18424

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

the California Department of Health
Services, to ascertain whether four
cases of tuberculosis involving a flight
attendant and three international passengers might be linked to air quality
aboard airplanes.
The only thing I am saying here is, if
you are going to do it, let us do it
right. I know I am going to be included
if tobacco is being included. But I am
sitting on that same airplane inhaling
germs for tuberculosis, and I have been
trying to get quality air. I appreciate
the situation you are in but I hope you
will appreciate mine also.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield time to
the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I
will only be 30 seconds, to say to the
Senator from Kentucky that I do understand the situation he is in. I will
join hands with him in doing more. I
sit on the Environment and Public
Works Committee, as does Senator
LAUTENBERG. As a matter of fact, he is
my chairman on one of the subcommittees. We will work together on that in
the future. I yield back to the Senator
from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for those comments. The Senator
from California knows full well how
different life is when one makes a trip,
as she often does, across country and
does not have to breathe secondhand
smoke.
The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. The poor quality air that
we experience now in the recirculation
of air in aircraft is a subject that many
of us are looking at. I, for one, am
going to be aggressive in trying to
clear this problem up.
But smoke is pervasive. It permeates
the air. As a matter of fact, in a study
that was done as we considered banning smoking on airplanes, it was affirmed that crew members who themselves did not smoke found traces of tobacco and nicotine in their body fluids
days after they had left an airplane and
they never smoked themselves.
Madam President, we have exercised
this subject. I hope that we will adopt
this amendment. I think it is an appropriate vehicle to do so. I also urge the
managers of the bill, who will be the
conferees, assuming passage of this
now, that we will want to hold this in
conference and not relinquish it because I will come back again and again.
I think it is disgraceful that people
who work for EPA or other departments of Government-Health and
Human Services-can work in a smokefree environment and employees in
other departments cannot because the
action has not been taken. So we want
to make it uniform throughout.
I will tell you this, Madam President,
and my friend from Kentucky knows it
only too well, whatever we can do to
improve the health and well-being of

our citizens, I am for it, even if it
means picking up a weapon and exposing some of our young people to war.
He and I both served in the same war.
We do not always admit it so readily
because it was such a long time ago.
But the Senator from Kentucky will
have use of his own time for comments.
The fact is we do what we can to protect our citizens. This is one way to do
it and to continue to focus on the dangers of smoking and focus on the possibility of saving huge sums of money,
the possibility of having people enjoy a
day's work, get there, be productive,
feel good about themselves. There is
not anyone I know who, after having a
bout with a disease from smoking,
whether it is surgery on the throat or
the lungs, and so forth, would not say,
"I wish I had never done it; it felt good
when I was doing it, but I don't want to
see my kids do it and I don't want to be
in places with other people doing it."
With that I yield back the time. I ask
the Senator from Kentucky whether
he, too, is ready to conclude? We can
have a voice vote on this.
Mr. FORD. Since the Senator from
New Jersey has taken his second time,
I would like to have a few minutes. As
I understand, he has yielded back his
time. As soon as I have finished, I will
yield back mine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sena tor from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I understand the emotion. Everybody uses
the emotion here-the Browns' and the
Smiths' problems and the Fords', whatever-in order to make a point.
The point is that we are banning
smoking in all buildings because unless
you go to a room that has been ventilated, you cannot smoke. The problem
is that the Government, in my opinion,
is not going to spend the money to put
in proper ventilation; therefore, we are
banning smoking.
You eliminate my right as a Senator
to have regulations or rules in my own
personal office. Something about that,
to me, is just not right. We tried previously to say we ought to do the right
job, instead of taking it product by
product. Back when we banned smoking on airplanes, if we thought the consequences of sharing stale air in airplanes may be more serious than a
mere matter of discomfort-headaches,
sniffles and nausea -the Federal Centers for Disease Control is currently
coordinating an investigation, including one by the California Department
of Health Services, to ascertain whether four cases of tuberculosis involving
a flight attendant-we have heard a lot
here today about protecting flight attendants. We tried then to protect
flight attendants under quality air in
that airplane. No, it was smoking, the
emotion.
So, therefore, we do one thing and let
the other go. So all I am trying to do
is not proliferate the responsibility

August 3, 1993

here. Keep it in OSHA and include tobacco. That is fine. I expect it and
want it.
But we are saying no, because it is
emotional and we are going to lose
lives, and passive smoke, and that sort
of thing. That is well and good. I understand all of this.
I have not said anything new today
that I have not already heard. There
are some things that could be said that
I have heard that have not been said.
But we are going down a path now
where we are going to say, yes, we are
going to take care of smoking. That is
a scalp on our belt. But we are not
going to worry about the rest of the indoor smoke. You are going to sit there
and think everything is all right, but
you wonder when you go home at night
why you have a headache, why you are
nauseated, why you might have gotten
some other disease floating around in
the air. And we ought to take care of
it.
No, we are splitting it off to EPA and
taking it away from OSHA. Then we
are going product by product, making
it as expensive as we can so we can get
another scalp on our belt.
I understand that very well, even
though I am accused of, well, he has to
do it because he represents Kentucky.
I do not have to do it, but I do it because I believe I am right. But let us do
it right and include tobacco. Let us
have a ventilation system that is described by OSHA, the agency to which
we gave the responsibility, and do it inclusive.
That is not going to happen, and we
are going to see other amendments-here comes another amendment right
after this one. Maybe they will not let
us sell cigarettes in vending machines.
We want to charge taxes on military
posts. We want to do lots of them because we have them down and are
going to kick them.
But I say to you, we stopped smoking
on airplanes and we did not take care
· of the quality of air, and here we are
getting ready to stop smoking in Federal buildings and we are taking it
away from OSHA, the agency to which
we assigned clean air.
There are a lot of folks around here
interested in OSHA, not in this Chamber right now, that they do a good job
and not proliferate the quality of air.
So, Madam President, I thank my
colleagues for their indulgence, and I
thank my colleague from New Jersey
for his congeniality. Always he is so
kind, in joking with me. We get along
so well that it makes it uncomfortable
to be against him, but in this particular case I have to be. He asked me for
a voice vote, and I am perfectly willing
to let him have that.
Madam President, I now yield back
the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President,
I want to express my strong opposition
to the Lautenberg amendment, which

 August 3, 1993

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

would ban smoking in all Federal
workplaces. Although there is some political sentiment to support such a
measure, there clearly is insufficient
science or logic to justify this extreme
action.
Sound public policy decisions rely on
gathering and analyzing all the evidence before the appropriate course of
action is determined. However, in this
case, due to the excitement being generated over one EPA report of questionable reliability, we are considering
bypassing the bulk of available evidence to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
We have a responsibility to avoid this
type of policymaking. However, in the
case of public smoking, the political
bandwagon is already rolling and is
gathering momentum. Sadly, those on
the bandwagon are ignoring the majority of scientific evidence, the rights of
smokers, the realities of indoor air
quality, and existing policies involving
workplace exposures to airborne pollutants. Although this may be politically convenient to follow this course,
we could be wrongly imposing yet another burden on Federal workers.
That this amendment reflects overreaction to the EPA reports can be
seen clearly when tobacco smoke is
considered from the perspective of the
many substances we encounter in daily
life. Office workers are routinely exposed to a variety of so-called carcinogens in the workplace, from sources a
varied as spray cleaners and tap water.
And yet there is no call-from Congress, from EPA, from OSHA or from
the public-to eliminate every trace of
these products from the workplace.
The reason is simple: at the low levels
to which we typically are exposed,
these so-called carcinogens are not
thought to pose a risk to health.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration [OSHA], which has responsibility over workplace safety, has
studied concentrations of carcinogens
to determine reasonable exposure limits-or levels below which there is no
harm. Under these guidelines, it is acceptable to be exposed to a variety of
substances which EPA considers to be
carcinogenic, such as chromium, asbestos or benzene, as long as the amounts
are not excessive.
For instance, according to OSHA, 5
million fibers of airborne asbestos in
an average office building is perfectly
acceptable. Therefore, the notion that
even one molecule of tobacco smoke in
the air is cause for panic is absurd and
absolutely inconsistent with existing
workplace policies and regulatory
practices.
I am concerned that the proponents
of this amendment justify the proposal
based on EPA's ETS assessment study.
Just last week, subcommittees of both
the House Agriculture Committee and
the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings to further probe

the scientific validity of the EPA report. An overriding concern of many of
the members and witnesses present at
the hearings was that science was manipulated to fit a predetermined policy
objective.
Madam President, nothing concerns
me more than the idea that our Government would manipulate information for political objectives. This
amendment before us today would codify a policy based on unsound evidence
and faulty logic, and I urge my colleagues not to approve it.
Mr. HELMS. Here we go again,
Madam President. The Senate is again
considering .an amendment to treat
smokers as second-class citizens. The
amendment offered by the Senator
from New Jersey is more than just a
misguided effort to solve a problem
that doesn't exist, it is another example of a cheap shot at tobacco farmers
in 22 States.
In 1987, the General Services Administration established regulations for
the management of smoking in all
GSA-controlled facilities, regulations
which already prohibit smoking in general office space, and allow designation
of smoking areas only when strict conditions can be met to accommodate
nonsmoking employees.
In fact, Madam President, many Federal agencies have gone beyond even
these strict regulations and have
banned smoking altogether or implemented even more restrictive policies.
This system, which has been in place
for the past 6 years and which already
places burdens on Federal employees
who choose to smoke, has resulted in
no conflicts of which I am aware. There
is simply no reason for the Fedaral
Government to further stick its nose
into this matter by replacing the current policy with such a drastic regulation.
Madam President, the current GSA
system is the most logical available to
manage the different preferences of
workers because each agency retains
the flexibility to set a smoking policy
that best fits its staff. There is obviously a difference between a Federal
agency that employs 5,000 workers and
an office with 10 employees. There is no
justification for mandating the same
policy for both.
It should be noted that smoking bans
do nothing to resolve the larger problem of poor air quality in so many Federal facilities. Everyone knows good
and well that smokers are not responsible for so-called sick building syndrome. The Senator from New Jersey
could better spend his time and effort
finding ways to increase ventilation in
these offices instead of repeatedly
pointing his finger and blaming a few
smokers. Of course, that might not get
his name in the paper.
Madam President, Congress should do
its best to provide healthy and safe facilities for our Federal workers. How-

18425

ever, Congress should address the real
causes of poor air quality rather than
kicking the smokers and tobacco farmers of this country in the seat of the
pants.
Madam President, the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey
calls for more unneeded bureaucracy. I
hope my colleagues will reject this
amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I
rise today in strong support of the
amendment that has been offered by
my colleague from New Jersey, Senator LAUTENBERG. This amendment,
which I am pleased to cosponsor, seeks
to protect Federal workers and visitors
to Federal buildings from deadly secondhand tobacco smoke.
The evidence about the dangers of
secondhand smoke is clear. This past
January the EPA released a landmark
report on the dangers of secondhand
cigarette smoke. Each year 3,000 Americans die from lung cancer caused by
breathing secondhand cigarette smoke
at home, work or elsewhere.
In addition to lung cancer deaths
cited by the EPA, there is growing evidence that thousands more die of heart
disease that is attributable to secondhand smoke. A study published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that 30,000 to 40,000
Americans die each year from heart
disease that is linked to secondhand
smoke.
The EPA report also makes clear
that secondhand smoke is related to
thousands of cases of diseases such as
bronchitis and pneumonia. It causes
more than 200,000 lower respiratory infections and up to 26,000 new cases of
asthma every year among children
alone.
There are some people who find fault
with the EPA report-they claim that
the methodology was faulty and that
the results are not valid. Madam President, the people who say this are the
same people that still maintain that
there is not a clear link between smoking and disease. The fact is that secondhand smoke causes death and disease. We have known this for a number
of years and the EPA report just put an
official government stamp of approval
on this fact.
Cigarette smoke is a carcinogen, the
same as asbestos, benzene and radon.
We try to protect Americans from
these carcinogens-it is time we take
steps to protect them from secondhand
cigarette smoke.
In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air
Act which regulates 189 hazardous air
pollutants that are estimated to cause
1,500 deaths per year. It seems to me
that if Congress thought it was important to protect Americans from these
189 hazardous air pollutants we should
act to protect Americans from one that
kills 3,000 people a year.
Madam President, this amendment is
not radical-it simply expands the nonsmoking policy that is already in place