Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an extraordinary person, a respected and honorable man, a true friend, and one whom I am truly saddened to see leave the Senate--Senator Dale Bumpers. Mr. President, Senator Bumpers is, more than most, a true advocate for the citizens of the United States. I know of no better person who embraces issues with the passion and intellect that he demonstrates. His oratory skills are well-known and rarely matched. Dale is a true champion of the public's interests, and particularly when that clashes with special interests. Throughout his decades of public service, as Governor of Arkansas and United States Senator, Senator Bumpers has carried with him a strong, unyielding belief in a few basic ideas, ideas that have driven him in his tireless efforts to make our country--and the world--a better place. Senator Bumpers believes in ensuring equal opportunities for all, including the poor and indigent. He believes in providing high quality, comprehensive education and health care. He believes in the sanctity of our Constitution. He believes in the value of the arts and humanities in developing human creativity and a national culture. He believes in the importance of environmental conservation and preserving our natural resources. He believes in eliminating needless corporate subsidies and reducing wasteful defense spending. And he believes in the need to slow the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Senator Bumpers has never shied away from taking on the powerful special interests, year after year, even when he knows the odds are stacked against him and he is often disappointed with the results. But he has kept on trying. We have all been witnesses to his eloquent and powerful discourses on a number of subjects. Every one of his presentations before us and before the country have been grounded in personal experience and intellectual strength. When Senator Bumpers speaks, we know that he speaks from his heart. Mr. President, in 1995, the Senate debated an amendment that would require zero tolerance for youth who had any amount of alcohol in their blood. Senator Bumpers revealed his personal story about his parents and their friend who were killed by a drunk driver while returning from their small farm, just across the Arkansas River. Senator Bumpers was in law school at the time, far away in Chicago. Dale, more than most, has the power to sway with his words. That amendment was swiftly adopted. Mr. President, also three years ago, the Senate was considering an amendment to add funds to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Now, the NEH is a small agency that can, and does, often come under the budget knife as an insignificant agency. Not to Senator Bumpers. Senator Bumpers took to the Senate floor, and told all of us about his high school English teacher, Miss Doll Means. He touched us with a personal story that was a turning point in his life. When he was a sophomore, Miss Doll Means told him, after he had read a page of ``Beowulf" that he had a nice voice and he read beautifully. That one statement, from an English teacher in a town of 1,000 people, did more for his self-esteem than anybody, except, he said, his father. Not only does he indeed have a nice voice and he reads beautifully, he is among the best orators this Senate has ever seen. Mr. President, earlier this year during the Appropriations Committee passed an amendment naming a vaccine center at NIH after Dale and Betty Bumpers. For almost 30 years, the two of them have worked tirelessly on a crusade to vaccinate all children--and because of their efforts and others, we have made great progress toward that goal. Mr. President, when the Senior Senator from Arkansas leaves this body in a few weeks, there will be a noticeable void. We will lose a tireless champion for the underserved; a champion for the public's interest; a champion for responsible spending, not wasteful spending; and a champion for equal opportunity, for our environment, and for the arts and humanities. Senator Bumpers has our respect, and he has the people's respect. We will miss him. Mr. President, I wish my friend and his wife Betty, their children and grandchildren the very best for the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is one of those moments that one feels a bit overwhelmed--to follow Dale Bumpers in a discourse that he gives here on the floor. This is a task that I never liked--to get on the floor after Dale Bumpers moved us with his oratory and described his feelings for this institution and our responsibility. But there is another reason that I am really feeling uneasy; that is, the prospect that this place will be without Dale's voice, without his wit, his humor, but more importantly, his commitment to the people of this country. I want you to know, Dale, what a sacrifice I make today. I decided to stay here rather than to go to a budget conference down the hall trying to wrestle with the issues of the day. So I sacrificed that time just so I could stand on this floor to hear your terminal speech. That is devotion and friendship, I assume. I have to say that one could see the position that Dale has earned over the years, because people were as generous and as warm and as friendly from the other side of the aisle. That doesn't mean that we always agree, and it doesn't mean that we always share a similar direction for our country. But Dale has succeeded in winning friends, in making sure that we never forgot about who it is we are here to serve. We could make lots of jokes, but one never wants to compete with Dale's humor. I think about the only close match was with Dale Bumpers and Alan Simpson. That was a good team. The jokes were always better when we were off the floor somehow. But beyond the wit, beyond the humor, beyond the jokes was always this incredible pursuit of what is right for our country and what is right for our people. I have submitted a written statement without the kind of eloquence I wish I could have borrowed from Dale. He was right, he was accurate when he said his impression of his IQ was overblown. All of us agree with that. We know Dale well. We love him. We love to tease him a little bit. There were very few times on this floor when Dale could not get attention from others, and it wasn't just the volume; it was the substance of his mission that we all paid attention to. They kid him about stretching the cord that holds our microphones, but everybody was anxious to hear what Dale had to say or read what was in the Record. So I just wanted to have a chance to say how pleased I am for the opportunity to be here at the last speech Senator Dale Bumpers was going to make in this Chamber. It has been an honor to serve with Dale as well as to serve with people such as John Glenn. John Glenn is one of the finest people who, it is fair to say, has ever left this Earth. But we are going to see John Glenn at the end of the month and witness his heroic and incredible mission into the sky. John Glenn was with me when I was sworn into the Senate. We happened to be in Colorado on a vacation just 16 years ago, and he stood while I found a magistrate to swear me in because there was an opportunity based on the resignation of the then-appointed Senator. At the same time we are saying goodbye to Wendell Ford. Wendell is someone who you could fight with, get your blood pressure up, more often than not you would lose the argument and lose the debate. But Wendell Ford got things done. And I want to tell you, if I had to be served by a Senator, I would want that Senator to have the same concern about my State and my well-being and my family and my future as did Wendell Ford. He never let an opportunity go by without defending his people and the State of Kentucky. Although we disagreed on lots of occasions, I always walked away with a high degree of affection and respect for Wendell Ford. So when I listen to Dale Bumpers summarize his life, I think about where we are, because too often the arguments here overtake the purpose of our functioning. But Dale Bumpers, Senator Dale Bumpers reminds us that the mission is almost a holy one and that we have to step back and take a deep breath and get down to the business of the American people. I wish to thank the Democratic leader for giving me these few minutes. I also wanted to take an opportunity to say so long to Senator Dan Coats. Dan Coats was a formidable opponent for me when New Jersey persisted in sending its trash out to Indiana where it was welcomed by the communities that had the certified landfills and all that. But Dan Coats didn't object when New Jersey sent its All-American football players to Notre Dame or to the University of Indiana. But serving with Dan also has been a privilege. Mr. President, I wrap up just by saying that Dale Bumpers, if you listened to his words, arrived here encouraged by a father who saw the value of Government service, and it is an interesting and touching explanation of what it is that provided his motivation. My father also motivated me to engage in whatever enterprise I could to serve the public. But he didn't know it then. He worked. He tried to survive with his family during the lean and tough years, ashamed that he had to resort to a job with the WPA. I will never forget how discouraged he was when he came home, but, he said, he needed the job; he had to feed his family. My father died at the age of 43, after a year of illness with cancer. I had already enlisted in the Army. He disintegrated in front of our eyes, leaving not only an empty house but an empty wallet. My mother had to work. I had to send home my allotment to help pay the bills that were accumulated during that period of time. But we both got here because we were encouraged by things that occurred in our families, messages that were sent by our parents, mine perhaps less articulate than the one I heard Dale Bumpers describe. But we are here because they were able to give us that opportunity and we are here because we want to serve, to do something, to give something back as a result of having that opportunity. To Senator Dale Bumpers and the others, we say farewell. This place will be a lesser place without your presence, but because of your presence this place will continue to gain strength and to do what we have to do for the future. Rest assured that America will be strong. It will be different forces and different faces, but the work will continue to be done here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we live in a world where it is increasingly difficult to protect our children. The advent of sophisticated computer technology has made it too easy for depraved criminals to gather information about children and prey upon them. And nothing is more heinous and reprehensible than the brutalization of a child. We cannot be too vigilant in the battle against child predators. I am pleased that today, with the passage of the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act, the Senate is marching forward in this fight. This legislation will provide tough punishment for those who would sexually abuse the youth of our Nation. This measure contains an important provision, the Joan's Law Act, that Senator Torricelli and I originally introduced as a separate bill. This measure is based on a New Jersey law, which was named after a 7- year-old-girl, Joan D'Alessandro. Tragically, Joan was raped and killed in 1973. Although her murderer was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 20 years in State prison, he has become eligible for parole and continues to seek his release. Joan's family has repeatedly had to fight against parole for this vicious killer. They have been forced to relive this tragedy again and again, as they try to ensure that others are protected from the terrible horror they have suffered. Joan's law will spare other families from these battles. It provides that, unless the death sentenced is imposed, any criminal convicted of a sexual offense that results in the death of a minor under the age of 14 will be sentenced to life imprisonment. With this effort, we will ensure that cold-blooded murderers who abuse our children will be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives. Mr. President, I wish that we could do more to alleviate the pain and trauma suffered by the D'Alessandro family. With profound courage and dignity, they have endured so much for so long. Their relentless battle for justice, and their tireless efforts to protect others is an inspiration to us all. I am deeply heartened that Congress has passed this legislative memorial to Joan.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in support of the Water Resources Development Act of 1998, one of the most important public works measures before the Senate. This important measure was approved this summer by the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which I serve. This legislation includes authorizations for numerous water resources projects important to my state. Three shoreline protection projects which will protect property, wildlife habitat, and contribute to New Jersey's coastal economy are authorized to proceed to construction. Mr. President, I am pleased that this Committee has addressed a serious policy disagreement with the Administration over funding for shore protection projects. For the past five years, the Administration has requested no funding for new shore protection studies and has underfunded the construction work of ongoing projects. This year, the Administration proposed modifying the cost-share for shore protection projects to require the states and localities to finance the majority-- 65 percent, of the costs of periodic renourishment. This activity is the most expensive portion of the project, since these projects generally receive 3-5 year renourishments over their 50-year period. I disagreed with this approach because I believed that it was unfair to those communities that had planned for these projects and expected a true partnership with the federal government. During the consideration of this bill in Committee, I offered an amendment to allow us to phase in a more reasonable cost-sharing formula for shore protection projects. Those projects which have a feasibility study completed by the end of 1998 or which are authorized to proceed to construction in this bill, will continue to be covered by the 65/35 cost-share formula through the life of the projects, just as all flood control projects are cost-shared. Those projects authorized subsequently will continue to receive the 65/35 cost-share formula for the initial construction. However, states will be required to provide 50 percent--just five percent more of the costs--for periodic renourishment. While I was disappointed that we could not maintain the current cost share for all projects, I believe that the committee's proposal is fairer to the communities and states that have planned for these projects. We have authorized many shore protection projects that have only moved forward because of the efforts of Congress. I sincerely hope that our action today moves the Administration forward to begin planning and budgeting for these projects. The bill also provides necessary authorization adjustments for projects critical to the movement of cargo through the Port of New York and New Jersey as proposed by Senator Moynihan and I. The port annually handles 1.4 million containers and 30 billion gallons of petroleum products and is the gateway to a thriving economy for New Jersey, New York, and the entire country. By the year 2010, experts predict that 90 percent of all liner freight will be shipped in containers. The bill's amendments are important to addressing the increasing cost of dredged material disposal in light of the moratorium on ocean disposal. In addition, the bill authorizes flood control studies important to numerous communities in my state. The bill provides for a study of flood control measures in the Repaupo Creek. This waterway contains a deteriorating 76-year old floodgate, which, if breached, threatens the communities of Greenwich, East Greenwich, Harrison, and Logan, Mantua, and Woolwich. Another important study of the Delaware River streams and watersheds in Camden and Gloucester Counties is authorized in the bill. The bill also includes a study of navigational needs along the Fortescue Inlet of the Delaware Bay. Mr. President, the State of New Jersey, local governments and regional authorities have been carefully planning and budgeting for the critical projects that this bill authorizes. Any further delays could have an adverse impact on the economies of regions that are affected by these projects. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I want to thank the Chairman, Senator Chafee, the Ranking Member, Senator Baucus, and the Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Warner, and their staff members for their hard work on this bill. The members of the committee staff, including Dan Delich, Ann Loomis, and Jo-Ellen Darcy were extremely helpful and professional, putting in many long hours to produce a bill that benefits communities across the country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to clarify a section in the statement of the managers accompanying the VA-HUD conference report. The language urges EPA not to spend any funds or require any parties to dredge contaminated sediments until completion of a National Academy of Sciences report on dredging technology. The report may take two years to complete. It is my understanding that the language is not intended to limit EPA's authority during the next two years with respect to dredging contaminated sediments that pose a substantial threat to public health or the environment where EPA has found that dredging is an appropriate response action.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great concern about the Year 2000 computer problem, and to urge that funding be approved on an emergency basis to address this problem. Mr. President, in less than 500 days, an unknown number of computers around the world will fail because they can't tell the difference between the year 1900 and the year 2000. Although this may seem like a minor problem that could be easily fixed, it is not. It's time consuming, difficult, and expensive to address. And the implications of failure are enormous. We have known about the Year 2000 problem for some time, Mr. President, but many have failed to appreciate its severity. Throughout the private and public sectors, top officials assumed that someone else would find a solution. Or they simply did not appreciate the importance of making this problem a priority. Fortunately, Mr. President, many in the private sector are now taking this threat seriously. One Federal Reserve official speculated that private sector spending on the problem could exceed $50 billion. While many small businesses are just beginning to face the problem, most major large businesses are acting aggressively. Banks, utilities, hospitals, factories, insurance companies, and railroads are scrambling to ensure that they will be ready. Many understand that this truly is an emergency, and they're treating it that way. Still, I am afraid that most Americans still do not appreciate the severity of the Y2K problem. And I would urge all those listening to educate themselves about it. Admittedly, it is very difficult for most of us to evaluate the risks. But many credible experts have discussed scenarios that are truly alarming. Consider, for example, the impact of the Y2K problem on public utilities. Senators Bennett and Dodd, the co-chairs of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, have held a hearing on this, and I commend both of them for their leadership. Their Committee surveyed major utilities and found that many are far from ready for the year 2000. The Committee's work raises very serious questions about the risks of major power outages throughout our country, and the impact of such outages on our financial and telecommunications systems. Indeed, the essential infrastructure of our nation could be at risk. Largely because of such threats, some economists have argued that the Year 2000 problem is likely to lead to a severe recession. Some see a parallel to the downturn of the 1970's when oil supplies were disrupted. In fact, quick and reliable computing may be even more important to our economy than oil was two decades ago. Without reliable computer information, as without oil, production and distribution systems could break down. And that could dramatically increase unemployment, interest rates and inflation, all at the same time. Now, Mr. President, I'm not saying that this is bound to happen. Experts disagree about the likelihood of major economic and social dislocations. However, even if the odds of a significant breakdown are modest, the potential enormity of the problem demands that we take it seriously. I do know from my own experience that software problems can be terribly serious and difficult to address. Before I came to public life, I was an executive in a computer services firm, a firm that has been quite successful. I can tell you that nothing is more vexing than a seemingly insignificant software glitch that grinds an entire program to a halt. Fixing such a glitch can require laborious, line-by-line examination of impenetrable computer code. Meanwhile, everything is often brought to a standstill. While analysts may disagree about the scope of the Y2K problem, Mr. President, it does seem clear that some things will go wrong on January 1, 2000. We just can't say exactly which, or how many. Compounding matters, even if one system has had its Y2K problems fixed, it still can be corrupted by interacting with other systems that are flawed. We have a systemic problem--and it will only be solved if all of us work together. What is the government's role in all this? Well, our first responsibility is to put our own house in order. As the General Accounting Office has reported, Y2K could have a devastating impact on the provision of public services. These include air traffic control, Social Security and Medicare payments, supervision of the financial system, monitoring of nuclear facilities, and a wide variety of other services. And let's not forget the Nation's defense. We are all proud of our modern military with its smart weapons and computerized battlefields. But a technology-dependent military is subject to the same computer hazards as everyone else. Unfortunately, Mr. President, many agencies are way behind schedule in fixing the Y2K problem. According to GAO, ``unless agency progress improves dramatically, a substantial number of mission-critical systems will not be compliant in time.'' So, Mr. President, this is truly an emergency, and it's critical that we act as soon as possible. Unlike many problems we face in the Congress, this one can't be delayed or postponed. We can't set up a commission. We can't put it off until the next Congress. On January 1, 2000, the problem will hit, whether we like it or not. And we have to do everything we can to prepare. Mr. President, let me commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and throughout the Senate, for approving emergency funding to address the Y2K problem. I wish we had done so earlier. Unfortunately, there are many Members in the House of Representatives who strongly oppose treating this funding as an emergency. And they have created serious obstacles to allocating the funding. I urge them to reconsider their opposition, and am hopeful they will. Beyond increasing funding, Mr. President, there are other steps that the Federal government must consider to address the Y2K problem. For example, we need to reform laws that discourage businesses from sharing relevant information with each other. We need to ensure that businesses accurately report on their compliance efforts to the SEC and investors. We need to support small businesses' efforts to fix their computers. I have actively supported these types of legislative initiatives. But I recognize that they are not sufficient. We also need to communicate better with our constituents about the problem, so that all Americans can prepare. Mr. President, given differing views on the actual risks, the only wise thing is to prepare for the worst. When a hurricane approaches, we never know exactly where it will hit, or how destructive it will be. But that doesn't stop us from evacuating and boarding up our homes in expectation of the worst case scenario. Sometimes, those preparations prove unnecessary. And, if the hurricane does hit, there will also be cleanup costs later. But the better one prepares, the more efficient, and less expensive, the cleanup will be. And the same is true for Y2K. So, Mr. President, I would strongly urge this Congress to focus serious attention on Y2K, and to strongly support all funding needed to solve the problem. This is an emergency, and the time to act is now. We shouldn't panic. But we must prepare. Even if nobody knows the exact dimensions of the problem, this is one threat that we ignore at our peril.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last month I convened a forum to investigate the problem of gun-trafficking. At the forum, we heard from a number of compelling witnesses and I have been submitting their testimony into the Record so that my colleagues and the public can benefit from their insights. Taken together, this testimony makes a compelling case for the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act, S. 466, which I introduced earlier this Congress. Today, I would like to submit the final testimony from this forum, that of Captain Thomas Bowers, Director of the Office of Crime Gun Enforcement for the Maryland State Police. Two years ago, the Maryland Legislature passed the Gun Violence Act of 1996, which restricted the purchase of handguns to one in a thirty day period. The results have already been dramatic. In fact, Maryland saw a 78 percent decrease in the number of handguns sold as a result of multiple purchases in the first year after the enactment of this law. This means fewer lethal weapons supplied to criminals in cities nationwide. I hope that my colleagues will work with me to pass this important piece of legislation. Keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals, and reducing the gun violence across our nation should be of paramount importance to all. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony of Captain Thomas Bowers be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Testimony of Capt. Thomas Bowers Senator Lautenberg, I am Captain Thomas Bowers, Director of the Office of Crime Gun Enforcement for the Maryland State Police. On behalf of Colonel David B. Mitchell, our superintendent, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. The troopers seated behind me represent the subject matter experts in the area of firearms enforcement. The Maryland State Police is the point of contact for regulatory and criminal oversight of all regulated firearm purchases in Maryland. In 1966, Maryland initiated an application process to purchase handguns. This process included a 7-day waiting period and a background check. In 1995, Governor Parris N. Glendening, Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Colonel Mitchell initiated a comprehensive program entitled Operation Cease-Fire, one element of the cease-fire initiative was the Maryland State Police Firearms Investigation Unit. This unit provides the ``front line'' response to the problem of firearms related violence throughout the State of Maryland. The Firearms Investigation Unit was initially tasked with the responsibility of enforcing Maryland's existing firearms laws and, more importantly, identifying the source or sources of firearms used in the commission of violent crimes. Through the work of the Firearms Investigation Unit and information provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms the straw purchase was identified as the major source of crime guns in Maryland, even more significant, based upon crime gun trace data from the city of Baltimore. The straw purchase of firearms through multiple sales was determined to be the source of the majority of regulated firearms used in the commission of violent crime. Let me repeat that the straw purchase of firearms through multiple sales was determined to be the source of the majority of regulated firearms used in the commission of violent crime. Each multiple straw purchase tells a dramatic story. I'd like to give you two examples. 1. The first is that of a 32-year old male who was recruited by a drug organization to purchase 9 9mm semi- automatic handguns from a Maryland regulated firearms dealer. Upon receipt of the handguns from the dealer, the young man immediately provided them to a member of the hierarchy of the drug organization who then distributed the handguns to drug traffickers whom he controlled. Within a few weeks, two of the 9mm handguns were used in two separate homicides. 2. A second example is that of a young man who purchased 11 9mm and 45 caliber semi-automatic handguns from a Maryland regulated firearms dealer. A short time later, the same resident returned to the same regulated firearms dealer and purchased 30 more semi-automatic handguns. An investigation was initiated which revealed that all 41 semi-automatic handguns were smuggled out of the United States and into the country of Nigeria in violation of both United States and Nigerian law. In 1996, through the efforts of Governor Glendening, the Maryland legislature passed a comprehensive violence reduction initiative entitled, The Gun Violence Act of 1996. This act limited the purchase of a regulated firearm to one in a 30-day period and also required a background check and 7-day waiting period for secondary sales of regulated firearms between individuals. (Three charts; regulated firearm definition, secondary sale definition, and secondary sale regs.) Maryland's one gun a month law limits the number of handguns an individual can purchase to only one during a 30- day period not per calendar month. There are codified provisions for specific exceptions to the law. They are enumerated on the chart displayed before you. (Two charts; exceptions to one/month and Maryland State Police From 77M (multiple purchase). (1) Residents may apply to the Maryland State Police to be designated as private collectors. (2) Residents may purchase two handguns during a single visit to a licensed gun dealer if the dealer has offered a second handgun at a discount when purchased with the first. Under this exception the resident cannot purchase another handgun for 60 days. (3) Law enforcement agencies and licensed private security organizations are exempt from the multiple purchase law when purchasing handguns for use by their employees. (4) Residents may purchase more than one handgun if they are part of a set or sequential serial numbers as in an accepted collector series. (5) To facilitate the replacement of a firearm that was lost or stolen with documentation from a law enforcement agency. (6) To facilitate the replacement of a defective firearm by the same regulated firearms dealer with 30 days of purchase. (7) Lastly the one gun in 30 days provision does not apply to estate sales. As a result of this legislation, the number of firearms acquired through multiple purchases have reduced significantly. In addition, and perhaps most telling effect, is the drastic decrease in the number of guns initially purchased in Maryland that have been recovered as a result of crimes in other States. By comparing the one year period prior to the enactment of Maryland's multiple purchase legislation, which became effective on October 1, 1996, with the year following its enactment, you can clearly see the dramatic results (two charts; multiple sales bar chart comparison, and multiple sales graph) From October, 1, 1995, to September 30, 1996, 7,569 handguns were sold in Maryland, as a result of multiple purchases. From October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1997, that number was reduced to 1,618 handguns which were sold as a result of multiple purchases, a seventy eight percent (78%) (59% difference) reduction in firearms acquired through multiple purchases. In 1991 Maryland was nationally ranked second in terms of suppliers of crime guns to the city of New York. By 1997, one year after the passage of Maryland's one gun a month law, Maryland moved out of the top ten suppliers of crime guns to New York City. Maryland is proud of it's proactive firearms legislation. Our efforts to limit the supply of guns to the illegal market without adversely impacting upon law abiding citizens are strong and sincere. The multiple purchase allows for the quick acquisition of large numbers of regulated firearms by proscribed individuals. The one gun a month law in Maryland has shown that it is an effective means of disrupting the illegal diversion of firearms which are acquired through multiple purchases and will ultimately reduce the supply of firearms readily available to criminals. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 678, the ``Thomas Edison Commemorative Coin Act'', a bill that directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins commemorating Thomas Edison and the 125th anniversary of the invention of the lightbulb. I am the author of the Senate version of this bill. In 1928, Congress saw fit to award to Mr. Edison a Congressional gold medal ``for the development and application of inventions that have revolutionized civilization in the last century.'' Mr. President, by passing this legislation today, we have the opportunity to once again honor the memory of one of the world's greatest inventors by issuing commemorative coins bearing Mr. Edison's likeness. Thomas Edison produced more than 1,300 inventions during the course of his lifetime, 1,093 of which were patented. These included the incandescent lightbulb, the alkaline battery, the phonograph, the microphone, motion picture cameras, and stock tickers. He was one of America's greatest inventors, and truly a genius. Formerly known as ``The Wizard of Menlo Park'', he would spend countless hours in his labs in New Jersey coming up with ideas that ultimately made all our lives much easier. In 1887, Thomas Edison built his lab in West Orange, New Jersey. It was known as the world's first ``invention factory'', where he and his partners invented, built and shipped out numerous products stemming from Edison's work. He saw every failure as a success. One story is that Thomas Edison failed 10,000 times in his storage battery experiments. Instead of being dejected, he said ``Why, I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that it won't work.'' Conversely, in response to remarks about his success, he would say, ``Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.'' It is now proper to honor this man who left such a lasting legacy with these commemorative coins. Mr. President, not only would these coins honor the memory of Thomas Edison, they would also raise revenue to support organizations that preserve his legacy. The two New Jersey sites, the ``invention factory'' in West Orange, New Jersey and the Edison Memorial Tower in Edison, New Jersey, are in need of funding for maintenance and repair. Each year, nine thousand young students visit the West Orange site alone to learn about the great inventor. The proceeds from the sale of these coins will help to preserve irreplaceable records containing Edison's thoughts as well as priceless memorabilia. This bill, at no cost to the government, would provide the funds necessary to protect these and six other historical sites so that generations of school children can continue to visit them. Mr. President, I introduced similar legislation in the 104th Congress as well as at the beginning of this Congress. I now urge the passage of H.R. 678 so that we may honor the memory of Thomas Alva Edison and celebrate the 125th anniversary of the lightbulb while, at no cost to the government, providing needed funds to important historical sites. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce the Saving Taxpayers from Obsolete Programs and Spending Act of 1998 also known as the STOP Spending Act of 1998. This legislation cuts or eliminates over 25 unnecessary federal programs and would save approximately $80 billion over the next five years. This legislation targets programs throughout the government--from the Pentagon, to the Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Energy, to NASA. If this legislation were to be enacted, we would have a leaner, better, smarter government. Many of these programs, like the peanut quota program, are outdated relics of a different era. Others, like the cancellation of an unnecessary tactical aircraft program, just represent new thinking that more properly reflects a changing international security environment. Mr. President, the federal government spends about $1.7 trillion each year. Much of this is for important programs that provide health care to American families, Social Security and Medicare to senior citizens, education for our kids, roads for our cars, security for our nation, housing for families with modest incomes, protection for the environment, and research to advance our civilization. However, there also is too much waste in government. And we must constantly reassess our spending priorities. Many of the programs targeted in this legislation represent bad policy and bad economics. The benefits go primarily to a narrow group of beneficiaries, while the costs are borne by consumers, taxpayers, and in some cases, the environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's sugar program is one example of a program which interferes with the proper functioning of the marketplace at the expense of consumers and the general public. This program guarantees U.S. sugar growers a price that is well above the world price of sugar and results in American consumers paying over $1 billion extra for sugar products each year. In addition, since the artificially high sugar prices that result from the sugar program encourages cultivation of marginal agricultural lands near the Florida Everglades, much environmental damage has been done as a result of increased pollution and runoff from these lands. Unfortunately, the benefits from this program primarily go to very few large and politically powerful corporations, not small farmers. This is but one example of the many wasteful and outdated programs cut or eliminated as part of this legislation. There are many more examples which I will not detail at this time. However, the bottom line is that we can make our government more effective and save money at the same time if we make the commitment to do so. Mr. President, I understand that with the limited time remaining in the 105th Congress, this legislation is not likely to be approved before the end of this session. And I realize that many of these proposals would face strong opposition. But I hope my colleagues will review this legislation and support my efforts to reduce government spending in the future by cutting these outdated and wasteful programs. I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the spending cuts included in this legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 2, I convened a forum on gun trafficking. Across America, it is simply too easy for criminals, particularly gangs, to purchase and distribute large numbers of guns. And more guns in the wrong hands means more murder and mayhem on our streets. Because we must move more aggressively to stop this deadly crime, I introduced S. 466, the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act. The testimony I heard at the forum has made me even more determined to pass this sensible legislation and help stop gun traffickers. In order to share the insights of the witnesses at the forum with my colleagues and the public, I am submitting the testimony presented for inclusion in the Congressional Record. Previously, I submitted the testimony of Mayor Edward Rendell, James and Sarah Brady from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, and John Schuler, Kenisha Green and Quanita Favorite, three young people from the D.C. area. Today, I would like to submit a statement from Captain R. Lewis Vass, Commander of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Virginia Department of State Police. His testimony bears witness to the success of Virginia's one-gun-in-thirty-day law which was enacted in 1993. Since 1993, the number of crime guns traced back to Virginia from the Northeast dropped by nearly 40 percent. Prior to one-gun-a-month, Virginia had been among the leading suppliers of weapons to the so- called ``Iron Pipeline'' that fed the arms race on the streets of Northeastern cities. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony of Captain R. Lewis Vass be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Testimony of Captain R. Lewis Vass, September 2, 1998 Senator Lautenberg, I am Captain Lewis Vass, Commander of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the Virginia Department of State Police. I have been a sworn police officer with the Virginia State Police for the past 32 years. Since the enactment and implementation of Virginia's instant check firearms purchase approval program in 1989, I have been responsible for the administration and operation of the Firearms Transaction Center. One of the functions of the center is the tracking of multiple handgun sales and issuance of multiple handgun purchase certificates approving or denying the application to purchase more than one handgun within a thirty-day period. I appear here today to speak with regard to Virginia's one- gun-in thirty-day law and the impact the law has had on gun trafficking in Virginia. Prior to the enactment of Virginia's one handgun in thirty day law, Virginia was described as one of the major source states for illegal handguns being seized on the east coast. Information provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding firearms seized from March to August of 1991 ranked Virginia as follows: New York Project Lead--(108 Firearms), Ranked Number One; District of Columbia Project Lead)--(244 Firearms), Ranked Number One; Boston Project Lead)--(14 Firearms) Ranked Number Three; Total Firearms--366 Firearms. In 1989, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation which created Virginia's instant background system to address the flow of firearms going to prohibited persons. This system, even though it prevents prohibited persons from purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearms dealers, does not eliminate the flow of Virginia handguns being seized in other states. The Virginia General Assembly studied this issue and amended the law to reduce the flow of Virginia handguns to other states. The law was revised in 1993, to limit the number of handguns to one that a person could purchased during any thirty day period. The law went into effect on July 1, 1993, to address the growing problem of handguns being purchased from Virginia's firearms dealers and being seized by law enforcement authorities in other states namely New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Another issue that was addressed by enactment of this legislation was the influx of narcotics into Virginia as payment for the firearms being sold in other states. Even when cash was used to purchase the firearms from the trafficker, the trafficker in turn purchased narcotics for sale on Virginia's streets. An example of illegal gun trafficking from Virginia to states in the north eastern corridor involved a gun shop located directly across the street from the Virginia State Police headquarters. This was a mom-and-pop gun shop favored by gun runners because of the ease in which firearms could be obtained. During an investigation into illegal gun trafficking, it was found that gun purchasers from New York would come to Virginia and solicit the help of either street people or college students possessing a valid Virginia drivers license to purchase firearms for them for a small fee. These ``straw purchasers'' would go into the gun shop and purchase a box of guns, a box contains ten handguns. The firearms would be turned over to the gun trafficker in the parking lot of the store. Videos captured by ATF agents during the investigation revealed that these types of illegal transactions were conducted numerous times a day almost every day of the week that the store was open. During February 1992, the owner of the gunshop cut to five the maximum number of firearms transferred per purchase to five at the conclusion of a case in which a trafficking group moved 240 firearms from Virginia to New York, 85 percent or approximately 204 of them from this gun shop. The investigation concluded with the arrest of the store owners and closing of the firearms outlet. A Project Lead report released by ATF in 1992 reporting the results of firearms traced to New York from January 1, 1992 through June 16, 1992 revealed that for 501 of 805 firearms traces received the leading source states were as follows: 1. Virginia--108 firearms, 20%; 2. Florida--92 firearms, 18%; 3. Texas--39 firearms, 8%; 4. Connecticut--37 firearms, 7%; 5. Ohio--34 firearms, 7%. A 1997 trace report released by ATF shows that the percentage of firearms from Virginia seized in New York has dropped to 12.5 percent as compared to 20 percent in 1992. While Virginia remains the leading source state for firearms seized in Washington, D.C., the percentage of firearms recovered in D.C. has dropped from 35.1 percent in 1991 to 26.8 percent in 1997. Additionally, Virginia has dropped from the number two source state in 1990 to number eight in 1997 for guns seized in Boston. The law was designed to stop the flow of handguns being purchased for illegal purposes and transported out of state, but not to impede the law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one handgun in thirty days. The statute was designed with provisions for the purchase of multiple handguns for collections by collectors, business use, personal use and estate sales. An individual desiring to purchase more than one handgun in thirty days is required to complete a multiple handgun purchase application. The application is submitted to the State Police and processed by the Firearms Transaction Center (FTC). The FTC conducts an enhanced background check on the applicant. If the applicant is approved, he/she is issued a multiple handgun purchase certificate which permits him to purchase the number and type of handguns requested in the application. The FTC has issued 2,245 multiple handgun purchase certificates from July 1, 1993 to July 30, 1998 while denying 164 applications because the applicant did not meet the multiple purchase requirements or had already exceeded the limit for the thirty-day period. The one handgun in thirty days was studied by the Virginia Crime Commission in 1995; copy attached. The results of that study concluded that most gun control policies currently being advocated in the United States (e.g., licensing, registration, and one-gun-a-month) could, most fairly, be described as efforts to limit the supply of guns available in the illegal market. In other words, these are policies crafted to keep guns from prescribed individuals. Once enacted; however, it is important to demonstrate that they are effective. This study, which is attached, looks at the impact of Virginia's one-gun-a-month law, provides persuasive evidence that a prohibition on the acquisition of more than one handgun per month by an individual is an effective means of disrupting the illegal interstate transfer of firearms. As a follow-up to this previous study, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms provided this Department with information on firearms seized on the east coast regarding Virginia firearms. The information revealed that of the firearms seized in 1997, 184 originated from Virginia. Of that number, 87 of these firearms were obtained after the law was enacted in July 1993. This demonstrates a significant reduction from 366 firearms for six months in 1991 to 87 firearms in 12 months of 1997. We believe that Virginia's one handgun in thirty day law has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source state for gun trafficking. At the same time, the law does not appear to create an onerous burden for the law- abiding gun purchaser who apply for and are granted multiple handgun purchase certificates. Even though there is not conclusive evidence that the one-gun-in-thirty-days reduced the number of violent criminal offenses occurring with firearms, the number of Murders, Robberies and Aggravated Assaults occurring with the use of a firearm has significantly dropped since 1993 the year the one-gun-in- thirty-days was enacted.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special young man, one who is close to my heart and certainly close to my daughter's. He is my son-in-law Joe Morgart. I rise to congratulate him not simply for being a terrific husband to my daughter Nan and a loving father to my grandsons, Alexander and Jonathan, but also to recognize some of his personal achievements. Today, I commend him for becoming a leader in the Jewish community in Boston. He was honored there recently with the 1998 Young Leadership Award given by the Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) of Greater Boston. CJP now raises nearly $25 million annually to support educational, humanitarian and cultural causes, as well as providing funding for health care and social service programs in Israel and other Jewish communities around the world. The Young Leadership Division of CJP gives young Jewish people in the Boston area the opportunity to get involved in community service, as well as to participate in discussions about Jewish issues from religious, ethical, social, political and economic perspectives. For Joe to receive this award is especially noteworthy, coming from one of the oldest philanthropies in the country and one so dedicated to educating others about Jewish issues. That is so, Mr. President, because Joe has not always been a member of the Jewish faith. Maybe Joe was attracted to Judaism to impress Nan when they were dating. Maybe he was attracted to Judaism to impress me! Or, knowing Joe and his thirst for knowledge when learning about Judaism, he found that the Jewish religion fulfilled him spiritually and invited him into the community. Joe then decided to convert, and he has become a most valuable participant in the community. Joe Morgart has served on CJP's Board of Directors, has been an active fundraising campaigner and started a successful outreach and educational services program that drew in many new members for CJP. He has participated in CJP's leadership development program, and has been deeply involved in community service programs for the organization. Beyond his involvement in CJP, Joe is a leader of the Jewish Big Brother & Big Sister Association, part of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and is a member of the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leadership Cabinet. Mr. President, I am proud that a well-regarded organization like CJP recognized Joe Morgart's ability and contributions by honoring him with this award. I know that his entire family is proud as well of his accomplishments and the love and respect that he has earned from all of those who know him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not extend preferential duty-free treatment on products to countries who do not comply with their treaty obligations regarding the protection of intellectual property. The United States leads the world in the production of intellectual property. Intellectual property-based industries, including those that rely on patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and trade names, contribute over $500 billion annually to the U.S. economy. However, the current global reach of information is making it much easier for pirates to gain access to intellectual property. It is vitally important that we take adequate steps to discourage, and ultimately prevent, other nations from allowing the rampant piracy of the work of Americans. Members of the World Trade Organization signed an agreement on Trade- Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, in 1995. That agreement establishes minimum standards of intellectual property protection and requires the signatory developing nations to be compliant with their TRIPS obligations by January 1, 2000. Regardless of this, piracy continues in GSP beneficiary nations and around the world, costing the U.S. intellectual property-dependent industries approximately $50 billion a year. The United States has recognized the importance of protecting American intellectual property and encouraging the growth of its related industries. The Administration has actively pressed other nations to engage in adequate protections, particularly through the use of the Special 301 ``watch'' list. However, this is not enough. We need to do more to remove the incentives for piracy. Linking GSP benefits to TRIPS obligations is an important first step, and a powerful way to send a clear message to these and other nations that there is a price to pay for continuing to permit rampant piracy of American-made products. Mr. President, this sense of the Congress does send an important message to these countries that the United States is watching, and that legislation to implement the denial of duty-free treatment is imminent unless they take the necessary steps to respect and protect the intellectual capital of Americans. At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this resolution be inserted into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am submitting an amendment to the House-passed tax bill on the calendar. This amendment would improve the House bill by directing more of its tax relief to middle income taxpayers, and by protecting Social Security. The amendment would provide relief from the marriage penalty, help parents afford child care, promote the modernization of our schools, allow self-employed individuals to deduct the costs of health insurance, encourage savings and investment by establishing new exclusions for interest and dividends for all Americans, promote research by reinstating the research and experimentation tax credit, provide relief from the estate and gift tax, promote the revitalization of depressed areas, expand support for small businesses, and modify rules that discourage seniors from working. The amendment differs from the House bill in two primary respects. First, it would target tax relief to middle income families, largely by providing additional relief for families with children in child care, and by promoting the modernization of our nation's schools. Second, the bill protects Social Security, by deferring the effective date of the tax cuts until the Social Security Trust Fund is actuarially sound. Mr. President, let me briefly review the items that are included in my proposal. First, the amendment would provide relief from the marriage penalty. As proposed in the House-passed bill, the amendment would increase the standard deduction for married couples so that each spouse would have the same deduction as a single filer. Second, the amendment would help families handle the costs of child care. It would increase the child care and dependent tax credit to a maximum allowable expense for inflation. It would make the credit refundable, so that it benefits those with lower incomes. And it would provide a new tax credit worth $90 per month for stay-at-home parents of children under one year of age. Third, the amendment would promote education, by supporting the modernization of our schools, and allowing schools of higher education to establish prepaid tuition programs. Fourth, the amendment would allow self-employed individuals to fully deduct the costs of health insurance. Fifth, the amendment would promote savings and investment, by establishing a new exclusion for dividends and interest. Individuals could exclude up to $200, and couples could exclude up to $400 in dividends and interest. Sixth, the amendment would extend several provisions of the tax code that expired this year or would expire next year. These include the credits for research, work opportunity and welfare-to-work, would be extended through Feb. 29, 2000. The credit for contributions of stock to private foundations would be extended permanently. Seventh, the amendment would provide immediate relief from the estate and gift tax. Under the legislation, an additional $25,000 of estates would, in effect, be excludable from this tax in 1999. This would increase the total credit against this tax to $675,000. Eighth, the amendment would encourage the revitalization of depressed areas, by providing a variety of tax incentives to businesses and individuals in 20 so-called renewal communities. These low-income areas would be designated by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Ninth, the amendment includes various provisions to assist small businesses. For example, the legislation would allow small-business owners to deduct up to $25,000 of the cost of business-related equipment. Finally, the amendment would allow seniors to work more without suffering a reduction in their Social Security benefits. Under the proposal, seniors would be able to earn up to $17,000 in 1999 without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. That limit would increase to $39,750 in 2008. Mr. President, there also are other provisions in this amendment, and I will not detail each one. Suffice it to say that, to a very large extent, this proposal tracks the tax cuts included in legislation approved by the House. However, as I have noted, the amendment is more targeted to middle income taxpayers, largely because it includes support for child care and school modernization. Also, its estate tax provisions are somewhat modified from the House version, to help us afford these other provisions, and to ensure that the bulk of the relief provided in the bill goes to middle class and moderate-income Americans. The second key difference from the House Mr. President, it that this proposal includes significant tax relief while fully protecting Social Security. Under the proposal, all tax cuts would become effective when the Social Security Trust Fund is in long-range actuarial balance. This ensures that we will not squander our opportunity to reform Social Security next year, and that we will not force unnecessary cuts in Social Security benefits for today's younger Americans. It also reflects a commitment to abide by the Balanced Budget Agreement and to maintain fiscal discipline. I hope my colleagues will support this proposal, and I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on September 2, I convened a forum on gun trafficking. Across America, it is simply too easy for criminals, particularly gangs, to purchase and distribute large numbers of guns. And more guns in the wrong hands means more murder and mayhem on our streets. Because we must move more aggressively to stop this deadly crime, I introduced S. 466, the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act. The testimony I heard at the forum has made me even more determined to pass this sensible legislation and help stop gun traffickers. In order to share the insights of the witnesses at the forum with my colleagues and the public, I am submitting the testimony presented for inclusion in the Congressional Record. Last week, I submitted the testimony of Mayor Edward Rendell. Today, I am submitting the testimony of James and Sarah Brady. Through their tireless efforts with The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control, they have helped reduce gun violence across our country and it was an honor to have them at the forum. I am also submitting the testimony from several young people who were kind enough to testify at the forum. John Schuler, Kenisha Green and Quanita Favorite live in communities where gun violence is an everyday occurrence, and they have experienced the pain and misery that results. We must do more to help them and the other children who live in the crime-ridden neighborhoods of our nation. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony of James Brady and Sarah Brady, along with excerpts from the testimony of John Schuler, Kenisha Green, and Quanita Favorite, be printed in the Record. The material follows: john schuler--21 years old--resident of benning terrace in se washington dc I live in a neighborhood that guns are always going off. You hear them late at night or early in the morning hours. It sometimes feels like a war zone. The bad part about it is that you never feel safe. You always have this fear that it could be you that gets shot today. That's no way for children to grow up. Nobody is willing to do anything about it. Guns are sold all the time and its like--you can get one anytime you want one. The people who sell em' don't even live in the neighborhood. It's like a business you know. All the time, somebody needs a pistol to protect themselves or because they got to get somebody before they get taken out themselves. I've seen friends get shot or killed sometimes for no reason at all. Or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can get what ever you need, gloc, special or what ever, you can get it if you got the cash. Kenisha green--20 years old--resident of park morton, washington, dc I've got so much to say and it just doesn't seem to be enough time to explain how I feel. I've seen guns sold in and around my neighborhood, to my friends and to my enemies. The fact of the matter is that nobody wins. Every time a gun is sold or stolen and ends up on the streets, you can just scratch off somebody's baby being dead. We are killing each other at alarming rates and its like nobody cares because they say--``they're poor, or they're just dope dealers, or they're just not worth it.'' It's not fair. Other kids get to go to college and we get to go to funerals. These people who sell guns are the real predators. They feed off of our pain and make it seem like we be the animals. Any kind of weapon you want, if you got the cash its available. quanita favorite--18 years old--resident kennedy street nw washington, dc Just like they sell crack in neighborhood guns are sold all the time in my community. Just last week outside my apartment I could hear a man and woman arguing in the alley. He pulled out a pistol and started firing at her. It's like Dodge City . . . everybody seems to be carrying. Not long ago my uncle was shot and killed on Capital Hill. I still have nightmares. Why are guns so easy to get in our neighborhood? Why do people sell guns like candy and make the victims the guilty parties. We are suffering in our neighborhood and nobody really cares. I work for the Advocates for Youth here in Washington. My job is helping other young people understand the violence and that they can do something about it. Almost every person who we come in contact with, throughout the Nation's Capital has been touched by gun violence. Either a close loved one or a friend at school. When people can purchase guns from other states and easily bring them to sell on the streets of Washington, we've got a real problem. I don't want to die or raise children in an environment where walking down my street could be a life or death situation. people have got to understand that we need drastic measures to curb the illegal sales and purchases of weapons or we all will become victims.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a forum I held on September 2 on the deadly problem of gun trafficking. I am pleased that Senator Robb and Senator Sarbanes were able to join me at the forum. As my colleagues know, I have introduced S. 466, the Anti-Gun Trafficking Act. The Judiciary Committee has not held hearings on this legislation, and I thought it was important to gather expert testimony on the issue. The testimony I heard at the forum has made me even more determined to pass this sensible legislation and make it more difficult for gun traffickers to obtain and sell their deadly merchandise on our streets. The witnesses at this forum included: Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, who is also the chair of the Conference of Mayor's Task Force on Gun Violence; James and Sarah Brady; Captain R. Lewis Vass of the Virginia State Police, and Captain Thomas Bowers of the Maryland State Police. We also heard from a panel of youth from right here in our nation's capital who live with gun violence everyday in their communities. They were John Schuler, Kenisha Green and Quanita Favorite. In this statement I will summarize what happened during the forum. But I will also be including, during the next few days, testimony from the witnesses so that my colleagues and the public will have a record of their views. Mr. President, as a result of the Brady Act, we have helped prevent thousands of guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. Since the Brady Act went into effect in 1994, more than 242,000 handgun purchases have been denied to convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and other dangerous persons. The Domestic Violence Gun Ban in the Brady Act, which I sponsored and which went into effect in 1996, has prevented more than 6,800 firearms sales to people convicted of abusing a spouse or child. However, the Brady Law has not completely stopped the flow of handguns to those who should not have them. Gun traffickers continue to supply an illegal gun market by buying large quantities of guns in states with lax gun laws and then reselling them on the streets--often in cities and states with strict gun laws. If these traffickers can not legally buy a gun themselves, or if they do not want to have their name turn up if the gun is later found at a crime scene, they find others to make the purchases for them. The trafficker pays a straw purchaser, in money or drugs, to buy 25, 50 or more handguns at a time and then resells the guns to those who otherwise could not buy them--such as convicted felons, drug addicts, or children. In fact, the Maryland State Police official testified that multiple guns purchased by straw purchasers were the source of the majority of firearms used in the commission of violent crime. My bill would make it far more difficult and less profitable for traffickers to conduct their deadly business, by prohibiting an individual from buying more than one handgun a month. We know this approach works because three states--Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina--have passed one-gun-a month laws and the results have been dramatic. Gun trafficking from these states has plunged. For instance, officers from the Virginia State Police testified that after Virginia passed its one-handgun-a-month limit in 1993, the number of crime guns traced back to Virginia from the Northeast dropped by nearly 40 percent. Prior to one-gun-a-month, Virginia had been among the leading supplier of weapons to the so-called ``Iron Pipeline'' that feed the arms race on the streets of Northeastern cities. In 1995, the Virginia Crime Commission conducted a comprehensive study of the one-handgun-a-month limit to determine if the law had achieved its purpose. That study found, and I quote, ``Virginia's one- gun-a-month statute . . . has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source state for gun trafficking.'' Maryland and South Carolina showed similar results. In South Carolina, according to the same Crime Commission report: ``Prior to the passage of the one-gun-a-month law, South Carolina was a leading source state for guns traced to New York City, accounting for 39% of guns recovered in criminal investigations. Following the implementation of the law, South Carolina virtually dropped off of the statistical list of source states for firearms trafficked to the northeast.'' Maryland--the most recent state to pass a limit on handgun purchases-- passed its law in 1996 and has already seen the results. According to testimony from the Maryland State Police: ``In 1991 Maryland was nationally ranked second in terms of suppliers of crime guns to the City of New York. By 1997, one year after the passage of Maryland's one gun a month law, Maryland moved out of the top ten suppliers of crime guns to New York City.'' And most significant is the drop in crime that has followed enactment of limits on handgun sales. For example, in Virginia, the number of murders, robberies and aggravated assaults committed with a firearm significantly dropped after 1993 when the limit went into effect. Of course it should not come as a surprise to anyone that violent crime would drop when it becomes more difficult for criminals to get a handgun. Handguns are the gun of choice for criminals--they are cheap and concealable. Of all murders committed with firearm, about 80% are committed with a handgun. Limits on handgun purchases, while disrupting gun traffickers, have little or no effect on the sportsman or law abiding citizen because a very small percent of all handgun purchases involve multiple sales. For example, in 1991, Virginia State Police reported only 6% of handgun purchases were multiple sales. But of these, nearly 75% were semi- automatic weapons, the weapon of choice among gun traffickers. Mayor Rendell testified that less than 1% of handgun purchasers in Philadelphia bought more than 12 handguns in a twelve month period. Let me put some human faces on this issue. As I said earlier, kids from the District of Columbia testified at my forum. And what they had to say was terrifying. Guns were an every day part of their lives. For these kids, D.C. does not stand for District of Columbia. It stands for Dodge City. These young people told us that guns are easy to get in their neighborhoods and schools. They call it getting strapped. And if you do not get strapped you might not make it through the day, they said. One young woman put it eloquently: ``It's not fair,'' she said. ``Other kids get to go to college. We get to go to funerals. These people who sell guns are the real predators. They feed off our pain.'' We must shut these predators down. Most sane people would ask, who could possibly need more than one handgun a month? The testimony at my forum gave the clear and obvious answer. Someone who should not have any at all. The only people who would ``need'' more than one gun a month are gun traffickers. It is the only way to make their deadly business profitable. The need for a national limit on handgun sales is clear. I hope this Congress has the courage to act in the interests of law abiding Americans. But I have my doubts. This Congress has defeated sensible proposals to try to make guns safer through mandated safety locks. This Congress has defeated legislation that would require adults to keep their guns locked and out of reach of children. I look forward to the day when this Congress listens to the American people instead of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association. Poll after poll shows that Americans, including gun-owning Americans, want tougher controls on guns. A University of Chicago study in 1996 found 85% support legislation mandating that all new handguns must be childproof, and 80% favors limiting handgun sales to one a month. We have heard a lot from Charlton Heston lately now that he is president of the National Rifle Association. But I sometimes think Mr. Heston forgets he is only an actor--not Moses--when he uses that superb voice of his in the service of the National Rifle Association. I would like to remind Mr. Heston of one of the last things Moses said to the children of Israel before he died. ``I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life if you and your offspring would live.'' Well, Mr. Heston, we choose life--for ourselves and our children. And we are going to fight the curse that gun traffickers have wrought upon cities, our schools and our streets. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people; stop turning a blind eye to the daily destruction caused by guns in America. I urge my colleagues to have the will to do something to help the youth of America live without the daily sound of gunshots in their lives. I ask my colleagues to support this common sense approach to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. Mr. President, I ask that the testimony of Mayor Edward Rendell be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Testimony of Mayor Edward G. Rendell, Forum on Handgun Violence and S. 466, ``The Anti-Gun Trafficking Act''--Talking Points i. the scope of the problem We have a crisis in Philadelphia: Gun violence is out of control, and the carnage it has created is unprecedented in our City. The statistics are chilling: Between 1985 and 1995, deaths by firearm rose 66 percent in Pennsylvania, and by 102 percent in Philadelphia. In 1995 there were 432 total homicides in Philadelphia, and gun homicides represented a staggering 77 percent of that number. In 1996, there were 414 total homicides, and killings by gun represented 81 percent of that number. And last year, the gruesome trend continued: of the 410 total homicides in Philadelphia, 339 of them-- almost 83 percent--were due to gun violence. These numbers are the highest of any city in the nation. For the City, there is one particularly horrifying element to the growing plague of gun violence: More and more, kids are doing the killing. In almost 15 percent of all Philadelphia gun homicides over the last three years, a child under age 18 was arrested for pulling the trigger. And worst of all, kids are the victims, too: in 1995, 24 children were shot to death; in 1996, the number was 25; and last year, 26 kids were killed by gunfire. Ladies and gentlemen, homicide is now the leading cause of death among youths ages 16 to 21 in Philadelphia. Compare this Boston, where no kids--zero--under the age of 18 were killed by gunfire during the same period. The carnage caused by gun violence in Philadelphia doesn't just show up in the murder statistics, either: More than half of all robberies committed in Philadelphia are robberies at the point of a gun. In Philadelphia last year, there were 11,938 robberies, and 53.7 percent were gun robberies. Almost one-third of those arrested for these crimes were under the age of 18. Of the 6,198 aggravated assaults in Philadelphia last year, more than 36 percent involved a gun--a total of 2,279 shootings in one year. Almost 17 percent of those arrested for these crimes were juveniles. In one bloody week earlier this year, our newspaper headlines recorded the shooting deaths of eight people in Philadelphia--five in one weekend alone. Among the victims: a 22-year-old man killed in a gun battle that erupted outside the Palestra at the University of Pennsylvania after a high- school basketball championship game. Three others were wounded in the melee, which took place in the middle of 33rd Street as the crowd was leaving the game. In other cases, two owners of a neighborhood pizzeria were gunned down in their store; an elderly woman was shot to death during a robbery in her own home; and a lawyer and his assistant were robbed and executed in their Center City office. Though that week was particularly grim, it was by no means one-of-a-kind. In fact, the situation is so bad that an absence of murder actually became news last spring: In a story about the Philadelphia murder rate, one local newspaper reported that Philadelphia went 12 days without a homicide, from April 24th to May 5th. As the paper noted: ``There had not been a comparable killing-free stretch for at least 10 years. The next longest streak on record was eight days, in 1988.'' ii. we have tried to address the problem in many ways Having been a prosecutor for most of my professional career--I was the elected District Attorney of Philadelphia from 1978 to 1986, and before that, I served as the Chief of the Homicide Unit in the DA's office--I know a fair amount about crime and the fear that it generates among good and decent people in our communities. This is not an argument about whether people have the right to own guns or not. Rather, this is about stopping guns from getting into the wrong hands, particularly criminals and children. I understand the need for comprehensive solutions to fighting crime involve more than controlling the flow of handguns in our City. For example, in my first term as District Attorney of Philadelphia, I authored the death penalty law in Pennsylvania, which withstood legal challenge and today is being used with increasing frequency. In 1982, during my second term as DA, I authored Pennsylvania's current mandatory sentencing law, which created tough new mandatory jail terms for criminal offenders, including a flat five-year mandatory sentence for anyone convicted of using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The results have meant longer sentences are being served in Pennsylvania. Last year alone, the number of convictions for gun offenses in Philadelphia almost doubled, and the number of jail terms meted out for these convictions jumped by more than 120 percent. Overall, the number of inmates in Pennsylvania prisons has increased by almost 30 percent since 1993 (26,060 inmates statewide in 1993, up to 34,534 inmates statewide by 1996.) We have tried through the enactment of state legislation in Pennsylvania as recently a 1995. The Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 6111(g)(5)) makes it a felony to ``knowingly and intentionally'' sell or deliver a gun if he or she has ``reason to believe'' that the gun is intended to be used in the commission of a crime. But the problem has been in proving that the seller acted ``knowingly or intentionally,'' with reason to believe that the firearm was intended for use in a crime. Proving intent is always difficult; proving that someone acted knowingly, intentionally and with reason to believe is practically impossible. As a result, a law meant to limit a criminal's access to guns in reality is used only very rarely, and as such has had no practical effect on the effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. III. And We're Still Trying The statistics show the grim toll of gun violence in Philadelphia, and these facts can be repeated in cities all over America. They can be measured in starkly human terms: the number of lives lost to gun violence, and the number of lives ruined by it, either through injury (victims and families) or incarceration (the perpetrators). But for cities like Philadelphia, the cost of gun violence can be quantified in dollars and cents too; Taking into account the enormous burden that guns place on our health services, courts, prisons, police, sheriffs, fire, pension, workers compensation, our public schools, and social services, the City estimates the cost of gun violence in Philadelphia is $58.8 million a year. These statistics underscore the critical importance of doing all we can to eliminate the flow of guns to the wrong people: criminals, children, and those ``straw purchasers'' who sell to them. That is why we pushed for tougher sentences, for the death penalty, and for the construction of new prisons to house those sentenced to longer jail terms. But the grim gun violence statistics keep climbing, showing that what we've done hasn't been nearly enough. That's why we continue to do all that we can to stop the violence, with initiatives like the successful effort to win agreement with gun manufacturers to provide a child safety lock with every handgun they sell. The industry is to be commended for its willingness to act affirmatively to provide child safety locks. They are an easy, affordable way to reduce gun violence, and they are helping. That is why we also have launched a comprehensive public education campaign in Philadelphia, targeting youngsters with a message that focuses on violence reduction (I Can End Violence) and specifically on carrying and using guns. These messages are aimed for distribution through churches, rec centers, and youth centers. In addition, we have launched a public service ad campaign--``What Are You Shooting For?''-- that sends that same message throughout the Greater Philadelphia region, and we have garnered the assistance of the local media in supporting this effort by broadcasting these messages. The Philadelphia Police Department has changed the way it does business with respect to handguns. A whole new series of initiatives have been introduced to control the damage done by criminals with handguns. These initiatives include: Standard Interview Protocol for all gun offenders to determine the origin of guns used in crimes; streamlining all gun issues in the Police Department under one command; aggressively serving warrants; zero tolerance for gun offenders in high violent-crime areas; and more aggressively tracing guns used in crimes, and cracking down on second sales, with the help of the ATF. Working together, the ATF and the Philadelphia Police Department have made terrific progress in tracking the origins of guns used in the commission of crimes. Initially, the joint ATF-PPD task force traced firearms recovered in major crimes. Today, they trace all firearms linked to an arrest, and soon, they will have the capability to trace all firearms recovered in Philadelphia. As a result of these initiatives, the task force has increased the number of arrests for gun violation prosecutions by 25 percent, and that number continues to rise. But again, to be successful in prosecuting those who sell guns to criminals, we must prove that the seller ``knowingly or intentionally'' sold the gun to someone he knew was going to use it to commit a crime. In practice, it is a difficult EGR standards to meet, especially since neither the seller nor the buyer has any incentive to testify to that effect. The seller clearly has no interest in testifying that he knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, or that he had reason to expect that it would be used in a crime. And the criminal likewise has little incentive to volunteer any inculpatory evidence whatsoever. As a result, despite the success of these efforts, we must all do more. iv. what the gun industry can do Gun manufacturers can help, too. Child safety locks were a great move, but more must be done. I have asked the industry to: (1) increase internal security--14,000 guns were stolen from one manufacturer's plant in Southern California; (2) stop selling guns that are attractive to criminals but have no legitimate use except to kill people: Saturday night specials, armor piercing bullets, military assault weapons; (3) stop advertising that incorrectly suggests that people are safer for having a gun in their homes; the New England Journal of Medicine reports that bringing a gun into the home leads to a three-fold increase in risk of homicide in the home; (4) take the lead and oppose senseless restrictions that impede investigation of gun crimes, such as obstruction of the Brady form and multiple purchase form in 20 days, making tracking infinitely more difficult. NOTE: even Ron Stewart of Colt recently called for federalization of state laws requiring a second set of serial numbers on weapons because, as he said, ``isn't that a protective measure that prevents illegal ownership of a firearm?'' (5) A 1994 federal law banned further manufacture for civilian use of clips or magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Stop producing guns that accept ``grandfathered'' magazines; (6) Develop technology to make illegal use almost impossible, such as the production of ``personalized'' handguns that can only be fired by their rightful owners. This is the ultimate weapon against illegal use of handguns. Last year, Colt unveiled a prototype personalized handgun for police to prevent them from being shot with their own weapons. This system should be developed ASAP for everyone, police and civilians alike. The gun industry, working with the American Shooting Sports Council, has agreed to join mayors from a variety of cities, including Philadelphia, Chicago, Dallas, and St. Louis, in the formation of a joint task force to come with initiatives, by the fall of this year, to reduce handgun violence in American cities. That is the kind of partnership we need to substantively address the problem of handgun violence in our cities. That is why I also urge federal support for Project Exile, a partnership we have created with the National Rifle Association in which Philadelphia would be used as a test city to gauge the impact of federalizing every violation of existing handgun laws. The idea is simple: federally prosecute all handgun violations, and mete out tough federal prison sentences for all convictions. It has shown dramatic results in Richmond, Va., and I have no doubt that it will reduce gun violence and the carnage that accompanies it on the streets of Philadelphia. People on both sides of the age-old gun debate have criticized this partnership, but again, this is not about the Second Amendment. This is not about the right to bear arms. We're talking about stemming the flow of guns into the inner city, where they are used by criminals and children to commit crimes and destroy families. Thanks to the support of Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Specter, Congressional support for this initiative will help us obtain the federal resources needed to make the program a success. I have already been to the White House to discuss Administration support for the initiative, and I believe that it will be successful in that regard. We are engaged in a war to reduce the carnage caused by gun violence. And we must fight this fight on many fronts, and sometimes with unusual allies. We have worked with the gun industry, the NRA and its representatives, for one simple reason: We need their help to reduce gun violence. And we are still considering litigation to force gun manufacturers to join the fight against gun violence if they do not do so willingly. v. the need for federal one gun a month legislation If these initiatives are critical to our fight, then the enactment of legislation is no less essential in the effort to reduce gun violence. And that is why today's forum is critically important: Whatever other initiatives are implemented, we must develop Congressional support for S. 466, the federal Anti-Gun Trafficking Act sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg. Because gun trafficking knows no state lines, federal legislation--a uniform national standard limiting handgun purchases--is the only effective way to combat this problem. I have long advocated support for One Gun a Month, because it is a matter of basic common sense. One Gun a Month deals only with handguns, and does not interfere at all with a citizen's right to maintain a firearm for home or personal protection. Instead, One Gun a Month focuses on stopping multiple purchases of handguns, because these are the guns that ultimately wind up being resold on the streets of our cities to criminals and children. Look at the statistics on gun sales in Pennsylvania. In 1996, there were 150,000 handgun sales statewide. During roughly the same period, there were 38,338 guns sold in the Philadelphia region alone. Of that number, roughly nine percent of the purchasers bought nearly 30 percent of the guns. What that means is that small numbers of people are buying lots of guns, and our experience shows that is for only one reason: to resell them on the street to people who use them in the commission of crimes. One Gun a Month would limit purchasers to buying 12 guns a year. I also support the so-called ``Collector's Exception,'' which would permit bona fide gun collectors from the legislation. As a result, for the overwhelming majority of gun purchasers, only the 13th gun would be prohibited. Ladies and gentlemen, legislation that proposes to ban handgun sales only at the purchase of 13 guns a year does not affect the average citizen--or the average gun purchaser. As the New York Times pointed out in a recent editorial supporting a federal limit, those who argue that One Gun a Month would limit a citizen's right to bear arms should be forced to ``explain to crime-fearing Americans why a 12-gun-per-year limit would impose any offensive burden on law-abiding users who may want a weapons for target shooting or for personal protection.'' Instead, the federal standard proposed in S. 466 simply limits the ability of those who resell guns on our streets. Again, look at just the Pennsylvania numbers. Of the 25,510 purchasers of guns in 1996, One Gun a Month would affect only 103 Pennsylvania purchasers (those who bought more than 12 guns in a 12-month period.) That's .4 percent of all purchasers of guns in Philadelphia, and only a total of 5,000 guns out of the 38,000 sold in 1996 in the Philadelphia region. And while One Gun a Month does little to limit purchases by law-abiding citizens in Pennsylvania, it has the potential to crack down on the sales to those who sell to criminals and children. In other words, it has the ability to go after the gun sales that none of us want: not the City of Philadelphia, not any member of Congress, and not even the gun manufacturers or the NRA. The grim reality of these types of sales is inescapable. FACT: At least 20 percent of all multiple gun purchasers can be linked to guns used in the commission of crime, particularly violent crime, in Philadelphia. FACT: A total of 608 handguns that were purchased in multiple purchase transactions have been directly linked to a homicide or other violent crime in Philadelphia. And as the tracing of these guns continues, these numbers undoubtedly will continue to rise. FACT: Under One Gun a Month, the sale of guns to ``suspect purchasers'' (those whose purchases suggest involvement in street resale of guns) could be reduced by as much as 54 percent. States have taken the lead in the effort to limit purchases to one gun a month. And as Sen. Lautenberg has made clear, the good news is that One Gun a Month is working in Virginia, South Carolina and Maryland, where it was most recently enacted. In Virginia, the odds of a handgun seized in a crime anywhere along the East Coast has dropped 66 percent since One Gun a Month was enacted in 1993. In Maryland, handgun sales dropped more than 25 percent last year, and as the Washington Post noted sarcastically, that in turn ``is threatening Maryland's position as a leading supplier of handguns seized by police at crime scenes up and down the East Coast.'' I urge members of Congress to follow the lead of Sen. Lautenberg and support S. 466, the ``Anti-Gun Trafficking Act.'' I have also urged the gun industry and the NRA to support this important legislation, together with my fellow mayors from cities all over the nation. Again, this is not about whether people have the right to bear arms or purchase weapons. This legislation does not affect them. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and out of the hands of children. Gun violence is out of control in Philadelphia, and this legislation can help to stop it. I urge your support. Several years ago, a Florida-based manufacturer of assault pistols which at that time were with a 32-round magazine, said: ``I know some of the guns going out of here will end up killing people, but I'm not responsible for that.'' He was wrong then, and that attitude is wrong now. It is my responsibility, and it is everyone's responsibility, including mayors, state legislators, members of Congress, and indeed, especially the gun industry itself. Back in April, I came to Washington to speak directly to gun manufacturers, thanks to the invitation of the American Shooting Sports Council. It was, I might add, not the greatest reception I've ever gotten. But they were at least willing to listen, and I told them that we very much wanted to be their allies in fighting the growing plague of gun violence. That remains true, but understand, one way or another we will try anything and everything--whether it is partnering with the gun industry or the NRA, or suing gun manufacturers--to end the terrible consequences of gun violence on the streets of Philadelphia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday the Conferees on VA- HUD Appropriations decided to amend our nation's Superfund law. At present, Superfund contains a limit on the liability of sureties who issue performance bonds to Superfund cleanup contractors. I was the author of that provision, which I introduced in 1990 as a free-standing Superfund bill (S. 3187). My bill was broadly supported by labor, environmentalists, and the American Insurance Association. But, Mr. President, at the time the surety liability legislation was passed, certain Senators who doubted the limitation was necessary to increase the availability, and hence, competitiveness, of surety bonds, added a sunset provision. During the VA-HUD Conference yesterday, the Conferees agreed to eliminate that sunset provision. The deletion has had broad-based, bipartisan support, and has appeared in each comprehensive Superfund reform bill introduced in this Congress. I supported that amendment, Mr. President, but I want to underscore my distress at the manner in which the Conferees adopted the amendment. Several months ago, I asked Senator Chafee to include two Superfund amendments on the agenda for an Environment and Public Works Committee business meeting before the end of the year--one pertaining to brownfields and the other to municipal solid waste (``MSW''). Senator Chafee rejected this request, based on his opposition to ``piecemeal'' Superfund reform, that is, anything less than a comprehensive overhaul of the entire Superfund statute--something that has eluded this body now for three consecutive Congresses, or six years. I was therefore astonished that the surety amendment made its way into yesterday's VA-HUD Conference Report. I was especially surprised that Senator Chafee, as Chair of the authorizing Committee, signed off on this piece of Superfund reform on an appropriations bill, despite his repeated opposition to ``piecemeal'' reform, and the fact that this provision had not passed the House or the Senate as a stand-alone bill, and was not in either the House or the Senate VA-HUD bills. Some argued that the surety amendment was merely technical in nature--that it simply perpetuated the opportunity for sureties to enjoy limited liability under Superfund. Using that criterion, a brownfields liability exemption would also constitute nothing more than a technical fix--it would clarify that Congress did not intend Superfund liability to deter persons from purchasing and cleaning up brownfields properties. Nor would an MSW amendment--which would confirm that Congress did not intend persons who disposed of only household waste to be liable for cleanup of toxic waste. The surety amendment has also been touted as non-controversial-- having consistently enjoyed broad-based bi-partisan support. Mr. President, as I have stated on many occasions, and my esteemed colleagues must agree, brownfields and MSW liability exemptions can boast the same historic consensus. They have appeared in each of the comprehensive Superfund reform bills introduced by Republicans or Democrats since the 103rd Congress. And they have gained the support of all stakeholders, the Administration, and the national environmental community. The brownfields and MSW fixes are minor, but they are crucial for successful brownfields development, or to relieve those subjected to unfair and unintended litigation. And they offer significant economic and environmental benefits. The nation's Mayors estimate they lose between $200 and $500 million a year in tax revenues from these properties sitting idle, and that returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. I am therefore honestly trying to understand what, if any, objective criteria exist for determining which small Superfund fixes will be made in this session. When I consider yesterday's surety amendment, along with Senator Lott's recycling proposal (S. 2180), I can find nothing that distinguishes sureties or recyclers from brownfields or MSW. There is virtually nothing that makes the surety's or recycler's needs more urgent than those of our cities in need of brownfields revitalization, and their taxpayers and residents, who want cleanup and redevelopment; or those of the homeowners and small businesses mired in litigation at landfill sites. And it certainly cannot be argued that brownfields or MSW have enjoyed any less broad-based support than have fixes for recyclers or sureties. As a Senator from a state with literally thousands of brownfields sites, as well as altogether too many instances of homeowners and small businesses dragged into Superfund litigation by their corporate peers (and not by EPA), it is my responsibility to lobby for those communities and individuals who don't have lobbyists representing them here in the Congress. We, as their elected representatives, are their lobbyists. We are their voice. There is no reason in the world why this Senate, and this Congress, should not move forward to make the minor, non-controversial, and eminently sensible changes to Superfund law that impede brownfields development and rob small businesses of their hard earned profits. Now, Mr. President, some of my colleagues have claimed that passage of brownfields or MSW amendments are anathema to comprehensive Superfund reform. Or some of my colleagues have argued that precisely because the brownfields and MSW amendments are so popular, and enjoy such broad ranging support, and provide such significant benefits to the nation, that they should be held hostage to comprehensive Superfund reform--that we should see if they will succeed in driving parties back to the table to negotiate comprehensive Superfund reform for the fourth consecutive Congress. Mr. President, with all due respect, I think it is wrong to prevent enactment of legislation that enjoys broad support, and would reap acknowledged benefits, as a tactical matter to achieve unrelated goals. This disserves the public and adds to public cynicism. For a variety of reasons, efforts to radically change Superfund, the nation's toxic waste cleanup program, have failed for six years running. Toward the end of each of the past two Congresses, many Senators, including this Senator, have argued that we should move ahead with achievable reforms that are non-controversial and permit our people, our communities, and our economy to benefit from their enactment. Today, as we head into the final week of this Congress, I make the same plea. Just as holding recyclers or sureties hostage to comprehensive Superfund reform has not gotten us any closer to producing an acceptable product that the President could sign, so holding brownfields development and persons who disposed of household trash hostage to other legislative goals is a failed strategy. It will not mitigate the controversy intrinsic to the broader issues raised by comprehensive legislation. But it will rob communities across the country of the jobs and tax ratables that flow from revitalized brownfields and will impose severe penalties on the individuals and small businesses caught up in a litigation nightmare through no fault of their own. Mr. President, I call upon my esteemed colleagues to move brownfields and MSW amendments before this Congress ends. I believe otherwise we will all have a hard time explaining, when we return to our home states in October, why sureties and recyclers merited this body's attention, but our communities and our taxpayers and our small businesspeople were somehow less worthy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today on behalf of myself and Senators Bumpers, Dodd, and Moseley-Braun, I introduce the Gun Show Sunshine Act of 1998. This bill addresses the serious problem of gun shows where criminals can buy and sell dangerous weapons without any record of the sale, and without any background checks. Let me outline the scope of the problem. Since the Brady Act went into effect in 1994, more than 242,000 handgun purchases have been denied to convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and other dangerous persons. The Domestic Violence Gun Ban in the Brady Act, which I sponsored, went into effect in 1996 and has prevented more than 6,800 firearms sales to people convicted of abusing a spouse or child. However, because of a loophole in our laws, those same people merely need to drive to a gun show and they can buy as many weapons as they want. Just walk in with cash and walk out with a weapon--no waiting, no background check, and no record of the transaction. Simply put, gun shows are firearm flea markets for felons. Because gun shows are largely unregulated, no one knows for sure how many gun shows are held each year, or how many guns are sold at them. Estimates range from 2,000 to 5,200 shows a year. These shows generate billions of dollars in gun sales and put thousands of guns into the hands of people who would be stopped from buying a gun if a background check were done. The system is perfectly geared to the anonymity criminals crave. Tommy Dillon, a serial killer in Ohio, used gun shows to both buy and sell his murder weapons without a trace--even though police suspected he was the killer. Dillon was so sure he found a perfect system that he taunted police with an anonymous letter promising he would never be caught. He was caught after killing five people, but only because of a freak coincidence. After Dillon was picked up on an unrelated weapons charge, someone he had sold one of his murder weapons to recognized Dillon from a newspaper photo, and called the police when he realized he had one of the murder weapons police sought. One California gun dealer used the unregulated flea-market atmosphere of gun shows to sell 1,700 guns in a four-year period. Some of these guns made their way to gang members and juveniles. Of the guns that could be traced, at least 30 were used in crimes, including three murders and a shoot out with police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 341,000 guns a year were stolen from private citizens between 1987 and 1992. Because there is no requirement to keep records, gun shows provide a safe haven to dispose of these weapons. How did it come to be like this? Back in 1986, under intense pressure from the gun lobby, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. The law substantially weakened the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed after the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Among the changes was a loosening of the law regarding who needs a license to sell firearms and what records must be kept. Under the new law, anyone selling from their ``private collection'' or who is engaged in ``occasional sales'' was made exempt from federal record-keeping. But the law does not define ``occasional sales'' or precisely what constitutes a ``personal collection.'' And, to make matters worse, the law prohibits agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from even entering a gun show unless they are there on a specific case. This has to stop. This bill would bring these weapons sales into the light and strip criminals of their government-granted anonymity. Under this bill, gun show operators would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and meet the same standards as federally licensed gun dealers--they must be more than 21 years of age and have no convictions for gun-law violations. Any person selling a firearm at a gun show would be required to notify the gun-show operator. The gun-show operator would then conduct a background check of the purchaser using the Instant Check system, just as a licensed gun dealer is required to do. The gun-show operator would also be required to keep the same records as a licensed gun dealer, including the name and address of the purchaser, the type of gun and its serial number. The operator would also be required to submit to the ATF a list of the serial numbers of all guns sold at the show so that if these guns are later recovered at a crime scene, the ATF will be able to trace the gun. This bill simply takes the laws that already apply to licensed gun dealers, and applies them to the thousands of transactions conducted by unlicensed sellers at gun shows. Mr. President, we must do more to stop the gun violence on our streets. Firearms are involved in 35,000 deaths a year. That's more American killed than in the entire Korean War. I urge my colleagues to help cut this weapons supply line that fuels an arms race on our streets. Let's work together to pass the Gun Show Sunshine Act and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his remarks. I applaud his efforts as Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on this issue and for his dedication to our armed forces. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 4013, the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Appropriations bill, includes a funding level of $28 million specifically for making upgrades to the radars which will support the Navy Theater Wide missile defense system, through a competitive process. The Senate has a long history of supporting this effort by providing funding above the amount requested by the Administration. I concur fully with these additions. The Navy Theater Wide program is an integral part of the overall architecture of missile defense which is being developed and built by our country today. However, in order to field a Navy Theater Wide system that will be available on the schedule that the Navy is pursuing, we must increase our efforts in the area of radar development. To date, the preponderance of the funds expended for the Navy Theater Wide program have gone toward development of the missile and the kill vehicle. While these are necessary elements of the Navy Theater Wide system, without the upgraded sensors to operate with them, the overall system will be less than fully capable. With the addition of the $28 million in this bill we are just beginning to make up for lost time. I wish we could have provided even more funds. However, I encourage the Navy and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to commence a vigorous effort to develop a radar system that will meet the stringent requirements of the Navy Theater Wide program. I believe the same radar system should also be compatible with meeting other fleet requirements, such as improving its ability to defeat cruise missiles. Do you agree with my assessment of the situation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today on behalf of myself and Senators Bumpers, Dodd, and Moseley-Braun, I introduce the Gun Show Sunshine Act of 1998. This bill addresses the serious problem of gun shows where criminals can buy and sell dangerous weapons without any record of the sale, and without any background checks. Let me outline the scope of the problem. Since the Brady Act went into effect in 1994, more than 242,000 handgun purchases have been denied to convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts and other dangerous persons. The Domestic Violence Gun Ban in the Brady Act, which I sponsored, went into effect in 1996 and has prevented more than 6,800 firearms sales to people convicted of abusing a spouse or child. However, because of a loophole in our laws, those same people merely need to drive to a gun show and they can buy as many weapons as they want. Just walk in with cash and walk out with a weapon--no waiting, no background check, and no record of the transaction. Simply put, gun shows are firearm flea markets for felons. Because gun shows are largely unregulated, no one knows for sure how many gun shows are held each year, or how many guns are sold at them. Estimates range from 2,000 to 5,200 shows a year. These shows generate billions of dollars in gun sales and put thousands of guns into the hands of people who would be stopped from buying a gun if a background check were done. The system is perfectly geared to the anonymity criminals crave. Tommy Dillon, a serial killer in Ohio, used gun shows to both buy and sell his murder weapons without a trace--even though police suspected he was the killer. Dillon was so sure he found a perfect system that he taunted police with an anonymous letter promising he would never be caught. He was caught after killing five people, but only because of a freak coincidence. After Dillon was picked up on an unrelated weapons charge, someone he had sold one of his murder weapons to recognized Dillon from a newspaper photo, and called the police when he realized he had one of the murder weapons police sought. One California gun dealer used the unregulated flea-market atmosphere of gun shows to sell 1,700 guns in a four-year period. Some of these guns made their way to gang members and juveniles. Of the guns that could be traced, at least 30 were used in crimes, including three murders and a shoot out with police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 341,000 guns a year were stolen from private citizens between 1987 and 1992. Because there is no requirement to keep records, gun shows provide a safe haven to dispose of these weapons. How did it come to be like this? Back in 1986, under intense pressure from the gun lobby, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners' Protection Act. The law substantially weakened the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed after the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. Among the changes was a loosening of the law regarding who needs a license to sell firearms and what records must be kept. Under the new law, anyone selling from their ``private collection'' or who is engaged in ``occasional sales'' was made exempt from federal record-keeping. But the law does not define ``occasional sales'' or precisely what constitutes a ``personal collection.'' And, to make matters worse, the law prohibits agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from even entering a gun show unless they are there on a specific case. This has to stop. This bill would bring these weapons sales into the light and strip criminals of their government-granted anonymity. Under this bill, gun show operators would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and meet the same standards as federally licensed gun dealers--they must be more than 21 years of age and have no convictions for gun-law violations. Any person selling a firearm at a gun show would be required to notify the gun-show operator. The gun-show operator would then conduct a background check of the purchaser using the Instant Check system, just as a licensed gun dealer is required to do. The gun-show operator would also be required to keep the same records as a licensed gun dealer, including the name and address of the purchaser, the type of gun and its serial number. The operator would also be required to submit to the ATF a list of the serial numbers of all guns sold at the show so that if these guns are later recovered at a crime scene, the ATF will be able to trace the gun. This bill simply takes the laws that already apply to licensed gun dealers, and applies them to the thousands of transactions conducted by unlicensed sellers at gun shows. Mr. President, we must do more to stop the gun violence on our streets. Firearms are involved in 35,000 deaths a year. That's more American killed than in the entire Korean War. I urge my colleagues to help cut this weapons supply line that fuels an arms race on our streets. Let's work together to pass the Gun Show Sunshine Act and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. 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 as a cosponsor of the pending amendment, offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli. The amendment, called the Quiet Communities Act, will reestablish the Environmental Protection Agency's appropriate role in noise abatement. This amendment simply reactivates an office in the EPA--the Office of Noise Abatement and Control--that was unfunded in 1981 at the request of the Reagan administration. The Office of Noise Abatement and Control will coordinate Federal noise abatement activities, develop noise standards, provide technical assistance to local communities, and promote research and education on the impacts of noise pollution. This office will be a resource to the millions of Americans who are affected by noise pollution, and particularly aircraft noise. Those of us who are in the New York-New Jersey region know only too well what effect aircraft noise has on our communities. It is a serious problem for populations across our country who are constantly harassed by airplane noise, truck noise, construction noise, and other noise, when they can never find peace in their own homes. In our region, with the several airports we have operating--La Guardia and Kennedy and Newark, and others--it is a constant. We have to find ways to deal with it. Just like air and water pollution, noise pollution is an environmental health issue. People who are tormented by noise pollution experience a range of health problems, such as hearing loss, stress, high blood pressure, sleep deprivation, distraction, and lost productivity. Aircraft noise is especially detrimental to human health. Some studies indicate that persistent exposure to high levels of aircraft noise is linked to hypertension, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal problems, among other disorders. Noise pollution is particularly troublesome in parts of the State of New Jersey. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and millions of New Jerseyans live close to major transportation centers that generate significant levels of noise in their neighborhoods. For example, aircraft approaching and departing from Newark International Airport are guided along flight paths routed over residential neighborhoods, patterns which disrupt families and disturb the community's quality of life. Communities affected by aircraft noise have been living with the pain for over 10 years and they must find relief. Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged with the responsibility of monitoring aircraft noise, has not adequately addressed the noise problems in New Jersey, and when attempted, its approach toward these problems is often flawed. For example the FAA's current threshold of 65 decibels Day-Night Level--or DNL--that the FAA indicates is compatible with residential use is often criticized as problematic and, in the opinion of the National Resources Defense Council, significantly underestimates the level at which many people are affected by aircraft noise. The fact that this fundamental threshold is controversial and the science behind it is disputed points to the fact that more research is needed on these issues. Mr. President, citizens living near airports have few resources at their disposal to find out more about the effects of air noise on their health and their environment. The Office of Noise Abatement and Control used to be one resource, and it has been dormant for too long. Simply put, Mr. President, noise pollution, and particularly aircraft noise, is a serious environmental health issue that deserves attention from the primary Federal agency whose responsibility is environmental protection--the EPA. Unfortunately, Mr. President, that was not the view in 1981. But now we have an opportunity to correct this mistake by adopting this amendment. Besides reactivating the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, the bill authorizes funding of $5 million a year for the first 2 years and $8 million a year for the subsequent years to fund Office's activities. According to the National Institutes of Health, more than 20 million Americans are exposed on a regular basis to hazardous noise levels that could result in hearing loss and other psychological and physiological damage. In my view, $5 million a year to address a problem affecting over 20 million Americans is a sound investment. The bill also requires the Office of Noise Abatement and Control to produce a study. The study must examine the FAA's selection of noise measurement methodologies, determine the threshold of noise at which health impacts are felt and determine the effectiveness of noise abatement programs at airports around the United States. The EPA would then issue recommendations--recommendations, Mr. President, not directives--to the FAA on measures that will mitigate the impact of air noise on affected communities. In my opinion, Mr. President, this study is long overdue, and particularly long overdue for the millions of Americans who live every day with the nuisance of aircraft noise in their lives. Mr. President, back in 1990, I sponsored a provision in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, that required all commercial airlines to convert their fleets from Stage II to Stage III noise certification levels, a quieter plane, by the year 2000. I am pleased to say that many of the commercial airlines are ahead of their schedules and we have seen positive benefits. Research is continuing on even quieter aircraft, and we may soon see fleets that would satisfy Stage IV noise certification levels. However, as air travel increases, communities will experience more aircraft noise. This issue will not go away. Indeed, if nothing is done, it will only get worse. Mr. President, this amendment simply reactivates a program in EPA that has been dormant for too long, a program that addressed a serious environmental health issue, in the Federal agency that is responsible for mitigating environmental health problems. This amendment makes sense, and will provide some element of relief for the millions of Americans who face debilitating noise pollution, such as aircraft pollution, every day. Mr. President, we have a chance to do something about this at a fairly modest cost overall, and to say to those people, simply because they live in an area that is crowded, that is a transportation center and so forth, that you shouldn't have to suffer a different way of life, or a less pleasant way of life than other citizens across this country. We do all kinds of things to mitigate against noise. We build highway noise barriers and have all kinds of systems. We have police rules that say you can't blow your horn unnecessarily--all kinds of programs that would reduce the amount of noise pollution that we endure each and every day. I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to think through what it means to their communities, to their States, and do the same thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time is available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. On Senator Torricelli's time, I yield myself as much time as I need, which will probably be less than 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Amy Rosen's nomination to the Amtrak Reform Board of Directors. Ms. Rosen has the right blend of business and financial knowledge, talent and creativity needed to lead Amtrak into the next century. Mr. President, the next few years will be crucial for Amtrak. To increase ridership, modernize and cut costs while reducing its dependence on federal assistance, Amtrak needs Board members with demonstrated business and financial skills. I believe Amy Rosen is eminently qualified to serve on Amtrak's Board and can make that kind of contribution at this critical juncture in Amtrak's history. She has business acumen derived from extensive professional experience in the private sector, along with her work in the public sector. Currently, Ms. Rosen is Managing Partner of Public Private Initiatives, a financial services and consulting firm that employs innovative financing techniques to benefit public sector, non-profit and private sector clients. At PPI, she is directly involved in applying creative financial tools, such as tax-advantaged leasing and asset securitization to enhance government services. For example, under Ms. Rosen's tenure, New Jersey Transit has leverage-leased $1.8 billion worth of equipment and facilities, for a net benefit of $100 million to New Jersey Transit and its ridership. Prior to starting Public Private Initiatives, Ms. Rosen was Senior Vice President of Marketing and Managing Director of Lockheed-Martin IMS, where she was responsible for the oversight of all domestic and international marketing initiatives, and state and federal relations. She also was very involved in the Lockheed merger with Martin Marietta. Throughout her tenure, she worked to re-shape the corporation's marketing and acquisition needs in the midst of defense budget cuts. These positions required the kind of skills and expertise that can help Amtrak deal effectively with the challenges it faces today. Ms. Rosen also has relevant and extremely valuable experience in the public sector. She served as Deputy Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Transportation under Governor Byrne and currently serves as Vice Chair of the New Jersey Transit Board of Directors. As a result of her service in these posts, she has hands-on experience in state government and will be able to build strong relationships between Amtrak and the states it serves. Mr. President, while professional experience and particular skills are important for effective service, Ms. Rosen also has the kinds of personal strengths and attributes that the Senate looks for in nominees to high posts. She is bright, energetic, extremely hard working and committed to the goals and mission the Congress has set out for Amtrak. I can also personally attest to her integrity and ability to work well within a group. Mr. President, I strongly support Ms. Rosen's appointment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to commend the authors of this legislation, Senators Durbin and Grassley, for their efforts on this legislation and their acceptance of my amendment which will help prevent drunk drivers from escaping the debts they owe to their victims by filing for bankruptcy. As my colleagues know, Congress has always worked in a bipartisan way when working to protect the victims of drunk-drivers under the Bankruptcy Code. In 1984, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 which contained provisions to prevent drunk drivers from avoiding their debts to victims by filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Although that Act closed a loophole in Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, drunk drivers began to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13. Consequently, in 1990, Congress passed another measure to protect drunk-driving victims under Chapter 13. As originally drafted, S. 1301 contained a number of provisions that would have diluted the ability of drunk-driving victims to receive damages. Consequently, I drafted an amendment designed to ensure that victims would be paid for their injuries when the drunk driver filed for bankruptcy. Additionally, the amendment extended protections to victims of drunk boaters. The Coast Guard reports that drunk boating continues to be a problem with more than 200 fatalities in some years, and I thought it was important that irresponsible boaters not be able to escape liability by filing for bankruptcy. I am pleased that Senators Durbin and Grassley have incorporated my amendment into the managers' amendment. I appreciate their efforts and cooperation. We must ensure that the victims of drunk drivers and drunk boaters are protected in bankruptcy and I urge the conferees to make this issue a priority when working out differences with the House bill.