those who have been killed by tobacco, are seeking compensation from the tobacco industry for their lethal and addictive products. Currently, a bipartisan group of State attorneys' general are involved in sensitive negotiations with the tobacco industry concerning compensation for the illness and death caused by its products. Whether one supports the concept of a settlement or not, the fact that the tobacco industry has come to the table is an amazing development. They have come to the table because they realize that this President and enough of us in Congress will not allow them to continue seducing and poisoning our children without an appropriate response. They also know that they will be subject to increasing civil liability in the court system. I applaud the attorneys' general for bringing such strong cases against them, that they realized it was time to sit down and possibly release our Nation's children from their stranglehold. Mr. President, right now, one of the major sticking points in the talks between the attorneys' general and the Big Tobacco is the issue of restrictions on product liability suits that will be brought against the tobacco industry in the future. The industry has asked for a cap on punitive damages, and it wants to eliminate joint and several liability in tobacco cases. The attorneys' general are currently trying to work this issue out with the tobacco companies. Mr. President, 17 of these attorneys' general have signed on in support of our effort to remove tobacco from the scope of the product liability bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters signed by the attorneys' general endorsing this effort be printed in the Record. As time goes on, I expect additional pledges of support from more attorneys' general.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express some concerns that I have about recent developments that are occurring in the House of Representatives related to the budget. It was just a few nights ago, a few evenings ago, that we got a conference report from the House that was passed by a substantial margin in the Senate that confirms that the work we did in the budget negotiations was satisfactory to both the Members of the other body and the Senate. We had been through it here once before, the conference report, to get the budget resolution confirmed. It passed 78 to 22. The vote was almost identical when we got the conference report back. That was Thursday evening. I was stunned to read in Friday morning's newspaper that there were challenges to the assumptions that were made, to the agreements that were made to try to get that budget done, to try to forge a consensus agreement. I must point out that this is not an agreement that I have heard people standing up and lauding and saying, ``I love it. It is the perfect budget agreement. It is everything my constituents want it to be.'' By no means. But there is in this budget agreement something I think both parties can salute. There is an investment in the middle class, there is an investment in education, there is some tax relief for the middle class. Once again, if we look at the extremes, we are all woefully short of things that I would have liked to have if I had an ideal opportunity to design it myself. But I do not, and we represent a consensus. Mr. President, 50 States are represented here by the two Senators from each State who are here to argue the case from their particular point of view. A bipartisan budget agreement was the product of extensive negotiations involving compromises by everyone involved, and many provisions were the subject of protracted discussion, with each word carefully considered and debated. In the end, we struck a delicate balance, and the resulting agreement, if implemented, will provide, I believe, great benefits to our Nation. It will give us the first balanced budget since 1969. It will provide tax relief, as I said earlier, to the middle class. It will protect Medicare, extend its solvency, and it will do something about cleaning up the environment, investments in education, and other significant national priorities. Unfortunately, since the handshake that took place here--it took place in the negotiating room between the chairman and the ranking members and the representatives of the President--two House committees are now moving to alter the bipartisan budget agreement when the ink is barely dry. It is a matter of great concern to me and it ought to be a matter of great concern to everybody here who thought we had accomplished something significant when we passed that budget agreement. Although the steps have been taken in the other body, I want to raise my concerns here before Senate committees begin the process of marking up their own reconciliation packages. For instance, one important provision of the bipartisan budget agreement would protect immigrants, legal immigrants who have come to this country, who paid their taxes, played by the rules, and who then suffer from a disability--perhaps from an automobile accident or an illness that robs them of their ability to function as they used to-- eyesight or other physical ailments that affect their capacity to walk or to work. The budget agreement says these people should be protected. It states on page 22 of the agreement of the budget resolution that Congress will: . . . restore SSI and Medicaid eligibility for all disabled legal immigrants who are or who become disabled and who entered the United States prior to August 23, 1996. That was a compromise date, I point out. Unfortunately, last week in the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, they reported a bill that fails to do this and suggests reducing the numbers of people and reducing the availability of these services, these programs for these disabled people. It directly violates this portion of the agreement, the compromise that they are proposing. The compromise was already done. The subcommittee's action is not an innocent mistake. It is not based on differences in interpreting the agreement. This is a blatant, intentional violation of the bipartisan budget accord which should not be tolerated. Certainly it should not be begun unilaterally so soon after the agreement is done. If we had things that we wanted to talk about, they ought to be talked about cautiously and not entered into the news media immediately as something they want to change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters from the Director of OMB, Frank Raines, to the chairman of the Budget Committee and to Representative Shaw, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources in the Committee on Ways and Means, that outline this and other similar concerns about the implementation of the budget agreement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today the House Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, will consider legislation introduced by the chairman of that subcommittee that also breaks the bipartisan budget agreement. The budget agreement calls for $1.5 billion to ease the impact of increasing Medicare premiums on low- income beneficiaries. This provision was included because the budget agreement calls for phasing in increases in Medicare premiums to accommodate the shift of home health care expenditures from part A to part B. We were worried because there is going to have to be, in order to provide the solvency that we found for Medicare to continue, or the Medicaid programs, we had proposed expanding Medicaid premium coverage for Medicare recipients who had incomes of 120 to 150 percent of poverty. That is pretty modest going. The final agreement threw out the specifics of the premium proposal. However, it did call for spending the $1.5 billion on whatever policy Congress chose to enact. But that was not the understanding. Regretfully, the House committee with jurisdiction of Medicaid will only include $300 to $400 million for this provision, one we labored long and hard over. It is another clear violation of the budget agreement, and it is very troubling. I am also concerned about the tax bill that the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee outlined yesterday. The chairman's bill would only provide $30.8 billion--not an insignificant amount--in tax incentives for higher education. But that was fought for very stoutly; that it was to get $35 billion. And only about $22 billion of the proposal of this type is for the benefits that were advocated by the President, understood to be something we could agree on, falling far short of, and I quote here, the ``roughly $35 billion.'' That language was struggled over, ``roughly $35 billion.'' I tell you this, no one can buy a house for ``roughly $35,000,'' or a car for ``roughly $15,000.'' How much is it? Well, that is what it ought to be. That language was compromise language, because we knew the intent or believed the intent of both Speaker Gingrich and/or the distinguished leader here, Senator Lott, was their commitment to the program. Although the word ``roughly'' was there, it should be interpreted broadly, and I think this, frankly, goes too far, when they start making the cuts in the House committee that are inconsistent with the agreement. Mr. President, the bipartisan budget agreement calls on the House and Senate leadership to take remedial efforts to ensure that this document is implemented in the legislative process. Leadership action is critical if the agreement is to be implemented properly. And, therefore, I hope that Speaker Gingrich will intervene promptly and require that in all cases I have mentioned the relevant committees make the changes necessary to be consistent with the agreement that we have. If the congressional leadership fails to enforce the agreement, it will not be worth the paper it is written on and in the process of reconciliation we could be looking at very serious problems getting this program into place. Mr. President, I also want to take a moment to talk about the disaster supplemental. I am pleased to note that yesterday the President vetoed the bill because it contains the so-called automatic CR. The automatic CR also violates the bipartisan budget agreement for two reasons. First, it would lower the amount of discretionary spending available for fiscal 1998. The budget agreement calls for $527 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998, which is $17 million over last year's level. If the automatic continuing resolution is enacted, the majority could refuse to pass the 13 appropriations bills, thereby cutting the $17 billion in discretionary spending. That would absolutely violate one of the basic Democratic accomplishments in the budget agreement and, again, the consensus. The automatic CR would make deep cuts in programs that are protected in the budget agreement. The bipartisan negotiators agreed to provide large increases in 13 major discretionary programs. Examples of these programs include elementary and secondary education, Pell grants, child literacy, Head Start, national parks, job training, Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the COPS Program. Some of the programs are preferred by Democrats, some preferred by Republicans, but the fact is we arrived at a consensus. Both parties wanted this done. An automatic CR would freeze these programs at last year's level, and they would not get the increases promised in the budget agreement, at least without further congressional action. So, I hope the leadership will comply with the budget agreement, put the plight of disaster victims above politics, strip the automatic CR from the bill and send the President a clean version of the disaster relief bill that he can sign. Mr. President, I conclude and I thank you for your indulgence with this simple message: A promise is a promise. A deal is a deal. The Republican leadership made a promise to the Democrats in the Congress and to the President. What I am asking here today is that they make sure that promise is kept by their committee chairs, subcommittee chairs, and those who would violate the agreement after all of that labor and what I think was a smashing success. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for a few minutes about some concerns about the budget that I have. I understand the chair will be occupied during that time. I therefore ask consent I be permitted to speak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, there is not.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the manager of the Budget Committee in supporting the conference report on the budget resolution. Perhaps it is unnecessary to recall what constitutes this agreement, a consensus agreement. Consensus is a fairly simple word with very dramatic meaning. It is the majority view--not the unanimous view but the majority view--of the participants in an agreement in a debate. And I want to just take a moment to remind everybody about the fact that this is a consensus agreement. Those who are looking for total victory are not going to find it here and those who are looking for total defeat are not going to find it here. A consensus view, the majority view is what we strove for. I am unhappy with some things, and I am sure my colleague on the other side of the aisle is also unhappy with some of these things. But we struck an agreement in good faith. We worked very hard. We worked hard to get it through the conference and we thought that we had a continuation of the understanding that was arrived at when we shook hands a few weeks ago and presented the Senate side of the budget understanding, the budget resolution. As I said in my first remarks, I fully support this agreement. That doesn't mean I support it enthusiastically, but it means that it has my commitment because we worked so hard and we got so many good things in this budget resolution. What I am concerned about--if there seems to be evident a note of reluctance or wariness in my comments, it is true. It is true because what I have heard already, and I have read in the papers, as it is said, is that there are those who want to reinterpret what it is that we agreed upon when we concluded this Senate budget resolution, what we agreed upon when we had the conference concluded; those who are saying, well, not this many immigrants are going to be taken care of; or not this proposal on containing the tax cut, $250 billion over the 10-year period; or not making certain that the investments in the principal passenger railroad in this country are going to be made, as it was understood by me and others sitting there. So I want to throw out that word of caution. This is, as I think everyone knows, nonamendable. It is a budget conference report. There is no room for amendment. There is no opportunity for amendment. The conference report before us is very similar to the budget resolution that the Senate approved on May 23, by a vote of 78 to 22. It provides a framework to get our fiscal house in order while protecting critical national priorities. Last fall, the American people spoke at polling booths. They elected a Democratic President and a majority of the Republicans in both Houses. Yet, despite this divided Government, they have been clear about what they want. They want the gridlock to end. They want the bickering to end. They want us to get to work. They want us to do the best we possibly can to get this house in fiscal order and get on with the business of our country. At the same time, Americans asked that Washington focus on the issues that matter most to us: Education, Medicare, children's health, environment, fighting crime, and other Government responsibilities that make a difference in the way people live. I believe the conference report before us keeps our trust with the people. It is not, as I earlier said, a perfect agreement. It is not exactly as I would have written it. But I consider it an enormous step forward. It will, as we see it now, relieve future generations of having to continue to pay for borrowing that we have done or that we are doing now. But it is going to stop in 2002--that's my belief and that's the belief of those who negotiated in good faith to get this agreement done. It calls for the largest investment in education and training since the Johnson administration. It is phenomenal. It says we are going to put money into our children. We are going to prepare for the future. We are agreed on that. And with that, it combines tough fiscal discipline with a strong commitment to Medicare, environment, transportation, and other national priorities. Throughout this process, President Clinton has insisted and I have agreed that an agreement that imposes real fiscal discipline, that builds on President Clinton's tremendous successes in reducing the deficit, and balances the budget in a real, credible way, is the way we have to go. The President has insisted and I have insisted that we make education the priority that it is. I strongly supported some amendments that were dropped in the process of discussion, like the Dodd amendment. I commend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his leadership. His was the amendment that said that we would not go beyond $250 billion worth of tax cuts over the 10 years. A point of order could have been raised against any of the tax cuts in the bill and that point of order could have been waived only with the votes of 60 Senators. But it was dropped in the conference. Instead, there is a commitment that says that $250 billion over the next 10 years, $85 billion in the first 5 years and $165 billion in the second 5, is the most that can be had by way of tax cuts. There are letters supporting it. There are letters from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, there is a letter from the chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate, there are letters from the Speaker of the House, and there is a letter from the distinguished majority leader here, that confirms the position that we took. So, while there is some disappointment that the language that we originally anticipated would be in there is not part of the record, but it is indirectly recognized. It is there. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of letters from the Speaker and Senate majority leader and the letter from Senator Roth and Congressman Archer be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I note also that this resolution does include the sense of the Congress resolution that again reaffirms that $250 billion 10-year tax limit on tax cuts is clarified, in a way. I just want to remind everybody what it says here: The 10-year cost of the tax reconciliation bill resulting from this resolution shall not exceed $250 billion and any revenue loss shall be certified by the Joint Committee on Taxation in consultation and cooperation with the Office of the Tax Analysis of the Department of the Treasury. To make the point by continuing to emphasize it, I don't think anyone should have any doubts that the tax cuts in the reconciliation will be limited. We are not going to suffer a repeat of exploding deficits that flowed from the disastrous policies of the Reagan era. We will not go down that road again. So as we wrap up our work on this budget resolution, I congratulate the President for his leadership in this effort. We are here today on a bipartisan basis, only because the President decided to lead the effort to make it happen. He deserves enormous credit for it. When we look back at the results of the legislation that the President wanted to put forward some years ago, in 1993, and we see the incredible results, we see reports by a publication like Fortune magazine saying this is one of the greatest economies that this country has ever had, you can sense the strength of the economy, you can sense the confidence that the people have in their ability to take care of their families and to provide, hopefully, with the programs that we are outlining here today, education for their children in the future, security for the aged, to make sure that these investments will produce job opportunities and a better quality of life for all our people. That is what we want to see. So, I yield the floor and I say to my colleagues, even if there is some disagreement, even if there is some question, I hope we will get the fullest support that we can obtain for this agreement. It does, once again, put the fiscal house in order. It maintains the important priorities that we all, I think it is fair to say, would like to see. I am sure if I talk to my colleague to my right here, if we talk about education for our children, he will say we want to invest in education for our children.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we finish our work on the conference report. I want to express my appreciation to Jodi Grant, who has provided invaluable assistance to me and my staff. Jodi served as counsel to the Democratic staff before leaving us recently to work on the leadership staff of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. However, she has taken time from her busy schedule to give us the benefit of her special expertise on budget matters. I very much appreciate her assistance, and thank her for her willingness to help.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We want to have Medicare more secure. Our approaches might be slightly different, but the fact is we want the same objective. So, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the record, a procedural point in the budget resolution. The budget resolution conference report currently before the Senate includes language which would permit the chairman of the Budget Committee, with the concurrence of the ranking member, to revise the reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and to adjust other budget resolution levels in amounts which are intended to reflect the children's health initiative. In this regard, I would direct the attention of our colleagues to the children's health section of the bipartisan budget agreement, which provides that the $16 billion in funding ``could be used for one or both of Medicaid (provisions) * * * and a program of capped mandatory grants to States.'' The agreement further provides that other possibilities for implementation of the child health initiative may be considered if mutually agreeable. Would the chairman of the committee agree that the budget agreement therefore requires the concurrence of all parties to the agreement--the majority and minority in Congress and the President--before other policy options may be considered?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to hear the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee commit to fulfill the bipartisan agreement's food stamp provision.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, it does not.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield all the time we had.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend and former colleague, Howard Metzenbaum, on the occasion of his 80th birthday. In his honor, I am introducing a bill that would designate the Federal Building Courthouse in Cleveland, OH, as the ``Howard M. Metzenbaum United States Courthouse.'' I am joined by Ohio's two Senators, Senator Glenn and Senator DeWine. Mr. President, I propose naming a courthouse after Howard because a courthouse is a symbol of justice where all people can come and be treated equally under the law. Howard Metzenbaum deserves this honor because he was a dedicated public servant, who served his home State of Ohio for 18 years in the U.S. Senate. Howard's sense of fairness and equality for all Americans led one of his former colleagues to suggest that Howard would have made an exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice when he retired from the Senate in 1994. Mr. President, naming a courthouse after Howard is only a small gesture in attempting to remember a man so committed to justice and fairness. Howard's contributions to the Senate are extraordinary, so we should commemorate his unique contribution by celebrating his 80th year, his 18 years in the United States Senate, and also the special character he brought to our body. I pay tribute today to a man who always stood up for what he believed was right, fighting hard to preserve opportunity for those yet to come. As a Senator, Howard had a broad range of interests and he pursued them with dogged perseverance, sincerity, and clarity. Howard and I worked on many issues together during our time in the Senate. Individual rights and environmental preservation were major concerns. He poured his energy into clean air protection, nuclear regulation, cleaning up superfund sites, and recycling. Howard provided strong leadership on antitrust issues as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights on the Judiciary Committee. He was a persistent gun control advocate, taking the lead on many antigun initiatives in the Senate. He was one of the lead sponsors of the Brady bill handgun purchase waiting period, as well as the bans on assault weapons and plastic explosives. But Howard's true passions lay with America's underprivileged and needy communities, which never had a bolder champion. His work on behalf of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly reflect his remarkable compassion for those members of society who face challenges that many of us cannot fully appreciate. He tirelessly defended their interests and fought for their protection. He was dedicated to eradicating discrimination, ensuring adequate health care to those in need, and boosting public education. It has been said many times, but for good reason, that Howard brought not only his conscience to the Senate, but also the courage to act on his convictions. Howard remains a good friend to me, but he was also a mentor and a teacher during his years in the Senate. He gave me good advice and plenty of it. And, I might add, he continues to do so today, which I welcome. But more than that, his dedication to the office of United States Senator is an example by which to live. He stood tall for the little people. Some will affectionately remember Howard as determined, argumentative, and even ``irascible.'' I cannot deny that those words come to my mind every now and then, when describing Howard. He was always at his best then, and for good reason. I heard it said by one Senator, and not a good friend: ``If there wasn't a Metzenbaum here, we'd have to invent one to keep us alert.'' I have missed working with Howard Metzenbaum in this great institution, a place that has been truly enhanced by his presence. I salute him on celebrating his 80th year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my dear friend and former colleague, Howard Metzenbaum, on the occasion of his 80th birthday. In his honor, I am introducing a bill that would designate the Federal Building Courthouse in Cleveland, OH, as the ``Howard M. Metzenbaum United States Courthouse.'' I am joined by Ohio's two Senators, Senator Glenn and Senator DeWine. Mr. President, I propose naming a courthouse after Howard because a courthouse is a symbol of justice where all people can come and be treated equally under the law. Howard Metzenbaum deserves this honor because he was a dedicated public servant, who served his home State of Ohio for 18 years in the U.S. Senate. Howard's sense of fairness and equality for all Americans led one of his former colleagues to suggest that Howard would have made an exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice when he retired from the Senate in 1994. Mr. President, naming a courthouse after Howard is only a small gesture in attempting to remember a man so committed to justice and fairness. Howard's contributions to the Senate are extraordinary, so we should commemorate his unique contribution by celebrating his 80th year, his 18 years in the United States Senate, and also the special character he brought to our body. I pay tribute today to a man who always stood up for what he believed was right, fighting hard to preserve opportunity for those yet to come. As a Senator, Howard had a broad range of interests and he pursued them with dogged perseverance, sincerity, and clarity. Howard and I worked on many issues together during our time in the Senate. Individual rights and environmental preservation were major concerns. He poured his energy into clean air protection, nuclear regulation, cleaning up superfund sites, and recycling. Howard provided strong leadership on antitrust issues as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Monopolies and Business Rights on the Judiciary Committee. He was a persistent gun control advocate, taking the lead on many antigun initiatives in the Senate. He was one of the lead sponsors of the Brady bill handgun purchase waiting period, as well as the bans on assault weapons and plastic explosives. But Howard's true passions lay with America's underprivileged and needy communities, which never had a bolder champion. His work on behalf of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly reflect his remarkable compassion for those members of society who face challenges that many of us cannot fully appreciate. He tirelessly defended their interests and fought for their protection. He was dedicated to eradicating discrimination, ensuring adequate health care to those in need, and boosting public education. It has been said many times, but for good reason, that Howard brought not only his conscience to the Senate, but also the courage to act on his convictions. Howard remains a good friend to me, but he was also a mentor and a teacher during his years in the Senate. He gave me good advice and plenty of it. And, I might add, he continues to do so today, which I welcome. But more than that, his dedication to the office of United States Senator is an example by which to live. He stood tall for the little people. Some will affectionately remember Howard as determined, argumentative, and even ``irascible.'' I cannot deny that those words come to my mind every now and then, when describing Howard. He was always at his best then, and for good reason. I heard it said by one Senator, and not a good friend: ``If there wasn't a Metzenbaum here, we'd have to invent one to keep us alert.'' I have missed working with Howard Metzenbaum in this great institution, a place that has been truly enhanced by his presence. I salute him on celebrating his 80th year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to oppose this conference report. Regrettably, the majority has decided to play politics with the lives of disaster victims. This is a tragedy. Mr. President, I don't have a particular dog in this fight. My State has been fortunate to be free of disasters recently. But it pains me to look at television footage of homeless people in the Dakotas and Minnesota and know that they are not getting all needed assistance because of two unrelated political riders to this legislation. Mr. President, I oppose this conference report because it includes the so-called automatic CR. I want to be clear with my colleagues--this provision violates the bipartisan budget agreement. Let me repeat this, the automatic CR violates the bipartisan budget agreement. It violates the budget agreement for two reasons: First, it would lower the total amount of discretionary spending available for fiscal year 1998. The budget agreement calls for $527 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998, which is a $17 billion increase over last year's level. If the automatic CR is enacted, the majority could refuse to pass the 13 appropriations bills and they would succeed in a $17 billion cut in discretionary spending. This would violate one of the basic Democratic accomplishments in the budget agreement. Second, the automatic CR would make deep cuts in programs that are protected in the bipartisan budget agreement. The bipartisan negotiators agreed to provide large increases in 13 major discretionary programs. Examples of these programs include: Elementary and secondary education improvement, Pell grants, child literacy, Head Start, national parks, job training, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the COPS Program. Mr. President, the automatic CR would freeze these programs at last year's levels. Therefore, these programs would not get the increases promised in the bipartisan budget agreement if Congress did not pass certain appropriations bills. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I am concerned that the majority is violating the bipartisan budget agreement before the ink is dry. First, they include this automatic CR that cuts overall discretionary spending and specific programs that were protected by the bipartisan budget agreement. Second, a House Ways and Means Subcommittee has approved welfare provisions that are in direct violation of the terms of the bipartisan budget agreement. This is a disturbing trend. If we are to maintain bipartisan cooperation in the coming weeks, the majority will need to drop their efforts to move legislation that directly violates the bipartisan budget agreement, like the automatic CR. Mr. President, I also oppose the census provision in the supplemental bill. This is not a provision based upon statistical science, it is a provision based upon politics. It is the latest attempt by the Republican National Committee to try to increase its political fortunes in the next century. My Republican colleagues, at the request of the RNC, have proposed to throw hundreds of millions more at the 2000 census. This additional money, we have been told by the National Academy of Sciences, will not make the census any more accurate, just more expensive. The Census Bureau estimates that spending up to $800 million more than planned would reduce the undercount only marginally. This provision does not belong in a disaster relief bill and it should be stripped out and sent back to the Government Affairs Committee for further consideration. Mr. President, I hope that the President will immediately veto this bill and that the majority will then pass a clean disaster relief bill so that people suffering all over this country will be able to begin the process of rebuilding their lives and communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1997. This bill will help decrease the death rates from a toxic pollutant that exists in the air of our Nation's factories, office buildings, retail stores, and Government facilities. I am speaking of secondhand smoke from cigarettes and other tobacco products, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. A recent study put an end to the tobacco industry's distortions and misinformation on this issue. A Harvard University study which tracked 32,000 nonsmoking women for 10 years found that regular exposure at home or at work to secondhand smoke nearly doubled their risk of heart disease. Mr. President, we have been aware of the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke for several years now, but this study confirms what many have suspected about the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease. The results of this study means that approximately 50,000 fatal heart attacks each year are caused by exposure to tobacco smoke. My bill would require that every building--both Government and private--protect Americans from exposure to secondhand smoke. It can be accomplished in one of two ways. The building could either ban smoking altogether or set up smoking rooms that are separately ventilated from the rest of the building. Mr. President, the bill also would finish a job I started with Senator Durbin 10 years ago. In 1987, we banned smoking on domestic airline flights of 2 hours or less. In 1989, we extended that ban to flights of 6 hours or less. The smoking ban has been a tremendous success. Passengers have been so pleased by a smokefree environment in the air that many airlines have voluntarily extended the ban to all domestic flights and international flights. However, some airlines have not, and many passengers and flight attendants are still subjected to dangerous secondhand smoke on airplanes. Mr. President, the Smoke-Free Environment Act will also ban smoking on any flight that originates in the United States, and lands in a foreign country. Americans should be able to travel abroad with the peace of mind that they will not be locked into a poisonous cabin for 10 or 15 hours, and flight attendants will not have to worry that they will increase their risk of heart disease almost twofold by simply performing their job. Mr. President, yesterday, a trial opened in Miami, in which flight attendants sued the tobacco industry over health injuries caused by exposure to secondhand smoke before the passage of my law banning smoking on domestic flights. These flight attendants have a legitimate case, and it is time to prevent similar litigation in the future by cleaning all the air in the skies, in Government offices, in stores, and in all of our places of work. Mr. President, nonsmokers never choose to be exposed to tobacco smoke. The smoke of a cigarette is not only harming the smoker, but also severely injuring others with secondhand smoke. Multiple studies have shown that regular exposure to secondhand smoke results in the following for nonsmokers: Damage to the arteries, reduction of oxygen supply in the body, and increases in the tendency of blood platelet to stick together and clot. Mr. President, how can we speak about the importance of children's health while our kids are being exposed to this deadly smoke. It is time for Congress to get serious about the health crisis caused by secondhand smoke, and pass the Smoke-Free Environment Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be inserted into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article on the Harvard study be inserted into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is not often during the course of our busy days here in the Senate that we take time to recognize one of our colleagues for their individual accomplishments. Today, however, we are doing so on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's history making event of having served longer in the U.S. Senate than anyone since the founding of our country. I join with my colleagues in paying special tribute to Senator Thurmond, the Senior Senator from South Carolina, on this noteworthy day. On May 25, Senator Thurmond became the longest serving Member ever in the Senate's 208-year history by serving more than the 41 years and 10 months Senator Carl Hayden served between 1927 and 1969. Senator Thurmond's longevity in Senate service is truly remarkable because, in addition to length of service, he has been deeply commited to providing leadership in the Armed Services Committee and as the President pro tempore. Senator Thurmond has worn many hats during his distinguished career in public service, which began well before he was first elected to the Senate in 1954. As a school teacher, State senator, judge, World War II veteran, D-day fighter, and Governor, Senator Thurmond's service to our country is very likely unparalleled. In the Senate, Strom has been an indefatigable fighter on behalf of his State of South Carolina and has demonstrated enormous tenacity in championing our national defense and veterans causes. His enthusiasm in all that he does is truly unmatched. Mr. President, although Senator Thurmond and I may not always see eye to eye, I respect his integrity, his consideration of others, his love of country, and his deep sense of responsibility to public service. His service will have a lasting impact on this institution's history because of the policies he promoted, the high standards he set for us, and the lessons he taught so many of us about the will to carry on no matter the obstacle. He fought against the most painful of tragedies by trying to make sure others were spared the grief he endured. I look forward to continuing working alongside him for many years to come and hope to witness his service at his personal century mark.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1997. This bill will help decrease the death rates from a toxic pollutant that exists in the air of our Nation's factories, office buildings, retail stores, and Government facilities. I am speaking of secondhand smoke from cigarettes and other tobacco products, which kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. A recent study put an end to the tobacco industry's distortions and misinformation on this issue. A Harvard University study which tracked 32,000 nonsmoking women for 10 years found that regular exposure at home or at work to secondhand smoke nearly doubled their risk of heart disease. Mr. President, we have been aware of the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke for several years now, but this study confirms what many have suspected about the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease. The results of this study means that approximately 50,000 fatal heart attacks each year are caused by exposure to tobacco smoke. My bill would require that every building--both Government and private--protect Americans from exposure to secondhand smoke. It can be accomplished in one of two ways. The building could either ban smoking altogether or set up smoking rooms that are separately ventilated from the rest of the building. Mr. President, the bill also would finish a job I started with Senator Durbin 10 years ago. In 1987, we banned smoking on domestic airline flights of 2 hours or less. In 1989, we extended that ban to flights of 6 hours or less. The smoking ban has been a tremendous success. Passengers have been so pleased by a smokefree environment in the air that many airlines have voluntarily extended the ban to all domestic flights and international flights. However, some airlines have not, and many passengers and flight attendants are still subjected to dangerous secondhand smoke on airplanes. Mr. President, the Smoke-Free Environment Act will also ban smoking on any flight that originates in the United States, and lands in a foreign country. Americans should be able to travel abroad with the peace of mind that they will not be locked into a poisonous cabin for 10 or 15 hours, and flight attendants will not have to worry that they will increase their risk of heart disease almost twofold by simply performing their job. Mr. President, yesterday, a trial opened in Miami, in which flight attendants sued the tobacco industry over health injuries caused by exposure to secondhand smoke before the passage of my law banning smoking on domestic flights. These flight attendants have a legitimate case, and it is time to prevent similar litigation in the future by cleaning all the air in the skies, in Government offices, in stores, and in all of our places of work. Mr. President, nonsmokers never choose to be exposed to tobacco smoke. The smoke of a cigarette is not only harming the smoker, but also severely injuring others with secondhand smoke. Multiple studies have shown that regular exposure to secondhand smoke results in the following for nonsmokers: Damage to the arteries, reduction of oxygen supply in the body, and increases in the tendency of blood platelet to stick together and clot. Mr. President, how can we speak about the importance of children's health while our kids are being exposed to this deadly smoke. It is time for Congress to get serious about the health crisis caused by secondhand smoke, and pass the Smoke-Free Environment Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be inserted into the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a New York Times article on the Harvard study be inserted into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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