Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a man who was a good friend and an extraordinary political mentor. I will miss the opportunity to consult with him on matters important to governing. His contribution to me was a valuable one and it is deep in my thought and functioning as a U.S. Senator. He was a superb role model for public service and I followed his judgement often. I am honored to offer this tribute to former New Jersey Assembly Speaker Alan Karcher, his indomitable spirit, his unshakeable conviction, his widespread talents, his love for politics in the widest sense, and his devotion to the people of New Jersey. Alan's death on July 27 at too young an age, was not totally unexpected--he had been battling cancer for several years--but the reality of it shocks all of us who knew him. And there are a lot of us who fought in the trenches of New Jersey politics alongside him, as well as those who fought in opposition. Alan used his considerable wit, intellect and spirit to master New Jersey politics, and all of us respected him as the consummate politician. Alan was political in the most classical sense of that word, with all of its ties to the Greek concepts of the body politic, the people and citizenship, and he was political in the most modern sense of the word--sagacious, prudent, shrewd, and artful. Alan saw elected office as public service and an honored and honorable family tradition. Both his father, Joseph Karcher, and a great-uncle, John Quaid, also served in the New Jersey Assembly. When Alan followed them in 1974, he honed the practice of legislating to a fine art, serving as both Assembly Majority Leader and as Speaker during his sixteen-year career. He was a master of strategy in the service of the principal of the common good. He was articulate, passionate, and so often right, that more times than not he was able to convince both natural allies and skeptics alike. Alan was a fiercely proud Democrat who believed wholeheartedly that ``government'' and ``the people'' were virtually synonymous concepts. He knew how to keep his ``eye on the prize,'' and he understood that ``the prize'' was responsive, responsible government. Alan did nothing by halves and when he believed in something it was with total engagement. His interests and his talents spanned an extraordinary range. This most political of men was also a sensitive and accomplished musician, a cellist and an opera-lover who could sing Italian arias perhaps not as well as Pavarotti, but certainly as energetically. He was also, of course, a compelling lawyer nationally known for his insight into Constitutional issues and a respected author who examined controversial matters with perception and conviction. He has left a splendid legacy for us and for those he loved most, his wife Peggy, children Timothy, Elizabeth and Ellen, and his five grandchildren, who have his mark and his stature as enduring memories. We will miss him, but not his spirit, for that will continue to guide us. We will miss him, but not his idealism, for that will continue to inspire us. We will miss him, but not his passion, for that will continue to make us strive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I assume that the pending Gregg amendment has been laid aside. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for permitting me to offer this amendment. But this is not a precedent-setting amendment. We have done substantial forward funding in those programs that need it. And it will take a year to organize this program. This is the time to get this program started by making certain that the message is clear, that it is out there. It says: Listen, kids, don't start drinking. It could lead you down a terrible path. It could create more dependence on alcohol, more introduction to other drugs. That is a poor way to give a child a sendoff. The Senator from New Hampshire talks about appropriating next year's money at this time as being somewhat unusual. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it is not unusual. I have a list of accounts that have been forward funded. I ask unanimous consent to have these accounts printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1302 (Purpose: To fund a media campaign, from increases in the Department of Justice budget, to prevent underage drinking.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to provide the Justice Department $25 million in fiscal year 2001 to develop and begin to implement a media campaign to discourage children from engaging in underage alcohol consumption. We already have an ad campaign on national television that espouses the evils of drug use. But that campaign does not include alcohol. And when I tried to amend that ad campaign in the Treasury-Postal bill last month to include alcohol, some Senators said that they did not want to dilute the anti-drug message. But they did say that they would support a separate anti-underage drinking campaign. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Harkin and Dorgan, who the last time I offered a similar amendment voted against it, but now has agreed that it is the right thing to do. Right now, by running anti-drugs ads without also running anti- underage drinking ads, we are sending the wrong message to Ameria's children. It is the equivalent of telling kids: ``say 'no' to drugs. But this Bud's for you!'' Mr. President, consuming alcohol is illegal in all 50 States if you are under the age of 21, and among America's youth, underage alcohol consumption is just as big a problem as drug use. The facts are daunting. If we look at this chart, we see that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12 to 20 than all the other ilegal drugs combined. It was a surprise to me, as I suspect it is a surprise to millions of other Americans as well. Let me point out some more facts. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the average age at which children start drinking is 13. What's even worse, Mr. President, is that research shows that children who drink at age 13 have a 47-percent chance of becoming alcohol-dependent. But if they waited until they were 21 to drink, they would have only a 10-percent chance of becoming dependent. In all, Mr. President, there are nearly 4 million young people in this country who suffer from alcohol dependence, and they account for one-fifth of all alcohol-dependent Americans. Not only is alcohol consumption widespread among children under the age of 21, but it is a ``gateway drug.'' And too often, it leads to the use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The drug czar, Geneal McCaffrey, had some things to say about this. He said, ``The most dangerous drug in America today is still alcohol.'' But for one reason or another, we don't get that message through. He goes on to say that alcohol is ``the biggest drug abuse problem for adolescents, and it's linked to the use of other, illegal drugs.'' Mr. President, statistics support what General McCaffrey has been saying. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, youth who drink alcohol are 7.5 times more likely to use any illegal drug and 50 times more likely to use cocaine, than young people who never drink alcohol. General McCaffrey is not alone in his belief that attacking underage drinking is a key component of the war on drugs. Surgeon General Davis Satcher recently wrote a letter to General McCaffrey expressing his support for ``a powerful media campaign that will effectively deglamourize underage drinking.'' Surgeon General Satcher went on to say that he has established a Staff Working Group ``to create an effective campaign to curtail the incidence of underage and binge drinking.'' Finally, the Surgeon General It is time to more effectively address the drug that children and teens tell us is their great concern and the drug we know is most likely to result in their injury or death. If experts like General McCaffrey and Surgeon General Satcher agree that alcohol is a ``gateway drug,'' then it is clear that a well- planned ad campaign that targets underage drinking would increase the effectiveness of our war against drugs. My amendment provides the Justice Department with $25 million in fiscal year 2001 to develop and begin to implement a media campaign to discourage children under the age of 21 from drinking. The amendment allows plenty of time to conduct the necessary research and develop and test sample radio and television ads in order to launch an effective media campaign. Ad messages would be consistent with the antidrug messages in the drug czar's media campaign. There would also be funds to begin buying media time. The Justice Department will coordinate the campaign with representatives of the Centers for Disease Control, the Surgeon General's office, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. With the help of these health institutions, the Justice Department also would put together a detailed 5-year funding plan for the campaign and its media ``buys'' to help Congress in the appropriations process. Editorials have been written across this country supporting the need for an anti-underage drinking media campaign. Editorials have appeared in the Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and Los Angeles Times. The concept of an anti-underage drinking media campaign is further supported by more than 80 organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I am proud to have been the author some years ago, in 1984, that made 21 the drinking age in all 50 States. With the help of the National Transportation Safety Board, we have saved the lives of approximately 15,000 young people in the 15 years since the law has been in place. It was a real boon to those families who worried about their children drinking and the problems that result. In 1995, Senator Byrd led the charge on zero tolerance for underage alcohol consumption by writing a law that says if you are under age 21, .02 blood alcohol level is legally drunk. So, as in the past, we need to continue to send a strong message to America's youth that neither underage alcohol consumption nor drug use is acceptable. And the only successful path to winning the war on drugs is the one paved by preventing underage drinking. We must not accept underage drinking as a so-called rite of passage. It often is. It is a passage directly to illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. It is a passage to a life of alcohol dependency. The bottom line is this: This is a simple up-or-down vote on whether you want to do something to prevent teen alcohol addiction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can get a handle on that drug which is acknowledged to be the most dangerous among all drugs. And the fact that alcohol kills six times more children ages 12 to 20 than all other illegal drugs combined proves that. I hope we get a positive vote on this. I understand this vote will be stacked with a vote of the Senator from Wyoming, is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the events that have weighed so heavily on all of us. Whether one knows Senator Kennedy well or casually through contact in the Senate, one cannot but have respect and admiration for the contribution the Kennedy family has made to our public well-being for so many years. That is why I am sure others share the same feeling of grief as I do, and others who know the Kennedy family well, at the loss of John F. Kennedy, Jr. When the news came--and I was on my way to Martha's Vineyard--that the young Mr. Kennedy's airplane was missing, we all, I am sure, had the same reaction--let's pray that it is not true, that there is some information that will come out that will prove to be worry-unfounded. Unfortunately, our worst fears were realized. This day, apparently, the discovery has been made that confirms the death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., 38 years of age. One of the remarkable things we saw in this young man was the way he treated his position in life, coming from a famous family, with all of the celebrity status one could imagine, from a family that has seen tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. I had an opportunity, a year ago Christmas week, to sit with Michael Kennedy and his young sons on the morning of the day he perished on the ski slopes below. We actually skied together for a while in the morning. I visited with his brother that night to see if I could be of any help to the family in managing the affairs they had to put in order. It was very sad. When John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s life was just really beginning to flourish, it is hard to understand what it was that took this young man so full of life. The imagery of John F. Kennedy, Jr., was the same imagery that we had, in a way, of John F. Kennedy, Sr., President of the United States--attractive, intelligent, concerned about the well- being of our country, trying always to lift the opportunity and the spirits of those who in America depended so much on government and individual leadership. John F. Kennedy, Jr., evoked the same imagery-- of this attractive young man, of this bright, intelligent, caring person, eschewing the spotlight whenever he could, trying to become part of the society in which we all live. His early death will prevent what all of us believe was so much talent and so much future. Any of us who have worked with Ted Kennedy-- and I have now for 16 years--only gains respect the longer we know Senator Kennedy. His accomplishments are legendary, but his commitment to people--rich, poor, those who have needed help--is without reservation. We have seen an energized Senator Kennedy over at his desk, stating the causes and cases he is concerned about. And to see them, the whole Kennedy family, put into the grief can only be imagined by those who have their family intact without the trail of misfortune that has followed the Kennedy family. So I just came in, for the Record, to make some comments to register my feelings, as I know so many others have, of grief for the families of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and his sister-in-law, the Kennedys and the Bessettes. We hope his life will inspire us to give whatever we can by way of service to our country, to recognize the advantages we have as citizens of the United States, not to be discouraged by this untimely tragedy but, rather, to be motivated to try to do better. Mr. President, I hope we will reserve appropriate time, collectively, to acknowledge our share of feelings for the Kennedy family and the grief they are going through. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit an important resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should be issued in honor of the U.S.S. New Jersey, an Iowa class battleship, and all those who served aboard her. From the time of its launch on December 7, 1942, the U.S.S. New Jersey provided crucial support to numerous naval missions throughout the world. It is the most decorated warship in U.S. naval history, having earned battle stars, citations, medals, and ribbons from World War II, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam era. Furthermore, the U.S.S. New Jersey was the first U.S. battleship to enter and operate in the Persian Gulf. The New Jersey was decommissioned in 1991, and in the fiscal year 1999 Defense authorization bill, I authorized a provision to mandate that the Navy donate the U.S.S. New Jersey to a nonprofit entity that will relocate the ship in the state of New Jersey. Now, after the overwhelming support and continuous struggle of various groups and individuals in the state, as well as bipartisan efforts from New Jersey's state and federal legislators, the battleship is scheduled to return to New Jersey this fall. For this, I would like to extend my thanks to the residents of New Jersey who have donated countless hours in volunteer time, as well as to the Battleship New Jersey Foundation whose efforts were a driving force in the success of this endeavor. Now that the U.S.S. New Jersey is coming home, it is time to honor this great ship with a commemorative stamp.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. As stated by our colleague and friend from the State of Michigan, we are kind of looking at the same thing again. He likened it to ``Groundhog Day.'' I would say it is ``deja vu all over again.'' That was said by a great philosopher in New Jersey, Yogi Berra. What are we talking about? What we are discussing is whether or not the people on this side of the aisle and the people up there and the people out there will have a right to have their views included in this debate. It is pretty simple. We are talking about a lockbox. A lockbox is a place where you can preserve treasure, where you can preserve family records, jewelry, et cetera. But I never heard of a lockbox where they put in one article of value and leave out the rest. What we are hearing is that we are going to protect Social Security's surpluses, but we are not going to do anything, according to the majority, to extend the solvency of Social Security. We are not going to do anything to include Medicare's solvency. People do not get into these programs until they are 65 years old. At that time, do you want to have to worry about whether or not health insurance is going to be available? Do you want to worry whether that retirement fund is going to be there for your children who are now hard at work trying to take care of their needs while they also prepare for their retirement? The Republicans are saying: Leave it to us; we will figure out a way to take care of it some day off in Wonderland. The fact of the matter is, yes, we want to engage in an honest debate about this. It is not just let us have our vote. Let them have their vote means that under the proposal they have offered, this side gets no votes and the people we represent across this country get no opinion expressed. Look at the polls and see what they think about who is going to do the best job to protect Social Security and Medicare. They are going to say the Democrats are the people who worry most about it. We are beginning to look at an examination of process, a process that a lot of people do not understand, even some in this body, but certainly across the country people do not understand it: Cloture motions. Amendments, allow us to discuss them. Pure and simple, that is the way the American people want us to talk to them. Will they allow us, the Democrats, to register our view of how this Social Security so- called lockbox is going to look? Does it do the job the American people want? Or are we using terminology that has a certain ring to it that has no value? That is the question. I say to my friend from Michigan, let us have some amendments so that we do not have to, up or down, just take what the Republicans have offered. Let us debate it. It is a big enough proposal, I think. Yes, it has reared its ugly head several times. The fact of the matter is, we have not yet gotten to see the whole body there. We do not understand all the ramifications. At least the public does not understand them. Give us a chance to have some amendments. They are saying: No, the first thing we are going to do is move on to the Abraham-Domenici- Ashcroft proposal. We do not want to do it that way. We are going to do our darndest to protect the American people. We are going to insist we have a lockbox that includes solvency for Medicare extended by 20 years, extend Social Security by 30 years or 40 years, and try during that period of time to work it out so it is extended for 75 years. That is what our mission ought to be--look ahead and not simply try to shut things down and offer as a juicy incentive a tax cut that is best for the wealthiest in this country. It is $1 trillion for the cost of the House Republican tax cut. Out of that, they take $55 billion away from Social Security to help it along. They take $964 billion of the surplus to help that tax cut along. The American people are more interested in putting food on the table, providing for their education, and protecting their parents' health care in the future than they are about that kind of tax cut. We want to give a tax cut, too. Everybody loves tax cuts. The difference is, we love them for the majority of the people where it counts. We love them because we want people to receive adequate child care, and we want to know they can take care of the elderly when medical services are necessary. It is not just tax cuts for tax cuts. No, tax cuts for political purposes is what we are looking at--tax cuts for the wealthy. This economy is boiling. You cannot get help to do this. You cannot get help to do that. You want to buy a house. The housing market is exploding. If you want to go into fancy items such as boats and airplanes, you have to wait 3 years to get delivery on them. I do not feel sorry for a guy who has to wait 3 years for a new airplane. The fact of the matter is, that is where that money will go with a tax cut, and not into the homes of people who worked all their lives to save a few bucks and provide for their retirement, as well as for their medical care needs. That is what this debate is about, and I hope that our colleagues will stick together on this side and insist that we have a chance to offer people's amendments. That is what we are discussing. We are not discussing anything else. There is no trickery. Let us express a view that maybe, if people listen to it, they will consider it and, if not, then we have the votes. They are the majority. They are going to get their way; we know that, but I do not think that is a good way to serve the public. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, shall we switch sides?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You heard it. Medicare is not included. Finally, we have a frank admission on the floor of the Senate. Medicare is left out. So all of you who are like Senator Hollings and I, with blonde hair up top, may not be concerned at all about where we go with our Medicare solvency--it may be too late for us--but there are other people in the line who may want to use it. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from South Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back our time. cloture motion

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. With all respect, then with the subject of lockbox protections for Social Security and Medicare reform--and we can leave it at that--that the amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't know why it is not clear, but we have said and we mean that Social Security funds, surpluses, are sacrosanct. They are untouchable. The Medicare solvency we want to create comes out of the non-Social Security budget surplus. We have talked about this 60 times. Apparently the message has not gotten through. We want to do it. We want to deal with it. By the admission of some on that side, Medicare isn't part of the thinking in this. If it is not part of the thinking now, I wonder when it will be. There is also an opportunity, if I may suggest with a degree of temerity, that Social Security funds can be used in the name of Social Security reform. That is kind of a catch-all. It says if we can't get it one way, we will get it another way. We face the specter of a huge tax cut that is being proposed. It is not much different here from on the House side. We are talking about something close to $800 billion. We understand each other very clearly. The question is, Does the public understand why we are? We want to save Social Security, and we want to save Medicare. We want to increase the solvency of Medicare, and we are committed to a reform of both programs. During that period, it is said by the President that we will extend the life of both of these programs even longer than the 50-some years for Social Security and the 20 years for Medicare. That is where we are, my friends. If we are ready to conclude the debate, I am prepared to yield back our time--if we are prepared.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then I can use the rest of our time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the unanimous consent that we are operating under had a call for a vote at 10:30. Is that right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. That is exactly the problem.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the overwhelming recommendation by the House Republicans says use Social Security funds if necessary. But there is an issue beyond that. It is quite apparent, if you use $792 billion for tax cuts, it reduces the possibility that you can pay down the debt. That is where we would like to go. We want to get rid of this constant threat of higher interest rates. We want to be able to be free to take care of the needs we have to operate our society, our country. There is no confusion about where we are. We want to protect Social Security. We want to protect Medicare out of non-Social Security surpluses. That is where we are. One ought not confuse it with discussions about other things: A, Do you want to protect Medicare? B, How? That is the question. That is what we would like to have answered. I hope my colleagues will stick together and say we want to have an open debate, we want to continue to discuss the issues, and not to be shut down on this pretense that this cloture vote will take care of the problems. The majority leader is on the floor. We all have great respect for him. We would love to be able to be assured of amendments. I know our leader has been interested in a discussion of that and is awaiting the majority leader's response. If we knew that, perhaps we could be reacting differently.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is exactly the problem.