Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As was requested, unless it expedites the process further by yielding back?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, that 60 minutes is to be divided, as I understand it, between my legislation proponents and those who oppose, to just alert those who are interested. [[Page S 10595]] Amendment No. 1846 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It expresses the sense of the Senate that a practice currently in law be continued; that is, that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible. It simply affirms current law and puts the Senate clearly on record in opposition to any efforts to reinstate the lobbying deduction. The question is reasonable. It says, ``Why bother? Why bother, Frank, when in fact it is in law now?'' Because I get rumblings, I get communications, indirectly, that there are people who think that we ought to reinstate the deductibility for lobbying expenses. I want to see the Senate clearly on record that says if we have the majority of the votes, that this is a practice that ought to be continued. What provokes this? It is that I offered an identical amendment in the Budget Committee, on which I sit, during this year's markup of the budget resolution. The amendment was solidly backed by a voice vote and it passed the Senate as part of the Senate version of the budget resolution. Unfortunately, I guess somebody blinked in conference and the provision was dropped. So what the conference said is, ``Well, we don't want to confirm the fact that present practice should continue, but it implies, therefore, that perhaps the deductibility of lobbying expenses ought to come back into the arena.'' One can question why it was dropped, but one cannot obtain a satisfactory answer. So, Mr. President, since we are discussing lobbying reform, and this is an excellent bill and just the right time to make sure that everybody knows what goes on here and that lobbyists have no advantage that other people in this society should be having, while it is not possible to clearly do that because of the physical presence, we ought to get as close to leveling this field as we can. I want to see the Senate clearly go on record in final opposition to providing a tax break for lobbying efforts. After all, this year we are in the process of developing budget legislation that will impose severe costs on ordinary Americans. Congress has already asked senior citizens to accept deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. I can tell you from the calls I get back home in New Jersey, and across this country, people say, ``For Lord's sake, Senator Lautenberg, don't let them do that. Right now I am burdened with the extra costs on top of my Medicare reimbursement that I get to the tune on average of 20 percent of my income.'' They say, ``I can't afford to pay more.'' They say to me that, ``When I face the prospect of spending $3,300 more in the next 7 years, the last year being $800 or $900, it could break the bank, as far as I am concerned,'' remembering that 75 percent of our senior citizens live on $25,000 a year or less in income; 35,000 live on $10,000 a year or less in income. So as we examine our budget, we want to make sure that we are being fair with ordinary, hard-working American people or, if not hard- working, those who worked hard for many years and finally have retired. Students are going to be asked to accept sharp reductions in student loans. It is going to cost them a lot more, and I hear pleas from young people who want desperately to go to college, who say, ``My folks just cannot hand me the money to do that and I have to go out and borrow the money and pledge my future against it.'' Everyone knows they are clever enough, those young people going to college, to know that it is going to cost them more for their student loans than it did before. They are not like I who was able to get the benefit of a GI bill because I served in World War II and got my education paid for. These young people are not going to have that opportunity. Working families will be asked to endure a significant tax increase as Congress cuts back on the earned income tax credit, a provision to help lower income people keep their head above water. The people who lose in this year's budget generally are people who have no lobbyists representing them. They are simple, ordinary Americans who hardly know what is about to happen to them; thus, the frustration that we see is transferred into anger and rage. Most are too busy to follow developments in Washington. They have their own jobs to do, their own families to raise, their own bills to pay, and they do not have lobbyists on retainer to watch out for their interests and call them up and say, ``Hey, Joe, guess what is happening? They are going to make you pay more for'' this, more for that, ``what do you think?'' Their opinions are not sought. Meanwhile, many of the special interests that benefit from the lavish subsidies are well represented in Washington. Special interests, lobbyists are already working hard to protect their clients' favorite Government handout, and you can be sure they will be doing everything they can to ensure their wealthy clients will not lose any of their tax breaks. Mr. President, there is no question that those Americans who can afford to hire lobbyists for special interests already have a major advantage in the legislative process. They ought not also to get an advantage in the Tax Code. Fortunately, the 103d Congress recognized and repealed the deduction for lobbying. That repeal saved the U.S. Government $653 million over 5 years, a substantial sum. More than half a billion dollars over a 5-year period. And, yet, not everybody is happy with the repeal of that deduction. Now that we have a new majority in the Congress, some believe that the lobbying deduction ought to be reinstated. According to the newspaper Roll Call, a national grassroots campaign is now underway to push for restoration of the lobbyists' tax break. The main targets of this campaign are those who are members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee in the Senate. But all Members are likely to feel the pressure, and I know I have heard from people in New Jersey urging that the deduction be reinstated. I can only assume that all of my colleagues have been subject to similar lobbying efforts. Mr. President, I believe that the vast majority of the public opposes a tax break for lobbying. In fact, this proved to be a significant issue in my campaign last year for my third term. My opponent in 1994 called for reinstatement of the lobbying deduction. I strongly disagreed with him and, obviously, did it publicly. In judging from the reaction of the people I met in New Jersey, this was an argument that I won hands down. Unfortunately, the possibility of reinstating the lobbying deduction so far has not received a great deal of attention in the public at large. So long as the American people do not know what is going on, it can be easy to quietly insert a related provision in a huge tax bill. I do not think that ought to be allowed to happen. As we are getting close to the consideration of the reconciliation bill, I think it is important that the Senate go clearly on record in opposition to the idea of reinstating that tax deduction. The need to put the Senate on record is especially important, given the opposition from the House to including this same amendment in the conference report on the budget resolution. The House was willing to accept other sense of the Senate language, but for some reason they could not bring themselves to accept this. Our Senate negotiators could not keep it in the bill. One can only conclude that the House leadership apparently thinks [[Page S 10596]] that the lobbyists ought to get this tax break back. Now, Mr. President, I understand the view of some that say that lobbying should be considered like any other cost of doing business, and so it should be deducted. That is a view that apparently many in the other body believe. Based on the feedback that I have heard from constituents, the American people would strongly disagree. In their view, I think it is a matter of basic fairness, a matter of priorities. Mr. President, if an ordinary citizen writes a letter to their Member of Congress to express their concern about proposed cuts in education, that is not deductible. If an ordinary citizen takes the train or a plane or drives down to Washington from New Jersey or other places to meet with Senate staff about the high cost of Federal taxes, the cost of that train ride or the plane ride are not, generally, deductible. If a senior citizen, concerned about Medicare cuts, drives across his or her State to collect signatures on a petition, these costs are not deductible. Now, Mr. President, if ordinary citizens like these cannot deduct their lobbying expenses, neither should a special interest group who hires a lobbyist to protect its favorite Government subsidy and neither should a billionaire who hires a lobbyist to protect his favorite tax break or his special opportunity to grow his profits. It is a question of fairness. It is a question of priorities. Think of it this way, Mr. President. Reinstating the deduction for lobbying would cost the Government over $100 million a year for the next 5 years--in fact, $650 million. Even if we think that lobbying expenses should be deducted, is this really a priority in these times of fiscal austerity, in these times of extreme sacrifices by many of our citizens who work hard and are barely treading water? How can we in good conscience spend $650 million for a tax break for lobbyists and then severely cut Medicare? How can we spend $650 million for a tax break for lobbyists and then turn around and cut education? How can we spend $650 million for a tax break for lobbyists and then turn around and increase taxes on ordinary Americans, lower income citizens, by cutting back on the earned income tax credit? Mr. President, with all the problems facing this country, we simply have to set our priorities straight. And giving a tax deduction to lobbying just should not be high on that list. I want to be clear about something. I am not here to bash lobbyists. Not by any means. In fact, I would be the first to say that they often get a bum rap. Most are top-notch professionals--some of them trained in postgraduate courses, law school, Government, et cetera--and they perform important functions. They have every right, under the first amendment to the Constitution, to petition Government officials. What they do not have as a right is the ability to have their expenses deductible. Now, this is not a radical idea, Mr. President. Congress reached the same conclusion 2 years ago. My point today is simply that we should not reverse that earlier decision, that, in fact, we ought to reaffirm that earlier decision so there cannot be any mistake about what this Congress stands for in terms of that deduction. This is a declaration of fealty, of loyalty, that we are going to preserve the nondeductibility of those expenses. It would only strengthen the public cynicism about the Congress, which they already see as controlled by lobbyists and special interests. We cannot wonder why. It is quite apparent. I want to add this point. I appreciate, Mr. President, there is some controversy about some of the details of the current law and how it is administered. My amendment is not intended to address these issues. I am not here to endorse every dot and comma in the IRS regulations, or to oppose minor modifications to current law in the area. I am here to make a more general point. If ordinary Americans are not allowed to deduct the costs of communicating with their elected representatives, lobbying expenses should not be deductible, either. It is a basic matter of fairness and priorities. So, to repeat, Mr. President, my amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible. Present law ought to continue. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle intend to continue the present policy. That is what we are going to see by the vote that we will be requesting, Mr. President. Mr. President, as I understand, any opposition to this amendment has half an hour to express their opposition. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to know who the author is and what the nature of these amendments are before agreeing to closing out the amendment tree and leaving only final passage to be considered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator further modify it to say, ``Let's put your checkbook on the table, put your bank account out there so the public can see,'' and see what your bill paying process has been to make sure that the assets you choose to acquire are subject to public scrutiny. This is a subterfuge of some kind. I cannot quite figure it out. Obviously, it is designed to either embarrass or stigmatize that which has been a legitimate practice here, and that is to say there are categories of assets that indicate in general terms what it is that these assets represent. Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty and perhaps we will eventually ask for weekly income or such things. The Senate has accepted it, Mr. President. I am sorry to see that we are, as we discuss lobbying reform, now into this kind of amendment. I wish it had been offered. I might very well support it. I object to it as I hear it, because I have not had a chance to see it examined fully, to see whether it is an appropriate process, one that we adopted some time ago, and have been following fairly scrupulously. Mr. President, I hope that this amendment will be defeated so it can be deferred and discussed at length in the appropriate committees, as opposed to tacking this on to the lobbying reform bill. I also have an amendment, Mr. President, which I believe is listed in the category of amendments to be considered. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question? Can we identify those amendments?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator from Colorado, and I have expressed some reservation about it, because what we are doing here is really amending the structure of the blind trust--understanding that it has been in existence here--that permits Members to disassociate the management of assets from their activities here and thereby not involving any opportunity for conflict. It serves a purpose. It has been on the books for some time now as part of the responsibilities of disclosure of Senators. Frankly, I think this is a rather back-door attempt to place this now in front of the public without full consideration. I think there ought to have been hearings about this to see what the Finance Committee or the Judiciary Committee has to say about the value of this instrument as an opportunity to serve, without having to look back over one's shoulder, about whether or not they are making a decision that may in fact present a conflict. I heard very clearly what the Senator said. All this does is talk about the value. Well, right now, that value may or may not be known but, likely, in an accountant's report, it is to be known for the value of doing one's estate planning, financial planning, children, other beneficiaries, in terms of where one would like to see the assets perhaps testamentally go. But now what we are saying is, OK, whether you obtain your assets through inheritance, hard work under the opportunities afforded in our country, the accumulation of assets now begins to look like it is somehow or other a stigma on one's ability. What we are going to do is continue to denigrate the interest in serving by exposing families to public review, by encouraging those who seek to gain other people's assets, by either criminal or illegal means--and that is the purpose of having some protection. I assume that the Senator says that ``OK, what we ought to do is make sure that anybody who has acquired assets, no matter how hard they worked for it, no matter how ingenious they have been in creating it, they ought to present it willy-nilly out there for public scrutiny.'' We now, Mr. President, have categories of assets. I understand that one of those, if I am correct, and I ask the Chair to be sure that what I am saying is accurate, one of those has just been modified so that we now have new levels of reporting assets that we did not have before. Is that true, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senator Simon and I are introducing legislation, the Stop Arming Felons, or SAFe, Act, to close two loopholes in current law that allow convicted violent felons to possess and traffic in firearms. The legislation would repeal an existing provision that automatically restores the firearms privileges of convicted violent felons and drug offenders when States restore certain civil rights. In addition, the bill would abolish a procedure by which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can waive Federal restrictions for individuals otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or explosives. As a general matter, Mr. President, Federal law probibits any person convicted of a felony from possessing firearms or explosives. However, there are two gaping loopholes. I call the first the ``State guns for felons loophole.'' Under this provision, if a felon's criminal record has been expunged, or his basic civil rights have been restored under State law--that is, rights like the right to vote, the right to hold public office, and the right to sit on a jury--then the conviction is wiped out and all Federal firearm privileges are restored. Many States automatically expunge the records or restore the civil rights of even the most dangerous felons. Sometimes this happens immediately after the felon serves his or her sentence. Sometimes, the felon must wait a few years. The restoration of rights or expungement often is conferred automatically by statute--not based on any individualized determination that a given criminal has reformed. As a result of this loophole, which was added with little debate in 1986, even persons convicted of horrible, violent crimes can legally obtain firearms. Mr. President, I think most Americans would agree that this guns for felons loophole makes no sense. Given the severity of our crime problem, we should be looking for ways to get tougher, not easier, on convicted felons. How can the government claim to be serious about crime, and then turn around and give convicted violent felons their firearms back? I recognize that, according to some theories, the criminal justice system is supposed to rehabilitate convicted criminals. But in reality, many of those released from prison soon go back to their violent ways. According to the Justice Department, of State prisoners released from prison in 1983, 62.5 percent were arrested within only 3 years. Knowing that, how many Americans would want convicted violent felons carrying firearms around their neighborhood? This guns for felons loophole also is creating a major obstacle for Federal law enforcement. The Justice Department reports that many hardened criminals are escaping prosecution under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which prescribes stiff penalties for repeat offenders, because the criminals' prior convictions have automatically been nullified by State law. It is a very serious problem. According to testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, for example, the U.S. Attorney in Montana believes that this provision has virtually gutted her ability to minimize violent crime by keeping guns out of the hands of known criminals in Montana. Concern about the guns for felons loophole is not limited to Federal law enforcement officials. State and local law enforcement officers also feel strongly about this. The Presidents of the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers have written that the loophole is having ``terrible results'' around the country, and rearming people with long criminal records. Mr. President, the legislation that Senator Simon and I are offering today would close this State guns-for-felons loophole. Under the bill, persons convicted of violent felonies or serious drug offenses would be banned from possessing firearms, regardless of whether a State restores other rights, or expunges their record. In the case of those convicted of other, nonviolent felonies, a State's restoration of civil rights, or expungement, would not eliminate the Federal firearm prohibition unless the State makes an individualized determination that the person does not threaten public safety. As under current law, if a conviction is reversed or set aside based on a determination that it is invalid, or the person is pardoned unconditionally, the Federal firearm prohibition would not apply. Otherwise, though--and this is the essential message of the legislation--convicted violent felons and serious drug offenders would be strictly prohibited from possessing firearms. Not just for a year. Not just for a few years. But for the rest of their lives. Let me turn now to the second ``guns for felons loophole.'' I think of this as the Federal guns for felons loophole. You could also call it the bombs for felons loophole. Even if a felon's civil rights have not been restored under State law, nor his records expunged, there is another way that a criminal can legally obtain guns or explosives. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can simply issue a waiver. Under this second loophole, convicted felons of every stripe can apply to ATF, which then must perform a broad based field investigation and background check. If the Bureau believes that the applicant does not pose a threat to public safety, it can grant a waiver. Between 1981 and 1991, 5600 waivers were granted. Mr. President, this relief procedure has an interesting history. It was first established in 1965 not to permit common criminals to get access to guns, but to help out a particular firearm manufacturer, called Winchester. Winchester had pleaded guilty to felony counts in a kickback scheme. Because of the conviction, Winchester was forbidden to ship firearms in interstate commerce. The amendment was approved to allow Winchester to stay in business. Because it was drafted broadly, however, the waiver provision applied not only to corporations like Winchester, but to common criminals. Originally, waivers were not available to those convicted of firearms offenses. But the loophole was further expanded in 1986, when Congress allowed even persons convicted of firearms offenses, as well as those involuntarily committed to a mental institution, to apply for a waiver. Between 1981 and 1991, ATF processed well over 13,000 applications at taxpayer expense. Many of these have required a substantial amount of scarce time and resources. ATF investigations can last weeks, including interviews with family, friends, and the police. In the late 1980's, the cost of processing and investigating these petitions worked out to about $10,000 for each waiver granted. It is hard to imagine a more outrageous waste of taxpayer dollars. Of course, Mr. President, giving firearms to convicted violent felons is more than a problem of wasted taxpayer dollars and misallocated ATF resources. It also threatens public safety. The Violence Policy Center sampled 100 case files of those who had been granted relief. The study found that 41 percent had been convicted of a crime of violence, or a drug or firearms offense. The crimes of violence included several homicides, sexual assaults, and armed robberies. Under the relief procedure, ATF officials are required to guess whether criminals like these can be entrusted with deadly weapons. Needless to say, it is a difficult task. Even after Bureau investigators spend long hours investigating a particular criminal, there is no way to know with any certainty whether he or she is still dangerous. The law forces officials to make these types of guesses, knowing that a mistake could have tragic consequences for innocent Americans; consequences that could range from serious bodily injury to death. What happens when convicted felons get their firearms rights back? Well, some apparently go back to their violent ways. Those granted relief subsequently have been rearrested for crimes ranging from attempted murder to rape, kidnapping, and child molestation. Mr. President, this simply has got to stop. In fact, Senator Simon and I have been successful over the past three years in securing language in the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Bill that prohibits the use of appropriated funds to implement the ATF relief procedure with respect to firearms. However, a funding ban is merely a stop-gap measure effective for one fiscal year. This bill would eliminate the relief procedure permanently. As we see it, Federal taxpayers should never be forced to pay a single cent to arm a felon. I also would note that the existing funding ban applies only to firearm waivers. ATF still is allowed to provide waivers for convicted felons who want to possess or traffic in explosives. The waivers for explosives are not granted often, and seem to be less of a problem. But in light of the Oklahoma City bombing, how many Americans would want any of their tax dollars spent so that convicted felons can obtain explosives? Mr. President, there is broad support for closing the guns for felons loophole. In 1992, the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this matter. At that hearing, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers all testified that these loopholes must be closed. In addition, I would note that both the New York Times and the Washington Post have editorialized on this matter. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment and say a word to those who generally oppose gun control measures. I know that many Americans are very concerned about any effort that could lead to broad restrictions on guns. So I want to emphasize something: this is an anticriminal bill. And a pro-taxpayer bill. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear, and everything to gain from a prohibition on firearm possession by violent felons and serious drug offenders. In conclusion, Mr. President, firearm violence has reached epidemic proportions. We have a responsibility to the victims and prospective victims to take all reasonable steps to keep this violence to a minimum. Keeping firearms away from convicted violent felons and serious drug offenders is the least these innocent Americans should be able to expect. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record at this point, along with some related materials.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Jersey would be happy with a unanimous-consent agreement to yield to the Senator from Montana to permit him to make his inquiry and to conduct such business as he would like.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be pleased to yield without losing my right to the floor to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1535 to Amendment No. 1487 (Purpose: To strike the provisions relating to the toxic release inventory review)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would delete a provision currently in the bill that is unrelated to regulatory reform and would greatly weaken a critical environmental law generally known as the community right-to-know law, or the Toxics Release Inventory, commonly called TRI. Mr. President, I was the original sponsor of the right-to-know law. I am proud that it has proved to be one of the most effective environmental laws on the books. The right-to-know law has no prescriptive requirements. It does not force anyone to do anything except release information. It is a simple sunshine statute. Mr. President, I would strongly oppose the emasculation of the right- to-know law no matter what the vehicle. But this clearly is not the proper way to consider such a huge change in the major environmental law. The right-to-know provision in this bill has been subject to hearings or scrutiny in the Environment and Public Works Committee. And the substance of the proposal goes well beyond the changes proposed for other types of regulations. Mr. President, as I said, my amendment proposes to delete a section of the proposed legislation that reduces the effectiveness of the right-to-know law, commonly called TRI, Toxics Release Inventory. Most of us who have been here for a while have worked on legislation that sometimes turns out to be less effective than we had hoped. The right- to-know law, on the other hand, has proven to be even more effective than we expected. It has also proved to be less obtrusive to business than other environmental laws that are on the books. Now, most environmental regulations operate by command and control. They require companies to take specific actions, such as lowering emissions, sometimes by a specific date, sometimes by a specific technology. Some environmental laws require industry to develop technology that does not yet exist. And these types of prescriptive regulations are probably the major reason that industry has been pushing for this so-called reform legislation. But the right-to-know legislation is quite different. The Toxics Release Inventory imposes no regulatory control. It requires no permitting. It sets no standards. It requires no registration, labeling or reduction in emissions. It does not even require monitoring by a Federal agency. All it requires are estimates of the amount of toxic chemicals that facilities release into our environment. And this information is very helpful to local officials, to fire and emergency personnel and to those who live near the plants. Despite the lack of specific requirements, the right-to-know law has probably led to more voluntary pollution prevention efforts and more environmental cleanup than any other law. The right-to-know law requires companies to list the amount of certain chemicals that leave their facilities through air, through water, or shipment to land disposal facilities. Currently, 652 chemicals are required to be disclosed. Each has well- established adverse health effects or is carcinogenic or toxic. Now, under the law, in deciding which chemicals to include on this list, EPA is not required to do a full risk assessment. On the other hand, the law does not restrict companies from releasing these chemicals. All that is required--and I make this point over and over again--is disclosure. The right-to-know law has proven effective primarily because it has influenced the voluntary behavior of corporations. First, many companies have voluntarily reduced the emissions of harmful chemicals in order to avoid negative publicity. By requiring companies to tell the public the truth about the chemicals they are emitting, the law has created a strong incentive for industry to reduce emissions even though, again, they are not required to do so by law. Beyond creating the possibility of adverse publicity, the right-to- know law has worked by encouraging businesses to reduce waste for the sake of their own bottom line. Company after company has discovered the material they were putting out through the stacks or pouring into the water could be recovered and reused. One company in New Jersey cut its emissions by 90 percent once they looked at the value of the materials they were simply throwing away. And when we look at what some of the companies say, it is rather illuminating. This quote from Ciba-Geigy, a very important pharmaceutical manufacturer, in 1993 in the environmental report that said: The initial demand for environmental reporting came from the public. But in responding, we have discovered that the information is extremely useful to our own management. We have learned about our successes, our inadequacies and the gaps in our knowledge. It's a good example of the way in which external pressures ultimately prove of benefit to the environment and to industry. Mr. President, lots of these materials are very expensive. And when they are wasted, they have a negative effect on the company's bottom line. Yet before the right-to-know law was enacted, perhaps surprisingly many companies simply did not appreciate the extent to which chemicals were being wasted by emitting them into the environment rather than using them in their product manufacturing. The right-to- know law has given many corporations the information they need to reduce this waste. As a result, many have redesigned their manufacturing processes, begun recycling chemicals, and taken other steps to reduce waste. This chart helps to demonstrate the impact of the Toxics Release Inventory. In 1988, 4.8 billion pounds of toxic material were sent into the waste--air, land, or water. In 1992, 4 years later, we had a dramatic reduction, down to 3.2 billion pounds, and in 1993, 2.8 billion pounds, a reduction of 2 billion pounds of toxic material being emitted into the waste stream in a period of only 5 years. [[Page S 9887]] Now, what is going to happen if the present bill goes into effect as is, turns into law? Then the right to know--nothing will be the predominant rule. Mr. President, not only is it unfair, costly, wasteful, but it will give the companies a chance to relax rules that proved beneficial for them and nonbeneficial for the health and well- being of the residents or those who work in the area. Let me repeat, emissions have been reduced by 42 percent or, as I said earlier, 2 billion pounds in dangerous chemical emissions. Yet, all of this is at risk if the provision included in the bill is enacted into law. Do we really want to change the right to know into knowing nothing? I hope not. Should not our citizens be aware of the risks that they and their families undergo? The chemical industry has acknowledged the value of the right-to-know law. We can look at the testimony by the Association of Chemical manufacturers. They say: The chemical industry can work within the requirements of title III to achieve two important objectives: Improving local emergency planning and informing the public about chemical operations. These objectives are vital to the long-term success and competitiveness of the chemical industry. Facility managers must take the initiative and work directly with local government and communities to make this law work. Or someone representing DuPont, Mr. Vernon Rice, said: The beauty in the TRI is that a company can decide for itself how it will achieve reductions and can deploy the most cost-effective methods to do so. The law and the regulations that follow provide the incentive that industry then is provided with discretion on how to make the reductions. I might add, Mr. President, industry also can decide not to make any reductions at all. The bill before us would undermine the right-to-know law by changing the rules for designating those chemicals that must be disclosed. It makes it easier to take chemicals off the list and harder to put them on. Under the new test, EPA would have to know about emissions and exposure levels at plants throughout the country to determine their likely impact. But because the TRI information on that chemical would not exist, EPA would not have enough information to meet the new test. This new standard puts the cart before the horse. This would completely defeat the purpose, intent, and the positive successes of the TRI program. The TRI list is not perfect and perhaps some chemicals should be removed. Yet, present law has a proven system to consider petitions to remove chemicals from the list. Seventeen chemicals have been taken off the list through the petition process. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reject this special interest legislation. It is a paternalistic proposal that would have the Congress tell the American communities that they do not have the right to know about chemicals that could have a fundamental negative impact on their lives. It is a proposal that says to community officials that you need not have a right to know about chemicals that can cause serious harm to your constituents. It is a proposal that says to parents, you may be concerned about how toxic chemicals will affect your children, but it is more important that industry should have the right to withhold that information about chemicals that they are emitting into the atmosphere, into the water, and into the land. This is bad special interest legislation, Mr. President. The section on the right to know is an exception from the $100 million threshold in the rest of the bill. It has no place in this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to delete it. Mr. President, I believe that we have an hour equally divided, according to the unanimous consent agreement; is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time does my side have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Certainly. I will be happy to yield another minute to my friend from Montana.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask if the people in opposition have comments that they would like to make at this juncture, or if there are any of those people who are cosponsors of my amendment who are here who would like to add their thoughts. We have cosponsors who are indicated on the legislation, a significant number of them. If they would like to make any comments, this is the time they are going to have to do it, because the clock is ticking and I hate to see the time wasted. Unless anyone wants to speak, Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would ask the Senator from Arizona how long he would like to take. We have an amendment that is pending.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Mexico is right.