Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the legislation before us includes a provision that I authored that will prohibit anyone convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from possessing firearms. I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to reflect on just what that means. We are today about to perform a great and moral act that a human being can perform--one of the best. We are about to save the life of another person. Today, we are going to save the life of the ordinary American woman, a woman who loves her kids, a woman who loves her family. Today, this ordinary American woman is married to someone who is generally a decent, law-abiding guy, but with one exception. Sometimes when things get rough and the stresses of life build, he loses his temper because his emotions get the best of him. He loses control, flies into a rage and then strikes out violently at those closest to him. Once he beat his wife brutally and was prosecuted, but like most wife beaters, he pleaded down to a misdemeanor and got away with a slap on the wrist. Mr. President, next year, this fellow is going to lose his cool at work, or with the boys, and he is going to go home one day and get into another argument with his wife. As arguments often do, it will escalate, and this time, as before, it will get out of control. As their children huddle in fear, the anger will get physical, and almost without knowing what he is doing, with one hand he will strike his wife and with the other hand he will reach for the gun he keeps in his drawer. In an instant their world will change. And this woman, this loving mother, this ordinary American, will die or be severely wounded. Later, maybe the husband will go to prison. The children will be left parentless, and the effects of the tragedy will ripple for years throughout their lives and throughout the lives of so many others. Except, Mr. President, because of what we are about to do, this story is going to have a different ending. Yes, the husband may lose his cool at work and, yes, maybe they will get into the same argument; yes, his rage will fly out of control; and yes, it will probably lead to violence. But when this man's hand reaches into that drawer, there will not be a gun there. So that fatal instant, that moment of fleeting madness, will never happen. In the end, that ordinary American woman, that loving mother, will end up being bruised, maybe she will end up unconscious in the hospital. But when the next day comes, hopefully, she will awaken, she will see the morning Sun through her swollen eyes, and, if lucky, she will leave the hospital and get on with her life, a life to see that frightened child grow up and go to school. She will live to see him graduate, find a job, and create his own family. That will happen because--and only because--we are about to save her life this day. Mr. President, over the years there will be thousands of women like this, each one with a family of loved ones, each one with their own dreams. And there will be children. And they will all live, Mr. President. They will all live because of what we do here this day. Mr. President, you and I will never know the women and children whose lives we are about to save. They will never have a chance to thank us. They will never know that their lives were spared. But for the rest of our lives, you and I and other Senators, we will have the privilege of knowing that we have lived up to the very highest of our own ideals. We have done nothing less than reach forward into time, put our hands around tragedy and death and remolded it back into life itself. We have done that many, many times, over and over and over again. Mr. President, this tremendous victory for the forces of life would not have happened but for the hard work and dedication of many people. I want to express my deep appreciation to all of those who played a role. In particular, I want to thank President Clinton, Leon Panetta, many dedicated men and women in the Clinton administration. A moment ago, we saw the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mark Hatfield, on the floor. I want to thank him. He was solidly behind our effort. The commitment of the people I just mentioned to this cause was absolutely essential to getting this done. I am grateful to the President for that support. I also want to thank our distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. He supported me in this effort from the beginning, from way back in the beginning of the year. His efforts in the final hours were of great help. I very much appreciate his commitment to the victims of domestic abuse and for his friendship, notwithstanding my repeated phone calls to him to discuss this legislation. I also want to publicly thank those who work in my office and in the Senate and many others here in Washington and around the country who have helped make this possible. Over 30 national organizations got behind this effort. Many, many people made significant contributions. I particularly am appreciative of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control for raising this issue at the Democratic convention and giving it the public attention that it required and deserved. I want to thank the American Bar Association, whose public statement on a weaker alternative version was critical in persuading my colleagues not to try to water down the proposal. Also, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who took the initiative to build support among a wide variety of other organizations, and the Violence Policy Center, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network Against Domestic Violence, all of whom helped sound the trumpet about this legislation. Many other groups also played important roles. Mr. President, for the historical record, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss some of the history behind the domestic violence gun ban, and the changes in the legislative language that are incorporated into the final agreement. Mr. President, I originally introduced the domestic violence gun ban as S. 1632 on March 21 of this year. After extensive negotiations with the Republican leadership, including Senator Lott, Senator Craig, and Senator Hutchison, the proposal was then modified slightly and incorporated into an antistalking bill by a voice vote. Unfortunately, the House failed to act on the antistalking bill. I then offered the modified version of the legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal Service and general Government appropriations bill, and the amendment was approved by a vote of 97 to 2. However, Senator Lott pulled the Treasury, Postal bill from the floor, and a version of that legislation has now been incorporated into this omnibus spending bill. The language in the final agreement was worked out early Saturday morning, September 28, through further negotiations with the Republican leadership. Initially, opponents of my legislation had proposed to gut the legislation, primarily by inserting three major loopholes. First, they proposed to exclude child abusers from the ban, by limiting its application only to crimes against intimate partners. This outrageous proposal was withdrawn once it was held up to public scrutiny. Second, opponents of the gun ban proposed to limit the ban only to offenders who had been notified of the ban when they originally were charged. This effectively would have exempted all currently convicted offenders from the ban. It also would have meant that most offenders in the future would escape the ban, since there was no requirement that they actually be notified. In effect, gun ban opponents wanted to say that ignorance of the law would be an excuse for wife beaters, even though it is not an excuse for anybody else. Eventually, this proposal, too, was dropped. The third major loophole proposed by gun ban opponents was to limit the ban only to offenders who had been entitled to a jury trial. This would have rendered the ban close to meaningless, as the vast majority of these cases are heard before a judge, in a bench trial. Those who proposed this new loophole eventually agreed to drop it entirely. Therefore, the ban will apply to all wife beaters and all child abusers, regardless of whether they were convicted in a trial heard by a judge or a jury. Mr. President, after agreeing to drop the jury trial requirement, opponents of a strong gun ban continued to express concern that gun rights should not be lost without an assurance that offenders will be provided with all appropriate due process protections. To reassure them on this point, we agreed to include in the final agreement a provision that has no real substantive effect, but that may help to assure some people that nobody will lose their ability to possess a gun because of a flawed trial. This provision, in essence, states that the ban will not apply to someone who was wrongly denied the right to a jury trial. More specifically, the language protects from the ban anyone who had been entitled to a jury trial, but who did not receive such a jury trial, or who did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. Of course, Mr. President, if an offender was wrongly denied the right to a jury trial, he was not legally convicted. And so this language really does not change anything. But, again, as it provided needed reassurance to some, I agreed to it in order to facilitate the final agreement. I do want to make very clear, however, that this language should not be interpreted to indirectly include any requirement of notice for a waiver to be considered to have been made knowingly and intelligently. That is, one can plead guilty or otherwise effectively waive one's constitutional right to a jury trial, and in considering the validity of such a waiver it is irrelevant whether the individual knew that a conviction will lead to a firearm ban. Although that should be clear from the face of the statute, given opponents' efforts to seek a notice requirement, I wanted to state this definitively for the record. This point was made very explicitly in the negotiations, and was agreed to by all sides. Mr. President, the final agreement does include some minor changes to the Senate-passed version that actually strengthen the ban slightly. Let me review some of them now. First, the revised language includes a new definition of the crimes for which the gun ban will be imposed. Under the original version, these were defined as crimes of violence against certain individuals, essentially family members. Some argued that the term crime of violence was too broad, and could be interpreted to include an act such as cutting up a credit card with a pair of scissors. Although this concern seemed far-fetched to me, I did agree to a new definition of covered crimes that is more precise, and probably broader. Under the final agreement, the ban applies to crimes that have, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. This is an improvement over the earlier version, which did not explicitly include within the ban crimes involving an attempt to use force, or the threatened use of a weapon, if such an attempt or threat did not also involve actual physical violence. In my view, anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Mr. President, another new provision in the final agreement clarifies that a conviction will not lead to a firearm disability if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is for an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored. This language mirrors similar language in current law that applies to those convicted of felonies. I would note that the language on civil rights restoration, as it has been applied in the past, and as it should be interpreted in the future, refers only to major civil rights, such as the right to vote, to hold public office, and to serve on a jury. Loss of these rights generally does not flow from a misdemeanor conviction, and so this language is probably irrelevant to most, if not all, of those offenders covered because of the new ban. But I want to make it clear that the restoration of any firearm rights under state law would not amount to a civil rights restoration for these purposes. In fact, any such State law effectively would be preempted by this language, and so could not have any legal effect. Mr. President, I now want to take a moment to briefly discuss the implementation of this new law. Mr. President, the final agreement does not merely make it against the law for someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing firearms. It also incorporates this new category of offenders into the Brady law, which provides for a waiting period for handgun purchases. Under the Brady law, local law enforcement authorities are required to make reasonable efforts to ensure that those who are seeking to purchase a handgun are not prohibited under Federal law from doing so. Mr. President, convictions for domestic violence-related crimes often are for crimes, such as assault, that are not explicitly identified as related to domestic violence. Therefore, it will not always be possible for law enforcement authorities to determine from the face of someone's criminal record whether a particular misdemeanor conviction involves domestic violence, as defined in the new law. Mr. President, I would strongly urge law enforcement authorities to thoroughly investigate misdemeanor convictions on an applicant's criminal record to ensure that none involves domestic violence, before allowing the sale of a handgun. After all, for many battered women and abused children, whether their abuser gets access to a gun will be nothing short of a matter of life and death. I am hopeful that law enforcement officials always will keep that in mind as they implement this requirement. Having said this, Mr. President, I recognize that there are limits to the ability of many law enforcement agencies to conduct in depth investigations of large numbers of applicants for handgun purchases. The law requires that these agencies make a reasonable effort to investigate applicants. What is a reasonable effort depends upon the local law enforcement officials' available time, resources, access to records, and their own law enforcement priorities. In my view, the reasonable effort requirement should not be interpreted so broadly that it would substantially interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency to carry out its central mission of apprehending criminals and protecting the public from crime. At the same time, it should not be interpreted so narrowly that it would allow law enforcement agencies to routinely ignore misdemeanor convictions for violent crimes, without further exploration into whether these crimes involved domestic violence. So long as an agency makes a reasonable effort to do so, the requirements of the law would be met. However, again, I would strongly urge law enforcement officials to make this a top priority. Finally, Mr. President, I want to acknowledge some of the many people who have played a role in moving this legislation forward. As I noted earlier, I am especially grateful to President Clinton for his strong support of this initiative, which was absolutely essential to its enactment. I also want to again thank many of the organizations and people who have supported the effort. In addition to those I mentioned earlier, these include the American Academy of Pediatrics; Children's Defense Fund; Consumer Federation of America; Family Violence Prevention Fund; the National Center on Women and Family Law; the Center for Women Policy Studies; American Ethical Union; Church of the Brethren; American Friends Service Committee; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs; American Public Health Association; American Jewish Committee; AYUDA; Church Women United; Congress of National Black Churches; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; YWCA of the USA; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; Peace Action, National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, National Urban League; NOW; National Council of Jewish Women; Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Presbyterian Church USA; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; Unitarian Universalists Association; United Church of Christ; and Justice for Kids. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will save the lives of many battered wives and abused children. And it will send a message that, as a nation, we are determined to take the problem of domestic violence seriously. Mr. President, getting this legislation enacted has been a long and very difficult struggle. We had to overcome intense opposition from one of the most powerful special interests in American politics. We have overcome one roadblock after the next, and there have been several times when I did not think we would make it. But throughout it all, the supporters of this bill have always kept in mind that we were fighting for literally a matter of life and death. That knowledge has helped sustain us and make us that much more determined as we have worked our way through the legislative minefield. So, in the end, we have a glorious victory, a victory for America's frightened, battered women, a victory for our abused children, a victory of life over death. I am honored and humbled to have been able to play a part in this legislation. We hope that the enforcement of the law will be as rigid as the law very simply defines it. If you beat your wife, if you beat your child, if you abuse your family and you are convicted, even of a misdemeanor, you have no right to possess a gun. That is the way it ought to be. Lord willing, it will be. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my friend, colleague, and the senior Senator from New Jersey, Bill Bradley, as he leaves the U.S. Senate. I have served with Bill Bradley for nearly 14 years, my entire tenure in this body, and it is difficult to imagine what it will be like without him. Although we have different styles, rhythms, and backgrounds, we formed an effective team which fought together for our State's and our Nation's interests. Throughout his life, Bill Bradley has achieved remarkable success as a scholar, an athlete, an author and an outstanding public official. And whether he was helping his team to championships at Princeton University, the Olympic arena, or the floor of Madison Square Garden, or helping to pass landmark legislation on the floor of the Senate, Bill Bradley always strives for the best. He has performed always as a rising star, and I know that this is not his apex. Mr. President, in the Senate, Bill Bradley concentrated on a few areas and helped to translate his own vision into public policy. As a member of the Finance Committee, he continually fought for fair tax policy, honest budgeting, and economic policies that enhance growth. He is widely known as the author of the fair tax, which was the foundation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Bill also knew that the single best economic advantage is a good education. So he designed a new way to help pay for college. His self- reliance loans give all students, regardless of income, the chance to borrow money from the Federal Government. He has been a strong voice against gun violence and crime in our communities and a creative thinker in developing opportunities for urban youth. His efforts are reflected in the enactment of community banking and urban enterprise zone legislation, educational reforms and community policing programs. But what many of us will remember most is Bill's passion when it comes to issues involving equality. Bill established himself as a serious and badly needed voice in the national dialog on racism, pluralism, and discrimination. He has challenged every American to confront the festering sore of racism. In his keynote at the 1992 Democratic convention, he warned that ``We will advance together, or each of us will be diminished.'' One of his most powerful moments in the Senate, and one which I will never forget, was his denunciation of the horrifying beating of Rodney King. I will always remember Bill standing at his podium, pounding it 56 times with a bunch of pencils. His blows were meant to represent the beating administered by the police to Rodney King. The sound, resonating through the Senate Chamber, was a powerful reminder of just how far we need to go on the road to equality. In the international arena, Bill Bradley was so energetic and committed that he traveled to the former Soviet Union for a weekend--to try to facilitate understanding between the superpowers, and to foster peaceful co-existence through economic cooperation. With all of his achievements, Bill's chief goal in the Senate was to further the interests of New Jersey. He has written that he once received a special gift, a collection of every variety of rock found in our Garden State. I, too, think that it is the perfect gift, because what could better symbolize a man whose commitment to New Jersey's interests and her people was always rock solid? His hard-working schedule would, on occasion, take Bill to New Jersey twice in a single day, in order to fulfill his obligations to meet with constituents, to help solve a problem, to deliver a talk to students, or to simply stay on top of the Garden State's needs. And his famous New Jersey beach walks, which he took during every one of the past 18 years, are symbolic of Bill's constant presence and consistent commitment to our State. Bill has written that he prefers moving to standing still, well I know that wherever his journey takes him, his ultimate destination will be success, and all of us will benefit from his efforts. To my friend, colleague, and fellow New Jerseyan, I thank you for the contributions you have made, and for those yet to come. I offer my wish for continued success and happiness. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 11, I cochaired with Senator Kennedy an ad hoc hearing on the problem of teen smoking. We were joined by Senators Harkin, Wellstone, Bingaman, and Simon. Regrettably, we were forced to hold an ad-hoc hearing on this pressing public health issue because the Republican leadership refused to hold a regular hearing, despite our many pleas. Yesterday I entered into the Record the testimony of the witnesses from the second panel. Today I am entering the testimony of the witnesses from the third panel which included talk-show host Morton Downey, Jr.; his doctor, Dr. Martin Gordon; former Marlboro man, Alan Landers; and, former cigarette model Janet Sackman. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony and related materials from the third panel of this ad hoc hearing be printed in the Record. The material follows: Testimony at the Ad-Hoc Tobacco Hearing, U.S. Senate, September 11, 1996 statement of morton downey, jr. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, Dr. Martin Gordon, Fellow members of the American Lung Association, Ladies and Gentleman, I wish I did not belong on this panel of people who have learned first hand the connection between smoking and cancer. Sadly this former smoking fool heads the list. Like 3,000 kids every day, I began smoking at the age of about 13. My parents had sent me to military school. All my buddies smoked, it was cool. By Christmas vacation I was hooked. Banging down about 20 butts a day. I knew they couldn't hurt me, because the full-page advertising Life magazine and the Policeman's Gazette said, ``More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.'' Think of how hooked I was. It was military boarding school, every time I got caught smoking it was ten demerits, which meant ten hours of marching with a rifle on my shoulder after class and on weekends. In my first year, I marched over 300 hours of punishment for smoking. My dad said that showed how stupid I was to smoke. Billy Waldon, my roommate, said it showed how stupid I was to get caught. I agreed, kept smoking and kept being stupid. Bill Waldon, my ex-roommate, died when he was 53. He had given up smoking at 40 and started chewing tobacco so as not to get lung cancer. He died ten years of tongue and throat cancer--some trade off. What kind of trade off are we giving our children, Mr. Chairman? An absolute guarantee that if we do not face our responsibility right now, at least 1,000 of those new daily smokers will die an agonizing death from a smoking-related illness. To those who falsely gnash their teeth over First Amendment rights, what about the Preamble, those first thoughts our forefathers had about the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Cancer will steal their life! Liberty should mean the right to be liberated from our own youthful stupidity. Mr. Chairman, can I find happiness for my child when I know the adults who pretend to care for her, the Tobacco Lobbyists, the Government that is sworn to protect her, abandon their responsibility and bow to the cigarette giants, the Tobacco Terrorists? She needs your courage, your leadership, your ability to stand-up in the face of those who would spend 5 billion a year to send our children to an early but agonizing death-- but not spend one red cent toward the breaking of the smoking habit, money to purchase medication for the agonizing pain as death approaches, or dollars to develop a cure for their addicting gift to our children. To think I was a role model for cigarette smoking youth, even signing my name on their cigarettes. To that generation, I beg your forgiveness. May the next generation have kinder and wiser role models such as you Senators and President Bill Clinton who will not bow to the Tobacco Terrorists by weakening the regulations that only serves to deny our youth the opportunity to destroy themselves as many of us already have. I ask you to show the legislative courage to save my little girl. She need not suffer as I have, as my colleagues have. Think of some of my fellow smokers, Sammy Davis, Jr., Edward R. Murrow, Yul Brynner---- They smoked and they're dead. Wouldn't it be a better world if they were alive today? statement of Martin n. Gordon, m.d. Good Morning. My name is Dr. Martin N. Gordon. I am a physician specializing in pulmonary medicine at Cedars Sinai Medical Center and I am Morton Downey, Jr.'s pulmonologist. I am honored and pleased to address this committee and offer my views on tobacco smoke, lung cancer and the FDA regulations. It is generally agreed by those in the scientific and medical communities that most lung cancer is attributable to the inhalation, by a susceptible host, of carcinogenic pollutants. Cigarette and other tobacco smoke are the most important of these pollutants. Members of the committee may be interested to know that the initial suspicion that tobacco might cause cancer was first voiced by the English physician, John Hill, in 1761! This was promptly followed by our Surgeon General's report in 1964. Early in this century, physicians and scientists alike strongly suspected a relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Dr. I. Adler was the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking in a monograph published in 1912. A similar conclusion was reached in a 1941 article by Dr. Michael DeBakey, who cited a correlation between the increased sale of tobacco and the increasing prevalence of lung cancer. In addition, early investigators seemed to understand the correlation between the age when one first begins to smoke and lung cancer, finding that smokers with lung cancer began smoking earlier and continued to smoke longer than control groups. Lung cancer is only the tip of the iceberg. Smoking has been causally related to an increased incidence of a number of other malignancies, and is a significant risk factor in the development of coronary artery disease. As Dr. Thomas Petty from Colorado states, ``Today, no reasonable person would deny that smoking is the cause of 90% to 95% of lung cancer.'' Lung cancer is the most fatal malignancy of both men and women. In the United States we will probably have close to 193,000 reported cases of lung cancer this year, 112,000 in men and 81,000 in women, with a 5 year mortality rate of 85%. Building on Dr. Petty's statement, it would be safe to state that, sadly, 90% of lung cancers are preventable. Logically, preventing people from smoking would be the single most positive step towards reducing the incidence of lung cancer. Furthermore, since it is widely known that starting to smoke at an early age is a particularly strong risk factor in the development of lung cancer and almost 90% of daily smokers begin before the age of 18, it would make sense to focus our effort on preventing children from smoking. This is the goal of the FDA regulations--to protect children from tobacco's addictive properties and its deadly effects. As a physician who has seen the ravages of lung cancer, I fully support the timely enactment of the FDA regulations. I believe they will go a long way towards my seeing fewer patients like Morton Downey, Jr. walk through my door. I urge those on the committee and other members of Congress to support the FDA regulations and oppose any legislative efforts to weaken them. Thank you for the opportunity to address this distinguished body. I would be happy to answer any questions. statement of alan landers My name is Alan Landers. I live in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and I am 55 years old. I am a professional actor, model, and acting teacher. My career began with the pilot film ``Aloha from Hawaii''. Over the years I appeared in various television shows and motion pictures, including ``Annie Hall'', ``Stacey'', ``The Tree'', ``The Web'', ``Hurricane,'' ``Ellery Queen'', ``The DuPont Show'', ``Deadly Rivals'', ``Cop and \1/2\'', ``South Beach'', ``America's Most Wanted,'' ``Superboy'', ``Model of the Year'', ``Petrocelli'', ``Kate McShane''. I also appeared as a model and actor in numerous advertising campaigns, including: Binaca, United Airlines, Lancer Wine, Brylcreme, M.J.B. Coffee, BelAir Cigarettes (South America), Sony, and Vics 44. I owned the Alan Landers Acting Studio in Hollywood, California. Some of the people who attended the Studio and were coached by me include: JoAnne Woodward, Jerry Hall, Ali McGraw, Joe Penny, George Lazinbee, Sara Purcell, Frankie Crocker, Lynn Moody, Lydia Cornell, Susan Blakely, Merite Van Kamp, Vinviano Vincenzoni, Shel Silverstein, and Joe Lewis. I have appeared in numerous television and motion picture productions, including ``Annie Hall''. During the height of my acting and modeling career I was courted by R.J. Reynolds to appear as the ``Winston Man''. I did the majority of the print ads for the RJ Reynolds tobacco company in the late 1960's and early 1970's. I appeared on billboards and in magazine advertising holding a Winston cigarette urging others, young and old, to smoke. I was expected to portray smoking as stylish, pleasurable, and attractive. I was required to smoke on the set, constant smoking was required to achieve the correct appearance of the cigarette, ash, and butt length. During this time frame I also promoted Tiparillo small cigars. In television advertisements, my character, dressed in a trenchcoat utters the rhetorical line, ``should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a lady?'' Despite the fact that I worked closely with cigarette company personnel during the shooting, at no time was I ever told that cigarettes could be dangerous to my health. I knew that some people believed them to be unhealthful, but the cigarette manufacturers denied, and still deny to this date, that their product is harmful. Later in this statement I explain what I have learned about the hazards of cigarette smoke, and when the cigarette industry realized these hazards. Looking back on my career I am ashamed that I helped promote such a lethal and addictive product to the children and adults of this country. Had I understood then what I now understand--that cigarettes are an addictive poison that kills almost 50% of their users--I would never have participated in their mass marketing. In 1987 the hazard of cigarettes became tragically apparent as I was diagnosed with lung cancer. Although 95% of lung cancer victims do not survive five years from diagnosis, I was determined to beat the odds. In a painful and dangerous surgical procedure, my doctors removed a large section of lung, hopefully to remove the cancer from my body. After the surgery, I lived from examination to examination, hoping the cancer would not recur. In 1992 I received devastating news. Another cancer had formed, this time in my other lung. The only hope was more surgery, which was accomplished with major complications. A nerve leading to my vocal cords was cut, causing it to be almost impossible to speak normally. This is a crushing blow to an actor. I survived the second surgery and am hoping for the best, although there are no guarantees. I am extremely short winded because sections of both lungs have been removed, and I am told that I have in addition emphysema from cigarette smoking. Scars from the surgery wrap around my back permanently disfiguring me, but I feel lucky to be alive. I have learned a great deal since the surgery for lung cancer, about the true dangers of cigarettes and the deceit of the industry that sold them. I never understood how lethal the product really is. Looking back, I recall smoking on the eve of my second surgery. I am a strong willed person who had broken the addiction several years earlier. The addictive power of nicotine addiction is real and that my frustration of being unable to quit is shared with many, if not most, regular smokers. I have also became aware of the industry's deceitful attitude toward its customers. My attorney, Mr. Norwood S. Wilner of Jacksonville, has filed a case on my behalf seeking compensation from R.J. Reynolds and others. I was delighted to see that Mr. Wilner was successful in August of this year in obtaining a verdict on behalf of one of his other clients against the cigarette industry. The landmark case Carter v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Comapny, tried in Jacksonville, showed that juries will not forgive the cigarette industry for its carelessness and deception in refusing to warn its customers or to develop safer alternative products. I have donated my time to the fight against tobacco and to protect children from becoming involved in this dangerous drug. Lawton Chiles, Florida's courageous Governor, has asked me to address the Florida Legislature. I have appeared numerous times for the American Cancer Society, the Tobacco Free Coalition, Citizens Against Tobacco, the Duval County Public Schools ZIP program, the Monroe County (Key West) School System, the Cancer Survivors for Life. I have at my expense appeared on national and local television and radio shows. I now understand, and wish to place into the record, some of the shocking facts that the Carter jury saw, which reveal how the industry put profits over people, stonewalled its critics, and concealed scientific evidence from the public and its customers. The attached article entitled ``Mass Destruction: A Medical, Legal, and Ethical Indictment of the Cigarette Industry'' authored by my attorney, Norwood S. Wilner, and my physician, Dr. Allan Feingold of South Miami Hospital, outlines my understanding of these terrible facts. I call upon the lawmakers of this country to protect our children from this dangerous substance. Tobacco products should be regulated as the addictive drugs they are. Tobacco advertising should be eliminated or strictly curtailed. I call upon the tobacco industry to compensate its victims, its former customers, who are suffering and dying from its products. Thank you for permitting me to appear before this committee.

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, on September 11, I cochaired with Senator Kennedy an ad hoc hearing on the problem of teen smoking. We were joined by Senators Harkin, Wellstone, Bingaman, and Simon. Regrettably, we were forced to hold an ad hoc hearing on this pressing public health issue because the Republican leadership refused to hold a regular hearing, despite our many pleas. Yesterday I entered into the Record the testimony of the witnesses from the first panel. Today I am entering the testimony of the witnesses from the second panel which included Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III and Dr. Ian Uydess, a former research scientist for Philip Morris. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony from the second panel of this ad hoc hearing be printed in the Record. The material follows: Testimony at the Ad Hoc Hearing on Proposed Legislation to Halt FDA Regulations, and Grant Tobacco Industry Special Immunity From State Law Enforcement Actions, U.S. Senate statement of minnesota attorney general hubert h. humphrey iii Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you holding these discussions today on the issue of proposed federal legislation to resolve all litigation and regulation affecting the tobacco industry. Publicly airing these issues before any action is taken is absolutely critical. Clearly, any legislation to terminate state tobacco lawsuits and to half FDA's controls on marketing to kids will have a sweeping effect on the whole nation, and in fact would raise insurmountable constitutional concerns. I would also encourage you to get direct input from health advocates. Clearly, their views must guide us in approaching this issue, because ultimately the public health issues at stake are monumental. It's no secret that I am personally very skeptical about the legislation being discussed in news reports. While I cannot comment on the litigation discussions I have had with my colleagues from other states on this issue or specific terms of an acceptable resolution, I can reiterate the general concerns I have raised about this approach. Specifically, these are a few of my major concerns. Concern number one: As a general proposition, I am very skeptical about forcing these law enforcement matters out of state courts and into Congress. First, I do not believe that an attempt to preempt the pending legislation of sovereign states would be constitutional. Beyond the constitutional issue, reports this week indicating that the largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris, spent more money to influence Congress last year than did any other corporation or special interest group does not make me feel any more comfortable. Obviously, we would not feel comfortable presenting our case before any jury that had been the recipient of $15 million worth of ``persuasion.'' This is the bottom line: The tobacco industry believes it will never find a more favorable jury than the U.S. Congress. Concern number two: I am very skeptical about any legislative deal to let the tobacco industry have special immunity from obeying the same state laws that every other industry must obey. Just last week, I enforced Minnesota antitrust laws against a pharmaceutical giant. A few weeks before, I enforced Minnesota consumer fraud laws against a small local auto dealer. These businesses, big and small, were held responsible for their lawbreaking. If these businesses--and hundreds of others--are held accountable for their lawbreaking, I ask you to consider whether it is fair and honorable to cut a backroom political deal that would grant the politically powerful tobacco industry blanket immunity from obeying the same consumer fraud and antitrust laws that every other business must obey. At a minimum, it is essential that this deadly product, like every other product Americans eat or drink or ingest, be placed under the on-going jurisdiction of an appropriate federal agency, such as the FDA. Issues such as the addictiveness of nicotine, the hazards of tobacco's secret chemical additives, and possible technologies for making safer cigarettes must be considered. My final concern: I am very skeptical about any legislation whose terms don't meet the three bottom line principles I have insisted on since we launched our case over two years ago. (1) The first principle we have insisted on from the beginning is an ironclad guarantee that the tobacco industry stop marketing tobacco to kids. The legislative proposal's insistence that the FDA be cut out of the regulatory picture clearly is a major setback to attaining that all-important principle. (2) Our second principle we have insisted all along is to recover taxpayer damages commensurate with the harm done by the tobacco industry's lawbreaking. Considering that we are talking about decades of lawbreaking and that the costs of tobacco-related health problems is estimated by the CDC to be about $50 billion per year, I have serious questions about whether the proposal is consistent with this important principle. (3) The final principle we have insisted on from the very beginning is that the tobacco industry tell the whole truth about health and smoking. The public demands to know what the tobacco industry knew and when they knew it. But the proposal being discussed does not require the tobacco industry to open up its documents so that we learn things such as how to make safer cigarettes that can save lives. Allowing the tobacco industry to continue to cover-up this information from those who could benefit from it would be a huge step backward from this third important principle. Senator Lautenberg and members of the Committee, in Minnesota we are two years and over 10 million documents down the road. We have spent tremendous time, energy, and resources preparing to go to trial with the strongest case the tobacco industry has ever seen. We still have far to go, but we have now come more than half the distance toward our goal. We ask Congress not to undercut us, but instead to support us. Despite our unflagging determination to build our case and proceed to trial, we are always ready to talk settlement-- with the defendants, that is. Settlement talks between the plaintiffs and defendants are one thing. We always are open to that. But federally-mandated global termination of all state law enforcement actions against the single industry-- simply because that industry is politically powerful--is quite another. Let me leave you with this final thought. Over 30 years ago, some in Congress undoubtedly thought they were doing the right thing when they passed legislation to require labeling of cigarettes. We now know, however, that the tobacco industry actually participated in the writing of the labeling legislation. As a Lorillard Tobacco company attorney now explains, the industry understood all along that the labeling law provided the industry with an argument against smoker's liability suits. The book Ashes to Ashes documents that, quote ``even the tobacco spokesman kept saying for the record that they opposed the warning label, `privately'--the Lorillard attorney is quoted as saying--`we desperately needed it.' I suggest that this is an important lesson for us to keep in mind in 1996 as Congress contemplates its appropriate role in this matter. I appreciate your invitation to share my concerns with you today. You are doing the country a great service by airing these issues. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. statement of i.l. uydess Introduction & Background: My name is Ian Uydess and I worked as a Research Scientist at Philip Morris USA for more than 10 years (Dec. 1977 to Sept. 1989). During that time I headed-up a number of basic and applied research projects, developed a patented bioengineering process designed to produce a `safer' cigarette, and conducted a variety of lab and field experiments on tobacco. I also learned a fair amount about what Philip Morris knew about its products and possibly a bit too much about some of the experimental work that it was conducting on cigarette smoke and nicotine both in the United States and in Europe. I also began to understand the basis for some of the company's fears. A rather extensive account of my work at Philip Morris is already on record in my February 1996 statement to the Food and Drug Administration and for that reason, is not discussed in great detail here. While I was provided with a variety of opportunities an challenges at Philip Morris, I decided to leave the employment of that company in September 1989 as a result of a number of factors including my disillusionment and great disappointment with the decisions and direction of that company, my deep concern regarding the adverse consequences of smoking, and my conviction that the public had the right to know what the cigarette industry has known about tobacco and its products for a great many years. I sincerely believe that there are many people who are either still working at Philip Morris or who have left that company over the past several years, who could be sitting beside me right now if only they had the formal support and protection of this Congress. Like myself, I think they would be willing to come forward with the hope that their testimony would in some small measure help this Congress to take a more formal and united stance on this critically important issue. The apparent unwillingness of some of our congressional leaders to openly and effectively support an official hearing on these matters only makes it that much more difficult for other concerned individuals from within the cigarette companies to come forward to share their knowledge and information with us. I sincerely hope that with your help, we can remedy this situation. My concern regarding the adverse consequences of smoking is not new, but dates back to when I was a graduate student at Roswell Park in Buffalo, NY. This was when I first began to understand the magnitude of the real-world consequences of smoking since many of the patients at Roswell Park were victims of smoking-related cancers. It was no secret, even then, that Roswell Park had a position on this topic. Dr. George Moore, the director of the institute at that time (circa 1969), frequently voiced his concerns regarding the adverse consequences of smoking. And he was not alone. Years before the institute had established a `Rogues Gallery' that featured portraits of famous individuals who had lost their lives to smoking. Roswell Park was, and still is, one of the nation's most innovative centers for the study and treatment of neoplastic disease. Smoking is one of the principal reasons why many patients have gone there. I think we all recognize that cancer is a frightening, unpredictable and devastating disease that in one form or another can strike anyone, at anytime, even when all the recommended health precautions are taken. That is why it is still so hard for me to understand why anyone would knowingly subject themselves to such a known hazard that could increase their risk of contracting this terrible and debilitating disease (although the answer to this is one of the reasons why we are gathered here today). The truth of the matter is that I am still haunted by the memories that I associate with my days at Roswell Park, although it is these very memories which, coupled to my recent experiences within the tobacco industry, that have compelled me to appear before you today. What I didn't fully appreciate or understand at that time, were the varied and interwoven reasons why so many people continue to smoke even in the face of the known dangers of smoking. However, after working in the tobacco industry for more than a decade I have now come to understand this situation better. To a large extent, smoking is a result of a complex system of events which first attract and then `hook' the smoker. We now know that this includes a variety of physical, psychological and chemical factors and is perpetuated by the cigarette manufacturer's targeted advertising practices toward children and their historic lack of truthfulness and candor about what they have known about the adverse effects and addictive qualities of smoking for many years. I, too, was once unsure of my position on many of these issues until I had a chance to work within, and learn about this industry. My education about tobacco was provided to me by Philip Morris. They taught me how tobacco was cultivated, purchased, blended and processed and how cigarettes are manufactured. I also learned about the extensive knowledge that Philip Morris had about tobacco, smoke and cigarette design and how it used its knowledge, experience and technical capabilities to formulate and manufacture its products. Over the years, Philip Morris invested a substantial amount of time and effort to make sure that I understood and could apply this knowledge to my job, and that's exactly what I did. As my career at Philip Morris developed, I was asked to take on increased responsibilities and given broader access to the various departments and operating units of the company (both in the U.S. and Europe). I communicated regularly with the senior management and scientific staff of R&D and collaborated on numerous occasions with the engineers, chemists and product development scientists in Richmond. Between 1978 and 1989 my responsibilities included basic and applied research on the structure, biochemistry and microbiology of tobacco, as well as a number of efforts in support of process and/or product development. I was also responsible for setting up and conducting field experiments on tobacco using local Virginia tobacco farms contracted by Philip Morris. During the 1980's, some of my highest priority efforts were targeted at developing new or improved methods to remove `biologically-active' (toxic and/or mutagenic) materials from tobacco. This included developing a microbiological process to remove nitrate and nitrite from `SEL' (the `strong extract liquor' used by Philip Morris to manufacture its reconstituted tobacco sheet, `RL', at Park 500), as well as conducting experiments to learn how to limit the uptake and distribution by the tobacco plant of toxic chemicals like cadmium. Although substantial progress was made in each of these areas (the denitrification process was successfully scaled-up to pilot plant/production levels, and the cadmium experiments were beginning to yield valuable information about the uptake and distribution of cadmium in lab-grown tobacco plants), both programs were unexpectedly and summarily shut down by PM management--the denitrification program because of what were alleged to be `product quality' problems, and the cadmium program because PM management decided that it wanted this work to be continued `outside' of the company. My concern and disappointment over these decisions was largely due to the fact that both of these projects could have led to safer products for both the company and its customers. Instead, they became lost opportunities for everyone. There have been other lost opportunities as well. Safer products could also have been produced by Philip Morris years ago, if it had only used the wealth of information that it had generated regarding the removal of other dangerous compounds from tobacco like the `nitrosamines'. It may well have taken some additional work to get it into production, but wouldn't it have been worth it? A similar situation was encountered in the reduced alkaloid (reduced nicotine) program, `ART', which like denitrification, was exhaustively researched in the lab, successfully scaled-up to pilot plant levels and then shut down for `product quality' reasons. It is interesting to note, however, that at least two of these `failed' programs (denitrification and reduced alkaloids) are frequently cited by Philip Morris as legitimate attempts to improve their products (``We tried''). I've been told that one-ranking scientist at PM was even credited with saying that the reduced alkaloid (lowered nicotine) program was, the best $350 million dollars the company had ever spent! I'd hate to believe that this statement meant that Philip Morris was sometimes happy to spend millions of dollars on a successful technology which could have led to safer or less addictive products, with no real intent on using those technologies (unless it had to) just so that it could say `it tried'. The truth of the matter is, that some of these efforts both within Philip Morris as well as within some of its competitors (RJR and B&W) could well have led to the development of `safer' and/or less addictive products that ultimately could have saved lives. But that didn't happen at least in part, because of the lack of responsibility and commitment of the cigarette industry to do something substantial to safeguard the health and well being of their customers. But then again, why should they? They are still not regulated and therefore, are neither accountable nor liable for their actions (or lack of the same). So why should they spend their hard-earned cash just to safeguard the health and well being of the public when by doing so, they might lose a bit of their market share, particularly if they remove the very thing that keeps their smokers `hooked'? Who'd want to explain that to their board of directors? It would be far better to do nothing, deny everything, and to keep on doing that for as long as they can. After all, what can anyone really do about it today? The lack of law means that the law is on their side. We are very fortunate to live in a free and democratic society in which we each have the right to make our own, informed decisions about the products that we make and use. I, for one, do not want to change that. But the manufacturers of cigarettes should, like the manufacturers of other ingestible products, be accountable for the quality of what they make and market to the public, especially when it comes to safety. We could, as the cigarette manufacturers have suggested, leave it up to them to police themselves in this matter. However, considering the cigarette manufacturers history up to this point, it seems unlikely that they would now do this responsibly. When it comes to the health and safety of the public, voluntary self-regulation by the cigarette industry is clearly unacceptable. That's why our elected representatives created the FDA years ago to help set the standards by which the public would be protected from the accidental, negligent or irresponsible acts of the manufacturers of our foods, drugs and cosmetics. This wasn't a partisan effort or some sort of devious plot, but rather the result of our nation working together to create a new agency to help formulate, monitor and enforce regulations to protect the citizens of this country from unsafe products and the injury they may cause. And how did we do this? By working together to make sure that the manufacturers these products were accountable, by law, for their actions. But somehow along the way, we left out tobacco. It was one of those `historic' agricultural industries that escaped FDA regulation, even though their products were ingested like so many of the other goods that we wanted to have regulated by that agency. Allowing tobacco to go unregulated may have seemed reasonable back then given our cursory knowledge of nicotine's role in addition and our limited understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and cancer. But that was then. Today we know much more. And as a research scientist who spent more than 10 years of his career working within Philip Morris, I can attest to the fact that at least this company knew more than it was willing to tell. We can't change the fact that cigarettes weren't specifically addressed in the FDA guidelines of 1938 or, in the various amendments that have been enacted since then. But what is of concern to me today is the fact that until just recently, we haven't taken any formal action to correct this situation. Don't we have enough scientific data regarding the adverse consequences of smoking? Aren't more than 400,000 of our family, friends, coworkers and neighbors dying each year from smoking-related diseases? Haven't we seen and read enough to convince us that nicotine is additive and that the manufacturers of cigarettes are carefully controlling the design of these products to ensure that effect? Haven't some of the cigarette industry's own internal documents, executives and research scientists attested to these very facts? Can we think of any other industry in this nation that we allow to go so totally unchecked with regard to the safety and/or contents of its products? And don't we, the public, deserve to be fully informed about, and protected from, the known hazards of inhaled tobacco smoke? And yet it is only recently that the FDA with the support of the President, has begun to address this problem by mandating that the sale and marketing of cigarettes to children be regulated by that agency. But even that has been a battle. So how as a society do we explain this? Is it all simply a matter of semantics, rhetoric and fruitless, circular discussions? Can we afford to have the final decision about regulation and compliance be left in the hands of the tobacco industry? The cigarette manufacturers would like us to believe that they are unfairly and unjustly under attack by those whose specific intent it is to deprive them of their rights and to destroy their industry. They would also like us to believe that any attempt to regulate them would result in the total collapse of state and local economies, the loss of countless jobs and the irrevocable loss of business to all those companies that are in any way dependent upon this industry. Maybe that's why the cigarette manufacturers find it advantageous to keep this topic partisan and adversarial (`us' against `them') when the truth of the matter is, that it is not. This is a `we' issue that in all probability has, in one form or another, already touched the lives of each of us. How many of us have lost a parent, relative, friend or neighbor to a smoking-related illness like cancer or emphysema? How many of us know someone who has tried to quit smoking but has failed? Is smoking really `an adult choice', or are there other factors involved in this `habit' that make smoking less of a `free choice' than the industry would like us to know? I often wonder what the tobacco company CEOs, their board of directors and attorneys say to their families and especially to their children when they're asked about what they know about nicotine, addition or smoking and health? Who is really being fooled by this, and why are we still arguing about it? The only conclusion that I can reach, is that we are in the midst of a national tragedy; a crisis of indecision and lack of appropriate action that has crippled our nation for far too many years, although one hopes that the recent initiatives taken by President Clinton, Dr. Kessler and the FDA will mark the beginning of a new and more responsible era. We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be repeatedly engaged in the fruitless, repetitive and transparent rhetoric of the tobacco industry given the extraordinary numbers of smoking-related deaths and illnesses that we know occur each year. Where else in the history of our society have we failed so thoroughly to act on such a critical and immediate topic of public health even when the data were far more scarce, the impact of the situation a mere fraction of what we see today, and the cause-and-effect relationships much more obscure? We've taken faster, more affirmative action in the past when we just thought that a red dye in our food might adversely affect our health or, when an artificial sweetener that was already on the market was suddenly suspected of being a big less safe than we had originally believed. The bottom line is that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into complacency and manipulated by the politics, semantics and financial wealth of this industry in much the same manner that it has manipulated information about smoking and the content of its products these past 20-30 years. We've appealed to the cigarette manufacturers to become proactive partners to help implement solutions, but they have only further tightened their circle of resistance. On top of that, the cigarette industry would like us to continue to believe that any attempt to regulate them would be illegal and if implemented, would result in certain ruin for tobacco workers, tobacco farmers, the tobacco states, the industry itself, its advertisers, the grocery store next door, the nation as a whole, everyone! But once again, that is not true. Regulation of tobacco products will be a difficult at first, but not impossible. It will also not be anywhere near as injurious to the nation as the tobacco manufacturers and their allies would have us believe. There are even those who think that it can be beneficial. To be successful, however, it will take a concerted effort on the part of each and every one of us and possibly for some, temporary sacrifices. It is not a personal agenda item or political issue, but one of the safety and well being of the public for generations to come. Regulation of the tobacco industry by the FDA is totally consistent with what our country originally intended this agency to do--to protect us--and it is clearly in the best interests of this nation, its businesses and most importantly, its people. The sad fact is, that much of the misery, frustration and fear that we are witnessing today could have been avoided if we had only acted earlier. I sincerely hope that the members of this congress can put aside their differences and join together if for no other reason than to save the lives of the children who have not yet begun to smoke. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk about a piece of legislation that I have proposed that was approved here in this body by a vote of 97 to 2. They approved an amendment that I sponsored to ban wife beaters and child abusers from owning guns, from possessing guns. Yet, over the past couple of days, behind closed doors, there has been a determined effort to gut my proposal and to expose the battered woman and the abused child to an enraged man with a gun in his hand. As I explained yesterday, there has been an attempt to undermine the proposal in four primary ways: First, some sought to exclude child abusers from the ban by limiting its application only to ``intimate partners.'' Second, they sought to effectively give a waiver to every wife beater and child abuser who was convicted before this legislation goes into effect. Third, they sought to render the ban entirely ineffective in the future by excusing anyone who did not get notice of the firearm ban when they were originally charged. So that includes all of those who committed domestic abuse, beat up their wives, beat up their kids who weren't told in advance there may be a serious penalty to take away their guns. What a pity. Instead, what they want to do, realistically, is make it prospective only. For those who didn't get notice, they can perhaps dodge out of a charge by saying, well, I did not get effective notice. It is a pity. Under my proposal--the language was in there very specifically, and we are going to insist it be retained. Fourth, the watered-down language would excuse from the firearm ban anyone who was convicted in a trial heard by a judge only, as opposed to a jury. Now, this also, by itself, would render the gun ban largely meaningless, since most domestic violence cases are heard by judges and not juries. Mr. President, faced with public criticism, opponents of a real ban have apparently retreated on one of these gutting provisions. They have agreed to language that ostensibly would put child abusers back within the ban. Mr. President, it is critical to understand that this latest change is merely a figleaf. It is designed to obscure the fact that the watered-down proposal would leave virtually all wife beaters and child abusers with the ability to legally possess guns. It is purely a legislative sham, and no one should be fooled into believing otherwise. Let me tell those who are within earshot what this sham is all about. First, under their proposed modifications of my legislation, no wife beater or child abuser would be prohibited from having firearms unless they had been told about the ban when they were originally charged. What a device for a clever defense--well, he didn't hear it, he didn't understand it, or his language wasn't up to snuff. My goodness. The first effect of this language, Mr. President, is to completely excuse every wife beater and child abuser who has been convicted until this time. They would all be off the hook completely. We didn't know, we weren't aware, we weren't told; so, therefore, forget it. OK, be careful next time you hit your wife. Next time, don't have a gun present. They would all be off the hook completely. All of their battered wives and abused children would remain at risk of gun violence. Mr. President, it would be bad enough if this extreme proposal only grandfathered in all currently convicted wife beaters and child abusers. But this notification language goes much further. It would also, in effect, leave most future wife beaters and child abusers free to have guns. There is nothing in the watered-down language that requires anyone to tell the accused wife beaters and child abuser that they could lose their guns. As a matter of fact, with a wink of the eye, they can say, ``He isn't a bad guy.'' As a practical matter, most abusers are unlikely to get such advance notice. Under this latest proposal, they would, thus, remain entirely free to keep their guns. Nor is there any reason to limit the ban to those who get advance notice, Mr. President. After all, we do not make a requirement for anyone else accused of a crime to have previous knowledge of the prospective penalty. Felons are prohibited from having guns, regardless of whether they have been officially given notice or not. For them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But under this latest proposal, it would be an excuse for a wife beater. Mr. President, in essence, what has happened here is we proposed that no wife beater, no child abuser, whether retrospectively, retroactively, or in the future, ought to be able to have a gun, because we learned one thing--that the difference between a murdered wife and a battered wife is often the presence of a gun. In the couple of million cases every year that are reported about domestic abuse, in 150,000 cases that we are aware of, a gun was present, a gun was held to the temple of a battered wife or perhaps a child. And if that isn't trauma enough, the prospect of the pulled trigger could finally complete the task. So, Mr. President, when we proposed this, and it was voted 97 to 2 favorably on this floor, and a couple of months before, in July, it had gone through here 100 to 0. It was unanimous, and it was a voice vote. I hope those who would defeat this legislation are willing to face the American public and tell the truth of what they are about. They are supporting the NRA, and not the families of America. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You haven't seen my grandchildren.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Someone has the knowledge, intelligence, and experience making the decision, as opposed to a graphic demonstration that says this is the way we are going to do it. Mr. President, I would just like to make a few other comments about this bill. When the Senate originally considered this bill, it failed to pass the Boxer amendment. That amendment would have created an exception to the ban on late term abortions, where necessary to ``avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.'' As a result, if a doctor expects that a woman would otherwise become permanently disabled, sterile, or seriously impaired, under this bill, the doctor would still be prohibited from performing this procedure. A doctor would have to feel absolutely certain that carrying a fetus to term would endanger the life of the mother, or the doctor could not provide the medical services to avoid this consequence. Mr. President, this issue is a question of trust. Do you trust politicians to make complicated medical decisions affecting women's lives? Or do you trust medical experts consulting with families? This bill says: politicians know best. I say: let's trust the doctors and the families. Mr. President, let me say that I know there are many Americans who feel very strongly about the issue of abortion. It's a deeply personal and emotional issue, on both sides. I have the greatest respect for many of our citizens who hold different views on this matter. But I would not try to intrude on these complicated decisions, or tell a woman focusing on serious health or fertility risks how to make this difficult decision. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Let's give families, not politicians, the right the choose. Mr. President, during this debate some Members supporting this measure have been citing statistics that appeared in a recent Bergen Record article on late term abortions. I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from Metropolitan Medical Associates of Englewood, NJ, that directly refutes the accuracy of those figures. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You are making decisions that say a doctor doesn't-- --

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not making the decision.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, frame the question----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My colleague from Pennsylvania can cloak it in any terms. What I support is a ban on late-term, healthy conditions.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will be brief because I have listened to the debate as it has gone on. I must at the outset say that I hope we will support the President's veto. The case has been made by those with whom I disagree, obviously, I think very carefully, very articulately. I think there is one thing we can agree upon. That is, neither side accepts late-term abortions as something they would like to see done routinely; neither side. Not this side, for sure. I say, this side, I am not talking about the party side of the aisle. I am talking about those on this side of the debate. It is a terrible thing to contemplate. The problem is, this bill is a confrontation of a problem that is very serious, being judged, in my view, by the wrong folks in the wrong place. The decision has to be made in the privacy of a discussion between a woman, her conscience, and her physician. President Clinton has, along with many of us here, argued that this bill should be modified to take account of women's health needs. One of the most extreme elements of this bill is the failure to include the exception in which the health of the mother is at risk. My friend and colleague, who is managing the support for the President, has so clearly said so many times: Give the doctors and families a chance to make the decision that includes an analysis of the mother's health requirements and you would not have any problem obtaining support for that legislation. I commend her for her courage, for her determination in leading this effort. To try to cloak this in terms of whimsical or casual decisionmaking is really unfair. This is not something where a woman carries the fetus 6 months and then, in the later stage, would one think, anyone think, rationally, that she would just like to say, ``OK, it's time. I want to get rid of this. I am tired of carrying it.'' No. Those decisions are not casual or careless. Those decisions are very weighty decisions and they have to be taken in that context. They are about the life and health of women. My youngest daughter, one of my three daughters, carried her first pregnancy 7 months. We were all elated at the prospect of her having a child. She would have been--all three daughters now have children, this one included. After 7 months she called me up and in very tearful terms said to me, ``Daddy, the baby died.'' Seven months--the child got twisted in the cord and expired. I know from talking to physicians that there was always the worst possibility, that that child could wind up brain damaged and cause, in fact, a collateral risk to her health. She has since had the most beautiful child in the whole world, and I know that. None of us who are defending the President's veto are casual about life. It is unfair to cast us that way. The argument, Mr. President, I think, has unfairly been made in pictorial terms. The most simple operation, the simplest procedure is ugly to witness--ugly to witness--whether it is an appendectomy, or whatever have you. If you are not a professional, to see the blood, to see the tissue torn, et cetera, is a hideous sight to behold. The picture that ought to be taken for the nonprofessional is the one that is postoperative, the one that shows a woman's health, the one that shows vibrancy, the one that shows the future. That is the picture that has to be taken. I know time is limited, and we are forced by conditions here to conclude our debate momentarily. I will just say, for goodness sake, don't, in this room where politics dominates the discussion, take away the right of a woman, with her conscience fully included in her decision, to make this important decision in consultation with a physician. Let's not interfere in this difficult decision. This bill is not fair to American women and I hope we will stick with the President and his veto of this legislation. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am concerned that this legislation does not adequately address the circumstances faced by certain unique properties. Specifically, I am worried about situations where the current section 8 rents exceed the fair market rents set by HUD by more than 120 percent, but are below the comparable market rents. If HUD cannot renew these contracts at current rents, the low and moderate- income residents of these properties may quickly find themselves without a decent place to live, especially in tight housing market such as we have in northern New Jersey. In this situation, I fear that an owner may have little choice other than to terminate the leases and rent the property to people who are willing to pay the real market rent. I do not believe that we have provided any sort of inducement for the owner of this type of property to continue to house low and moderate income people, many of whom may be elderly. Sticky vouchers would have been a very good solution to this problem. However, I have been advised by staff that the budget-based rent provisions under the demonstration address my concerns. I would like to be assured that this is, in fact, the case.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would the calculation of an adequate return on equity take into account the true market value of the property in unique circumstances such as the one I have described?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 12, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 97 to 2, approved an amendment that I sponsored to ban wife beaters and child abusers from having guns. Last night, I learned something about this place that shocks me, and I am here now for 14 years. I learned that even a mandate, voted on 97 to 2, can be dispensed with by a wink of the eye and a nod of the head, with the Rifle Association looking over Members' shoulders. I was told last night that, behind closed doors, the Republican leadership has decided to entirely gut this legislation and say that someone who beats his wife and beats his child ought to be able to own a gun. In other words, the gun is more valuable than the life that may be in jeopardy. According to the information I received, the continuing resolution now will contain language that seems to have been drafted directly by the National Rifle Association. This new language would allow child abusers to have guns. It also lets off the hook all wife beaters who are convicted in a bench trial, that is, as opposed to a jury trial, just a judge sitting there. And it contains special notification requirements that will allow many wife beaters to hold on to their guns, and that will say to these wife beaters: For you, unlike for everyone else in our society, ignorance of the law is an appropriate excuse. Mr. President, perhaps it is obvious, but I am absolutely outraged by this proposal, and I hope Americans across our Nation will be outraged, particularly those who have a sister, a mother, a daughter, those who care about what happens with women in our society. It represents a complete cave-in to the most radical fringe of the gun lobby. It will jeopardize the lives of thousands of battered women and children around our Nation. I am especially outraged because the language approved by the Senate had won such broad, bipartisan support. Among those who approved this legislation were Senator Craig, Senator Lott, the distinguished majority leader, and Senator Hutchison from Texas. They all agreed to this. That is why my amendment passed this body by a vote of 97 to 2. Unfortunately, the gun lobby is now intruding in the legislative process and emasculating this legislation. The NRA language, apparently being placed in the CR, would completely gut the protections in our amendment. It would put guns directly in the hands of people who have beaten their wives or abused their kids. The end result, without any question, would be more shootings, more injuries, and more death. Mr. President, this new language has several flaws, and I want to take a moment to explain them. First of all, this amendment would completely exempt child abusers from the ban on firearm possession. OK, you can beat your kid, you can still have your gun. Is that the kind of society that we want? I don't think so. As I have explained, my proposal, as approved by the Senate, applies both to those who abuse their spouses and those who abuse their children. The new language in the Republican bill stands for the proposition that child abusers may continue to possess their guns. Mr. President, that is absurd, it is outrageous, infuriating, and it is an insult to women in our society. It is an insult to men who think positively about the females in their lives. If someone assaults his own child and is convicted for it, that abuser, in my legislation, has sacrificed any claim to a gun. That is the way I think it ought to be, and 97 Senators agreed with me. That was the second vote, by the way, on my legislation. One time it was unanimous, by a voice vote, with not one objection. More importantly, the child needs protection, and he or she deserves it. If we can't protect the most vulnerable among us, our abused children, what does that say about us? What does it say about this cowardly Congress? What does it say about the power the National Rifle Association has over our entire society? Mr. President, excluding child abusers from this ban would be reason enough to defeat this amendment. But there is more. This amendment would also allow many wife beaters to continue to possess firearms. The amendment would entirely exempt from the ban anyone who has been convicted in a trial that was heard solely by a judge. Only convictions from a jury trial would be subject to this watered-down ban. Mr. President, I can tell you that many wife abusers in my State of New Jersey are convicted in a bench trial. They are brought before the judge and he renders a verdict. These convictions are entirely valid. They can send someone to jail or declare it a misdemeanor. There is no basis for excluding those charged and convicted by a judge--excluding them from the prohibition. Mr. President, States vary considerably with respect to the types of crimes for which a jury trial is required. In some States, jury trials are used in most domestic violence cases. But in others, judges handle many of these cases. So the effect of this amendment would be to exclude from the ban a large number of wife beaters, who happen to beat their wives in a State that has a bench trial rather than a jury trial. These wife beaters may have been just as violent as those in other States, where other abusers would be tried by a jury. But under this new language, these wife beaters would have a special exemption. They would be off the hook. ``Aha, you didn't try me by a jury, so I want my gun while I beat my wife.'' Meanwhile, the wives and kids will remain unprotected from gun violence and, for some, that will mean, very simply, they are going to die. The difference often between the beating and a murder is the presence of a gun. Mr. President, it is wrong. It is time to establish a very clear rule. If you are convicted of beating your wife or your child, you lose your gun. If you are convicted of abusing your child, you lose your gun, no ifs, ands, or buts. Mr. President, another problematic provision in the new CR language-- the continuing resolution is going to determine how we finance most of Government, and I want everybody to understand that, starting with the fiscal year, October 1. That is how we are going to finance Government. In that is this language that gives special exemption to wife beaters. The new language says to wife beaters: We are going to create a special exemption for you if you have been convicted by a judge. In general, as most Americans know, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But, here, there is another out for the wife beater. For some reason or other, under this amendment, wife beaters would not be subjected to this rule. This amendment says that a wife beater must explicitly be given notice of the firearm ban at the time he is charged or notified of the complaint. Otherwise, if the notice is not given at the time of complaint or charging, the wife beater will be entirely free to have the gun. In other words, ``Aha, I wasn't told that if I beat my wife, I might lose my gun, so therefore, it is my gun and my wife, and if I want to beat her, I will beat her.'' That is what they are saying. Now, Mr. President, I am all for telling wife beaters they can't have a gun at any time. That is the best way, and it ought to be. It should not be a prerequisite for a ban. After all, it is not a prerequisite for anyone also. Felons are prohibited from having guns, regardless of whether they have ever been officially given notice. For them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But under this amendment, it would be an excuse for a wife beater. In fact, this amendment is constructed so poorly, that it would even allow wife beaters to get guns if they did get notice, if the notice wasn't at the time of the complaint or charging. In other words, if someone is only given notice about the ban when they're convicted, they could still possess guns. Another effect of this language, Mr. President, is that it would completely exempt from the ban anyone who beat their wife, and was convicted, before the CR gets enacted, if they want to make it easy for these wife beaters to escape. This means that huge numbers of battered wives and abused children will remain vulnerable to firearm violence. Mr. President, the bottom line is that the provision apparently to be included in the CR is not serious legislation even though Speaker Gingrich said on a Sunday show that was witnessed by millions of Americans when he said he would accept this proposition, this legislation that I put forward. He promised he would do it. But once the NRA got hold of him and pulled on his coat a little bit he said, ``Well, OK. Maybe we will just water it down a little bit.'' The same thing happened on the floor of this body. It's little more than a sham. It claims to establish a gun ban for those committing domestic violence. But it's been drafted cleverly by the gun lobby. And, not surprisingly, it's got loopholes large enough to drive a truck of wife beaters through. Mr. President, the problems with this amendment go on and on. And that's because this is not a serious amendment. It's a sham. It is a dodge. It is a shame. It's a desperate attempt to let wife beaters and child abusers keep their guns. And nobody should be fooled into believing otherwise. Mr. President, I know the NRA has a lot of power around here. We see it exhibited all the time--raw power. I do not know how many members they have. It is estimated, as I understand it, at 3 million but they have 260 million other Americans in the grip of their hands. But isn't there some point at which we draw the line? Isn't their some point at which we draw the line? Isn't their some point where we say enough is enough? Isn't their some point where they want to protect their own wives, or their own children? Isn't there some point when we can stand behind a 97 to 2 amendment approved in the U.S. Senate and say, ``Yes, we meant it?'' Or did we say in some cases we meant it until we got into the darkness of a closed room and then we made our deal, and in the light before the public? Oh, no. We are good guys. We do not want those wife beaters to have guns, those child abusers to have guns. But in the secret of a dark room they said ``Yes. The guy ought to have a gun. What the heck. He only beat his wife.'' If he beat the wife next door he would be in jail for 5 years; or, if he abused the child next door he would be in jail 5 years, or maybe in some States they want child abusers to be in jail for life. But if it is your own kid, if it is your own wife, it is like that is chattel property, you know. Just do as you please. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will keep something in mind when they think about this provision. This is nothing short of a matter of life and death. Somewhere out there, there are thousands of battered wives and abused children. Thousands of innocent Americans who are virtually helpless against their abusers. Mr. President, every year, there are about 2 million reported cases of domestic violence. Very few of them get prosecuted because they are convinced or frightened by the abuser that it would be tough. He wants to be forgiven. In approximately 100,000 of these cases a gun is involved--some put this figure at 150,000. In other words, an argument ensues, a gun is held, aimed and pointed to the head of the woman, and he says, ``If you do not do this I am going to blow your head off.'' And the child witnessing that carries that trauma for life. There is no question that the presence of a gun dramatically increases the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into murder. According to one study, for example, in households with a history of battering, the presence of a gun increases the likelihood that a woman will be killed threefold. As Senator Wellstone put it so beautifully and succinctly on the floor one day, all too often, the difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that for many women and children, we have their lives in our hands. We can save their lives by enacting the Senate proposal, and keeping guns away from their abusers. Or we can cave in gutlessly to the NRA. And they will die. And they will be buried in their communities. But some of the grief has to extend to this place. Mr. President, my message is simple. Wife beaters should not have guns, and child abusers should not have guns. And I urge my colleagues to stand up for the victims of domestic violence, to reject this sham legislation, and to enact meaningful law to keep guns away from wife beaters and child abusers. And if the NRA and their supporters insist on pushing a sham ban, I want to put everyone on notice that I intend to fight this every step of the way with all the tools at my disposal. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from Montana and New Mexico in introducing a bill that will correct an accounting error made by the Treasury Department in calculating highway allocations. The Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 does not change any formulas established in ISTEA, it does not affect any existing donor-donee relationship. Simply put, the bill merely corrects the fact that the Department of the Treasury misinterpreted revenue reports because these reports were put in a new format. This error is acknowledged by the Treasury Department and the Federal Highway Administration. The unfortunate result is that the Treasury Department grossly overstated the amount of gas tax receipts to the highway trust fund during 1994. With the passage of this bill, States will receive the funding that they are entitled to --no more, no less. This amendment will not deny any state the full 90 percent of payments that they are due through the Federal Aid Highway Formula Program. What this amendment will do is set these payments at 90 percent of what the States actually paid, rather than 90 percent of the Treasury's erroneous estimates. Mr. President, this body is familiar with the problem this bill seeks to address. During consideration of the Transportation appropriations bill, the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, offered an amendment to correct the mistake. This bill is identical to that amendment. After significant discussion, the Senate adopted the provision directing first that the Treasury and Transportation Departments ensure that there was indeed an accounting error, a mistake, and second, that Treasury would be directed to correct the error. Again, Mr. President, the Senate adopted that amendment. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. And here we are again, faced with the prospect that, without a correction, States would receive the wrong highway funding levels to which they are entitled. The logic behind the Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 is simple, it is fair. Congress, in 1991, passed the landmark ISTEA law, containing the highway funding formulas. Congress should ensure that those formulas are adhered to when the administration calculates States' highway funds. This bill will correct the bureaucratic error and ensure that States receive the accurate amounts calculated under the highway funding formula. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the bill, and I look forward to its swift passage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from Montana and New Mexico in introducing a bill that will correct an accounting error made by the Treasury Department in calculating highway allocations. The Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 does not change any formulas established in ISTEA, it does not affect any existing donor-donee relationship. Simply put, the bill merely corrects the fact that the Department of the Treasury misinterpreted revenue reports because these reports were put in a new format. This error is acknowledged by the Treasury Department and the Federal Highway Administration. The unfortunate result is that the Treasury Department grossly overstated the amount of gas tax receipts to the highway trust fund during 1994. With the passage of this bill, States will receive the funding that they are entitled to --no more, no less. This amendment will not deny any state the full 90 percent of payments that they are due through the Federal Aid Highway Formula Program. What this amendment will do is set these payments at 90 percent of what the States actually paid, rather than 90 percent of the Treasury's erroneous estimates. Mr. President, this body is familiar with the problem this bill seeks to address. During consideration of the Transportation appropriations bill, the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, offered an amendment to correct the mistake. This bill is identical to that amendment. After significant discussion, the Senate adopted the provision directing first that the Treasury and Transportation Departments ensure that there was indeed an accounting error, a mistake, and second, that Treasury would be directed to correct the error. Again, Mr. President, the Senate adopted that amendment. Unfortunately, it was dropped in conference. And here we are again, faced with the prospect that, without a correction, States would receive the wrong highway funding levels to which they are entitled. The logic behind the Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996 is simple, it is fair. Congress, in 1991, passed the landmark ISTEA law, containing the highway funding formulas. Congress should ensure that those formulas are adhered to when the administration calculates States' highway funds. This bill will correct the bureaucratic error and ensure that States receive the accurate amounts calculated under the highway funding formula. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the bill, and I look forward to its swift passage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 11, I cochaired with Senator Kennedy an ad hoc hearing on the problem of teen smoking. We were joined by Senators Harkin, Wellstone, Bingaman, and Simon. Regrettably, we were forced to hold an ad hoc hearing on this pressing public health issue because the Republican leadership refused to hold a regular hearing, despite our many pleas. Yesterday I entered into the Record the statements of the Senators who attended the hearing. Today I am entering the testimony of the witnesses from the first panel which included Justin Hoover, a 12-year- old addicted to tobacco, and his DARE officer, Jody Hayes. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony from the first panel of this ad hoc hearing be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Testimony of Justin Hoover, September 11, 1996 Hello, my name is Justin Hoover. I am twelve years old and a sixth grader at Clegg Park Elementary School in West Des Moines, Iowa. I would like to tell you how I became addicted to cigarettes. I tried my first cigarette when I was six years old. My mother smokes and always kept a carton of cigarettes in her bedroom. I would see her go into her drawer and take a pack of smokes out every now and then. I had an older brother that was fifteen then and saw him and my mother smoking all the time. I wanted to be older than I was and thought smoking was cool and would show everyone that I wasn't a little kid. One day I stole a pack of cigarettes from my mother's drawer, went outside and smoked four or five. My little sister told my mother I was smoking. She found me smoking them. My mother told me that I was never to smoke again or I would be in big trouble. She said that even though my brother and her smoked, it wasn't a good thing to do. I didn't smoke again until I was nine. I started again because I thought it was the cool thing to do. I saw people smoking on T.V. shows, when we went out to eat, driving down the street on billboards and in stores I would always see tobacco advertisements especially Joe Cool for Camel cigarettes and I always thought it looked kind of cool. I started sneaking cigarettes from my mother again I did that for awhile until I needed more than just one or two a day. I started to steal cigarettes and sometimes chewing tobacco from stores. Sometimes I would sneak out of the house to steal them from convenience stores late at night because that was when the clerk was in the back room a lot making it easier to get away with. I tried to stop three times, but never made it longer than five days before I started again. I would smoke butts that I found in the ashtray at the store across the street. Sometimes I would pick up a bunch of used butts, take several of them and pour the unused tobacco on a piece of paper and try to roll my own. Sometimes I would drop the cigarettes in the house burning the carpet and furniture. One night I fell asleep and dropped a cigarette on the bed. It caught fire and we had to put it out. No one was hurt. I am now smoking seven cigarettes a day. One in the morning, and six after school and before bedtime. Officer Hayes and my mother have tried to help me stop, I have come close, but can't completely stop. When I was told that I was going to come to Washington, DC, I was embarrassed to tell people what I have done. But I know that smoking is bad for me and can affect my health. I don't want my little brother and sisters to start smoking. My brother who is three acts like his crayons are cigarettes because he sees all of us smoking. If things don't change, I am sure he will follow in my footsteps. That would make me feel bad. I believe the only way I will be able to stop smoking is if I can't get them. If stores make them harder to steal, and there are no more vending machines that sell them, I think I could stop. As for my brother and sister, if I don't smoke, and they don't see cigarettes on T.V. or billboards I think they have a better chance of not using them and becoming addicted to cigarettes like me. Everyone else in my life has tried to help me stop smoking cigarettes. My mother, my brother, Officer Hayes, teachers, my principal and my counselor at school. I came here today for myself and my brother and sister. I hope you can help us. Testimony of Jody Hayes, September 11, 1996 My name is Jody Hayes. I am a Police Officer with the West Des Moines Police Department located in Iowa. I have been an officer for seven years. I have served as a patrol officer on the street for three of those years. For the past four years I have been a community relations officer. I teach a wide variety of safety education programs to the public, with my primary responsibility focused on teaching drug awareness to the youth of West Des Moines. I do this through the D.A.R.E. program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). I am here today to share with you my concern over tobacco use among youth. As a police officer, I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing how bad the drug problem in society really is. I see kids as young as twelve years old walking home from school with cigarettes in their hand. The police department has hundreds of cases on file where youth have been caught trying to steal cigarettes from stores because they're not old enough to purchase them. Our high school kids cross the street at lunchtime to smoke their cigarettes so they don't get in trouble by the school for smoking on the grounds. It is not uncommon to see twenty or thirty teenagers smoking across from the school during and after it lets out. There are countless teenagers in our community that have worn a hole in their jeans from carrying a chewing tobacco can in the back pocket. Tobacco use among teenagers is the worst I have ever seen. Some parents that I talk with say ``Well, if all they do is smoke or chew tobacco, then that's not so bad. It's not like they're doing drugs.'' The D.A.R.E. curriculum, which is currently taught to children in every state within America, defines the word drug as this: Any substance other than food that can affect the way your mind and body work. Some people would lead you to believe tobacco doesn't affect both your mind and body. First, let us consider if it affects the body. What about the high school athlete that used to be the best in his/her class that has now taken up smoking? They can't make it around the track during practice, or run down field to catch a pass during the big game, or even swim an entire lap in the pool because the cigarettes have limited their oxygen intake? What about the band or chorus member who can't seem to manage enough air to play their instrument or to reach the next note they have to sing? What about the deadly diseases that seem to follow tobacco use, like cancer or emphysema? What about gum disease and yellow teeth? What about the tar left behind in their lungs causing them to wake every morning to the sound of coughing and hacking and their body trying to flush the poison out of it's system? Yes, tobacco does affect the way the body works. Does tobacco affect the mind? An addiction is defined in the dictionary as this: ``To become psychologically or physiologically dependent upon something.'' Since the word psychological refers to the mind and behavior, I think it would be safe to say yes, tobacco does affect the way your mind works. It is called addiction. Thus, tobacco is indeed a drug that is both affecting our children's minds and bodies during the most vulnerable time in their life. Cigarettes are a gateway drug, meaning they are opening the door for our youth to experiment with a world of even more deadly drugs. After tobacco comes marijuana. ``Why not,'' the child asks. Why not try marijuana, I'm already getting smoke in my lungs from the cigarettes. After that comes all of the other drugs that society continues to lose children to, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and LSD. The list goes on and on. We have to stop where drug use starts and that is with tobacco. We can not allow the tobacco industry to brainwash our children, through colorful cartoon billboards and advertisements, into believing tobacco use as a hobby that is fun to do. We can not allow them to advertise tobacco products as a glamorous habit to be involved with to feel grown-up. Children are too vulnerable to expect them to resist these types of pressure. As a D.A.R.E. officer, I know how hard it is to convince youth to stand up to peer pressure, to face challenges in their life; not escape them, and to ignore the curiosity surrounding drugs. The last thing our children need is another type of pressure in their life. Tricky advertising techniques by the tobacco industry attempt and often succeed in luring kids to try their product. They place cartoon billboards where children play and go to school. They give away thousands of promotion products such as T-shirts, ball caps and jackets that we see children wearing around the community. They get T.V. role models and athletes the kids look up to to advertise their products. Lastly, they portray tobacco use as the grown-up thing to do, which again influences children that want to feel older, only need to smoke to do so. It is a known fact that most children will always want to be older than they are. This type of advertising plays on that wish. I was surprised to learn the tobacco industry can deduct the cost of advertising from their taxes. This alone is an incentive for them to advertise more often. I was personally glad to see Senator Harkin introduce a bill that would put an end to such a ridiculous tax deduction. The fact is we can not change a child's wish to feel older. Although, we can change what they do to feel older. We can take away the billboards advertising tobacco where our children play and go to school, and put up positive messages against drug use for them to see. We can make stricter consequences for tobacco vending that sell to under age buyers without checking their identification prior to the sell. We can get rid of the vending machines that offer tobacco products to any one with enough change in their pocket to buy them no matter the age. We need to put a stop to free tobacco samples and promotional items such as caps, shirts and jackets. We need to use our role models in society to promote drug awareness instead of drug use. Lastly but most importantly, we need to educate our children continuously as to the harmful effects of tobacco use. Yes, tobacco is a drug that will extinguish a child's dreams and goals. It is a drug that will keep them from reaching their full potential and it is a drug that will keep them from living a long and prosperous life. Remember this, the children are our future, and without our help they may not have a future. Our children are in desperate need of your help.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 11th, I co-chaired with Senator Kennedy an ad-hoc hearing on the problem of teen smoking. We were joined by Senators Harkin, Wellstone, Bingaman and Simon. Regrettably, we were forced to hold an ad-hoc hearing on this pressing public health issue because the Republican leadership refused to hold a regular hearing, despite our many pleas. We held this hearing to listen to real people tell us about the addictiveness of nicotine and their support for the President Clinton's FDA proposal to cut teen smoking in half. Unlike one of the other Presidential candidates, we know that nicotine is addictive. And we know that the FDA should regulate it and protect our children. We also made it clear that we will reject half hearted compromise legislative proposals which do not protect our children from the tobacco companies. Essentially, we will oppose any compromise legislation that does protect FDA's ability to safeguard our kids or the public health. Our first priority in any legislative settlement should be to save our children from future nicotine addiction. Mr. President, President Clinton deserves credit for being the first President in recent history to take on the tobacco companies. He has an excellent record of protecting our children. However, this Congress' record on tobacco and children is shameful. On January 3, 1995, a new Republican majority took over Congress. They publicly pushed their Contract with America. But privately, they pursued another contract--a contract of silence with the tobacco companies. Since the Republicans took over Congress, more than 660,000 people have died from smoking and over 1.7 million of our children have begun smoking. What has been this Congress' response to this public health epidemic? Pure silence. In one fell swoop--gone were the House hearings where the CEO's swore under oath that nicotine was not addictive. And gone were the Senate hearings on the dangers of secondhand smoke and the health care benefits of increasing the tobacco tax. It took President Clinton's bold FDA policy to break the silence. And we need to make more noise--to stop our children from ever becoming hooked. We need to fight the biggest cause of preventable death in America--tobacco use. Because like AIDS, silence equals death when it comes to tobacco. At the hearing, we heard from several witnesses who have first-hand knowledge of the dangers of tobacco addiction. We heard from Justin Hoover, a 12-year-old boy from West Des Moines, IA who told us how he smoked his first cigarette at the age of 6, and was addicted to tobacco when he was 9. He told us how easy it was for him to obtain cigarettes, often by stealing them. He told us how difficult it has been for him to try and break his addiction, despite the best efforts of his mother, teachers, and his DARE officer, Jody Hayes, who accompanied Justin at the hearing. Officer Hayes said that the level of smoking among teens is the worst that he has seen. He also told us that tobacco is clearly a gateway drug that can lead to marijuana and cocaine use. He strongly admonished us that ``we have to stop drug use where it starts, and that is with tobacco.'' We also heard from Minnesota Attorney General ``Skip'' Humphrey who told us of his concerns of proposed Federal legislation to resolve all litigation and regulation affecting the tobacco industry. He noted that it is essential that tobacco ``like every other product Americans eat, drink or ingest, be placed under the on-going jurisdiction of an appropriate Federal agency, such as the FDA.'' We listened to the testimony of Dr. Ian Uydess, who worked as a research scientist for Philip Morris for over 10 years. He told us how well informed the tobacco industry has been regarding the health effects and addictive quality of tobacco. He said that the major tobacco companies could have used this information to develop a safer product, but they chose not to do so. We also heard from Morton Downey, Jr., the former talk-show host whose symbol was the smoking cigarette butt. As he has contracted lung cancer, he now asks forgiveness from the young people he may have influenced to smoke. Alan Landers, a former Winston model, told us of the pain caused by two lung operations. He gave riveting testimony on the addictiveness of tobacco. He told us that he was smoking the night before he was to have lung surgery because he could not quit. He now tours high schools warning children of the dangers of smoking. Janet Sackman, another former cigarette model, bravely testified how when she was 17, she was told by an agent that if she wanted the look to get ahead in the business, she should start smoking. She developed cancer of the larynx and now struggles to speak. Mr. President, these people are a testament to the tragedy of tobacco addiction in this country. And they all have two things in common. They started smoking before they were 18 and they all have cancer. These examples demonstrate why the President's proposal to protect our children is so crucial. Mr. President, after I complete my statement, I am going to ask that the statements of the participating in ad-hoc hearing be placed in the record. Over the next 3 days I will insert the testimony of the witnesses from each of the three panels. I hope that all of my colleagues, from both chambers and both sides of the aisle will read these compelling statements. Regrettably, this will be the only hearing record on tobacco issues this Congress, despite the constant revelations in the press about industry documents outlining the dangers of smoking. I only hope that the next Congress' record on protecting our children is not as shameful. Mr. President, I ask that the statements of the Senators attending this ad-hoc hearing be printed in the Record. The statements follow: Statement by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg First, I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for co- chairing this hearing with me and all of the other Senators who are participating. I would also like to welcome and thank all of the witnesses for being here at today's ad-hoc hearing on teen smoking. We are here to show our support for the FDA proposal to cut teen smoking in half. Unlike one of the Presidential candidates, we know that nicotine is addictive. And we know that the FDA should regulate it and protect our children. Today, we are also here to say that we will reject half hearted compromise legislative proposals that do not protect our children. We will oppose any compromise legislation that does protect FDA's ability to safeguard our kids or the public health. Our first priority in any settlement should be to save our children from future nicotine addiction. President Clinton deserves credit for being the first President in recent history to take on the tobacco companies. He has an excellent record of protecting our children. On the other side of Pennsylvania avenue, however, this Congress' record on tobacco and children is shameful. On January 3, 1995, a new Republican majority took over Congress. They publicly pushed their Contract with America. But privately, they pursued another contract--a contract of silence with the tobacco companies. Since the Republicans took over Congress, 660,488 people have died from smoking and 1,764,000 children began smoking. What has been this Congress' response to this public health epidemic? Pure silence! In one fell swoop--gone were the House hearings where the CEOs swore under oath that nicotine was not addictive. And gone were the Senate hearings on the dangers of secondhand smoke and the health care benefits of increasing the tobacco tax. It took President Clinton's bold FDA policy to break the silence. And we are here to make more noise--to stop our children from ever becoming hooked. We are here to fight the biggest cause of preventable death in America--tobacco use. Because like AIDS, silence equals death when it comes to tobacco. Today, we will hear from people who know firsthand about the dangers of smoking. We will hear from a 12 year old child who is addicted to cigarettes and his DARE officer. We will hear from a former Philip Morris research scientist who will tell us that the tobacco industry knew full well that nicotine was addictive and manipulated it to hook smokers. We will hear form Minnesota Attorney General ``Skip'' Humphrey who is taking on the tobacco industry in court on behalf of our children. Before we proceed, I wanted to let the participants know that there will not be an official hearing transcript for this proceeding but I will insert all written statements into the Congressional record so your stories will become part of the official record of the Senate. I hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle and both chambers, will read your testimony and work with us to save our children.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Sons of Italy Foundation [SIF] for its eighth annual National Education and Leadership Awards [NELA] gala, which was held May 2, 1996, at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, in Washington, DC. I had the opportunity of attending this worthy and inspirational event, and I have had the honor of serving as chairman of the NELA gala in the past. This worthy and inspirational annual event has gained wide recognition during the past few years in Congress, the corporate community, educational institutions, and others in the philanthropic community throughout the Nation for its promotion of educational excellence and professional achievement. I commend the SIF for the encouragement it provides to some of our Nation's most outstanding young scholars and future leaders. At this year's event, the SIF presented scholarships to the winners of the 1996 National Leadership Grant Competition, an annual merit- based national scholarship competition. In addition, the SIF presented the 1996 NELA's to Northwest Airlines Corp. Cochairman Alfred Checchi and Pennsylvania State University football coach Joseph V. Paterno. In selecting Messrs. Checchi and Paterno for this honor and in awarding a merit-based academic scholarship in each of their names, the SIF has recognized two of the most outstanding role models in the Italian- American community. The lives of these two men of enormous achievement and strong character serve as reminders of why our forebears traveled to this country and why today's immigrants are so eager to make their homes in our great country, where opportunity abounds for those willing to learn and work hard. The achievements of these two men speak highly of the importance of strong family support, educational achievement, and professional integrity. These are values on which all of us agree, regardless of our racial, ethnic, or religious backgrounds. These common values, aptly expressed through the NELA gala, are what bind us as Americans. Most appropriately, the scholarships that the SIF awarded in the names of Mr. Checchi and Mr. Paterno will support the dreams and aspirations of outstanding young students. There is no more important work for us to perform, no greater gift we can give than to support our youth. The long and distinguished record of generous support for education earned by the SIF and its parent organization, the Order Sons of Italy in America, should be recognized and praised. These generous contributions in support of the future of our Nation are made largely by the modest and heartfelt donations of the hundreds of thousands of OSIA members throughout our United States. During the past three decades, OSIA and the SIF have distributed more than $21 million in academic scholarships. The leaders and members of OSIA and the SIF have set an excellent example for other nonprofit and fraternal organizations in their unselfish support of the young people of our Nation. I commend Mr. Paul S. Polo, national president of OSIA and chairman of the SIF; Mr. Valentino Ciullo, president of the SIF; Ms. Jo-Anne Gauger, chairwoman of OSIA's National Education Committee; Mr. Joseph E. Antonini, 1996 NELA gala chairman; and Dr. Philip R. Piccigallo, national executive director of the OSIA and the SIF, for their leadership roles in the 1996 NELA gala and the National Leadership Grant Competition. Listed below are the names of the 12 winners of the 1996 National Leadership Grant Competition. These young men and women represent our Nation's highest level of academic achievement and leadership potential. I offer congratulations and heartfelt wishes for future success to: Mr. Michael Sollazzo, Henry Salvatori Scholarship; Mr. Andrea Mazzariello, Alfred Checchi Scholarship; Mr. Brian Iammartino, Joseph V. Paterno Scholarship; Ms. Jillian Catalanotti, Dr. Vincenzo Sellaro Scholarship; Mr. Todd Builione, Carlone Family/Peter B. Gay Scholarship; Mr. Ben Jamieson, Hon. Frank J. Montemuro Jr. Scholarship; Mr. Anthony Draye, Joseph E. Antonini Scholarship; Ms. Stephanie Di Vito, Hon. Silvio O. Conte Scholarship; Ms. Anastasia Ferrante, Lou Carnesecca Scholarship; Mr. Federico Rossi, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Scholarship; Mr. Corey Ciocchetti, Pearl Tubiolo Scholarship; and Mr. William Karazsia, OSIA-John Cabot University Scholarship and the Pietro Secchia Scholarship.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Kerry in introducing legislation, the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996, to increase penalties and strengthen enforcement for environmental crimes. Mr. President, most Americans consider themselves environmentalists. Millions of Americans participate in voluntary recycling and do what they can to save the environment. Similarly, many companies spend substantial amounts to comply with environmental laws, and many do much more than required. Mr. President, expenditures for environmental controls are a cost of business that, in the short run, can adversely affect a company's bottom line. But these controls benefit all Americans. They lead to cleaner water, cleaner air, safer employees and healthier children. Mr. President, when a business invests in environmental protection to comply with our laws, it should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result. That is, it shouldn't have to compete against other firms that save costs by disregarding their environmental responsibilities. But to protect against that kind of unfairness, Mr. President, Government must strongly enforce environmental laws. And that is what this bill will help ensure. Mr. President, this bill was developed by the Department of Justice after consultation with State, local and Federal prosecutors from around the country. It is aimed at bad actors who violate our environmental laws purposely, intentionally, or with knowing disregard for the impact of their actions. These are not people who accidently miss a deadline or even negligently forget to file for a needed permit. They are criminals who know what they're doing, and who generally are flouting our laws simply to make a buck. Mr. President, we need to get tough with those who intentionally violate environmental laws. This bill would help in several ways. The bill would make it a federal crime to attempt to violate our environmental laws. This would make it much easier to enforce these laws, and to prevent environmental degradation before it happens. Most federal laws, other than criminal environmental laws now include provisions for attempted criminality. The legislation also would give federal prosecutors tools to work more effectively with their state counterparts. It would improve training of law enforcement personnel in the investigation of environmental crimes. It also would facilitate prosecution by extending the statute of limitations when a violator has tried to conceal environmental crimes. Another provision in the legislation would allow judges to force environmental criminals to pay to clean up the mess they made. That, Mr. President, is only fair. If a child has to clean up his own room, surely a corporation should have to clean up their own mess when they intentionally dump toxic chemicals. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation would give judges the authority to increase penalties when an environmental crime leads to serious injury or death. This should help deter the most serious abuses of our laws. Mr. President, none of these proposals, by itself, will solve the problem of environmental crime. But, together, they would make a real difference. They would help improve the quality of our environment. And they would help protect the majority of law-abiding businesses that invest in environmental protection, and that abide by our laws in good faith. Mr. President, over the past 20 years, our economy has grown considerably, but pollution has been reduced. This has occurred not only because Congress passed environmental legislation. It has also occurred because of the creativity of our scientists and the commitment of American businesses. These law-abiding businesses, as I have said, deserve to be treated fairly. They should be rewarded for their diligence, not placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Mr. President, I recognize, given the limited time remaining in the 104th Congress, that this legislation will not become law this year. However, I intend to work in the next Congress to have hearings on this bill, and I would welcome input from any interested parties. Next year, I am hopeful that we can move in a bipartisan manner to make any needed improvements, and to enact this legislation into law as soon as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill, S. 2096, and a section-by-section analysis be included in the Record.