Frank Lautenberg

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. Mr. President, I want to talk about this Allard amendment because it gives an appearance of reserving $12.2 billion for deficit reduction. I support that goal, and I am not going to oppose this amendment. But I really want to make it clear that, as a practical matter, this amendment has no meaning. Nobody should fool themselves into believing otherwise. The current budget rules already protect budget surpluses by establishing limits on discretionary spending and by requiring offsets for all new mandatory spending or tax cuts. These rules require across- the-board cuts if Congress raids any surplus by exceeding the spending caps or by violating the so-called pay-as-you-go rules. So this amendment doesn't add any new protections to those already in law, nor does it change the provisions in current law that require all surpluses to be used to reduce our public debt. The amendment claims to promote debt reduction by depositing $12.2 billion into a trust fund that generally is used for receipts of gifts from foreign countries, the proceeds of which are automatically dedicated to debt reduction. Well, that sounds good. I don't think it is going to do any harm. But it doesn't change anything, realistically. It is an intragovernmental transfer, taking from one end of the Government and giving it to another. It doesn't affect the bottom line, and it doesn't add any protections that don't already exist. I point out, also, that we are on a course to reduce publicly held debt by a lot more than $12.2 billion this year. Under the budget resolution, all of the roughly $150 billion Social Security surplus, and more than $12 billion of the non-Social Security surplus, is already devoted to debt reduction. So there is roughly a $160 billion reserve for debt reduction already. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to add another $30 billion to $40 billion in their re-estimate to that total within the next few weeks. So while we are on track to reduce the debt by potentially $200 billion this year, including perhaps $50 billion from the non-Social Security surplus, this amendment stands for the bold proposition that we should commit at least $12.2 billion for debt reduction. Again, it is likely that we are going to have a $200 billion debt reduction this year. So I don't understand, and I am not quite sure why we are doing this or why we have to define $12.2 billion as directed to debt reduction. In sum, the amendment claims it is going to reduce debt by a lot less than we are already on track to reduce, and it doesn't have any practical effect. Perhaps it will make some folks feel good, and I am not going to object to its adoption; but this is an exercise that is unnecessary and doesn't accomplish really anything. But we are all in the process of saluting debt reduction, and this is just another salute, I guess. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back whatever time we have.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Michigan, and he is correct, there is language in the Committee Report which directs that any fiscal year 2001 discretionary bus funds for projects in Michigan be distributed through MDOT in accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I assure the Senator from Michigan that specific requests will be carefully considered. Exhibit 1 Michigan Public Transit Association, Lansing, MI, June 15, 2000. To: Michigan Congressional Delegation In regard to FY 2000-01 Section 5309 earmarks to the State of Michigan, the Michigan Public Transit Association is in support of both the State's priority list for earmarks as provided to the Michigan Congressional Delegation, and will support any individual earmarks that Michigan areas have requested. There is no agreement that says that the State of Michigan will get all the earmark funds. We understand that the State of Michigan has submitted a priority list in which certain facility projects will receive the first priority, and bus replacement needs in Michigan will receive the second priority. The Michigan Public Transit Association supports Michigan Department of Transportation identification of needs and has agreed to the prioritization. We furthermore understand that transit systems will be asking for special earmarks for projects and we are supportive of all the requests. We urge the Michigan Congressional Delegation to secure the largest possible earmark to the State of Michigan, and to provide individual earmarks at the highest possible levels to transit systems in Michigan. The above is what was agreed to between Michigan public transit systems and the Michigan Department of Transportation at meetings held in January and February of this year. It is clearly our understanding that transit systems in Michigan are allowed to pursue their own individual earmarks at the same time as we are supportive of the State receiving funds and distributing them in accordance with their agreed to priority list. Sincerely, Peter Varga, President. Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. President, I would like one moment to ask Senator Shelby, chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, a brief question. Mr. Chairman, would you agree that the Jamaica Intermodal Project in Jamaica, Queens, New York is eligible to receive bus funds along with the other projects listed in the Committee report?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Gorton-Feinstein motion to instruct. This states that the House CAFE freeze rider ought not to be accepted by the Senate in conference. When CAFE standards were first passed in the late 1970s, light trucks made up only 20 percent of the market. Back then, light trucks were used mainly for hauling. They did not often travel through congested urban and suburban areas. But all that has changed. Today, light trucks--the category that includes SUVs and minivans-- represent half of all vehicles sold. They produce 47 percent more global warming pollution than do cars. Each light truck goes through an average of 702 gallons of gas per year. That compares to 492 gallons per year for cars. Goodness knows what is happening now as we look at these prices, recognizing that our consumption of fuel is way above what it had been, importing more from what at times are very unfriendly sources. We are just on a consumption kick that is affecting our way of life but particularly our environment. I will talk more about that in a minute. Even with the tremendous increase in the number of SUVs, the Senate continues to accept the House's CAFE freeze rider. By the way, just as a note of explanation, CAFE refers to the gas consumed and the emissions by the vehicles about which we are talking. We are talking about CAFE standards; that is, to try to have the amount of fuel consumed reduced and to try to reduce the emissions that are affecting our environment and the quality of our air. The result of the House's CAFE freeze has meant serious consequences for American families' pocketbooks, jobs, and the environment. There is a myth floating around that CAFE standards hurt the American family. The truth is, sensible CAFE standards helps our families. It is a simple concept. If your car or your SUV uses less gas, you save money and you do less harm to the environment in which your families live. Between 1975 and 1980, when the fuel economy of cars doubled, consumers with fuel-efficient cars saved $3,000 over the lifetime of the car. That translated into $30 billion of savings in America for families to spend on items other than gas. Jobs are also an important part of this discussion. The opposition keeps insisting that CAFE standards are going to hurt employment, particularly in the auto industry. A study by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy says that money saved at the gas pump and reinvested throughout the economy would create a quarter of a million jobs, 244,000 in this country, including 47,000 in the auto industry. Another benefit of CAFE standards is in fighting the most daunting environmental challenge of our time: global warming. Passenger cars, SUVs, and light trucks accounted for 18 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 1998. It is a major contributor to the problem of global warming. A recent National Academy of Sciences study finds that global warming trends are undoubtedly real. In December, a British Meteorological Office study said that 1999 was the fifth warmest year on record and that 7 of the hottest 10 years on record occurred in the 1990s. That tells us something. It tells us we ought to get our heads out of the sand and do something about it. That 10 years in the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium, also this winter. I traveled to the South Pole in January because I wanted to see what we were doing about trying to protect ourselves against negative environmental change. When you see this beautiful ice continent and recognize the contribution it makes to the entire global environment and you hear the water rushing off as the ice melts--a condition that is not supposed to exist; it is supposed to stay hard ice; 70 percent of the world's fresh water supply is stored in the ice there--it is a very bad sign. If we look at our families and our world, we say: What is happening? If that continues to mix with the saline, it is a terrible and ominous sign to which we should pay attention. In Australia, a continent thousands of miles away from Antarctica, the Australians pride themselves in recreational water sports, things of that nature. Children going to the beach in Australia today have to wear hats. They have to wear full-body bathing suits because of the high incidence of skin cancer. Australia today has the highest incidence of skin cancer of any advanced country in the world. It is a terrible tragedy; it has such grim warnings attached to that. We still are not paying proper attention. This winter, two gigantic icebergs, collectively about two-thirds the size of New Jersey--one the size of Rhode Island and another the size of Delaware--broke off from Antarctica. One day we are going to see an iceberg the size of the State of Texas. Then everybody is going to say: Woe be unto us. Why didn't we pay attention when our environment was deteriorating literally in front of our eyes? Why didn't we pay attention when it was predicted that water levels would rise, that temperatures would rise, that a place like New York City could almost have tropical type weather? We just saw that in a report the other day. When are we going to pay attention to the alarm we hear sounding off day after day? We choose to ignore that threat and say: Go on, spend it, use those big vehicles and burn as much gas as you want and issue as much contamination as you want. It is our problem, and it is our responsibility. Scientists project a rise in sea level of 4 to 12 inches on the mid- Atlantic coast in the next 30 years--not 100 years, not 50 years, 30 years away. My little grandchildren who were in the gallery today will be 35 years of age. That is hardly old. That is when it looks as if we will be experiencing the worst of what ignoring the consequences of this process will mean. Scientists also tell us higher seas will lead to greater storm surges, more coastal damage, even from relatively modest storms. CAFE is essential for fighting this danger. A recent analysis shows that CAFE standards could be raised to over 40 miles per gallon for new cars and light trucks by 2010. This would result in emissions reductions of 396 million metric tons of carbon dioxide below business- as-usual projections, which is 6 percent of our current emissions. I don't like to get into those kinds of astronomical figures because they don't always mean much. When we think of 396 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, that is a lot. But when we think of the poor air quality days, where it is hard for those who are elderly to go out and conduct normal travel and normal exercise, normal living, it makes it difficult for them to breathe and be as active as they like. We have few other opportunities for attacking global warming as dramatically and as cost-effectively as controlling auto fuel efficiency. I urge my colleagues to think about this problem, to be able to say to their constituents: Yes, we are concerned. We want you to have the comfort. We want you to be able to have the cars you prefer to drive. You are spending your hard-earned money. But let's make them as efficient as we can. It is something our geniuses in the automobile industry--and they are geniuses; they have built an incredible population of vehicles and conveniences--can make better. We have seen all kinds of samples of that. If we encourage them and know that everybody is going to be in the same competitive bind or competitive environment, they will do it. I ask our colleagues to vote in favor of the Gorton-Feinstein motion. We have few other opportunities for attacking global warming as dramatically and as cost-efficiently as controlling auto fuel efficiency. I will take a minute more, and I ask that my colleague from Louisiana be just a little more patient. I beat her to the microphone. That is what happens. It wasn't a foot race, but it was just a coincidence of circumstances. Since I have been in the Senate 18 years, many wonderful things have happened. I have seen the benefit of things we have done legislatively have an impact on folks back home. Whether it is no smoking in airplanes or mentoring programs or drug control programs in public housing or computers in schools--I come out of the computer industry-- all have a direct effect. The health programs we have and the education programs have been terrific. Today, I was personally rewarded by an expression of friendship and appreciation, led by Senator Shelby from Alabama. He is my colleague, a Republican. He used to be a Democrat. We are still friends, even though his party affiliation changed. He did something today that both shocked and humbled me. He asked that a new facility being built in New Jersey, a railroad terminal, a railroad station, where all of the railroads in New Jersey--and we have a lot of rail passenger lines--come together so that people can choose an option for going to New York City or for going to Newark Airport or for going to the beach for recreation or commuting between cities in New Jersey--he asked it be named for me, and I am, indeed, grateful. I was surprised, nevertheless flattered. Comments by Senator Byrd and Senators John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski, and Tom Daschle were all laudatory. I was pleased to have two of my children and grandchildren in the balcony. It was a coincidence because they live a distance away, in the State of Florida. They were here to see their grandfather. One of my grandchildren, who is 5 years old, said, ``Are they doing anything down there?'' I said, ``Perhaps you would not notice it, but they are.'' So they were here to see it. It was a happy moment for me and my family. I am grateful to my colleagues who voted for it. There was no objection when it was offered. While I will miss this place, I will leave it with so many fond memories of opportunities to serve that are rewarded in much more specific ways than having a naming process attached to it. No one has ever exemplified that more thoroughly and more deeply than has Senator Robert Byrd, who sits in the Chamber at this moment, who is always talking about the nobility of the service we perform here, about the opportunity we have to give something back, showing our appreciation for being in this country, for being in this democracy, for being able to be in the position that we are to do the things we do. So I am grateful. With that, I know I will make the Senator from Louisiana grateful by yielding the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am on the side of the Senator from Ohio. I don't know what the agreement is as to who has jurisdiction over the time, but I believe----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Ohio, there are approximately 2 minutes remaining. We had an understanding that we would share some time. Does the Senator need the 2 minutes? If he does, I will step aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to take only 1 minute. This is not a new idea. This has been in Senate bills before, including ISTEA and TEA-21, and it passed with those bills. It died in conference. There was another influence working over there that prevented us from exercising our will and our judgment about what ought to happen. With all due respect to my colleagues who oppose this, we have done this before, and we ought to have a clear opportunity to do it again. The Senator from Ohio was so clear in his presentation. It is simply allowing the governments within the States to make decisions about how they use their highway funds. If they think they are servicing their public better by permitting them to invest in intercity rail, then, by golly, we ought to let them do it. It is better for the highway people. Those who advocate investing more in highways, how about getting more cars off the roads? Doesn't that help the highway people? Doesn't that help clear up congestion? I think so. I understand the jurisdictional dispute. I am on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I greatly respect the chairman. He was very clear in what he said. He does not oppose the idea, but he opposes the idea of doing it here. It is here, and it is now, I say to the Senator, and we have to take the opportunity as it exists. I hope my colleagues will support this. I yield whatever time remains back to the Senator from Ohio. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this bill includes a critical measure to make .08 the national drunk driving standard. Chairman Shelby and I both care deeply about improving transportation across this country, but we also share a commitment to making sure our transportation systems are as safe as possible. One of the most important things we can do to keep our families safe on our nation's roads is to keep drunk drivers off those roads. Mr. President, the Senate already voted in favor of the .08 standard in 1998. The Senate overwhelming passed the Lautenberg-DeWine .08 amendment to TEA-21 by a vote of 62-32. But, ultimately, the American public did not get the safety legislation that they deserved when a national .08 standard was not included in the final TEA-21 conference report that was sent to the President. The TEA-21 conference report removed the Senate-passed .08 standard and replaced it with an incentive grant program, that, while well intentioned, frankly is not working. Only two states have passed .08 BAC since TEA-21 was enacted two years ago and it seems very unlikely that any other state will be motivated by the incentive grants over the next few years. Mr. President, we have learned with other effective drunk driving legislation such as the minimum 21 drinking age and zero tolerance that weak incentive programs do not work--but national standards do. I would assure my colleagues that the .08 provisions in this bill today do not alter the TEA-21 incentive grant program. So if your state is receiving incentive grant funds, you will continue to receive every cent you are entitled to under the current program. For over a decade--in both Republican and Democratic Administrations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been telling Congress that the .08 standard is the best way to ensure safety on our roads and lower the number of fatalities which result from drunk driving. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that a national .08 standard will save approximately 500 lives per year. Make no mistake--drivers at .08 are drunk and should not be on the road. According to NHTSA, at .08, drivers are impaired in their ability to steer, brake, change lanes, use good judgment and focus their attention. Their ability to perform these critical tasks may decrease by as much as 60 percent. We must keep these drivers off the road in order to keep our families safe. I am grateful to my colleagues for including the .08 provisions in this bill today. Now we look to the House of Representatives to follow our lead and work with us to produce a conference report that retains this critical safety legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2749, the World War II Memorial Postage Stamp Act. The purpose of this bill is to raise funds for the construction of the National World War II Memorial by issuing a special World War II Memorial ``semipostal'' stamp. Mr. President, many events have shaped world history, but none so dramatically or so deeply as the Second World War. The war permanently altered lives, communities, and nations, at the same time speeding America's rise as a superpower. The National World War II Memorial will honor the 16 million Americans who served in uniform during the war, the more than 400,000 who gave their lives, and the millions more who supported the war effort at home. A symbol of the defining event of 20th-century America, the Memorial will honor the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people as well as the cause of freedoom from tyranny throughout the world. To date, the World War II Memorial Fund, chaired by Bob Dole, has raised approximately $92 million. Issuing a World War II Memorial Stamp could raise millions more, helping the World War Memorial Fund reach its goal of $100 million needed to construct and maintain the Memorial. Furthermore, a new stamp would give every American the chance to play a part in building this monument to those who served our Nation. Mr. President, I served this great country as a member of the Armed Forces during World War II, and I know firsthand the sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans. It is my sincere hope that, thanks to this bill, the National World War II Memorial will be a lasting symbol of American unity--and a timeless reminder of the moral strength that joins the citizens of this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 2749, the World War II Memorial Postage Stamp Act. The purpose of this bill is to raise funds for the construction of the National World War II Memorial by issuing a special World War II Memorial ``semipostal'' stamp. Mr. President, many events have shaped world history, but none so dramatically or so deeply as the Second World War. The war permanently altered lives, communities, and nations, at the same time speeding America's rise as a superpower. The National World War II Memorial will honor the 16 million Americans who served in uniform during the war, the more than 400,000 who gave their lives, and the millions more who supported the war effort at home. A symbol of the defining event of 20th-century America, the Memorial will honor the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people as well as the cause of freedoom from tyranny throughout the world. To date, the World War II Memorial Fund, chaired by Bob Dole, has raised approximately $92 million. Issuing a World War II Memorial Stamp could raise millions more, helping the World War Memorial Fund reach its goal of $100 million needed to construct and maintain the Memorial. Furthermore, a new stamp would give every American the chance to play a part in building this monument to those who served our Nation. Mr. President, I served this great country as a member of the Armed Forces during World War II, and I know firsthand the sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans. It is my sincere hope that, thanks to this bill, the National World War II Memorial will be a lasting symbol of American unity--and a timeless reminder of the moral strength that joins the citizens of this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution on an important human rights issue in the Russian Federation: freedom of the press. This resolution was introduced in the House yesterday by Congressmen Gilman and Lantos and Helsinki Commission Chairman Chris Smith, who share my concern for human rights around the globe. This resolution expresses the concern of the Congress over the treatment of the Russian media by the government of Russia. This treatment has included increased intimidation, manipulation, and scare tactics. Most recently, Vladimir Gusinsky, owner of the principal independent television station in Russia, was arrested and the offices of Media Most were searched without due process. The media in Russia, even today, is still mostly state-owned. Of the large printing and publishing houses, newspaper distribution companies, nationwide television frequencies, and the broadcasting facilities that have been privatized at all, the government still maintains an interest and some measure of control over many of them. Such control has reportedly been used for political ends in recent parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. It is imperative for the future of democracy in Russia to maintain a free and independent media. A free press is essential to achieving stability in Russia and a government that is accountable to the rule of law. Such manipulation and intimidation tactics that have been employed by the Russian Government in recent weeks contradict the democratic values that we hope Russia will embrace. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this resolution to express our support for press freedom in Russia and our concern over its infringement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, Senator Shelby, with whom I have worked a number of years on more than one committee, has established a working relationship that, frankly, I treasure as one of the best I have had since I have been in the Senate. We rarely agree on policy differences, but one thing we do agree on is that we have respect for one another. We listen and try to resolve our differences. As everyone knows, the way we finally resolve differences is the majority says this is what we are going to do, I concur, and we go ahead and do it. It has been a pleasure working with Senator Shelby and members of the subcommittee over these past few years. This is my last Transportation appropriations bill. I look forward to reaching agreement among our colleagues and sending the bill to the House, resolving whatever differences there might be, and the President signing it into law while there is still time before we have an omnibus appropriations bill before us. This is a decent bill. It was reported out of the Appropriations Committee yesterday by a unanimous vote. I thank Senator Shelby for his leadership and skill in maneuvering around the number of obstacles that invariably come up and still not have people angry or unwilling to discuss their issues. During yesterday's markup, a number of amendments were adopted that I believe improve our initial subcommittee product. I, therefore, rise in strong support of the bill and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Everybody is not going to get what they want in the bill. Senator Shelby does not even though he is the chairman. I am the ranking member and I do not get what I want, for sure. I would have permitted Senator Shelby to be even more generous than he has been. That is his choice. He treated me and the members of the committee fairly. Over the last 14 years, I do not believe I have ever managed this bill without expressing the importance of balancing how we address the Nation's transportation needs, and that is to look at all modes. We cannot be attentive to highways without being attentive to transit, by way of example. It is not enough to look out for the marine safety agenda and the Coast Guard; we also have to pay attention to the aviation safety needs of the FAA. We must recognize that while some States are wholly dependent on highways and rural aviation to meet their transportation needs, other States depend heavily on commuter rail and Amtrak to move their citizens. A balanced approach is what is needed, and I believe the bill before us embodies that balance. This bill fully funds the growth in highway and transit funding we called for in TEA-21, the highway bill that was enacted a couple of years ago. The bill also fully funds the request for Amtrak's core capital grant. While the funding levels for certain accounts in the FAA and Coast Guard might appear to be austere, a more indepth review of the bill before us and prior actions by the Senate sheds some further light on this situation. Specifically, the bill before us would cut the Coast Guard by $257 million. However, it is important to note that only a few weeks ago the Senate passed a supplemental appropriation of over $800 million for the Coast Guard, and all of that supplemental funding will be available on a multiyear basis. That is one of the anomalies: We give an agency such as the Coast Guard ever more responsibilities, whether it is just doing the navigation assists, the buoys, and the charts, or whether it is stopping illegal immigration, or whether it is pursuing drug transport by boat, or whether it is managing the licensing of vessels that ply our waters making sure they stay up to date and do not violate the standards that are required for ships entering our waters. They are now putting .50-caliber guns, and some larger, on helicopters in the Coast Guard to intercept or interrupt the drug flow that is devastating our country. Whatever you need, the Coast Guard is always there. We are always squeezing and squeezing, but this year we have figured out a way to take care of it. There is no one who does not respect the Coast Guard for the job they do and looks to them when an emergency arises. Whether there is an oilspill or some other disaster that includes travel on the seas, the Coast Guard is there. In the case of the FAA's operations account, it appears we reduced the administration's request by more than $240 million. It is important to note that within the appropriations for the FAA's facilities and equipment account, the bill includes $64 million for operating expenses. That shortage we talked about, again, was the operations account. Moreover, as a result of an amendment I offered during the full committee markup, there is now an additional $120 million available for operating expenses from the $3.2 billion appropriations for airport grants. I want to clarify what I am discussing. I am talking about putting in over $3 billion in airport grants, airport improvements, be it terminals or access routes in and out. There are all kinds of things for which the airports can use these funds so they can handle the expanding need for passengers who want to take airplanes. I support it 100 percent. We cannot continue to expand a facility without having enough of a crew--I will use the term--to manage it. One would never dream of taking a ship that needs a 1,000-person crew and saying: OK, we are going to put in new electronics, but we are going to cut down on the size of the crew. We would never understand it nor agree to it. The changes we have made enable this bill to provide a $634 million, or 11-percent, increase for FAA operations. Nobody wants to be up in the sky with too few controllers guiding the traffic as they do. I fly a lot in the second seat in airplanes. That is the way I prefer to travel. I know when the controllers are stressed or when the flight service stations are not giving the data needed or when it delays departures or takeoffs. We want to ensure safety, above all. When we put our families in an airplane, whether it is a flight from New York to Washington or whether it is a cross-country flight, we want to know they are traveling in as safe a condition as possible. Our aviation system is safe. I point that out. But when it is not operating as it should, it comes out in delays. It is akin to borrowing to pay your bills. The longer it takes to get a flight started, the worse things become later on. We know that whether it is a flight from New York to Washington, to use that example, or if it is a flight from Denver to Los Angeles; what happens on that leg from New York to Washington affects what happens on the leg from Denver to L.A. That is the nature of the system. It is a huge system. It is all interconnected. We have to have enough people in the key spots to take care of things. There are several other items of importance in this bill that I think bear mentioning at this time. I thank my subcommittee chairman, Senator Shelby, for including provisions in the bill to implement a national drunk driving standard of .08 blood alcohol content. This provision passed the Senate in 1998 by an overwhelming margin. However, the House never had an opportunity to vote on the measure. The administration still strongly supports implementation of .08 as the national standard for blood alcohol content. It has been said by several institutions that have studied this problem that by reducing the standard across the country from .10--that is parts per million of alcohol to blood--we could save 500 to 700 lives a year. It does not sound like much in the abstract--500 to 700 lives a year--but if it is a child in your household or a family member in your neighborhood or a friend, the effects are devastating. I remember one time I had a discussion with the occupant of the Chair about a friend of his son's who was badly injured in an automobile accident. The pain that permeates a community is unmatched. Thank goodness we are focused on what happens with our children. Whenever we have a chance to do something to protect them, we do it--protecting any member of a family. So when we ask now for .08 to be the standard, we are saying to 500 to 700 families, who will never know they have been protected from disaster, that it was because we demanded a better standard for automobile safety. This provision works in the same way as the minimum drinking age law which I authored back in 1984, signed into law by President Reagan, and assisted by Secretary Elizabeth Dole at the time. To this point in time, it is estimated that the minimum drinking age law saves over 1,000 lives a year. Over 15,000 families have been spared mourning over the loss of a child because this applies almost exclusively to very young people. The .08 provision holds the promise of saving the lines of an additional 500 persons every year. So I thank Senator Shelby again for including this provision in the bill. The Members should be aware there is a separate provision in this bill that prohibits the administration from implementing its newly proposed ``hours of service'' regulations pertaining to truck and bus drivers. Many interested groups have voiced strong opposition to the administration's proposed rule. I personally oppose certain aspects of it, as well. However, I have concerns with the remedy that is proposed in the bill. The administration has already shown renewed willingness to reconsider aspects of this rule by extending the comment period on their proposal by 90 days. So it gives those who have views about what this bill should look like or the conditions it should carry an extra 90 days to present those views, and then perhaps we will take the subject up again. I note that this prohibition is not included on the House side, so it is something that may come up in the conference. I hope that before we go to conference, all concerned Members can discuss this issue in the time that is available with Secretary Slater, to discuss this issue and advance the cause of safety on our highways. Finally, I thank all the members of the Transportation Subcommittee for their friendship and assistance throughout the process. I am not talking exclusively about the Democrats. We worked with Republicans. Sometimes there are disagreements in policy that can't be bridged, but we talk about it, and we try to iron out the problems and see if we can accommodate, by consensus, the bill. We have again delivered a unanimously supported bill to the floor. I especially thank Senator Shelby again. His leadership of the subcommittee has been excellent. He has always kept me, the minority ranking member, informed of his plans for the subcommittee. He has been evenhanded in his approach to addressing Members' funding priorities. We have developed a good friendship throughout this process. I want to say, while the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee is here, that I thank him, as well, for his willingness to listen. Too much listening often kills the time that a chairman can get his bill through, but Senator Stevens held his patience, his temper, and he permitted us to air our views, and we got the bill done in very good form. I also extend my thanks to Senator Robert C. Byrd, who is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. I have worked with him since my first day in the Senate. He is a brilliant, patient man and has been a leader for me, a mentor for me. Even with all this white hair, we still can have mentors and enjoy a relationship. We can still learn. I have found that out. My kids teach me that every day. But the relationship between Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd is excellent, as we have always seen in this Appropriations Committee. I also give a special thanks to my team, to Peter Rogoff, who so skillfully manages the staff on our side, Denise Matthews, Laurie Saroff, and Mitch Warren on the Democratic side. And to Wally Burnett; he always knows what side of the aisle he works for and makes sure he is diligent about it, but he makes certain that our messages get through and that they do have a hearing before the bill gets put to bed. I appreciate Wally's leadership, and Joyce Rose and Paul Doerrer, as well. With that, if there are any amendments Members want to bring to the floor, they ought to do that. This bill was moved expeditiously, carefully through the process. It is here. So we can eliminate much of the griping and complaining about having bills linger on forever and winding up--in the final analysis, before the October 1 fiscal year starts, the new year--in an omnibus bill, where a bunch of things are crashed together, without having a good, comfortable feeling about what is in the bill: How does it affect my State? How does it affect the country? If you get it the last minute, you do not have a chance to review those things. Here we have a bill that has been carefully engineered and is ready to go. We would like to get it done. If I asked the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when he would like to get it done, he would say certainly this afternoon. But we will be taking amendments. That is the process. Hopefully, we can get it over to the conference committee and maybe have this bill signed into law by the time the next break comes at the end of June. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my pal from Maryland. We have been good friends. Senator Mikulski said something that got my attention. She said she has looked up to me. We have differences in height in a lot of places, but no one has ever looked down to Senator Mikulski. She is a giant. What a welcome addition she was when she first graced the Democratic Party with her presence, followed by nine others. What a difference women have made in this body--not just cleaning up the language, which helped, but also in making sure that we understood there was a far different point of view on many issues. As Senator Mikulski so clearly said and has always said, she listened. We can steal a couple of things from commercials to say that when Senator Barbara Mikulski speaks, people listen. The Members here listen. We share a common background in many ways. We both have Polish roots. Second, we both have what I call an ordinary person's background; she in the bakery, and me in the newspaper store with our families trying to eke out a living each and every day. One of the things that I thought we ought to do here, although probably would not get enough votes to carry, is every Senator ought to spend a week in poverty living with a family in either an urban our rural environment to kind of get a feeling for what it is to worry about putting food on the table, about putting decent clothing on a child's back, not stylish things but decent clothing, a roof over their heads, a grandparent or a parent aging and needing help. What a difference. Senator Mikulski brought that background, as I hope I did to our function here. That is why we have a special kinship because we care about the people we serve. One of the happiest moments I have had since I have been in the Senate was the other day. I went to visit a school for the blind in New Jersey, the only one that operates in New Jersey. It is run by the Sisters of Joseph of Peace. With help from colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and throughout the Senate, I was able to get some funding so they could build a relatively modest facility. They named a room after me in an ``Independent Life Section'' where they try to educate people on how to live by themselves, though visually impaired and sometimes in total blindness. How do you get by? I came in and there was a little child. I have a weakness for little kids because my oldest grandchild is 6. I have seven, six following him, and No. 8 is going to be on the way before No. 1 turns 7. They are a beautiful litter of puppy dogs. They are so cute I can only smile when I think about them. This little child was 7. She was smaller in stature because her mother was an alcoholic, and she has fetal alcohol syndrome, which reduces size, in effect, and physical and mental health. This child was as bright as any child I have ever met. I picked her up, she said: What's your name? I said: Frank. She said: OK, Frank. She rubbed her hands through my hair. She said: It feels sticky. I said: Yes, I put stuff on my hair. She asked: What kind of stuff? I wasn't doing advertising so I didn't give her the name. Her vision is impaired with similar to a mesh screen in front of her eyes. The only way she can focus her vision is turning her head. Her vision is like Swiss cheese; she had to constantly turn her head to catch the channel through which she could see. She was so bright. We wound up with a picture of her and me in the paper, me laughing, with her hands running through my hair. If there is ever a doubt about the work we do here, about what it is we debate so harshly at times, the things we legislate, the laws we write, about the ultimate test of whether or not we have done the right thing, how does it affect people? What is the impact on a family? What is the impact on a child? What is the impact of a loss due to a drunk driver in a family? What is the loss when a child 6 years old takes a gun and kills another 6- year-old? What is the impact? It is not only that family; it is the entire community, the entire school. What affect did Columbine have? Was it only the kids who were shot at, the kids who were pleading for help from the police? The kids who were running away in fear? No, it was the entire character of our country. We have to think about those things and their impact. Are these a question of States rights, of rights other than the rights to bring up a child in safety? What is the most important right? What was the Million Mom March about? The million moms marched because they were so hurt, so anguished that no one was listening sufficiently to say, OK, sensible gun control. We weren't taking away everybody's gun. If people want to hunt, they have a right to hunt. People need them for law enforcement jobs. Or if someone really thinks they need it for protection, let them get a license and be identified. A million moms were down here to say: Please help us. That is the measure. That is what I have always found from Senator Mikulski, who manages this very important bill, VA-HUD, that takes care of veterans, housing, the National Science Foundation, and NASA. She does a remarkable job and we keep squeezing. My relationship with Senator Mikulski, my relationship with other dear friends in the Senate is what I will miss terribly. This has been one great experience. My desk is a couple rows back. If only my father or my mother could have seen what happens when I open the top of my desk. It says: Harry Truman, Missouri. He sat where I sit now. My parents came here from Ellis Island with not a dime. They didn't understand the language. My parents were brought here as little kids. They wanted to be in America; they wanted to talk English; they wanted to be part of the society. And they worked at it. We are in this illustrious place. As Senator Byrd will state, about 1,800 Members have served in the Senate since the founding of this country. And here we are, two good friends, sharing the same. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I salute the fact that the appropriations chairman is anxious to get this finished. The subcommittee chairman and I are also anxious. But the one thing that concerns me--and I am not going to object to the request that was made--is this: Normally, there is a time lapse for filing the report during which there is time to review the report. Suddenly, we are at a pell-mell pace. I want to get it finished. I think it is fair to Senator Shelby, myself, and the Appropriations Committee chairman to make sure this doesn't trample on anybody's rights so that Senators have the opportunity to review. We are picking up the pace considerably. Thus far, we have had three bills: MILCON, legislative, and Defense. So we are not in the back of the pack by a long shot. This is a bill in which lots of people have an interest. I want to ensure that our people have a chance to look at the report which was filed today. It won't even be seen until tomorrow. We may have to stretch our tolerance level a little bit to give folks a chance. I don't want to drag my feet. Certainly, the Senator from Alabama knows that. I want to be cooperative, and I want people to respond. It is always a frustrating experience when we bring a bill to the floor when time goes by and people who want to offer amendments don't bring them down. I hope someday there will be reform--it won't be during my tenure-- that says if you have amendments, you have to bring them up but that you have every right to examine the documents that relate to a bill before you are crowded out in a stampede. I offer that as a suggestion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3426

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Denise Matthews, a fellow on the staff of the Appropriations Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the Fiscal Year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill and the conference report thereon.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sustainable Green Manufacturing initiative. This is an important effort to help the Army reduce pollution in its key manufacturing processes by introducing clean technologies and techniques onto production lines. Partners in this initiative include the TACOM Armament Research and Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence, The New Jersey Institute of Technology, and the Physical Science Laboratory of New Mexico State University. Mr. President the objectives of this initiative include the promotion of sound environmental principles in design, material selection and manufacturing of Army products; the reduction of Army costs throughout the product life-cycle by efficient use of resources; the development of sound and environmentally benign manufacturing practices by using the highest quality science and technology and applying these practices, methods and materials to the acquisition process. The House provide $7 million for this program in its Appropriation Bill and I urge the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to work during conference to provide this level of funding for this important program.