Frank Lautenberg

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.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Texas. I know that she has an interest in safety with our pipelines. Obviously, coming from a State like she does, there is a great deal of interest in providing the resource, the gas, that travels through these pipelines because it is an efficient and cost-effective way of taking care of our energy needs. I want to also extend my accommodation to the majority leader, Senator Lott, for his work on this bill, as well as the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings, and the other Senators who have worked hard and who have contributed to this legislation. The bill before us enhances our existing pipeline safety program in a number of ways. For example, it would promote one-call programs to ensure that those who dig in the ground can easily find out where the pipelines are located--not only find out, but must know where the pipelines are located. The bill would also increase funding for pipeline safety programs and make other improvements. At the same time, I do have some concerns about certain provisions in the legislation which could limit the regulators' abilities to adequately manage the program. Frankly, it does not go all the way that I would like it to go, but it certainly is an improvement on the status quo and should improve pipeline safety significantly. Mr. President, I have a special interest in this bill--I am sure many in this room are aware of it--because an explosion took place in my State a couple of years ago, and our experience with it was one that will stay permanently etched in the memories of people in New Jersey. What happened there was almost inexplicable because, though the damage, the physical damage, was extensive, fortunately it was limited to one death. There could have been many more. That one death was as a result of someone's physical disability who had come in to be in touch with friends who lived in the neighborhood. It was terrible. That was 2\1/2\ years ago. That rupture in a gas pipeline led to a terrible explosion in Edison, NJ. The blast created an enormous fireball that could be seen for miles around. It leveled eight apartment buildings and left a gaping hole in the ground. It reminded me, very frankly, Mr. President, of some of my wartime experiences when bombed-out areas were left with buildings flattened and holes, craters, in the ground. That is what this looked like. The explosion and the fire injured more than 100 people and brought on, as I said, the death of one person, a fatal heart attack of a 32- year-old woman who had come to visit friends who were in the area. And 150 families were made homeless. Not surprisingly, many of the victims are still dealing with the emotional, psychological, and financial consequences of the explosion. Mr. President, I visited the site of this disaster with Senator Bradley very shortly after it took place. We saw the devastation firsthand. It was a sobering experience. Nobody could witness a scene like that without being committed to doing everything possible to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future. In response to the explosion in New Jersey, I began to explore various ways that pipelines could be made safer. I talked with experts from around the country, and I developed legislation, now introduced as S. 162, that did propose a variety of steps. First, my bill promoted the establishment of the so-called one-call program. One-call very simply requires anyone who is about to dig--a builder, construction company--to simply make a telephone call to make sure that where they are going to dig is not dangerous because of pipelines. This is important because two-thirds of all pipeline accidents are caused by people who dig without knowing where they are digging. So I say, they must know. So I am pleased that the bill before us, like my own, would promote one-call programs and direct the Office of Pipeline Safety to help States establish these programs. Another provision in my bill required the use of remote control shutoff valves. Mr. President, given the state of technology in the world today, you would think this kind of thing would be used routinely, which simply means that someone in a remote location with some visual contact through electronic means could see what is happening and start turning down the cutoff valves. Unfortunately, that very simple technology was not used in this case. But it is now being used. Too often when a major leak occurs, pipeline operators must physically travel to the site of the leak and manually turn off a huge valve. This process can take many hours. After the Edison explosion, it took over 3 hours to shut off the valve, the valve that was producing the gas flow to continue the flames and the destruction that was taking place, in large part, because the shutoff valve was manual and took over 700 turns to close. Meanwhile, again, the dangerous gas was escaping into the environment. Remote control shutoff valves would have solved this problem in fairly quick fashion. So I am pleased that the managers of the bill were able to include a provision in the managers' amendment that would require that DOT, which has jurisdiction here, study the feasibility of these devices. If, as I expect, the Secretary determines that the devices are feasible and would reduce risks of pipeline accidents, the Secretary would be required to mandate their use. Another proposal in my bill would allow residents to be notified of the location of the pipelines in their neighborhoods. Citizens have a right to know this information. A better informed public leads to improved safety. So I am pleased that the managers of the bill have included in their amendment, the managers' amendment, a provision that requires that all operators provide a pipeline map to local communities. The provision also requires that the Secretary review existing pipeline safety education programs, determine which ones are the most effective, and implement appropriate programs nationwide. My legislation also would have helped ensure that pipeline leaks and weaknesses were detected before disasters by promoting the use of so- called smart pigs. The term ``smart pigs'' refers to technology that essentially permits a device to travel through a pipeline and evaluate whether or not there are weaknesses that have to be attended to or that otherwise could lead to problems in the future. The use of this smart pig technology is important, especially as more pipes grow older and thus more vulnerable to problems. The bill before us would authorize OPS, the Office of Pipeline Safety, to require the use of smart pigs, though it does not mandate their regular use, as I would prefer. I am hopeful that OPS will promote these tools aggressively. There are other provisions in this bill before us that also mirror proposals of mine. One provision would make it a Federal crime to dump waste in pipeline rights of way. This will help protect these rights of way from large volumes of material which can damage the pipeline. So, Mr. President, there are several provisions in this bill that I support and that can help, and will help, to improve pipeline safety. At the same time, however, in my view, the legislation should go farther. For example, I am concerned that the public will not have adequate input in the review of proposed risk demonstration projects. I am also concerned that the bill could make it harder for the Office of Pipeline Safety to propose and adopt pipeline safety standards because of new cost/benefit requirements. On balance, though, Mr. President, this bill represents a very good step forward. Although far from perfect--and we know around here that the perfect is the enemy of the good; it is said so often and proves true almost every time--although far from perfect, it should improve pipeline safety, and it deserves our support. Once more, I thank the majority leader and the other Senators involved for their work on this bill. I look forward to working with them in the future to ensure that the legislation is implemented properly and effectively, and to consider other steps that can be taken that promote pipeline safety in our communities. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Plus the fact that I want to know whether the Senator was aware that if we had to relocate or substantially expand the Logan Airport, which would be required in the Boston area absent substantial Amtrak improvements, the cost to the taxpayer would be several billion dollars.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What do you think would happen if there was a bad weather day along the way? The economy of the country would grind to a halt because we are inextricably linked with our other sections of the country in our business, the stock market, you name it. What might happen when those 7,500 airplane trips try to deal with a snowstorm in the East, or tornadoes or hurricanes, whatever else is the latest in the mode of weather disasters?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask recognition from the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy, in a moment, to yield to whomever the Chair recognizes. But we are getting lots of inquiries because I know that there is a request to have a rollcall vote. That has not yet been propounded. In fairness to our colleagues who have work to do, as everyone here on the floor has, we started this debate shortly after 2 o'clock this afternoon, and I think in fairness it would be a good idea if I could ask the Senator from Delaware how long the Senator from Delaware thinks the debate might go? I wonder if the Senator from Delaware would answer that question? If the Senator from Delaware could answer the question as to how much longer he needs? Obviously, he has as much time as he requires. There is a request for a rollcall vote I know.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, I wonder if I might yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, and I ask unanimous consent I be able to yield up to 3 minutes or 4 minutes, as the Senator needs, and still retain the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, by agreement with our colleagues on the Republican side, I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Hardly compares with a few hundred million dollars spent to get Amtrak's Northeast corridor up to shape where we could produce a surplus revenue cash flow that would not have us here with the beggar cup waiting every year to try to get a few dollars. I want to say to the Senator that the case you make is so clear. I hope that some of our colleagues who come from distant places are able to see the connection. It is just like the Army Corps of Engineers. If they are not financed to take care of the problems out West, then they are not available nor would they be available in the East. This is a national thing, even though its presence is principally in the heaviest populated area of our country. When it comes to services that are headquartered here, like the FAA-- one does not say, ``Well, wait a second. Don't put more money in the FAA safety research office in Washington, because we are out in Colorado or New Mexico or someplace''? They say, ``No. Keep on investing because we all benefit from such investments.'' Would the Senator agree?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was going to remind him as we discuss this and ask if he was aware of the fact we would be loading the skies with some 1,500 more flights a week--that is typically in a 5-day week--where the delays now are unbearable, even when the sun shines bright.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, obviously, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of Appropriations, I strongly support H.R. 3675, the Transportation appropriations bill for this coming fiscal year. The conference report was filed by the Transportation appropriations conference on September 16, just a couple of days ago. But this bill is marked by more than just dollar amounts or designated programs. This bill exhibits the extraordinary leadership of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the very distinguished former chairman of the Appropriations Committee--two gentlemen who have left, to use the expression, a mark on this body that will endure far beyond the lives of anybody within earshot of our voices. It has been a real privilege for me to work with these gentlemen. I came here at a rather mature status in life. I spent 30 years in the corporate world before coming to the U.S. Senate. But one of the great delights of serving here is to have the occasional respite from the tensions and the differences that are so prominent in this body of ours when we hear from people like Senator Mark Hatfield or Senator Robert Byrd, who bring not only experience but wisdom to our deliberations. Frankly, Mr. President, I have to tell you that I worry about the U.S. Senate. I worry about our governance and our congressional responsibilities when we lose contact with someone like Mark Hatfield, who has chosen to retire, and many other fine colleagues who have also chosen to make this their last year in the U.S. Senate. I find it to be a very depressing prospect, because so much experience and so much knowledge will leave the floor of this U.S. Senate, and I hope those of us who are left to carry on for however long that is, can learn from the examples set by Senator Mark Hatfield and by Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd is going to stay with us and he is going to keep working, thank the Lord for that. But this bill is uniquely marked by the fact that it is the last transportation bill that Senator Mark Hatfield is going to manage. His is a very special legacy. He will be remembered for his spirit, his integrity, for his character, for his intelligence, and for his friendship. I will sorely miss him. I don't want this to turn into a eulogy, Mr. President, but I couldn't let this bill be considered without noting the unique contribution made to our country in these transportation programs by Senator Hatfield. Given the funding limitations we face in this year's appropriations process, I think this conference agreement does a very good job. It addresses numerous and sometimes competing transportation needs throughout the country. There is no question that the conference agreement before us represents a much more balanced approach than did the House-passed bill. The conference agreement goes a long way toward addressing the priorities of Members. Moreover, the conference agreement also addresses many of the priorities of the administration. As such, the President has indicated that he will sign this bill when he receives it. I almost want to say ``hallelujah,'' because it gives us added reason to get it over there. As is the case with all appropriations conferences, I cannot say that the Senate position ruled the day on all contentious matters addressed by the conferees. Indeed, I am disappointed with several individual issues contained in the conference report. However, by no means is it the fault of our distinguished chairman. After hours of tough negotiation, matters were necessarily resolved in a fashion that would ensure the passage of the separate and independent transportation bill, again, that will gain the President's signature and avoid getting caught up in the quagmire of a continuing resolution. One result that I find to be exceedingly disappointing is the action by the conferees in rejecting an amendment that I offered to ensure that no State endures a cut in its annual highway funding from the huge Federal-Aid Highway Program. The conference agreement before us calls for the overall obligation ceiling for the major highway formula program for the Nation to increase to a record-high level of $18 billion. This level is a full $450 million higher than the current year's level, $450 million higher than the House-passed level, and $350 million higher than the original Senate-passed bill. I have always--and again I join with the other Whigs here--I have always supported increased infrastructure spending, especially in the highway area. I was shocked, however, to find that under formulas contained in the authorizing law, ISTEA, 28 States--28--will actually receive less money from the highway program in 1997 than they did in 1996. I want to restate that. At the same time as we are going to be providing an unprecedented increase in the highway formula program, a larger increase than was granted in either the House or Senate bill, a majority of the States will actually endure a cut in their highway obligation ceiling below the current year's level. This situation stems from the formulas contained in ISTEA, Mr. President. It is a formula already established. However, I do feel that, when we provide historic funding increases to the program, States should at least be held harmless--they should be guaranteed at least what they received for the preceding year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the Record which displays each State's highway obligation ceiling at the current funding level opposite the level they can expect to receive in fiscal year 1997.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As I earlier stated, I offered an amendment in the conference on this bill to implement a hold-harmless provision to ensure that, as we added a half billion dollars to the National Highway Program, no State would be cut below the current year's level. Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted, and we are where we are. Mr. President, this is a scenario that will serve as the backdrop as we attempt to reauthorize ISTEA in the next congressional session. More than half the States will actually see their highway funding cut as we appropriate--a historic funding increase to the National Highway Program. As we approach ISTEA reauthorization, I hope and expect that all Members will focus on these formula issues and work to restore fairness to the highway program so all States will benefit when we add substantial sums to the program. Mr. President, Amtrak funding is a favorite subject of mine; it is a favorite subject, I know, of the chairman of the Finance Committee and of our other colleagues who recognize the value of having Amtrak, the national passenger rail service, improved, maintained and available. When it comes to Amtrak funding, the conference agreement is a vast improvement over the House-passed bill. I am grateful to my many Senate colleagues who joined us to try to get an adjustment. I am disappointed, however, that the funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Improvement Program--that is the corridor that runs from Washington up through Boston --will be funded at $115 million, which is well below the President's request. Mr. President, the key to Amtrak's future is the expeditious completion of the major infrastructure improvements that have begun in the Northeast corridor. If these things are forced to drag out, costs go up, changes come in, and as we all know, sometimes even political influences begin to change the course of events. Amtrak's own studies indicate that all--and I emphasize all--of the increased revenue that Amtrak can hope to capture in the near-term will come from the Northeast corridor. That is where the traffic is, the largest share of the population that is served by the railroad. In recent months we have heard the usual arguments from Members of Congress that Amtrak must become self-sufficient. Now many of the Members who have advocated substantial cuts in the railroad's operating subsidy are bemoaning the fact that they are going to lose Amtrak service. The conference agreement before us, they should be aware, cuts Amtrak's operating account some $50 million below Amtrak's request. Some of these Members are now trying to find a way to restore service to their constituents. I know that Amtrak service is valuable wherever it exists, but funding cuts cannot be inflicted without pain. The solution is improving Amtrak's revenue wherever possible. I have long believed, Mr. President, that we should have a financially healthy and adequately capitalized national railroad that serves as many areas of the country as possible. I want to support Members' efforts to maintain service throughout the country, but I also believe that my colleagues need to recognize that the key to Amtrak's self-sufficiency, the key to Amtrak having enough revenue to operate these lines throughout the Midwest and the Far West, is adequate funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor. That is where the revenue opportunities lie. That is where the investment has to be made in order to generate the revenue to feed these less productive, less revenue- producing parts of the system. Amtrak's president, Tom Downs, recently testified at the Senate Commerce Committee. He explained that, were it not for the recent positive financial performance of the Northeast corridor, the trains now slated for termination in the next few months would have been terminated several months ago. The corridor carries half of all Amtrak riders, and generates well over half of Amtrak's passenger-related revenues. As I stated during the conference on the transportation bill, I expect to seek increased funding for the Northeast corridor on any legislative vehicle seeks to provide funding to Amtrak to maintain service on the lines currently slated for termination. Finally, I want to point out where this bill sits in regard to the funding stream for the airport and airways trust fund. As many Members know, the tax-writing committees extended the ticket tax, which finances the aviation trust fund, only through December of this year. Once again, come the beginning of the year, the ticket tax will expire, leaving the trust fund without an adequate revenue stream. The conference agreement before us assumes obligations from the aviation trust fund totaling $5.1 billion in fiscal year 1997. I am told by the FAA that, with the termination of the ticket tax this coming December, the trust fund will be between $400 and $500 million short in financing the FAA's 1997 appropriation. I want everybody to think about that, that while there are substantial funds in there right now, they are drawn down at a rate of half a billion dollars a month. With the expiration of the ticket tax, the FAA will literally run out of money absent any further action of the tax-writing committees. The agency will either be required to cease making airport grants, terminate certain procurements, terminate some research projects, or slow down expenditures in critical operating areas, such as controller training and safety inspections. Mr. President, these shenanigans with the aviation trust fund must come to a stop. It is not fair to the employees of the FAA, not fair to the airports, not fair to the traveling public. So I want to add my voice to those of Senator McCain, Senator Ford, Senator Dorgan, and others who are insisting that some action be taken before the end of this session to make sure that the ticket tax is extended beyond the end of the year. I feel that it is critical to point out that no Senator has been more diligent in advocating appropriate action by the authorizing and tax-writing committees than our distinguished chairman of the full committee and subcommittee, Senator Hatfield. The conference agreement on the transportation bill was truly a bipartisan effort. Throughout the process, Chairman Hatfield exhibited his customary openness, fair-mindedness, and delicate hand. He was, once again, the conductor of the orchestra, trying to make rhythm and good sound out of the cacophony that prevails at times during these conferences. In those 2 years as chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, once again, Senator Hatfield has left his mark. He is an informed, wise, just policymaker in the transportation arena. He believes deeply in the infrastructure investment that our country has to make. I agree with him. I admire his leadership and will always treasure his friendship. The Senator from Oregon mentioned President Eisenhower and his creation of the highway system in 1952. My graduation certificate from my Columbia diploma carries President Eisenhower's signature because he was then president of Columbia. I served under his leadership in World War II. I do not think he knew I existed. I knew he existed because he came through my area one time and we scraped and cleaned and made sure everything looked right. I did join him here, but I came a long time later. It was a pleasure to have him lead our country. Once again, Mr. President, I voice my support for the conference agreement, and thank Senator Hatfield for his courtesy throughout his tenure as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Transportation Subcommittee. I also want to note the excellent job done by staff, by Peter Rogoff on my side, Anne Miano on the other side, Mike Brennan, and those staff people who worked throughout the process. We had a retirement take place in the middle of this bill, and Anne jumped into the fray, as did Peter. We are grateful to them for superb and loyal service. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. It is my understanding that this interpretation is acceptable to the conferees.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator would yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because I want to support this legislation to reauthorize many of the FAA programs and to do what we can to improve our Nation's system of aviation security, a subject I have had a longtime interest in. I did serve on the Pan Am 103 Commission that reviewed what took place there and was one of the authors of the recommendations that were submitted in 1990. First, I commend my colleague, my friend from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for their work on this issue. It is not only a critical issue, but the timing certainly is critical in terms of some response that we have to have to what has been taking place. Terrorist threats to our aviation system as well as our general living in this country certainly call for a response from this body and from our colleagues across the Capitol to try to do something to improve a system that is fundamentally pretty good. As a matter of fact, it is very good. I could not have faced, as I have in the State of New Jersey, people who lost loved ones on Pan Am 103 in 1988 nor those who lost family members, friends, loved ones on TWA 800--I was in Long Island shortly after that plane went down. I was out there a couple of weeks ago with the Secretary of Transportation, met with the FBI, people from the NTSB, people from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I could not have faced any of the surviving families and said to them, be assured; the system is safe. The fact that they lost a son, a daughter, a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child is enough to say the system is not safe enough, that regardless of how efficient the system is, it is not efficient or sufficient as we see it in our family's grief and our family's emptiness. And so, Mr. President, it is not simply, although a critical part of the issue, aviation security, safety overall, a necessity to bring the system up to the capacity the public currently demands. The projected figures of growth in aviation travel are almost exponential in terms of the size of the base; over 500 million people a year enplane to go different places from within the States and from the United States to other airports--but to make sure that not only can they travel safely but efficiently, with airplanes leaving on time, with the investments in the system being made in a timely and businesslike fashion to make certain that the taxpayers' money, the travelers' taxes or fees are invested in a way that reflects serious interest in getting this system up to the capacity that is presently there and ultimately will be demanded. Mr. President, this legislation is essential to our Nation's aviation system. Importantly, the bill would extend the authorization for the Airport Improvement Program, what we affectionately refer to as the AIP. We will make some reference to that. Without that authorization, critical infrastructure funding for airports will just not be available. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that this authorization is not sufficient, as I said earlier, to keep up with our Nation's airport needs. In addition to enacting an authorization bill, the aviation trust fund needs to be adequately financed and the expenditures to be replenished, and that is going to require either an extension of the existing ticket tax, as we heard from our colleague from North Dakota some moments ago, and we heard from the two managers of the bill, or some other financing mechanism. Otherwise, even if the bill before us is enacted, the trust fund will run out of money next year. To some who may be listening, that would sound like an abstraction-- the trust fund runs out of money. But if it does run out of money, and if we are unable to make the improvements that are required, the public can look forward to further delays, to further inconvenience, and to increased costs substantially for the improvements we ultimately must make. We cannot let that happen. I strongly urge my colleagues, especially those who serve on the Finance Committee, to act before December 31, when the existing tax will expire, to address this problem. I would like to turn for a moment to the provisions in this legislation that are of particular interest to me and on which I have worked fairly extensively, and that is aviation security. This legislation does not represent a comprehensive aviation security plan. However, in conjunction with the ongoing efforts of the Gore Commission and the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, it will help to tighten aviation security at our airports and on our airways. When I say it is not a comprehensive aviation security plan, I do not want any misinterpretation to occur. I do not want to suggest that my colleagues who brought this bill to the floor have been less than diligent. They have been. They have surmounted enormous obstacles to get the bill to this point on this night. The provisions in this bill are needed to enhance the aviation security system, but by themselves they are not sufficient. They are a significant beginning. Two months ago today for us here, an eternity for those who lost family members on TWA flight 800, it hardly seems that enough has happened since that airliner was destroyed and fell into the waters just south of the Long Island seashore. Still, at this time, with the most diligent effort, painstaking work, having created a record number of dives into the sea of any Navy mission ever undertaken--over 2,000 dives were taken to try to pick up the remnants of TWA 800 off the sea floor--we still have no conclusive evidence. But, regardless of what the cause was, we know that we have to do something to improve the safety of the traveling public, even though, as I said earlier, the system is fundamentally very safe. When my children or my grandchildren, the members of my family, fly, I send them off with full confidence that the system is working well. And, Lord grant us, I hope that always proves to be the case. But we can always make it a notch safer. Unfortunately, the definitive proofs may lie yet on the ocean floor. It still appears that terrorism is the likely cause of the disaster, but we dare not draw conclusions until the evidence is clearly at hand. The crash of TWA flight 800 reminded me of a similar tragedy almost 8 years ago. I have exceptionally vivid memories of the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. After that crash, I helped to create, with President Bush's encouragement and that of others here, the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. I sponsored the Aviation Improvement Act of 1990, with others, which was enacted into law. There is no question that, as a result of the work done at that time, that security was improved. But the world has changed. This latest tragedy has focused renewed national attention on the terrorist threat to American aviation and to the American traveler. It is a threat that will continue to increase in scope and sophistication. No one here believes that we are doing all we can to fight the ongoing expanding threat of terrorism. It has become, for us, one of the most difficult situations that we as a free society and other free democratic countries face. The growth of terrorism is an enormous threat because, not only is it the work of madmen who, at times, are willing to give their lives or to recommend that their sons give their lives to be martyred in some fashion, but the sophistication of the weapons, bombs in containers the size of a watch with the impact of TNT--it is an enormous threat and it is a threat that we have to work ever harder to contain. No aviation security system is foolproof, we know that. But we also know that we can do much more to deter the terrorist threat. TWA 800, like Pan Am 103, was a wake-up call, and we need to respond as quickly as we can. Shortly after the TWA crash, I introduced the Aviation Security Act. My bill, S. 2037, would enhance security at domestic airports by instituting a truly comprehensive security system. The legislation calls for tightened security to check baggage, cargo and mail, and increase screening, training and job performance measures for security personnel at our airports. My bill also requires that passenger profiles be undertaken on a routine basis and that state-of- the-art explosive detection devices be installed in those airports that have the greatest security risk. To address the needs of families of victims and survivors, the bill establishes an Office of Family Advocate, an office that would be responsible for developing standards for informing, supporting, and counseling the families of victims of airline disasters. Finally, I suggested the increased security measures be funded by a fee of not more than $4 per round trip ticket, a figure that was recommended by those responsible for aviation security working in the Department of Transportation. It was believed that, with that investment and other sources of revenue, we could do a lot more to preserve the safety of our airplanes and to deter the threat of a terrorist attack. I am pleased that many of the ideas contained in my legislation have already been adopted by the administration and are included in recommended rules and regulations. Shortly after the TWA crash, President Clinton established the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. That commission, now known as the Gore Commission, worked with the already-established Aviation Security Advisory Committee to develop a plan to meet the challenges posed by the proliferation of terrorist groups. The Gore Commission issued its recommendations last week, and the President moved immediately to implement them. They are a good first step toward strengthening aviation security. The bill before us includes many of the commission's recommendations. I am pleased that the legislation was worked out in a cooperative, positive, bipartisan manner, and that is as it should be when it comes to something as important as keeping our airlines and our people safe. This bill directs the FAA to begin deploying state-of-the-art explosive detection devices, ensuring that the flying public is protected by the most technologically advanced system. It also requires that personnel who operate security screeners be subjected to background checks, as are most other airport security employees. It requires that the NTSB and the FAA begin developing a ``right to know'' program which would let consumers know about the airlines' accident and safety records. The bill also directs the FAA to continue working with the airlines in developing programs identifying high-risk passengers and high-risk destinations. In addition, this legislation recognizes that aviation security needs are constantly evolving. The best laid plans are worthless if they are not implemented in a timely fashion and monitored regularly. The bill requires that each airport and each air carrier conduct vulnerability assessments on their own, or comprehensive self-audits of their entire security systems. These assessments will enable both the airport and the air carriers to know their own systems and their weaknesses and will encourage them to make the needed changes over time. Because terrorists look for cracks in the security systems, the bill would require the FAA to stay one step ahead by finding those breaches first. Under the bill, the FAA could conduct periodic, unannounced, and sometimes anonymous tests of airport and air carriers' security systems. This would keep the airports and air carriers on their toes and provide the oversight needed. Both of these provisions were addressed in the bill I introduced in August. Other provisions of the bill require the administration to issue reports to Congress on their implementation of a number of the Gore Commission's recommendations. For example, the President ordered heightened security measures for air cargo, and the Gore Commission recommended a pilot program to ensure that checked baggage is matched with passengers who actually board the plane. We will need to know the results of these initiatives so Congress can evaluate the need to do more. One thing we do know. The Nation's aviation system is in need of change, in need of improvement. We have waited too long to implement the reforms. This legislation makes an important contribution to that effort. Mr. President, our work cannot stop there. We need to ensure that all promised reforms are appropriately implemented and in the spirit in which they were intended. So I express my appreciation, once again, to Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, Senator Pressler, Senator McCain, and Senator Hutchison for their cooperation on this legislation. I also thank the many aviation security advocates, the families of the victims of airline disasters, airports, air carriers and many others to implement sound and secure reforms. It is obvious, Mr. President, this legislation will not solve all of our problems. However, as I earlier mentioned, this is an important step that will make our skies safer for the public, make a meaningful contribution in our battle against terrorism, and will indicate to the public that the U.S. Government is interested in what I will call their plight, their concerns, their anxiety. We have to put those to rest, and the best way to do it is to do something about it, as we are with the bill before us. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will proceed as planned. We will wait for the manager to be represented here. This amendment, very simply, would establish a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to guns and domestic violence. The amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. In the simplest words, the amendment says that a spouse abuser, wife beater, or child abuser should not have a gun. Mr. President, the amendment probably sounds familiar. In fact, the Senate adopted this exact proposal as an amendment to the antistalking bill in late July. Unfortunately, when it got to the House of Representatives they, despite a commitment of support, let it be known that they will not let this ``no guns for domestic abuser'' amendment survive. They will not act on the antistalking bill, and there is no indication that they intended to do so at any time soon. Since the stalking bill may not become law, we, therefore, need to pursue another vehicle that has a realistic chance of being enacted, and this is one of the few such vehicles remaining. Mr. President, this amendment ought not to be controversial. As I said, it passed unanimously before as an amendment to the stalking bill. That happened only after Senators, like Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchison, and I, got together and reached an agreement on changes to my original proposal. The compromise that we reached was acceptable to all involved, even if none of us was entirely happy. That is the way it usually has to be with any compromise. So, again, this amendment is identical to that proposal and should not be controversial. I would also note that since the Senate approved this proposal in July, both President Clinton and former Senator Bob Dole have endorsed the concept of keeping guns from those convicted of domestic violence. As a matter of fact, the spokesman for Senator Dole said, ``Bob Dole believes that all guns, not just handguns, should be kept out of the hands of domestic abusers.'' Mr. President, I couldn't put it better myself. Our colleague, Senator Hutchison, has also praised this proposal. This is what she had to say when the agreement was reached, and the amendment was passed along with the stalking bill. She said: ``Because of Senator Lautenberg's amendment, we are also going to be able to keep people who batter their wives or people with whom they live from having handguns. So I think this is going to be a great bill that will give women and children of this country some protection that they do not now have, and I am very pleased to be supportive of this compromise.'' Clearly, Mr. President, this amendment has strong bipartisan support. So I am hopeful that it will again win easy approval. But I want to take a few minutes to explain why it is so important. Under current Federal law, it is illegal for persons convicted of felonies to possess firearms. Yet, many people who engage in serious spousal or child abuse ultimately are not charged with or convicted of felonies. At the end of the day, due to outdated laws or thinking, perhaps after a plea bargain, they are, at most, convicted of a misdemeanor. In fact, most of those who commit family violence are never even prosecuted. But when they are, one- third of the cases that would be considered felonies, if committed by strangers, are instead filed as misdemeanors. The fact is that in many places domestic violence is not taken as seriously as other forms of brutal behavior. Often acts of serious spouse abuse are not even considered felonies. In over 30 States, even today, beating your wife or your child is a misdemeanor. In just the past few years, some judges have demonstrated outrageous callousness and disregard for women's lives. Right up the road in Baltimore County, just 2 years ago a State circuit court judge was hearing a case involving a man who shot his wife in the head and killed her. As he handed down the light sentence, with time to be served weekends only, and not a very long time at that, the judge said that the worst part of his job is, and I quote, ``Sentencing noncriminals as criminals,'' as if shooting your wife in the head was not criminal behavior. Or take the case of a man who tracked down his wife, shot her five times in the face and killed her. The judge in that case gave the man a minimal sentence to be served on weekends. In explaining why he was being so lenient, the judge said the victim provoked her husband by not telling him that she was leaving their abusive marriage. These are just two examples of the way that our criminal justice system often treats domestic violence--not as a serious crime. Yet, the scope of the problem is enormous. Every year there are 2 million cases of domestic violence reported. Many of those cases are never finally resolved because the plaintiff withdraws the complaint, or it is dismissed casually. When women are killed in domestic disputes, however, the murderers are holding a gun about 65 percent of the time. Put another way: Two-thirds of domestic violence murders involve firearms. In 150,000 cases of abuse, spousal abuse, a gun is present. That means that perhaps it is put to a woman's head or put to her face in front of a child, or children, and even though the trigger is not pulled, the trauma is enormous. There is no reason for someone who beats their wives or abuses their children to own a gun. When you combine wife beaters and guns, the end result is more death. This amendment would close this dangerous loophole and keep guns away from violent individuals who threaten their own families, people who have shown that they cannot control themselves and are prone to fits of violent rage directed, unbelievably enough, against their own loved ones. The amendment says: Abuse your wife, lose your gun; beat your child, lose your gun; assault your ex-wife, lose your gun; no ifs, ands, or buts. It may sound like a tough policy, but when it comes to domestic violence it is time to get tough. There is no margin of error when it comes to domestic abuse and guns. A firearm in the hands of an abuser all too often means death. By their nature, acts of domestic violence are especially dangerous and require special attention. These crimes involve people who have a history together, and perhaps share a home or a child. These are not violent acts between strangers, and they do not arise from a chance meeting. Even after a split, the individuals involved, often by necessity, have a continuing relationship of some sort. The people who commit these crimes often have a history of violence or threatening behavior, and, yet, frequently they are permitted to possess firearms with no legal restrictions. The statistics and the data are clear. Domestic violence, no matter how it is labeled, leads to more domestic violence, and guns in the hands of convicted wife beaters leads to death. Mr. President, this legislation has been endorsed by over 30 prominent national organizations, including, by way of example, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the YWCA of the United States. The amendment would save the lives of many innocent Americans, but it would also send a message about our Nation's commitment to ending domestic violence and about our determination to protect the millions of women and children who suffer from this abuse. Again, I do not expect this to be a controversial amendment since it has already passed this body unanimously. Once again, I will ask for the yeas and nays, but it is essential that we have someone from the majority side in the Chamber. Otherwise, it is deemed unfair. But I think it is unfair not to have someone from the majority side in the Chamber unless this is a subject that does not matter, killing your wife, if you want to beat her up first. This is an important piece of legislation. It was a very disappointing experience we had when it went over to the House after being unanimously passed in this body and then casually dropped. But we want to have everybody have a chance to vote on this, and once again, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What is the pending business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Kassebaum amendment temporarily be laid aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the question, then, the matter of finishing amendments or some other procedural thing that has to be attended to? Otherwise, Mr. President, I have been waiting here for about 2 hours.