Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington off the resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is true.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I also have to reserve the right to consult with our leader to see if we could not make that a little bit later than 9 so that we can----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It has the code. The code is zip.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And I have unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be permitted to introduce an amendment for 2 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right for the moment, I intend to propose to table the Gramm amendment and do not want to be excluded from that or precluded by it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I stand corrected.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Why don't we do this. If we vote on the present Gramm amendment, the one that is being presented at this time, why don't we vote on that and give us a chance to take a look at the other one. And I appreciate the misunderstanding of the Senator from Texas because there was some confusion. He was gracious about accepting these UC's, and I absolutely agree with that. I thought we were in the process of alternating sides. But I would ask the indulgence of the Senator from Illinois. Would the Senator from Illinois agree to having a vote on the Gramm amendment that is presently pending, and give us a chance to review the other one and consider it for 10 minutes, if that is OK. Then I would propound a unanimous-consent agreement to do just that, or do we just have an understanding to proceed that way?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No problem. The understanding is Senator Domenici has the time next.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are prepared to yield any time that remains on the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as the Senator from Utah needs to make his presentation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, a brief moment: That is to say, with great reluctance I am going to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. He has a long and distinguished record on matters affecting children and their well-being. I have also been a supporter of those programs that protect America's children to try to help them develop into functioning citizens. But we do have an agreement that was hammered out, if I can use the expression, in great pain with a great pain in many cases over many weeks of hard work. I just make the point that I commend the Senator for his interest, his continuing interest in the well-being of our children in the country, and that I again acknowledge regretfully that in my position here I am going to be opposing the amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are due to vote, as I understand it, pursuant to the last unanimous-consent agreement at 10 minutes to 8.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager. I think, just to ask a parliamentary question, when there is time for an amendment, that time is automatically divided between the two sides regardless of which side is being spoken for?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, unfortunately, it is our obligation to yield time to our people. So, is the Senator from Connecticut ready?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that understanding, Madam President, I would certainly be willing to yield as much time as the Senator from Connecticut requires.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today the Environmental Protection Agency is making public its annual inventory of toxic chemical releases. This information is made available to the public under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act which I authored in 1986. EPA announced today a 45.6 percent decrease nationwide in the release of toxic chemicals since 1988, when these data were first collected. In my State of New Jersey, which has a large chemical industry, releases were reduced by a stunning 70 percent. Mr. President, the right-to-know law has been an enormous success. Shedding the light of day on toxic pollution has encouraged industries to find ways to reduce the threat of these cancer causing materials to our communities. We should build on that success. Today I am introducing with Senators Torricelli, Boxer, Kerry, Graham, Kennedy and Wellstone the Right-to-Know More and Pollution Prevention Act of 1997, which will significantly expand the public's right-to-know about toxic chemicals in their homes, workplaces, and communities. The landmark 1986 Right-to-Know Act requires companies to list the amount of certain chemicals that leave their facilities as pollution and enter our air, water, or soil. It has often been cited as one of the most effective environmental laws on the books. By shining a public spotlight on pollution, the public is better informed, and many companies have taken voluntary steps to reduce pollution. In fact, without using traditional ``command and control requirements,'' the publication of right-to-know data has led companies to voluntarily reduce their releases of toxic chemicals by almost 46 percent, or 1.6 billion pounds, between 1988 and 1994. The bill I am introducing today significantly expands the community right-to-know reporting requirements by tracking toxic materials as they move through a facility--to tell us what comes in, what is transformed into product or waste, and what leaves a facility as pollution. This tracking system, known as chemical use or materials accounting, can further decrease the use of toxic chemicals and their release into the environment. When my own State of New Jersey began collecting information on toxic chemicals used by industries, in addition to recording toxic chemical releases, the results were dramatic. Whereas the national decrease in toxic emissions reported is 45.6 percent since 1988, in New Jersey it has been 70 percent. The discrepancy between New Jersey and the rest of the country, I believe, is due to the State requirement for materials accounting. The reason that materials accounting data is so valuable is that it provides information to industry and incentives to prevent pollution. With this data, industrial facilities have the information necessary to develop pollution prevention plans. Pollution prevention is the highest priority in managing waste, and falls at the top of the ladder of steps industry can take to reduce pollution--starting with prevention, then recycling, and then treatment, with disposal or release into the environment the least desirable last step. This so-called hierarchy of waste management has been endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as many Fortune 500 companies and the armed services. Materials accounting makes pollution prevention planning possible. You can't reduce toxic use if you don't know the quantity of toxics used and how they're used. That's why materials accounting data is so important. The bill requires companies which collect materials accounting data to prepare pollution prevention plans to decrease their use of toxics to protect those who might be exposed to them and can help companies improve their bottom line. It represents a strong marriage between environmental concerns and economic efficiency. A recent New Jersey study found that for every dollar spent on additional reporting, companies actually saved between five and eight dollars in reduced costs. By reducing waste, companies reduce their cost of doing business. Mr. President, materials accounting provides a framework for identifying opportunities to reduce pollution at the source through changes in production, operation and raw materials use. A random survey of 42 New Jersey facilities showed that 62 percent of the companies questioned anticipated that pollution prevention initiatives, based on information gleaned from materials accounting data, could save them money. Business wins, the public wins, and the public health and environment wins. Mr. President, my bill directs the EPA to expand right-to-know reporting to include information on toxic chemicals being transported through communities and used by industries in their products and workplaces. It would fill reporting gaps in the existing law by requiring all companies that have more than the stipulated threshold amounts to file reports, regardless of the industrial classification in which they fall. EPA could exempt categories of industry groups if the benefits and paperwork requirements are disproportionate to any benefit. Finally, the bill requires businesses to prepare pollution prevention plans based on the materials accounting data they collect. Mr. President, EPA has proposed requiring materials accounting data under existing authorities of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Law [EPCRA] and other statutes. I believe the law gives them that authority. However, some industry groups have challenged literally every action by the office that implements the Right-to-Know Law. To avoid continuing court fights and avoid needless delays, this law would clarify congressional intent. Mr. President, this bill will help ensure a healthier environment for all of us, and can save industry money, making our economy and chemical industry more cost competitive. It makes good environmental sense and good business sense. And it's legislation that the public wants. I hope we will move to enact it in this Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the Record, along with letters from EPA Administrator Browner and USPIRG and the Environmental Information Center supporting the bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response to the need to get business done here, our leader asked at the caucus that people get their amendments up early this afternoon, at least let us know what amendments are coming so we can deal with them, and move on with the business. Meanwhile, I have alerted my colleagues on the Democratic side to the fact that we will be accepting opening statements this afternoon and those who want to make them are welcome to do so, I think under the structure of our understanding.