October 2.9. 1.98? ative body. That requires orderly pro- cedure and division of legislative labor. Yet. this amendment. like so many others, contributes as my colleague from Missouri Senator Durante once characterised it as a "Cacophony of Confusion." The reason for this Mr. President. is that we have resorted to deciding issue after issue as a committee of the whole. We ignore our procedures so that we are able to respond to the in- dividual agenda of 100 Senators. as a result of the life of this body has become fractions. fragmented and par- tisan to the point of paralysis. The Senate cannot conduct itseli?it cannot do business?as astandins' com- mittee of the whole. It is quite simply impossible and certainly inconsistent with deliberation to put every issue of importance to 1 Senator before the other 99. Yet. that is our direction. That is where we are tending. And. Mr. Presi- dent. irrespective cf what I think of the merits of this measure. I would oppose it for both procedural and in- stitutional reasons. At some point as Senators we must say enough. We must be willing to assert that our rules and committee jurisdiction are more than matters of mere convenience that we can dismiss because our own political agenda re- quires it. legislation to ban smoking on board commerical aircraft is also unwarrant- ed and inappropriate for other rea- sons. Smoking aboard aircraft is al- ready sharply restricted: every passen- ger is guaranteed a no smoking seat? even if a smoking section must be re- duced or eliminated to satisfy that guarantee. A 1087 Airline Pilots Association poll determined airline passengers. by a margin of 81' to 12 percent. believe that the ?current practice of separat- ing smoking and nonsmoking passen- gers is a reasonable policy that re- spects the rights of each." Moreover. reviews of recent DOT consumer com- plaint reports consistently show no more than a single smoking complaint for each 1 million passengers. Smoking complaints are declining both in abso- lute terms and relative to all other consumer concerns. Finally. a smoking ban would pose serious compliance problems, and sig- nificant adnunistrative and practical problems for airlines and passengers alike. For these and other good reasons I believe the Lautenberg language should not be accepted. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President. I am happy to yield for a Rncoan statement under the unanimous-con- sent agreement. provided I do not lose the floor to the Junior Senator from E-tucky. The BREEDING OFFICER. With- out obiection. it is so ordered. CONGRESSIONAL SHOWS BAN DH AIRLINE mom Mr. Mr. President. I rise today to express my opposition to this amendment to ban smoking on all domestic airline ?ights of 2 hours or less. This amendment characterizes one of the worst tendencies of our po- litical system?our inexorable urge to regulate. regardless of whether or not. there is information to back up legisla- tion. regardless of whether or not there is any kind of public consensus. I sincerely wonder why this amend? ment has been oifered?public opinion does not warrant such a ban. A recent poll conducted by the Airline Pilots Association found that or percent of those polled agreed that "the current Practice of separating smoking and nonsmoking passengers is a reasonable policy that respects the rights of each." Complaints about smoking and air travel rank in the bottom fourth of Department of Transportation com- plaint categories. accounting for less than 3 percent of all complaints. Clearly those who travel on airplanes do not perceive that smoking is a seri- ous problem. In fact, a ban on smoking on any ?ights would likely increase complaints oi those who feel they have the right to smoke. but are told they cannot. Our present regulations governing smoking on airlines are adequate. Cur- rently. every passenger with reserva- tions is guaranteed a nosmoking seat. even if a smoking section must be re- duced or eliminated to satisfy the guarantors One of the tenets being used to ad- vance this amendment is that environ- mental smoke is a hazard. The simple fact is that there is no solid. incontro- vertible evidence that this is the case. The Surgeon General's Report on Ein- vironmental Tobacco Smoke and the National Academy of Sciences' which recommended a ban on inflight smoking. failed to include any scientif- ic data to conclude that. ETS is harm- ful to nonsmokers. No scientifically valid studies have ever been conducted on airplane cabin conditions. However. my fear for this legislation is ultimately caused by the great impact this ban will have on an impor- tant industry in Kentucky?tobacco. Tobacco is a legal crop. upon which 150.000 Kentuckians base their liveli- hood. The industry nationwide em- ploys 710.000 workers. pays nearly $19 billion in wages and accounts ior nearly $31.5 billion on our GNP. While I make a personal decision not to .oke. I do not think it is acceptable to impose restraints on those who do. I do not think that anyone can deny that this is a scrious matter which merits careful and thorough study. Both the Department of Transporta- tion and the Air Transport Association agree definitive determinations should be made on exposure to enivornmental tobacco smoke aboard aircraft before a 29801 decision is reached to ban smoking on commerical ?ights. In the mad rush to legislate. the pro- ponents of this amendment are over- looking the facts, or rather the lack of facts. There are over 150.000 individ- uals in Kentucky who derive their live? 11th from the tobacco industry. Such smoking bass. we must realize. would directly effect this industry. The very least the Americans deserve is the knowledge that any action on this matter is well thought out. is sup- ported by scientific evidence. is debat- ed in the appropriate fora, and is taken only when we are convinced that this is the best possible way to ad- dress the problem. if there is a prob- 1cm. Mr. President. I encourage my col- leagues to oppose the proposed ban on -oking on airlines. mm ID. Hill Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from How Jersey (Hr. LAU- mgsasl proposes an amendment numbered 109 . Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendinent be dis- pensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection. lt is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: On page 57. after line 2. add the following: "(cl After the date of expiration of the 4- month period following the date of the en- actment of this subsection. and for a period of 30 months less a day thereafter. except that subsections and shall be null and void upon the date of enactment. it cabin or lavatory on any scheduled airline ?ight in intrastate. interstate. or overseas air transportation. if such flight is sched- uled for 2 hours or less in duration. which prohibition shall be enforced by the Secre- tary of Transportation. who shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provision oi this subsection. which regu- lations shall be authorised to include and shall include a regulation providing that any passenger who tempera with. disables. or destroys any smoke alarm device located in any restroom aboard an aircraft engaged in air transportation or intrastate air trans- portation shall be subject to a civil penalty in accordance with section 901 of the Feder- al Aviation Act of 1958 except that such up to $2.000." Mr. MUTENBERG. Mr. President. this amendment restores the sub- stance of the committee amendment pertaining to smoking on airlines. To be specific. it makes it unlawful to smoke on scheduled domestic ?ights of 2 hours or less. The amendment will accomplish all of the objectives of the amendment originally offered by the committee.