Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for making sure we have a chance at a full debate on this issue. I am strongly opposed to this so-called automatic CR, and, if I may say, barring none others from competing, when it comes to understanding the rules and understanding the process, there is no better informed Senator than the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who is the ranking member of this Appropriations Committee, and his leadership tells us that we better look out, that we better know what we are talking about. I am deeply dismayed that we are debating this provision just a few days after we reached an agreement on the outlines of a 5-year balanced budget. Mr. President, I am the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee and, as such, have been relegated a relatively awesome task of trying to find a consensus that would enable us to get the Government going, to keep us from getting into these disputes year after year, but have an honest debate and a review, a determination of the importance of the issues. We worked very hard over the last few months to try and get the outlines of a balanced budget. We are not there yet, but I think we have all of the ingredients to finally say yes. We did agree last Friday that we have the makings of a budget resolution for the next 5 years. It would bring us to a zero deficit balance and take care of the programs, as best we could, that we care about. The automatic CR, on the other hand, could force deep cuts in education, environment, health, research, and crime fighting and contradict the agreement that we just arrived at. Mr. President, I consider it an abandonment of our constitutional responsibility. It is so nice to take your fingerprints off the deal that you may not like. It is so nice to back away and say, we are going to do it automatically. That is not why people sent us here, not to do it automatically but to put our reputations on the line, to put our thoughts on the line, and let us work out what we think is the proper direction for the funding in our Government. I worked with distinguished counterparts in this budget decision-- Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee; Congressman Kasich, the chairman of the House Budget Committee; Congressman Spratt, the ranking Democrat in the Budget Committee; and the administration officials at length to negotiate a budget agreement. We had lots of policy differences. But we worked through them in good faith. And we worked through them without producing such a hostile environment that we could not talk to one another, because it was carefully thought out. It was balanced with everybody's views and concerns. But part of this agreement includes a level of discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998, and for the following 4 years. It is not easy to reach agreement on these matters, but we did despite all of the hard work to reach a compromise on discretionary spending. This automatic CR could change these levels only days after we made the agreement. With this type of development, I am afraid we will never finish implementing this agreement, this budget agreement. It is not surprising that the President said that he will veto this bill if the Republican leadership insists on retaining this amendment to the bill. We ought to strip out this amendment immediately and pass the supplemental appropriations bill. Just look at the critical funding that we are providing in this supplemental. We heard the distinguished Senator from North Dakota describe the conditions that people are forced to exist under. And it touched all of our hearts when we saw the pictures, when we understood what it must be like to lose a home, to lose your roots, to lose your pictures, to lose the memorabilia, to lose all the history that a family goes through, things that are so precious. And where do you go in the next phase? People do not know. They are saying to us, ``Help us out, America. We are an integral part. We're there when you need us. We're there to pay our bills. And we're there to fight for the country. And let us have the resource to rebuild our lives a little bit.'' We all want to do it. So why do we get entangled with this extraneous matter at this point? We are also talking about more support for our troops in Bosnia. That is a tough job. Who here wants to walk away from that responsibility? Who here wants to say, ``Well, we have our troops there, but we're not going to give them their resources they need''? I doubt if anyone really wants to say that. If the Republican majority insists on pushing this legislation, we ought to consider it as a stand-alone bill. Let us debate it. Let us review what is in there, and not hold this supplemental appropriations bill hostage. Mr. President, if the automatic CR became law, the American people could pay a steep price. Compared to the President's budget, the budget ax could fall on many critical programs. Under the automatic CR, cuts are possible in the following programs: Do we want to risk programs like Pell grants, sending kids to college who otherwise cannot afford to go? Do we want to risk cutting NIH funding where research is so precious, so essential? Ryan White AIDS services. We are beginning to see some diminishment of the immediate death from AIDS. We are beginning to see life extended. Do we want to stop those programs? Who wants to put your family on an airplane if we have to cut back on FAA safety and security programs? Who wants to run that risk? We have EPA operations. They are able to respond to emergencies, oil spills, things of that nature. Do we want to run the risk of cutting back when we may need that kind of emergency assistance? Mr. President, the automatic CR is also, in my view, an abandonment of our constitutional responsibility. Our constituents sent us here to make decisions about our Nation's priorities. They expect us to consider and review carefully appropriations bills, spending bills, debate them, amend them and pass them in a way that meets the full blush of sunlight and meets their health, education, and other needs. This automatic CR would take a mindless meat ax--could take a mindless meat ax to 13 appropriations bills. It is not a very good way to decide our country's priorities. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues--and I respect them, but challenge their judgment on this one--argue if we do not pass the automatic CR we will have another Government shutdown. This is not the case. If we do our work we can pass most appropriations bills by October 1. And if we cannot pass them by that date we can pass a short- term continuing resolution that will allow us to finish all 13 bills. That is not the best way to do it. The best way to do it is get it done. We have done this numerous times in the past and have avoided any disruption of Government services. Mr. President, I strongly urge the Republican leadership to remove this onerous provision. This threatens the foundation of the entire 5- year budget agreement. If the majority does not budge soon on this issue, the whole budget deal could collapse, and we may never have a balanced budget, a children's health initiative, or any of the tax cuts that are also agreed upon though in some cases reluctantly. But it is a consensus. Is that where we want to go? I do not think so, Mr. President. I hope that my colleagues will stand up, analyze the situation carefully, and support Senator Byrd in his effort to strike this from the bill. I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senators Boxer and Kerry and I are introducing legislation to ensure that millions of lethal American-manufactured military weapons will not be imported into this country. Representatives Patrick Kennedy and Maloney are introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill we are introducing repeals a loophole in the law that could allow U.S. military weapons that were provided to foreign countries to be sold back to gun dealers in this country. The loophole permits the import of so-called ``curios or relics'' --weapons considered to have historic value or which are more than 50 years old. About 2.5 million American-manufactured military weapons that the U.S. Government gave away, sold, or were taken as spoils of war by foreign governments are at issue. This includes 1.2 million M-1 carbines, which are easily converted to fully automatic weapons. Though these weapons are older, they are lethal. I don't want them flooding America's streets. And I don't want foreign governments making a windfall by selling them to commercial gun dealers. As some of my colleagues may know, the term ``curios or relics'' was originally used in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to make it easier for licensed collectors to buy curios or relics weapons from outside his or her State of residence. The Treasury Department came up with a definition and list of ``curios or relics'' for this purpose. At that time, importation of surplus military weapons--whether of United States or foreign origin--was prohibited, and the curios or relics list had nothing to do with importing weapons. Nearly 20 years later, in 1984, a law was passed that expanded the scope of the curios or relics list in ways never foreseen at the time the list was first created. The modified law said that guns that were on the curios or relics list could not just be sold interstate within this country, but could be imported as well. However, the Arms Export Control Act still prohibited the importation of U.S. military weapons that had been furnished to foreign governments. Although a 1987 amendment to that Act authorized the importation of U.S.-origin military weapons on the curios or relics list as well, only one import license has been granted under the curios or relics exception. Since that isolated incident, every administration--Reagan, Bush, and Clinton--has adopted a policy established by the Reagan administration and based on the Arms Export Control Act of denying these kinds of import licenses. Though the Clinton administration and the past two Republican administrations have opposed importing these lethal weapons, the NRA supports importing them and it has allies on the Hill. Last year, an effort was made in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill to force the State Department to allow these weapons to be imported for any reason. That effort was killed as part of the negotiations on the catchall appropriations bill that was signed into law on September 30. The provision included in the Senate version of the C, J, S appropriations bill last year, section 621, would have prohibited any agency of the Government--notwithstanding any other provision of law-- from using appropriated funds to deny an application for a permit to import previously exported United States-origin military firearms, parts, or ammunition that are considered to be curios or relics. The provision would have forced the State Department to allow large numbers of U.S. military firearms that are currently in the possession of foreign governments to enter the United States commercially. Because so many of those firearms can be easily converted to automatic weapons, it would have undermined efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. In addition, it could have provided a windfall for foreign governments at the expense of the taxpayer. Certainly the dangers posed by many guns on the curios or relics list--in particular the M-1 carbine, which is easily converted into an automatic weapon--are an important reason for preventing imports of those guns. It is the main reason I am proposing legislation to clarify the law to prevent imports in the future. But the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act that limit the imports are not merely technical. They support a principle, included in the Arms Export Control Act, that is basic to the integrity of our foreign military assistance program: No foreign government should be allowed to do anything with weapons we have given them that we ourselves would not do with them. For example, the Department of Defense does not transfer weapons to a country that is our enemy; no foreign government should be allowed to use U.S.-supplied weapons in that way. The Department of Defense does not sell its excess guns directly to commercial dealers in the United States, and foreign governments should not be able to do so either. As recently as 1994, the General Services Administration Federal weapons task force reviewed U.S. policy for the disposal of firearms and confirmed a longstanding Government policy against selling or transferring excess weapons out of Government channels. The Federal Government has made a decision that it should not be an arms merchant. The Federal regulations that emerged from that task force review are clear. They say surplus firearms may be sold only for scrap after total destruction by crushing, cutting, breaking, or deforming to be performed in a manner to ensure that the firearms are rendered completely inoperative and to preclude their being made operative. These are sound regulations. The Department of Defense does not sell its guns to private arms dealers. Under the Arms Export Control Act, we should not allow foreign governments to sell 2.5 million U.S. military weapons to private arms dealers either. Flooding the market with these curios and relics would only make it harder for law enforcement to do its job. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has already seen an increase in M-1 carbines that have been converted to fully automatic machine guns due to the availability and relatively low cost of the weapons. The more military weapons there are in this country, the more likely they are to fall into criminal hands. Surplus military weapons are usually cheap, and, if a government sells its whole stockpile, plentiful. A sudden increase in supply of M-1 garands and carbines and M-1911 pistols would drive down the price, making them less attractive to the collector and more attractive to the criminal. In fact, the administration opposed last year's provision, in part, because of the increased availability of low-cost weapons for criminals that invariably would have resulted. According to the administration, ``The criminal element thrives on low-cost firearms that are concealable, or capable of accepting large-capacity magazines, or capable of being easily converted to fully automatic fire. Thus, such weapons would be particularly enticing to the criminal element. In short, the net effect of the proposal would be to thwart the administration's efforts to deny criminals the availability of inexpensive, but highly-lethal, imported firearms.'' We know that the M-1 carbine has already been used to kill at least 6 police officers. Another 3 were killed with M-1911 pistols. As recently as this January, two sheriff's deputies, James Lehmann, Jr. and Michael P. Haugen, were killed with an M-1 carbine while responding to a domestic violence call in Cabazon, CA. In October 1994, in Gilford, NH, Sgt. James Noyes of the State Police Special Weapons and Tactics Unit was killed in the line of duty with an M-1 carbine. In December 1992, two Richmond, CA police officers were killed with an M-1 carbine. In just one State, Pennsylvania, at least 10 people were killed using U.S.-origin military weapons during a recent 5-year period. To those who would argue that ``curios and relics'' are not used in crimes, I would say talk to the families of these victims. American-manufactured weapons were sold to foreign governments--often at a discount rate subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer--because we believed it was in our foreign policy interest to strengthen and assist our allies. We did not intend to enable foreign governments to make a profit by turning around and selling them back to commercial gun dealers in the U.S. We certainly did not help our allies so they could turn around and flood America's streets with lethal guns. We also did not provide weapons to foreign governments so they could reap a financial windfall at the expense of the taxpayer. Although the law could allow the United States Government to receive the net proceeds of any sales made by foreign governments of defense articles it received on a grant basis, the provision in the appropriations bill last year would have forced the administration--notwithstanding any other law --to approve the import license, even if a foreign government would not agree to provide proceeds of the sale. As such, it would undermine our government's ability to require foreign governments to return proceeds to the United States and could result in a windfall for foreign governments. Even more, some countries like Vietnam, which hold a significant quantity of spoils of war weapons, including ``curios or relics,'' could sell those ``spoils of war'' to U.S. importers at a financial gain. And, the Government of Iran, which received more than 25,000 M- 1911 pistols from the United States Government in the early 1970's, could qualify to export weapons to the United States at a financial gain as well. Allowing more than 2 million U.S.-origin military weapons to enter the United States would profit a limited number of arms importers. But it is not in the interest of the American people. I don't believe private gun dealers should have the ability to import these weapons from foreign governments. These weapons are not designed for hunting or shooting competitions. They are designed for war. Our own Department of Defense does not sell these weapons on the commercial market for profit. Why should we allow foreign countries to do so? Mr. President, this bill would confirm the policy against importing these lethal weapons by removing the ``curios or relics" exception from the Arms Export Control Act. Under this legislation, U.S. military weapons that the U.S. Government has provided to foreign countries could not be imported to the United States for sale in the United States by gun dealers. If a foreign government had no use for surplus American military weapons, those weapons could be returned to the Armed Forces of the United States or its allies, transferred to State or local law enforcement agencies in the United States, or destroyed. The legislation also asks the Treasury Department to provide a study on the importation of foreign-manufactured surplus military weapons. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation appear in the Record, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Concealed Weapons Prohibition Act of 1997, that would prohibit individuals from publicly carrying a handgun. The bill includes exceptions for certain people authorized to carry handguns under State law, such as law enforcement personnel and duly authorized security officers. States also could provide exemptions in individual cases, based on credible evidence of compelling circumstances warranting an exemption, such as a woman being stalked by someone who is threatening her. A simple claim of concern about generalized risks would not be sufficient to warrant an exemption; there would have to be a specified, credible threat. Mr. President, common sense tells us that there are more than enough dangerous weapons on America's streets. Yet, incredibly, some seem to think that there should be more. These people want to turn our States and cities into a modern version of the old wild west, where everyone carries a gun on his or her hip, taking the law into their own hands. This is a foolhardy and dangerous trend. Mr. President, this country is already drowning 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 thousand 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 be looking for ways to reduce the number of guns on our streets. Yet, instead, many States recently have enacted laws to do the opposite, by making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons. Unfortunately, Mr. President, concealed weapons make people less, not more, secure. In fact, there is near-unanimous agreement among law enforcement groups that concealed weapons laws are bad policy. These groups understand that when more people carry weapons on the streets, more routine conflicts escalate into deadly violence. Mr. President, every day people get into everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. Concealed weapons laws also are likely to make criminals more violent. Think about it, Mr. President. If a criminal thinks that you might be carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells you that he is much more likely to simply shoot first, and ask questions later. Mr. President, another dangerous side-effect of having private citizens carry concealed weapons is the impact these unseen guns will have on law enforcement officers. Police officers would become reluctant to conduct even routine traffic stops if they knew that large numbers of citizens could be carrying concealed weapons. You do not need to take my word for this, Mr. President. Just ask the men and women in law enforcement. In fact, the Police Executive Research Forum did just that. In their 1996 survey, they found that 92 percent of their membership opposed legislation allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. The most cited reason for this opposition was public safety. Mr. President, the police of this country understand that the public carrying of handguns increases the likelihood of gun violence. Also, concealed weapons increase the chances that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidently injure or kill innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, States increasingly are allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons with little or no training in the operation of firearms. This means that many incompetent people are putting the public at risk from stray bullets. Mr. President, although the regulation of concealed weapons has been left to States, it is time for Congress to step in to protect the public. All Americans have a right to be free from the dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of residence. And Americans should be able to travel across State lines for business, to visit their families, or for any other purpose, without having to worry about concealed weapons. Congress has the constitutional authority to provide this protection, Mr. President, and there is a strong Federal interest in ensuring the safety of our citizens. Beyond the human costs of gun violence, crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation whose workers, suppliers, and customers are adversely affected by gun violence. Moreover, to ensure its coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the legislation from the gun free school zone statute that was struck down in the Supreme Court's Lopez case. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equals more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. 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. President, today I am introducing the Deadly Driver and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act, which would establish national minimum penalties for alcohol-related motor vehicle violations. It is a companion to S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets Act, which I introduced last month along with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a bill intended to make .08 blood alcohol content the national standard for impaired driving. I am proud to sponsor this legislation and when it is adopted, many lives will be saved. However, Mr. President, we can also reduce fatalities and serious injury caused by drunk driving by having tougher penalties. Driving while intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent crimes in this country. In 1992, more people were arrested for DWI--1.6 million--than for any other reported criminal activity including larceny or theft, or for drug abuse violations. By even reasonable standards this could be considered a kind of epidemic. And we need to start treating this epidemic. A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue, it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One study in California demonstrated the extent of this problem over the long term. It found that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI in California in 1980 were convicted again of DWI within the next 10 years. In my State of New Jersey, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that DWI offenses are treated as traffic violations as opposed to crimes. Unfortunately, Mr. President, too many people share this view of drinking and driving, with the result being that those who are charged with DWI often drink and drive again. While in New Jersey new laws and programs have been implemented to address the drunk-driving problem, and DWI arrests and convictions have declined, the problem of repeat offenders persists. Between 1994 and 1995 the number of two-time offenders actually increased from 4,495 in 1994 to 4,731 in 1995. The danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that drivers with prior DWI convictions are overrepresented in fatal crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases with each DWI arrest. Mr. President, it is time that we take this problem of repeat offenders seriously. The first time a driver is convicted of DWI, he or she must understand the severity of the crime which has been committed. If a person continues to ignore the law, and continues to drink and drive, the courts need to treat that person with the full force of the law, both to punish that person, and to protect the public at large. That is why I am introducing the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act. This bill requires States to adopt mandatory minimum sentences for DWI offenders within 3 years or otherwise lose a portion of their Federal highway funding. The sentencing requirements are as follows: For a first-time conviction of a person operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, their license is revoked for 6 months. A second conviction requires a 1-year suspension, and a third conviction for the crime of driving while impaired by alcohol results in the permanent revocation of that person's license. If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences by October 1, 2000, 5 percent of that State's Federal highway funds will be withheld. If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences after another year, that State would then lose 10 percent of its allocated Federal highway funds. Mr. President, sanctions work. In too many States, and in too many courts in this country, drunk driving is not taken seriously enough. We want to make sure that those who disobey the law by drinking and driving both understand the severity of their offense and are prevented from driving if they continue to break the law. These mandatory minimum penalties will meet these challenges. When we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk about it in statistical terms. But there are real people attached to those statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, NJ, full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk driver while he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell was exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his kindness and caring. Like so many American boys, at one point he dreamed of being a baseball player, but as he matured he knew he wanted to be a missionary. His dream became living a life of helping others. But this dream, this young man, was taken away from all of us much too early when Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his car while passing another vehicle. Robert Hyer should not have been on the road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk. Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times, though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina license just 2 years later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A system which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too late in responding. Mr. President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of the other Matthew Hammells whose spirits are taken from us too early, but it is now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. So, in his honor, and in the memory of all of our loved ones who do not get to achieve their potential due to the actions of drunk drivers, we have named this bill the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act. While I will be the first to admit that this bill is not enough, at least it is a start. Let us work together now so that such memorial acts are unnecessary in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Deadly Driver and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act, which would establish national minimum penalties for alcohol-related motor vehicle violations. It is a companion to S. 412, the Safe and Sober Streets Act, which I introduced last month along with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, a bill intended to make .08 blood alcohol content the national standard for impaired driving. I am proud to sponsor this legislation and when it is adopted, many lives will be saved. However, Mr. President, we can also reduce fatalities and serious injury caused by drunk driving by having tougher penalties. Driving while intoxicated, or DWI, is one of the most prevalent crimes in this country. In 1992, more people were arrested for DWI--1.6 million--than for any other reported criminal activity including larceny or theft, or for drug abuse violations. By even reasonable standards this could be considered a kind of epidemic. And we need to start treating this epidemic. A shocking number of DWI convictions are repeat offenders. When the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration studied this issue, it found that about one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. One study in California demonstrated the extent of this problem over the long term. It found that 44 percent of all drivers convicted of DWI in California in 1980 were convicted again of DWI within the next 10 years. In my State of New Jersey, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that DWI offenses are treated as traffic violations as opposed to crimes. Unfortunately, Mr. President, too many people share this view of drinking and driving, with the result being that those who are charged with DWI often drink and drive again. While in New Jersey new laws and programs have been implemented to address the drunk-driving problem, and DWI arrests and convictions have declined, the problem of repeat offenders persists. Between 1994 and 1995 the number of two-time offenders actually increased from 4,495 in 1994 to 4,731 in 1995. The danger of these repeat offenders is illustrated by the fact that drivers with prior DWI convictions are overrepresented in fatal crashes. These drivers have a 4.1 times greater risk of being in a fatal crash, as do intoxicated drivers without a prior DWI, and the risk of a particular driver being involved in a fatal crash increases with each DWI arrest. Mr. President, it is time that we take this problem of repeat offenders seriously. The first time a driver is convicted of DWI, he or she must understand the severity of the crime which has been committed. If a person continues to ignore the law, and continues to drink and drive, the courts need to treat that person with the full force of the law, both to punish that person, and to protect the public at large. That is why I am introducing the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act. This bill requires States to adopt mandatory minimum sentences for DWI offenders within 3 years or otherwise lose a portion of their Federal highway funding. The sentencing requirements are as follows: For a first-time conviction of a person operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, their license is revoked for 6 months. A second conviction requires a 1-year suspension, and a third conviction for the crime of driving while impaired by alcohol results in the permanent revocation of that person's license. If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences by October 1, 2000, 5 percent of that State's Federal highway funds will be withheld. If a State fails to adopt these minimum sentences after another year, that State would then lose 10 percent of its allocated Federal highway funds. Mr. President, sanctions work. In too many States, and in too many courts in this country, drunk driving is not taken seriously enough. We want to make sure that those who disobey the law by drinking and driving both understand the severity of their offense and are prevented from driving if they continue to break the law. These mandatory minimum penalties will meet these challenges. When we talk about drunk driving, too often we talk about it in statistical terms. But there are real people attached to those statistics. In the spring of 1995, a young man, from Tuckerton, NJ, full of goodness and potential, was struck down by a drunk driver while he and his friend were in-line skating. Matthew Hammell was exceptional. All those who knew him talk about being touched by his kindness and caring. Like so many American boys, at one point he dreamed of being a baseball player, but as he matured he knew he wanted to be a missionary. His dream became living a life of helping others. But this dream, this young man, was taken away from all of us much too early when Robert Hyer, drunk and driving, struck Matthew with his car while passing another vehicle. Robert Hyer should not have been on the road. Not only was he drunk, but he had a history of driving drunk. Before this fateful incident, Hyer had been charged with DWI six times, though he was convicted only twice. Hyer lost his license in New Jersey in 1984, but somehow he obtained a North Carolina license just 2 years later. He was a habitual offender who kept bucking the system. A system which kept letting him go. A system which, in the end, was too late in responding. Mr. President, it may be too late for Matthew Hammell, and all of the other Matthew Hammells whose spirits are taken from us too early, but it is now that we must become serious about drinking and driving. So, in his honor, and in the memory of all of our loved ones who do not get to achieve their potential due to the actions of drunk drivers, we have named this bill the Deadly Driver Reduction and Matthew P. Hammell Memorial Act. While I will be the first to admit that this bill is not enough, at least it is a start. Let us work together now so that such memorial acts are unnecessary in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have no objection on the Democratic side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Concealed Weapons Prohibition Act of 1997, that would prohibit individuals from publicly carrying a handgun. The bill includes exceptions for certain people authorized to carry handguns under State law, such as law enforcement personnel and duly authorized security officers. States also could provide exemptions in individual cases, based on credible evidence of compelling circumstances warranting an exemption, such as a woman being stalked by someone who is threatening her. A simple claim of concern about generalized risks would not be sufficient to warrant an exemption; there would have to be a specified, credible threat. Mr. President, common sense tells us that there are more than enough dangerous weapons on America's streets. Yet, incredibly, some seem to think that there should be more. These people want to turn our States and cities into a modern version of the old wild west, where everyone carries a gun on his or her hip, taking the law into their own hands. This is a foolhardy and dangerous trend. Mr. President, this country is already drowning 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 thousand 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 be looking for ways to reduce the number of guns on our streets. Yet, instead, many States recently have enacted laws to do the opposite, by making it easier for people to carry concealed weapons. Unfortunately, Mr. President, concealed weapons make people less, not more, secure. In fact, there is near-unanimous agreement among law enforcement groups that concealed weapons laws are bad policy. These groups understand that when more people carry weapons on the streets, more routine conflicts escalate into deadly violence. Mr. President, every day people get into everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. Concealed weapons laws also are likely to make criminals more violent. Think about it, Mr. President. If a criminal thinks that you might be carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells you that he is much more likely to simply shoot first, and ask questions later. Mr. President, another dangerous side-effect of having private citizens carry concealed weapons is the impact these unseen guns will have on law enforcement officers. Police officers would become reluctant to conduct even routine traffic stops if they knew that large numbers of citizens could be carrying concealed weapons. You do not need to take my word for this, Mr. President. Just ask the men and women in law enforcement. In fact, the Police Executive Research Forum did just that. In their 1996 survey, they found that 92 percent of their membership opposed legislation allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons. The most cited reason for this opposition was public safety. Mr. President, the police of this country understand that the public carrying of handguns increases the likelihood of gun violence. Also, concealed weapons increase the chances that incompetent or careless handgun users will accidently injure or kill innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, States increasingly are allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons with little or no training in the operation of firearms. This means that many incompetent people are putting the public at risk from stray bullets. Mr. President, although the regulation of concealed weapons has been left to States, it is time for Congress to step in to protect the public. All Americans have a right to be free from the dangers posed by the carrying of concealed handguns, regardless of their State of residence. And Americans should be able to travel across State lines for business, to visit their families, or for any other purpose, without having to worry about concealed weapons. Congress has the constitutional authority to provide this protection, Mr. President, and there is a strong Federal interest in ensuring the safety of our citizens. Beyond the human costs of gun violence, crimes committed with handguns impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and lead to a reduction in productivity and profitability for businesses around the Nation whose workers, suppliers, and customers are adversely affected by gun violence. Moreover, to ensure its coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the legislation from the gun free school zone statute that was struck down in the Supreme Court's Lopez case. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equals more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. 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 that will help ensure that States live up to their responsibility to give full faith and credit to protective orders issued in other States. In the 1994 Crime Act, as part of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress passed a provision requiring states to enforce the protection orders issued in sister States. What this means, Mr. President, is that if a woman has secured a protective order against her husband in New Jersey, and then goes to Pennsylvania to stay with her parents and her husband follows her, Pennsylvania is obligated to enforce the New Jersey protective order. This is common sense, it will protect the lives and well-being of countless threatened women, and is the law. However, for some reason States have been disregarding their legal obligation to enforce these orders. Mr. President, it seems that the only way to get the States to live up to this obligation is to threaten some of their Federal funding. Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today allows the Attorney General to withhold 10 percent of all formula Byrne grant crime fighting funds given to a State if it is failing to enforce out-of- State protective orders. Although I believe that these funds are an important crime prevention and crime fighting tool, it has become clear that there must be some mechanism to ensure that States live up to their responsibilities to victims of domestic abuse. Mr. President, violence against women is one of our country's most heinous and pressing crimes. Every 12 seconds a woman is battered. About 10 times more women are victimized annually by domestic violence than are diagnosed with breast cancer. These figures reflect only reported crimes--the actual incidence rates are even higher. According to the FBI, domestic violence is the single most common source of injury among women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rape by a stranger combined. Protective orders are an important device in combating domestic violence, and protecting women who have already been battered from further harm. But they are only effective if they are enforced. So, Mr. President, 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 that will help ensure that States live up to their responsibility to give full faith and credit to protective orders issued in other States. In the 1994 Crime Act, as part of the Violence Against Women Act, Congress passed a provision requiring states to enforce the protection orders issued in sister States. What this means, Mr. President, is that if a woman has secured a protective order against her husband in New Jersey, and then goes to Pennsylvania to stay with her parents and her husband follows her, Pennsylvania is obligated to enforce the New Jersey protective order. This is common sense, it will protect the lives and well-being of countless threatened women, and is the law. However, for some reason States have been disregarding their legal obligation to enforce these orders. Mr. President, it seems that the only way to get the States to live up to this obligation is to threaten some of their Federal funding. Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today allows the Attorney General to withhold 10 percent of all formula Byrne grant crime fighting funds given to a State if it is failing to enforce out-of- State protective orders. Although I believe that these funds are an important crime prevention and crime fighting tool, it has become clear that there must be some mechanism to ensure that States live up to their responsibilities to victims of domestic abuse. Mr. President, violence against women is one of our country's most heinous and pressing crimes. Every 12 seconds a woman is battered. About 10 times more women are victimized annually by domestic violence than are diagnosed with breast cancer. These figures reflect only reported crimes--the actual incidence rates are even higher. According to the FBI, domestic violence is the single most common source of injury among women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rape by a stranger combined. Protective orders are an important device in combating domestic violence, and protecting women who have already been battered from further harm. But they are only effective if they are enforced. So, Mr. President, 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, I introduce the Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act of 1997. This important bill will put real teeth in the enforcement provisions of the Clean Water Act, and will help restore and preserve our Nation's already stressed lakes, rivers and coastal areas. I would like to commend my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Pallone, for introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Torricelli has joined as a co-sponsor of our bill. Mr. President, when Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, we established lofty goals-to make our Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. And we mandated strict enforcement and provided for penalties to assure compliance with the act's provisions. We were responding to strong public concern about pollution of our waterways. That concern is every bit as strong today because people understand that clean water is essential to human life. The American people want us to rid our waters of bacteria, toxins, and garbage. Yet, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and after several substantial revisions since its enactment, the act has failed to meet all of our goals. While the Act has resulted in significant progress and water quality is improving, our waters are not clean. In 1988, over one-third of our rivers, lakes and estuaries surveyed throughout the country were either failing to achieve designated water quality levels or were threatened with failing to achieve those levels. In my State of New Jersey, a survey of roughly 10 percent of the State's rivers showed that only 15 percent were safe for swimming. One reason we haven't made more progress is that the Clean Water Act is not being adequately enforced. Mr. President, effective enforcement is essential to achieving the goals of the act. Not only does effective enforcement deter violations, but it also helps ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken in a timely manner when violations do occur. The Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act will strengthen enforcement efforts. Mr. President, my bill will toughen penalties for polluters, improve enforcement by EPA and state water pollution agencies, and expand citizens' right-to-know about violations of the Clean Water Act. It establishes mandatory minimum penalties for serious violations of the Clean Water Act. It requires that civil penalties be no less than the economic benefit resulting from the violation. It requires more frequent reporting of water discharges to identify violations more quickly. And it requires EPA to publish annually a list of those facilities that are in significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. 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 urge my colleagues to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention is a historic arms control treaty which will significantly enhance America's security. The treaty prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of chemical weapons by those countries that are signatories. It requires signatories to begin to destroy their chemical weapons within a year and to complete destruction of chemical weapons within ten years. Importantly, it prohibits the use of chemical weapons in combat, and it prohibits signatories from helping other countries to engage in any activity banned by the treaty. As such, the Chemical Weapons Convention is an important non-proliferation tool that will help slow the spread of dangerous chemical weapons and force the destruction of most of the world's chemical weapons stockpiles. President Reagan recognized the wisdom of working to ban chemical weapons worldwide. Under his administration, negotiations on the terms of a chemical weapons treaty began. Those negotiations continued under President Bush, who signed the treaty. Now, five years after completion, with the full support of President Clinton, the Chemical Weapons Treaty is before the Senate for ratification. There are many good reasons to support the Chemical Weapons Treaty. First, and foremost, this treaty will protect America's military from the threat of chemical weapons attack without requiring America to give up anything militarily. The United States has already decided to destroy its stockpile of chemical weapons and has vowed not to use chemical weapons in warfare. Because the Chemical Weapons Convention requires other nations to abandon chemical weapons as the United States has done, America gains from this treaty. We give up nothing, and our troops will be less likely to face poison gas in future conflicts. Civilians in America and worldwide will benefit from Senate ratification of this treaty as well. Last year's terrorist attack in Japan, in which chemical weapons were used against innocent civilians, reminds us that none of us is safe from the threat of chemical weapons. As long as chemical weapons are produced and stockpiled, the possibility remains real that they will end up in the hands of terrorists. Because the Chemical Weapons Convention requires all countries to enact laws making it a crime to develop or produce chemical weapons, the treaty will make it harder for terrorists to obtain chemical weapons, making America's cities, streets, and schools safer. Additionally, the Chemical Weapons Convention will help America and the intelligence community to better track and control the spread of chemical weapons and to punish violators. Through the verification regime established by the treaty, our country will have an easier time monitoring chemical weapons threats and establishing rigorous verification procedures to prevent cheating. Already seventy countries have ratified the treaty, and it will go into effect with or without the United States. But if the Senate does not ratify the treaty, America will be siding with rogue nations like Iraq and Libya. If the Senate does not ratify the treaty, American industry will be sanctioned and will lose roughly $600 million in trade, a point I addressed more fully in an earlier speech to the Senate. If the Senate does not ratify the treaty, America will not be able to participate in the body that will determine the rules for implementing the treaty. And if the Senate does not ratify the treaty, America's credibility as a proponent of nonproliferation and arms control will be jeopardized. Mr. President, there is no doubt in my mind that the United States should join a treaty we helped to shape and which enhances our security. With the Chemical Weapons Convention and our leadership, other nations will follow the lead America set years ago by giving up chemical weapons. Rogue nations and terrorist countries will have a harder time acquiring or making chemical weapons, and new tools will be available to prevent and punish them if they try. America is much better off with the Chemical Weapons Convention than without it, and I urge my colleagues to ratify it without delay.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act of 1997. This important bill will put real teeth in the enforcement provisions of the Clean Water Act, and will help restore and preserve our Nation's already stressed lakes, rivers and coastal areas. I would like to commend my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Pallone, for introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Torricelli has joined as a co-sponsor of our bill. Mr. President, when Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972, we established lofty goals-to make our Nation's waters fishable and swimmable. And we mandated strict enforcement and provided for penalties to assure compliance with the act's provisions. We were responding to strong public concern about pollution of our waterways. That concern is every bit as strong today because people understand that clean water is essential to human life. The American people want us to rid our waters of bacteria, toxins, and garbage. Yet, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and after several substantial revisions since its enactment, the act has failed to meet all of our goals. While the Act has resulted in significant progress and water quality is improving, our waters are not clean. In 1988, over one-third of our rivers, lakes and estuaries surveyed throughout the country were either failing to achieve designated water quality levels or were threatened with failing to achieve those levels. In my State of New Jersey, a survey of roughly 10 percent of the State's rivers showed that only 15 percent were safe for swimming. One reason we haven't made more progress is that the Clean Water Act is not being adequately enforced. Mr. President, effective enforcement is essential to achieving the goals of the act. Not only does effective enforcement deter violations, but it also helps ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken in a timely manner when violations do occur. The Clean Water Enforcement and Compliance Improvement Act will strengthen enforcement efforts. Mr. President, my bill will toughen penalties for polluters, improve enforcement by EPA and state water pollution agencies, and expand citizens' right-to-know about violations of the Clean Water Act. It establishes mandatory minimum penalties for serious violations of the Clean Water Act. It requires that civil penalties be no less than the economic benefit resulting from the violation. It requires more frequent reporting of water discharges to identify violations more quickly. And it requires EPA to publish annually a list of those facilities that are in significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while the Senate debates one of the most important arms control treaties in our history, various issues come into play. It is obvious that the Chemical Weapons Convention will ban an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. It prohibits the full spectrum of activities associated with the offensive use of chemical weapons, including development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and assistance to anyone engaging in these activities. It requires that the destruction of chemical weapons begin within 1 year and it be completed within 10 years. Mr. President, there is no doubt in my mind that the United States should join a treaty we helped to shape and which enhances our security. I am going to vote for it. Now, with the Chemical Weapons Convention and our leadership, other nations will follow the lead that we set years ago by giving up chemical weapons. Rogue nations and terrorist countries will have a harder time acquiring or making chemical weapons, and new tools will be available to prevent and punish them if they try. That is a noble goal. One of the arguments that we have heard against ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention is that it will force some industries --one in particular--to bear an unusual burden. I want to address this for a few minutes because I don't believe it is true. To the contrary, the chemical industry will bear an undue burden if the United States fails to ratify the CWC. I want to explain why. If the Chemical Weapons Convention goes into effect without the United States a party, strict trade restrictions designed to pressure rogue states to join the convention would spell disaster for the U.S. chemical industry. Reasonably enough, neither Presidents Reagan nor Bush ever foresaw that the U.S. Senate might decide to place the United States outside of the treaty, along with countries like Iraq, Libya, and other rogue nations. But the fact is that treaty provisions prohibiting members from trading with nonmembers in certain chemicals that have both commercial as well as military uses would put at risk as much as $600 million a year in two-way trade by American chemical companies, and many jobs. I will repeat that. Should the U.S. Senate fail to ratify the treaty, as much as $600 million a year in American export and import sales would be placed at risk as a result of sanctions against American companies. On April 15, Fred Webber, who is the president and CEO of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, testified in support of this treaty. He said: The industry I represent is America's largest export industry, with over 1 million American jobs * * * we know how this treaty affects our commercial interests. * * * We began with many of the same concerns about the treaty that have been voiced here. We worked hard to protect U.S. industrial interests, especially proprietary information. We helped develop the protocols guiding the treaty's inspection and recordkeeping requirements, and we put those protocols to live-fire tests over and over again. * * * In summary, we believe the treaty is not a threat to U.S. business. Not only does the CWC have the support of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which represents 193 chemical manufacturing companies, accounting for more than 90 percent of the Nation's productive capacity for basic chemicals, it has the support of the Chemical Industry Council of New Jersey and the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, with over 260 member companies. It also has the support of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and its 100 plus member companies, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization and its 650-plus member companies and affiliated organizations. It has the support of the Council for Chemical Research, the American Crop Protection Association, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the American Chemical Society. Mr. President, the point I am trying to make is simple--the Senate cannot refuse to ratify the CWC in the name of industry. American industry supports this treaty. It does not believe it places an unfair burden on companies in this country. In fact, U.S. companies view the convention as an asset because it offers a way to dissociate themselves from chemical weapons production and to be good corporate citizens by helping to eliminate these abhorrent weapons. American industry even participated in the treaty negotiations and helped write the rules covering inspections and confidential business information. Its top priority during the negotiations conducted by the Reagan and Bush administrations was ensuring that any burdens on business would be reasonable and that trade secrets would be protected. To ensure that the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and industrial espionage would be strong, the chemical industry tested the treaty during seven full-fledged trial inspections at chemical facilities. It ensured that warrants would be required when a company would not consent to a search and that the treaty would protect sensitive equipment, information, or areas not related to chemical weapons during a challenge inspection. For most companies in this country--more than 90 percent of the 2,000 American companies that will be covered by the treaty--the treaty will require them to do little more than fill out a two-page form once a year. Only about 140 companies are likely to be subject to routine inspections. In addition to the protections negotiated by industry and already in the treaty, the Senate will be adding five additional protections. Under additional conditions that will be added by the Senate, if an employee of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons willfully discloses U.S. confidential business information that causes financial harm to a U.S. business, the President is required to withhold half of the U.S. contribution to the organization until that employee's immunity from prosecution is waived. This will serve as a deterrent to breaches of confidential information. To reduce the risk of industrial espionage, samples collected during inspections in the United States cannot be analyzed in a foreign laboratory. The President would be required to certify annually that the CWC is not significantly harming the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms. The Senate would support the provision of assistance to U.S. business by the On-Site Inspection Agency. And, the Senate would be informed promptly of the proposed addition of a chemical to any of the CWC's schedules and the anticipated effect of such a proposal on U.S. industry. Mr. President, this treaty enhances America's security. It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to ratify it without delay. I hope that my colleagues will stand up and say this is good for America, that it is good for humanity, and that they will ratify this treaty without delay. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes in accordance with the understanding on the floor now.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, Masonic Architects of the Universe, Inc., Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, Electa Grand Chapter, Order of the Eastern Star of Newark, NJ, will be awarding scholarships to at least 16 deserving students at its second annual Scholarship Banquet on May 18. Young people from New York; Connecticut; Washington, DC; and Essex and Hudson counties in New Jersey will be recognized during the evening's ceremonies. I congratulate all the scholarship recipients, and I encourage them to always strive for academic excellence. In the words of poet Muriel Ruyskier, I urge them to ``reach the limits of themselves, to reach beyond themselves.'' Mr. President, education is the key that unlocks the door to the future. By the year 2000, 60 percent of all new jobs in America will require advanced technology skills. Anyone who does not have the required education will not be able to compete. Education isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. I know that the scholarships awarded by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge will help the recipients face tomorrow's challenges. But I also hope that these awards will instill in the winners a love for education. In the 19th century Jewish ghettos of Eastern Europe, mothers used to pour a little honey on a book, in order to demonstrate to their children the sweetness of learning. And learning is sweet, because it enriches our lives; it opens our minds to new possibilities, and it allows us to fully enjoy the wonders of the universe. Mr. President, as we honor this year's scholarship winners, I also want to commend the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge for its outstanding community work, particularly in the area of education. Through its actions, the Grand Lodge demonstrates that not only does it take an entire village to raise a child, it takes an entire community to educate a child. I again congratulate all of the scholarship winners, and I wish them continued success as they continue on the path of knowledge and the path of life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Salem County School District on a number of notable anniversaries. The year 1997 marks the 40th anniversary of the district, the 25th anniversary of the initiation of occupational, technical and vocational programs and services to secondary students and the 15th anniversary of the operation of the New Jersey Regional Day School at Mannington for the Department of Education. Mr. President, these anniversaries are especially significant because education is the key that will open the door to the future for our children. By the year 2000, 60 percent of all new jobs in America will require advanced technical skills. The industrial age has given way to the information age and, more than ever before, students need a quality education if they are going to be able to compete. But a quality education doesn't only benefit the individual, it also benefits our Nation. If our firms and factories are to find the educated workers they need, and if these same firms are to remain competitive in the global marketplace, then our students must receive the necessary training and skills. Our economic future depends on it. Mr. President, 300 years ago this year, the colony of Massachusetts passed the very first American education law. It required that every town of at least 50 people hire a teacher of reading and writing. Those first colonists, huddled in their tiny villages along the Atlantic coast, understood the importance of education for their children and for their communities. And ever since, making ourselves the best educated Nation on Earth has always been the very essence of our American dream. The work of the Salem County School District, and the Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, is helping to ensure that this particular American dream remains an American reality. To the students of Salem County, I say don't ever forget that there's always more to be learned, always more to be seen, always more to be explored. And to the Salem County Board of Education, the Salem County School District, and the Salem County Vocational Technical Schools, I say congratulations and continue your fine work.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, another season of baseball is underway, and all of us are enjoying the crack of a bat on a hard hit ball and the thrill of a stolen base. But while this season has brought us the familiar sights and sounds, it also recalls a very special anniversary. Nineteen ninety-seven marks the 50th anniverary of the breaking of major league baseball's color barrier. In April 1947, Jackie Robinson played his first game with the National League's Brooklyn Dodgers and ended segregation in our national pastime; simultaneously, he entered America's pantheon of heroes. Mr. President, while we rightfully honor Mr. Robinson, we cannot forget that heroes rarely fight their battles alone. Unfortunately, we have largely ignored those other African-American baseball players who broke that barrier with Robinson. Only 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson first graced a major league baseball diamond, Larry Doby, of Paterson, N.J., took the field with the Cleveland Indians, becoming the first African-American player in the American League. Once on the team, he brought an ability and a consistency to the game which few could match. He was the first African-American player to hit a home run in a World Series, and he was named to six straight American League All-Star teams. During his 13- year career, he attained a .283 lifetime batting average and hit 253 home runs. But Larry Doby was not only an exciting player, he was also a courageous individual. He ignored the vile epithets hurled at him by both fans in the stands and opposing players on the field. After a road game, his teammates would go back to their hotel and make plans for the evening. Thanks to specter of Jim Crow, Mr. Doby would have to go, alone, to his own dingy hotel room in the black part of town. Because of the manner in which he handled such adversity, many other African-American players followed him to the major leagues, and we all learned that, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, we must judge a person on the content of his character and not the color of his skin. In a recent New York Times article, Mr. Doby himself observed, ``If Jack and I had a legacy, it is to show that teamwork, the ability to associate and communicate, makes all of us stronger.'' And by their example, Mr. President, we definitely are a stronger nation. Mr. President, Larry Doby is rightfully called a legend for his consistency on the field and a hero for his character off the field. But I have the privilege of also calling him a friend. We grew up together on the working class streets of Paterson, N.J. As working class kids, we shared a simple philosophy--if you do what you love, and you do it well, that's its own reward. And that reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes about Larry. After his first game in July 1947, the owner of the Cleveland Indians, the renowned Bill Veeck, told Larry, ``You are going to make history.'' Doby recalls that he thought to himself, ``History? I just want to play baseball.'' In 1975, Larry became the manager of the Chicago White Sox. Today, at the age of 72, he is still involved with the game, working for major league baseball in its Manhattan offices. But at one time, he was an American who just wanted to play baseball. And, given the opportunity, he played with skill and grace--and he made history. When it comes to Larry, others may have filled his uniform, but no one will ever be able to fill his shoes. Larry Doby proves that good and great can exist in the same individual.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Patrick Moynihan, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and 32 other Senators to introduce the ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997. This bill recognizes the success of the 1991 law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, by reauthorizing it with no major changes. Mr. President, 17 Governors endorsed a statement of principles for the next surface transportation law that strongly affirmed ISTEA's goals and effectiveness in ensuring a sound national transportation infrastructure. Included in those goals were these statements: Maintain the course set by ISTEA; reauthorize ISTEA with simplification and refinement but without significant changes; allocate funds to states primarily based on needs; retain the Federal Government's role as a key transportation partner to help fund highway, bridge, and transit projects and to assure that a national focus remains on mobility, connectivity, uniformity, integrity, safety, and research. Their message was, plain and simple, ISTEA works. Over the past few months, many others, from coast to coast, have sounded that message. Some are in the transportation business, others, such as mayors, county officials, and environmentalists are not. The drumbeat has sounded, that ISTEA works. I strongly support that message. ISTEA was bold and innovative, and changed the way we think and make decisions about transportation. It brought the public into the process. It requires sound planning. It promotes energy efficient transportation, research and development. It strengthens safety. It recognizes that the goal of a transportation system is how best to move goods and people, efficiently and effectively. Mr. President, ISTEA has worked across this Nation, as witnessed by the 32 cosponsors from 17 States. ISTEA has also worked for my home State of New Jersey. ISTEA could not have had a better laboratory than New Jersey. New Jersey is a corridor State, linking commerce and travel to the Northeast and the rest of the country. New Jersey has the highest vehicle density of any State in the United States. Thousands of heavy duty trucks, only half of which are not registered in New Jersey, use New Jersey's roads. It is a commuter State, heavily reliant on mass transit. New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is heavily used and is significantly older than many other State's. We as a State have had to be creative in finding ways to maintain the condition of the infrastructure, while improving mobility and promoting sound planning. Improving mobility reduces congestion, which in turn, improves air quality and makes our highways safer. This means that our time is not spent in long commutes to work or stuck in traffic. We need to remember why sensible transportation funding and planning is important. It's not to satisfy some special interest. It's to remember that sound transportation systems help cope with growing communities--our neighborhoods. Sound transportation systems help to improve mobility to transport freight and promote domestic and international commerce, making our economy more efficient and creating jobs--our businesses. Sound transportation systems help to improve air quality and protect the environment--our personal health. In short, transportation can, and should, help develop liveable communities and create a better way of life. Mr. President, ISTEA was the first step toward this goal. The ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 is the next logical step to launch our Nation's transportation system into the 21st century. The bill we are introducing today recognizes that current levels of transportation investment fall short of needs, so it increases authorized transportation funding over 6 years and continues the emphasis on preservation and maintenance of transportation systems. The bill continues to support the scientifically proven link between transportation and air quality by bolstering the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. The bill supports allocating transportation funds based on need, by continuing the bridge program without any changes. The bill increases flexibility by making Amtrak eligible for certain highway funds, and maintains the flexibility for transit. And, the bill recognizes special needs of States with both low and high density populations, by providing additional funding. Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the effort to revise our national highway program to ensure that each State receives allocations based on a certain percentage of its gas tax contributions to the highway trust fund--the donor-donee issue. This is the wrong way to think about transportation funding. It is in the national interest to have a Federal transportation policy with national goals. That's how we promote interstate and international commerce, further economic productivity, protect the environment, and ensure safety. That's why decisions to allocate Federal transportation funding should be based on need, not on a State's contribution to the highway trust fund. We do not allocate airport improvement program funds based on the amount of ticket tax that is collected in each State. No Federal programs work that way. However, if we choose to approach the issue in that context, then we must first recognize each State's return on the Federal dollar for all Federal programs. New Jersey receives only 68 cents of return on the Federal dollar--second to last, just ahead of Connecticut. New Jerseyans collectively contribute $15 billion more in Federal payments than they receive--that's more than $1,800 per resident. Mr. President, if we were to adopt an across-the-board rule to require 95 percent return on Federal dollars, consider what would happen if we apply that test to other programs. New Jersey would then receive $169 million more for agriculture subsidies, $2.1 billion more of defense spending, and about $55 million more for child and family health services funding. Mr. President, national transportation funding should continue to be allocated based on national goals and State needs like other Federal programs. Mr. President, ISTEA has worked for our cities, our counties, our environment, and for economic development. Let us build on the success of the past and not turn the clock back on transportation progress.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Patrick Moynihan, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and 32 other Senators to introduce the ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997. This bill recognizes the success of the 1991 law, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, by reauthorizing it with no major changes. Mr. President, 17 Governors endorsed a statement of principles for the next surface transportation law that strongly affirmed ISTEA's goals and effectiveness in ensuring a sound national transportation infrastructure. Included in those goals were these statements: Maintain the course set by ISTEA; reauthorize ISTEA with simplification and refinement but without significant changes; allocate funds to states primarily based on needs; retain the Federal Government's role as a key transportation partner to help fund highway, bridge, and transit projects and to assure that a national focus remains on mobility, connectivity, uniformity, integrity, safety, and research. Their message was, plain and simple, ISTEA works. Over the past few months, many others, from coast to coast, have sounded that message. Some are in the transportation business, others, such as mayors, county officials, and environmentalists are not. The drumbeat has sounded, that ISTEA works. I strongly support that message. ISTEA was bold and innovative, and changed the way we think and make decisions about transportation. It brought the public into the process. It requires sound planning. It promotes energy efficient transportation, research and development. It strengthens safety. It recognizes that the goal of a transportation system is how best to move goods and people, efficiently and effectively. Mr. President, ISTEA has worked across this Nation, as witnessed by the 32 cosponsors from 17 States. ISTEA has also worked for my home State of New Jersey. ISTEA could not have had a better laboratory than New Jersey. New Jersey is a corridor State, linking commerce and travel to the Northeast and the rest of the country. New Jersey has the highest vehicle density of any State in the United States. Thousands of heavy duty trucks, only half of which are not registered in New Jersey, use New Jersey's roads. It is a commuter State, heavily reliant on mass transit. New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is heavily used and is significantly older than many other State's. We as a State have had to be creative in finding ways to maintain the condition of the infrastructure, while improving mobility and promoting sound planning. Improving mobility reduces congestion, which in turn, improves air quality and makes our highways safer. This means that our time is not spent in long commutes to work or stuck in traffic. We need to remember why sensible transportation funding and planning is important. It's not to satisfy some special interest. It's to remember that sound transportation systems help cope with growing communities--our neighborhoods. Sound transportation systems help to improve mobility to transport freight and promote domestic and international commerce, making our economy more efficient and creating jobs--our businesses. Sound transportation systems help to improve air quality and protect the environment--our personal health. In short, transportation can, and should, help develop liveable communities and create a better way of life. Mr. President, ISTEA was the first step toward this goal. The ISTEA Reauthorization Act of 1997 is the next logical step to launch our Nation's transportation system into the 21st century. The bill we are introducing today recognizes that current levels of transportation investment fall short of needs, so it increases authorized transportation funding over 6 years and continues the emphasis on preservation and maintenance of transportation systems. The bill continues to support the scientifically proven link between transportation and air quality by bolstering the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. The bill supports allocating transportation funds based on need, by continuing the bridge program without any changes. The bill increases flexibility by making Amtrak eligible for certain highway funds, and maintains the flexibility for transit. And, the bill recognizes special needs of States with both low and high density populations, by providing additional funding. Mr. President, I would also like to comment on the effort to revise our national highway program to ensure that each State receives allocations based on a certain percentage of its gas tax contributions to the highway trust fund--the donor-donee issue. This is the wrong way to think about transportation funding. It is in the national interest to have a Federal transportation policy with national goals. That's how we promote interstate and international commerce, further economic productivity, protect the environment, and ensure safety. That's why decisions to allocate Federal transportation funding should be based on need, not on a State's contribution to the highway trust fund. We do not allocate airport improvement program funds based on the amount of ticket tax that is collected in each State. No Federal programs work that way. However, if we choose to approach the issue in that context, then we must first recognize each State's return on the Federal dollar for all Federal programs. New Jersey receives only 68 cents of return on the Federal dollar--second to last, just ahead of Connecticut. New Jerseyans collectively contribute $15 billion more in Federal payments than they receive--that's more than $1,800 per resident. Mr. President, if we were to adopt an across-the-board rule to require 95 percent return on Federal dollars, consider what would happen if we apply that test to other programs. New Jersey would then receive $169 million more for agriculture subsidies, $2.1 billion more of defense spending, and about $55 million more for child and family health services funding. Mr. President, national transportation funding should continue to be allocated based on national goals and State needs like other Federal programs. Mr. President, ISTEA has worked for our cities, our counties, our environment, and for economic development. Let us build on the success of the past and not turn the clock back on transportation progress.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is the day known as Kick Butts Day. It is a day when kids all over the country will express their opposition to cigarette addiction and the dangers that it poses to health. They are resisting tobacco company efforts to target them as consumers and ensnare them in a lifetime of addiction. That is why I want to spend a few minutes today to discuss the subject of the possible legislative settlement of claims against the tobacco industry. It has been suggested that perhaps the example set by Liggett & Myers, the company that agreed to reveal its innermost documents to tell the public at large everything that went on in the secret meetings of their company and other companies with whom they were working, has apparently been an inducement for other companies that think perhaps now that the pressure is on the tobacco industry maybe they can affect a settlement. Well, this is no time for that kind of thing. On Tuesday of this week, I introduced the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act, which would require the tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients and the carcinogens in their products and place larger and clearer warning labels on their packs. These new labels would send a more effective message to kids about the dangers of smoking. Yesterday, I spoke in the Chamber about the Joe Camel advertising campaign by R.J. Reynolds. This advertising campaign uses cartoons to market cigarettes to kids. Senators Durbin, Wellstone, Harkin, Kennedy, Murray, and Wyden have joined me in sending a letter to the chairman of the FTC asking him to bring an unfair advertising case against R.J. Reynolds for the Joe Camel ads. In a stunning development several weeks ago, this cloak of deception that shrouded the activities of the tobacco industry was removed when the Liggett group settled 22 State lawsuits because they admitted that smoking causes cancer and other diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that the tobacco industry targets underage smokers. It also agreed to a 25-year payment schedule to the States, to release internal documents providing evidence of the above claims, and to accept FDA regulation along with stark new warning labels on its cigarettes. This settlement that was worked out between Liggett and the State attorneys general is truly historic. It will open up the floodgates of information about tobacco. The truth is that smoking is addictive and it kills. The documents that will become public as a result of this settlement will help expose the conspiracy of deception and intimidation tobacco giants have engaged in for years. They have used this deception to thwart claims against them in court, to derail reasonable attempts at regulation, and to curb public education programs to protect the public health. It is rumored that the tobacco industry, or at least some firms, will now seek protection from Congress, asking for a ``global settlement'' of claims against them. I hope that every Senator will maintain a healthy skepticism about any proposed legislative settlement of legal claims against the tobacco companies. The bipartisan group of attorneys general pursuing these lawsuits have shown enormous courage and tenacity in the face of tobacco industry stonewalling. We should not undercut them. Nor should we intervene to help the companies in pending litigation brought by individual Americans who suffered harm as a result of the industry's deadly and deceptive practices. We should not hinder the ability of the States and the taxpayers that they represent, or individuals, to receive just and fair compensation for the harm or expense that they suffered. I hope Members of this body will be very analytical as they hear this appeal and resist efforts to bail out the tobacco industry in Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the letter simply asks the Chairman of the FTC to revisit this case, because we believe that R.J. Reynolds is intentionally advertising a product to children which is illegal to sell to them. In 1994, the FTC voted 3 to 2 against bringing such a case against R.J. Reynolds. At that time, the Commission cited a lack of evidence. But since then, dramatic new evidence, new material has become public. Last year, 67 Members of the House wrote a letter asking the FTC to reopen the investigation. The FTC staff has recommended that the Chairman do just that, and he will be making a decision over the coming weeks. Mr. President, Joe Camel is a prime example of advertising that ought to be stopped. If Joe Camel were real and smoked as much as he does in his ads, he would be a dead camel. He would have bit the dust from emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease. The R.J. Reynolds company promotes the line of cigarettes with a cartoon character that is named ``Joe Camel.'' This character is seen in the advertisements promoting a ``cool'' and ``smooth'' image. He is often seen holding a cigarette out to the viewer of the ad. A picture I noticed most recently is he is in a beach chair someplace where the sand is nice and white and fresh, and he is sitting there. Why would a tobacco company use a cartoon character to market its product? It does not seem like a cartoon is the best way to appeal to adult smokers. R.J. Reynolds claims it is marketing to adults with Joe Camel. It is hard to believe. An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that 6-year-olds--6-year-olds--were as familiar with Joe Camel as they were with Mickey Mouse. The Disney company has spent decades and a great deal of effort promoting Mickey Mouse, and if R.J. Reynolds is not marketing to kids, then it has pulled off perhaps the most successful accidental promotional job in mass media history. I want to be clear, I do not think that children are being drawn to Joe Camel by accident. The truth is that R.J. Reynolds is marketing its deadly product to children. In preparation for its rule designed to decrease teenage smoking, the Food and Drug Administration collected documents that show that R.J. Reynolds targeted what it calls presmokers, identified as children as young as 14. A 1993 R.J. Reynolds document boasted that 86 percent of children age 10 to 17 recognize the image of Joe Camel and 95 percent of them knew Joe Camel sold cigarettes. The most telling statistic is that since Joe Camel was introduced, Camel's share of the youth cigarette market has jumped from 3 percent to as high as 16 percent. Despite this criticism, R.J. Reynolds recently decided to engage in even more egregious behavior. It is now targeting kids based not only on age but race as well. Mr. President, despite the rising rates of teenage smoking overall, African-American children have bucked the trend. How has the tobacco industry responded? It seems that R.J. Reynolds has decided that since its current marketing tactics are not working, it ought to target specific groups of children, particularly African-American children. Not only have they targeted those children, but it is promoting a line of camels even more deadly than its standard cigarettes. Recently, R.J. Reynolds introduced a product called Camel Menthols. Menthols are a particularly dangerous type of cigarette. The menthol cools the smoke so that it can be ingested deeper into the lungs. Unfortunately, menthols are very popular in the African-American adult community. Critics are now charging that this line of Camel Menthols is designed specifically to appeal to African-American teens. In fact, it has been shown that R.J. Reynolds has revamped the Joe Camel image for Camel Menthols ads to make the character more appealing to African- American teenagers. I consider R.J. Reynolds' corporate behavior inappropriate, and I hope that the FTC will take steps to end this advertising aimed at our kids, or any advertising aimed at our kids, because no parent, no guardian in good conscience could say to a child, ``Listen, here's some lead, here's some benzene, here's some arsenic, here's some chromium. If you feel like having a little bit of it, take it.'' Your conscience would never permit it, and the law would probably incarcerate you for endangering the health of a child. But here we have this advertising of a product that carries all of these elements in them. I have asked in this bill that was introduced yesterday to make sure all 43 carcinogens that are used in tobacco products are clearly identified and that people are conscious of the fact that smoking may taste good, but once they try it, they live with it for as short a period as their life will be.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Tobacco Disclosure and Warning Act. This bill will require tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients, including the carcinogens, that exist in cigarettes. Cigarettes are the only consumable product in America today, the only one, whose ingredients are not disclosed. All kinds of food products list all of the ingredients very specifically. I think it is wrong. The public should know what is in the cigarettes. We work hard and invest a lot of resources to stop our kids from doing things like eating lead-based paint or drinking water with lead. We should not let them smoke it. This bill would also require large, blunt and centrally placed health warnings on cigarette packs of the types used in other countries. I look at this one, which is done in Canada. Very clearly, on the black portion here, it says, ``Smoking can kill you.'' It is also printed in French to make sure that people understand the threat to their health when they take up smoking. I want to particularly focus on the issue, now, of tobacco advertising and direct it towards the industry's use of Joe Camel. As you know, the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over the fairness and truthfulness of advertising. Today, I am sending a letter to the Chairman of the FTC, Robert Pitofsky, encouraging the Commission to bring a case against R.J. Reynolds for unfair advertising because of its portrayal of Joe Camel in its advertising campaign. I am joined by Senators Durbin, Kennedy, Harkin, Wellstone, Wyden and Murray. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to honor Lara Green Spector, the Tobacco-Free Kids East Regional Youth Advocate of the Year. Lara is a ninth grader from Montclair High School in New Jersey who truly exemplifies the old adage that one person can make a difference. Lara was the motivating force behind Montclair's recently passed ordinance banning cigarette vending machines and self-service displays. Who knows how many Montclair teenagers and children may not take up smoking because cigarettes are now more difficult to obtain. And local public officials, school advisers and residents all agree that this ordinance would never have become a reality without Lara's initiative, leadership and tenacity. Lara also organized a townwide program for the Great American Smokeout in November 1996. Her program included a poster contest in the local elementary schools and a quiz contest in the middle schools. She also created and distributed a fact sheet to every Montclair student. For years, tobacco companies have used youth oriented advertisements, like Joe Camel, to send a false message to young people that smoking is cool and glamorous. Education campaigns like Lara's help blow away their smoke screens and demonstrate that cigarettes are addictive and deadly. Mr. President, for years, I have led the crusade in this Chamber against teenage and youth smoking. I am certainly happy to have an exceptional foot soldier like Lara join me in the fight. By working to stop children and young people from smoking, Lara Green Spector is enhancing lives and saving lives. She is an outstanding student, activist, and citizen, and I have a feeling that we have not heard the last from her on Capitol Hill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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