Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from New Jersey does not need a lesson on protocol.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want the Record to be clear that this is ``human factors research for security.'' That is the title under which this legislation is proposed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this fully funds the President's request for aviation security research. It is offset in budget authority as well as outlays.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5078, As Amended

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I hope that my colleagues will vote against the amendment by Senator Simpson. He wants to strike out extension of current law, which frankly I think is essential. When we look at the new Russia, the former Soviet Union, we see, though they apparently are democratized in many areas, the fact of the matter is that an integral part of the political platform in the last election was to rail against Jews and other religions not satisfactory to them. Zhirinovsky, the head of the Nationalist Party, said that the way the country has to resolve its problems is to get rid of its Jews. Lebed, the now National Security Adviser to President Yeltsin, made derogatory remarks about Jews and about Mormons, calling them a ``scum'' religion. So, if that tells you where we are going, I hope that my colleagues will vote against this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as a result of having passed a piece of legislation, a bill tonight, that includes an antistalking measure and a domestic violence measure, I would like to take just a few minutes to comment on it. Mr. President, my amendment, the domestic violence amendment, establishes a policy of zero tolerance when it comes to guns and domestic violence. The amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm. In simple words, the amendment says that wife beaters and child abusers should not have guns. Mr. President, I want to explain for a moment why this amendment is needed. Under current Federal law it is illegal for persons convicted of felonies to possess firearms. Yet many people who engage in serious spousal or child abuse ultimately are not charged with or convicted with felonies. At the end of the day, due to outdated thinking, or perhaps after a plea bargain, they are--at most--convicted of a misdemeanor. In fact, Mr. President, most of those who commit family violence are never even prosecuted. When they are, one-third of the cases that would be considered felonies if committed by strangers are, instead, filed as misdemeanors. The fact is, in many places today, domestic violence is not taken as seriously as other forms of criminal behavior. Often, acts of serious spouse abuse are not even considered felonies. In just the past few years, some judges have demonstrated outrageous callousness and disregard for women's lives. Right up the road from here, Baltimore County, just 2 years ago, a State circuit court judge was hearing a case involving a man who shot his wife and killed her. As he handed down a sentence that was primarily served on weekends for a short period of time, the judge said that the worst part of his job is ``sentencing noncriminals as criminals.'' Can you imagine, as if shooting one's wife in the head was not criminal behavior. Or the case of a man who tracked down his wife and shot her five times, killing her. The judge in that case gave the man a minimal sentence, to be served on weekends. In explaining why he was being so lenient, the judge said that the victim had provoked her husband by not telling him that she was leaving their abusive marriage. These, Mr. President, are just two examples of the way our criminal justice system often refuses to treat domestic violence as a serious crime. Yet the scope of the problem is enormous. Each year, using a very conservative estimate, 1,500 women die because of domestic abuse involving a gun. Many believe that the number is closer to several thousand. Neither of these numbers include children. Mr. President, when women are killed in domestic disputes, the murderers are holding a gun about 65 percent of the time. It is not just beatings and other types of punishment. Put another way, two- thirds of domestic violence murders involve firearms. Many of these murders would never have happened but for the presence of a gun. The New England Journal of Medicine reports that in households with a history of battering, a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a woman would be murdered by three times--threefold. In other words, when you combine wife beaters and guns, the result is death. Mr. President, I focused thus far mainly on wifebeaters, but domestic violence also involves children. In at least one-half of wife-abusing families, the children are battered as well. Mr. President, 2,000 American children are killed each year from abuse inflicted by a parent or a caretaker. Yet, as I said before, many of these abusers and batterers are prosecuted only for misdemeanors, and under Federal law they are still free to possess firearms. This amendment closes this dangerous loophole and keeps guns away from violent individuals who threaten their own families, people who show they cannot control themselves and are prone to fits of violent rage, directed, unbelievably enough, against their own loved ones. The amendment says abuse your child and lose your gun. Beat your wife, and lose your gun. Assault your ex-wife, lose your gun, no ifs, ands or buts. It is a tough policy, Mr. President. But when it comes to domestic violence, we have to get tough. There is no margin of error when it comes to domestic abuse and guns. A firearm in the hand of an abuser all too often means death. If this bill had been law, maybe, just maybe, a person named Marilyn Garland of Barberton, OH, would be alive today. Her husband had previously been convicted of domestic violence offenses for physically abusing her. But even though he had shown himself to be violent and prone to wifebeating, no law prevented him from owning a gun. Eventually, as it often does, the cycle of violence spun out of control and Marilyn's husband used the gun to kill her. He then disposed of her body. It was a horrible, brutal act that was committed. It did not have to happen. By their nature, acts of domestic violence are especially dangerous and require special attention. These crimes involve people who have a history together and perhaps share a home or a child. These are not violent acts between strangers, and they don't arise from a chance meeting. Even after a separation, the individuals involved, often by necessity, have a continuing relationship of some sort, either custody of children or common property ownership. This amendment is based on legislation that I introduced earlier this year which has been endorsed by over 30 prominent national organizations, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the YWCA of the U.S.A., just to name a few. The people who commit these crimes often have a history of violent or threatening behavior. Yet, frequently, they are permitted to possess firearms with no legal restrictions. The statistics and the data are clear. Domestic violence, no matter how it is labeled, leads to more domestic violence. Guns in the hands of convicted wifebeaters leads to murder. I made a change from the introduced version to respond to a suggestion from some of my colleagues. Like my original bill, which covered persons indicted for domestic violence offenses, this amendment applies only to those who have actually been convicted of domestic violence. This amendment would save the lives of many innocent Americans, but it would also send a message about our Nation's commitment to ending domestic violence and about our determination to protect millions of women and children who suffer from this abuse. To put it directly, Mr. President, there are over 2 million cases of household violence reported each and every year, and 150,000 of those show a gun present, a firearm present, during a violent rage or an argument. We ought not to expose those people who are abused by a spouse or a father to further violence by enabling them to have a gun, with the permission of our country. So the amendment, which passed earlier, simply stands for the proposition that wifebeaters and child abusers should not have guns. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. I look forward to a prompt passage by the House and the signature of the President making this law. Mr. President, the following Members were original cosponsors of the bill I introduced, S. 1632: Senators Feinstein, Bradley, Murray, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Akaka, Inouye, and Simon. I thank the Chair and I thank the staff who worked so late this evening to accommodate me. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there a time agreement?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, one of the things that happens around here when people decide, like the distinguished occupant of the chair or the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, to retire is that we are going to miss some of the aspects of the relationships that exist. Nothing is more awakening or stimulating than a good, solid disagreement and discussion with my friend from Wyoming. He just happens to be wrong. The fact of the matter is that in this blanket criticism, he ignores several facts. Mr. President, I think it is important to understand my supporting a 1-year extension of the law which facilitates the granting of refugee status for certain historically persecuted groups in the former Soviet Union and Indochina. The law expires at the end of fiscal year 1996 and is extended for 1 year in this bill. It has been renewed several times. As a matter of fact, the last time was in 1994, and that vote was decided by an 85-15 outcome. So we are looking at the same situation, very frankly. Existing law formally recognizes that historic experiences of certain persecuted religious minorities in the former Soviet Union and Indochina and a pattern of arbitrary denials of refugee status to members of these minorities entitles them to a relaxed standard of proof in determinations about whether they are refugees. The law lowers the evidentiary standard required to qualify for refugee status for Jews and Evangelical Christians from the former Soviet Union, certain Ukrainians, and certain categories of Indochinese. Once a refugee applicant proves that he or she is a member of one of those groups, he or she has to demonstrate a ``credible basis for concern'' about the possibility of persecution. Refugee applicants normally must prove a ``well-founded'' fear of persecution. Why is the extension necessary? my friend from Wyoming challenges. Because the popularity, as we see it now, of ultranationalists and the resurgence of the Communists in the former Soviet Union has created a climate of tension, fear, and even violence against Jews, despite the fact that anti-Semitism is no longer formally state-sponsored. In this climate, the law has provided a useful escape valve for historically persecuted individuals in the former Soviet Union where the situation for Jews remains tenuous. Allowing the law to lapse under these conditions would be a mistake. How pervasive is anti-Semitism? According to Sergei Sirotkin, former Deputy Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights under the President of the Russian Federation, ``Xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Russia are not just a reality but a growing and spreading reality.'' In testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, Sirotkin claimed that approximately 150 periodicals that propagate ideas of fascism, extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and anti- Semitism exist and that between 1992 and 1995 the number of these publications tripled. In his testimony, Sirotkin cited a newspaper with national circulation called the Day which wrote: ``The Jews are not a nation but a sect of degenerates.'' Even worse was the response from Moscow's Deputy Public Prosecutor who, according to Sirotkin, said the statement did not contain anything insulting to Jews. It's not only publications that espouse anti-Semitism. Political leaders in Russia contribute to the climate of fear as well. Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party candidate for President, left little to the imagination about his view of Jews when he wrote in his book ``Beyond the Horizon'': ``The Jewish diaspora holds the controlling interest in the entire economic life of Western civilization.'' Jews find no comfort in the sentiment espoused by Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader, Zhirinovsky, who has said ``for anti-Semitism to disappear, all Jews must move to Israel.'' Nor do they have faith that Alexander Lebed, President Yeltsin's new National Security Adviser, will play a constructive role in working to stem the tide of anti-Semitism in Russia. As my colleagues are well aware, Mr. Lebed recently stated that Russia has only three established, traditional religions--Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, obviously excluding the religion of the country's large Jewish population. He denigrated the Mormon Church in the worst and the ugliest terms. Mr. President, the fears of Russian Jews are evident in the stories refugees tell me and others after they arrive in this country. They say the government is unwilling and unable to protect Jews from humiliation and persecution. They say they are in danger of being exposed to violence or persecution simply because they are Jews. One Russian refugee who testified before the House International Relations Committee said: Even now, in Russia, Jews must have ``nationality--JEW'' written on their passports, job applications, birth certificates, and school documents. This refugee went on to say: But worst of all is that the Government in Russia is absolutely incapable of protecting Jews from the never-ending persecution and violence. They do not possess the mechanism for enforcing the laws which they already have, the laws which formally protect human rights. The laws are not functioning. Unfortunately, Mr. President, anti-Semitism is pervasive outside of Russia as well. According to Paul Goble, a well-respected expert on Soviet minorities: The threat of anti-Semitism in the post-Soviet States is greater today than it has been at any time in the last decade. The inability of governments to enforce their own laws or follow up on their own promises, the worsening economic situation throughout the region that is leading to a search for scapegoats, and an increasing number of politicians and officials who see anti-Semitism as a useful tool to advance their causes all contribute to this threat. Leaders in some of these States recognize that a problem exists, In fact, during a radio interview last year, Lithuania's President acknowledged that popular ant-Semitism still exists in Lithuania. Unfortunately, however, sometimes it is the leaders who are part of the problem. Belarus' President Lukashenko recently said, ``Not all of Hitler's actions were bad; one can learn from him methods of governing a country * * *'' That is a pretty friendly environment to exist in. If that does not frighten the pants off somebody, then nothing will. If these statements are not persuasive, listen to the words of a refugee from Uzbekistan. Her pseudonym is Raisa Kagan, and she also testified before the Congress in February: For more than two years, me and my family were subjected to anti-Semitic harassment and persecution which escalated into violence that put our lives at risk. Ms. Kagan tells a harrowing tale of persecution beginning with verbal attacks: They called me ``dirty Jew'' and said such things as, ``It was a good time when Hitler burned Jews and hung them on the trees.'' After being threatened on many occasions, Ms. Kagan reports: She repeatedly requested protection for myself and my family from these attacks, but no official investigation was made and no steps were taken to safeguard my family. In the months that followed, two members of her family were attacked and beaten by Uzbeks; her barn, garage, and house were set on fire by arsonists; and she was eventually fired from her job as a department head of a company for which she had worked for 20 years, with the explanation that ``only Uzbek nationals may head a department.'' Her conclusion is poignant: Thousands of Jewish families in Uzbekistan can report the same shameless, severe and terrible violations of their civil rights. If you are unfortunate enough to be Jew you often feel that your dignity is trampled with cynicism. To be Jewish in Uzbekistan today means to be unprotected, rightless, and robbed. But the most terrible is to be humiliated until you feel like a nonentity. Clearly, Mr. President, now is not the time to allow the law to expire. The conditions which led to the change in the law in 1989 have intensified, anti-Semitism is pervasive, and the protections the law provides to historically persecuted individuals in the former Soviet Union are needed more than ever before. Additionally, Mr. President, the law is important to implement a new program of Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees. In April 1996, the administration announced a program of Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnam Refugees [ROVR] to provide INS status adjudications for qualified Vietnamese boat people returning from the camps of Southeast Asia to Vietnam. The program will provide resettlement for those Vietnamese with close ties to the United States or who have suffered significant persecution under the Communist regime. The program is also intended to minimize violence in the camps as the Vietnamese refugee program comes to an end and to help to bring this long and successful humanitarian program to an appropriate and honorable conclusion. INS adjudication standards for ROVR are based on the criteria found in this law and will play a critical role in the implementation of the program. Mr. President, to respond to a couple of the assertions made by my friend from Wyoming, first of all, he uses the inspector general's reference as a determination of whether or not the policy is right. That is not the inspector general's area. The program has to be determined or reviewed by them. Mr. President, we heard all of the criticisms about the weaknesses of the system for permitting those who were not supposed to be coming to enter the country. Then, Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming has long been involved with immigration programs, and he ought to insist that INS do its job and make sure that those criminals do not get in here. There is no presumption here that permits criminals to come in under this refugee status. It is very clearly demarcated in the law. It says that those who may be excluded are on the basis of criminal and related grounds, and describes what they are--as refugees under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. It is very clear. They are not supposed to permit them. If INS is doing a bad job then they ought to do a better job, and the same thing is true of the quality of the citizens who come here. Yes. We are going to make mistakes and some are going to sneak through the apparatus, and there will be some of those who are engaged in illicit activities. We do not want them here. But I know scientists and physicians and even attorneys who have come to this country who make it. I say even attorneys because it is quite a transition from Russia-- I am not talking about my attorney friends--from the language there to our language here. They make important contributions to establish themselves. I have been with cab drivers. I have seen them buy their cabs, get to work, and make a contribution. So we can point out those furors that have been made, and they have been made. We ought to tighten up the process, and not thereby denigrate the whole class of refugees who are coming here. Negotiations with the Vietnamese on the program have been slow and many details remain unclear. Many believe that persons, otherwise well qualified, will not have been able to apply under the program by the time the law is set to expire at the end of fiscal year 1996. It is important that the program deadline and the law be extended so that all persons eligible to apply under the program's criteria will be given equal access to this initiative and can be adjudicated uniformly. Mr. President, this 1 year extension has the support of the administration. In a hearing in the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Christopher said the following in response to my question about the administration's position on the provision: ``Senator we think that the law has served an important purpose, particularly permitting immigration from Russia and the other nations of the former Soviet Union, to ensure that they have an opportunity to leave. There has been some sense that perhaps that law had served its purpose or run its course, but we are supporting another year's extension of that law to ensure that it completes its purpose. So we are supportive of that and we admire you for what you did in leading the way in earlier years to a much needed provision.'' Mr. President, in addition to making sure that people are treated humanely and democratically in societies with which we have close connections, it is a confirmation of the belief that in the United States we uphold the status of the individuals to practice their religions, and to be able to conduct themselves as they see fit without fear of harassment or persecution. Once again, I think that we are going to vote on this, I understand, tomorrow. The 1 year extension also has the support of the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, the Union of Councils, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and the Council of Jewish Federations. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations in support of an extension be included in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will close. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this extension will not increase the annual refugee ceiling for admissions to the United States. Those numbers are determined through a consultation process between the administration and the Congress. My friend from Wyoming said that we absorb refugees, and he describes them as legitimate refugees. If someone has to worry about their kids being picked on and beaten up in the streets and not be allowed to conduct their education as they see fit, to me that constitutes someone who ought to have a chance to conduct their lives in another place. I think that when all is said and done that we will see that this bill has served the United States very well, that we have gotten productive citizens--citizens who make a contribution. And if we have some errors in the way we conduct the programs, then let us fix the errors in our own house, and I hope that my colleagues will support the continuation of this law for the next year. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this extension will not increase the annual refugee ceiling for admissions to the United States. Those numbers are determined through a consultation process between the administration and the Congress. The provision simply facilitates refugee designation. Mr. President, this law was originally approved by the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0 in 1989 and became law as part of the fiscal year 1990 Foreign Operations Appropriations Acts. It was extended in the fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 1992 Foreign Operations Appropriations Acts, and the fiscal year 1994-1995 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I urge my colleagues to support this extension. Exhibit 1 U.S. Catholic Conference, Migration and Refugee Services, Washington, DC, June 18, 1996. Hon. Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express the deep appreciation of the U.S. Catholic Conference for the initiative which you took many years ago to author a provision of refugee law which recognizes that the historic experiences of certain persecuted religious minorities in the former Soviet Union and other groups in Indochina, and a pattern of arbitrary denials of refugee status to members of these groups, entitles them to a relaxed standard of proof in determinations about their refugee status. We strongly support the extension of this provision for one additional year. While it is a fact that the former Soviet Union has collapsed and the persecution of Jews and other religious minorities is no longer official policy, the situation in Russia continues to present major problems for these minorities and, given the fact that democratic society is still only tenuously established in the countries of the former Soviet Union, it would be much too early to draw back from this important program. Indeed, recent developments which appear to make the departure of such persons from Russia more difficult is a sign of the importance of giving priority attention to this group for the time being. This provision is also of importance in the implementation of a new program of Resettlement Opportunities for Vietnamese Refugees (ROVR). This program will provide INS status adjudication for persons returning to Vietnam from the camps of Southeast Asia, who have close ties with the United States or who can otherwise demonstrate persecution by the Vietnamese government. This program will offer both a final opportunity for some of those boat people in groups long given priority in the U.S. Refugee Program (USRP) and help to minimize violence during this final phase of the Indochinese refugee program, which has been so successful over the years, and help to bring it to an honorable end. The INS adjudication standards for this final effort are based on the criteria in this provision of law and, thus, will be critical in an appropriate implementation of ROVR. Negotiations with the Vietnamese on ROVR have been very slow and many details remain unclear. For example, no agreement has yet been reached on how to process those boat people who return to Vietnam without having seen a caseworker in the first asylum country before departing in order to fill out their ROVR applications. Several thousand persons already have been returned without having had an opportunity to apply for ROVR and undoubtedly there will be more. Thus, it seems certain that many persons, otherwise well qualified, will not have been able to apply for ROVR by the time of the expiration of this provision of law at the end of FY 1996, and it will be extremely important that the ROVR deadline and this provision of law be extended so that all persons eligible to apply under the ROVR criteria are given equal access to this initiative and can be adjudicated uniformly. We understand that the FY 1997 Foreign Operations appropriations bill in the House of Representatives did not contain an extension of this provision of refugee law, but that the report language in that bill did contain a reference to the possibility that such an extension might be contained in the Senate bill and instructed House conferees to recede to the Senate on this issue if that were the case. We urge that such a one-year extension be included in the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Thank you again for your assistance in bringing this important program to a peaceful and fitting end. Sincerely, John Swenson, Executive Director.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I rise to express my appreciation for the hard work that has gone into resolving the problem that we had. There was an attempt, a serious attempt to work it out, and at times it looked like we just could not come together. But through the persistence of the leaders, the help of Senator Craig and the agreement with Senator Hutchison, we were able to do this. It is an important piece of legislation. I will take time later on to talk about it, but I want to express my thanks to all of those who enabled this piece of legislation to go through. It is going to be very meaningful to women and families across this country. Two million cases of violence are reported within households each and every year, and this will take the murder away from substantial numbers of them. Again, I express my appreciation for the opportunity to get this bill passed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to offer congratulations to Glenn Cunningham, President Clinton's nominee for United States Marshal for New Jersey, upon his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. I also extend my congratulations to Mr. Cunningham's proud family and friends. I had the honor and privilege of recommending Mr. Cunningham to the President, and I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to explain why I am convinced that he will do an outstanding job in this important position. Mr. President, Glenn Cunningham has a long and distinguished record of public service. For over 25 years he has been a widely respected law enforcement officer in command-level positions. Currently, Mr. Cunningham serves as Director of Public Safety for Hudson County, N.J. In that capacity, he oversees a department with a $42 million budget and over 700 employees. By any measure, he has been outstanding in the performance of his duties. Previously, Mr. President, Glenn spent 14 years in the Jersey City Police Department, where he rose from the rank of Detective to Captain. He has also served as an instructor at Jersey City State College in criminal justice, as a Commissioner of the New Jersey Alcohol and Beverage Control Commission, and as Security and Housing Manager of the Jersey City Housing Authority. Mr. President, in all of these endeavors, Glenn Cunningham has demonstrated that he is a man of real integrity, as well as a man of real talent. He has also shown himself to be dedicated to serving the public through law enforcement. That is not just my judgment. It is the judgment of those who have known him for many years, and who have worked closely with him. Mr. President, I am proud to have recommended Mr. Cunningham to the President, and I am very proud and pleased to offer my congratulations to him today. I wish him all the best in his new position, and I hope that he will serve our State and country for many years. I know that he will serve with integrity, dedication and distinction.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I will take just a few minutes, with the apology to those who are committed to stay until the lights are shut off.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a historic and unfortunate time for the U.S. Senate. This body is on the verge of ending a 60 year guarantee that poor children in this country would not starve. For 60 years, we could rest easier at night knowing children across the country had a minimal safety net. The bill before us will take away this peace of mind and throw up to 1.5 million children into poverty. Mr. President, I agree that the welfare system is in need of repair. I believe that it needs to help promote work and self sufficiency. I think it should also protect children. Unfortunately, the Republican welfare bill does none of this. First, the Republican bill does not promote work. The bill calls for work requirements for welfare recipients, but it does not provide the resources to put people to work. In fact, the CBO said that ``Most states would be unlikely to satisfy this [work] requirement for several reasons.'' One major reason is that this bill cuts funding for work programs by combining all welfare programs into a capped block grant. Second, the Republican bill hurts children. It would make deep cuts in the Food Stamp Program which millions of children rely on for their nutritional needs. It would also end the guarantee that children will always have a safety net. Under the Republican bill, a State could adopt a 60-day time limit and after that the children would be cut off from the safety net entirely. The State would not even be required to provide a child with a voucher for food, clothing, or medical care. When you take all of these policies together, this bill will throw approximately 1.5 million children into poverty. And this is a conservative estimate. It could be much higher. Mr. President, my conscience will not let me vote for a bill that would plunge children into poverty. I cannot vote to leave our children unprotected. I was 1 of only 11 Democrats to vote against the original Senate welfare bill that would have put 1.2 million children into poverty. I voted against the conference report on this bill that would have doomed 1.5 million children to the same fate. And I will vote against this bill for the same reason. We must not abandon our children. Mr. President, I hold a different vision of what the safety net in this country should be. I am afraid that this bill will leave children hungry and homeless. I am afraid that the streets of our Nation's cities might some day look like the streets of the cities of Brazil. If you walk around Brazilian cities, you will see hungry children begging for money, begging for food, and even engaging in prostitution. I am not talking about 18 year olds, I am talking about 9 year olds. Tragically, this is what happens to societies that abandon their children. When we don't protect our children, they will resort to anything to survive. I don't want to see this happen in our country. I want to see this country invest in its children. I think we should invest more in child care, health and nutrition so that our children can become independent, productive citizens. I want to give them the opportunity to live the American dream like I had to good fortune to do. If we don't, we will create a permanent underclass in this country. We will have millions of children with no protection. We will doom them to poverty and failure. Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, I also want to comment on the priorities that are reflected in this reconciliation bill. Despite the fact that this bill is only limited to safety net programs, it is still considered a reconciliation bill. This bill receives the same protections as a budget balancing bill but there is no balanced budget in it. This reconciliation bill seeks to cut the deficit only by attacking safety net programs for poor children. There are no cuts in corporate loopholes or tax breaks. Despite the fact that tax expenditures cost the Federal Treasury over $400 billion per year, there are no such savings in this bill. There are no grazing fee increases or mining royalty increases. There are no savings in the military budget or in NASA's budget. The only cuts in this bill come from women and children. This reconciliation bill gives new meaning to putting women and children first. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I urge all Senators to stand for the 1.5 million children and reject this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would prohibit individuals from carrying a handgun, concealed or in the open, in public. The bill includes exceptions for certain people authorized to carry handguns under State law, such as law enforcement personnel and duly authorized security officers. Additionally, States could choose to exempt persons whose employment involves the transport of substantial amounts of cash or other valuables. Also, Mr. President, States could provide exemptions in individual cases, based on credible evidence, that a person should be allowed to carry a handgun because of compelling circumstances warranting an exemption, such as a woman being stalked by someone who is threatening her. However, a simple claim of concern about generalized risks would not be sufficient. It would have to be a specified, credible threat. Mr. President, common sense tells you that there are more than enough dangerous weapons on America's streets. Yet, incredibly, some seem to think that there should be more. They want to turn our States and cities into the wild, wild west, where everyone carries a gun on his or her own hip, taking the law into their own hands. This is a foolhardy, and dangerous, trend. The statistics are clear, Mr. President. This country is already drowning in a sea of gun violence. Every 2 minutes, someone somewhere in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes someone in this country dies from a gunshot wound. In 1994 alone, over 15 thousand people in our country were killed by handguns. Compare that to countries like Canada, where 90 people were killed by handguns that year, or Great Britain, which had 68 handgun fatalities. Mr. President, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that by the year 2003, gunfire will have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States. In fact, this is already the case in seven States. It is because we already suffer from an epidemic of gun violence that I have introduced this legislation. The fact is, Mr. President, concealed weapons make people less, not more, secure, You don't have to take it from me. Listen to the real experts: The police officers on the street. There is near-unanimous agreement in the law enforcement community that concealed weapons laws are bad policy. Arming more people is not the way to make the streets safer. It is a way to get more people killed. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association and its allies may believe that the presence of concealed weapons will scare criminals from committing crimes. To me, just the opposite is true. More likely, criminals will just get more violent. Think about it, Mr. President. If a criminal thinks that you might be carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells you that he is much more likely to simply shoot first, and ask questions later. Perhaps more importantly, concealed weapons will mean that many routine conflicts will escalate into deadly violence. Every day, people get into everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if more people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equals more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would prohibit individuals from carrying a handgun, concealed or in the open, in public. The bill includes exceptions for certain people authorized to carry handguns under State law, such as law enforcement personnel and duly authorized security officers. Additionally, States could choose to exempt persons whose employment involves the transport of substantial amounts of cash or other valuables. Also, Mr. President, States could provide exemptions in individual cases, based on credible evidence, that a person should be allowed to carry a handgun because of compelling circumstances warranting an exemption, such as a woman being stalked by someone who is threatening her. However, a simple claim of concern about generalized risks would not be sufficient. It would have to be a specified, credible threat. Mr. President, common sense tells you that there are more than enough dangerous weapons on America's streets. Yet, incredibly, some seem to think that there should be more. They want to turn our States and cities into the wild, wild west, where everyone carries a gun on his or her own hip, taking the law into their own hands. This is a foolhardy, and dangerous, trend. The statistics are clear, Mr. President. This country is already drowning in a sea of gun violence. Every 2 minutes, someone somewhere in the United States is shot. Every 14 minutes someone in this country dies from a gunshot wound. In 1994 alone, over 15 thousand people in our country were killed by handguns. Compare that to countries like Canada, where 90 people were killed by handguns that year, or Great Britain, which had 68 handgun fatalities. Mr. President, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that by the year 2003, gunfire will have surpassed auto accidents as the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States. In fact, this is already the case in seven States. It is because we already suffer from an epidemic of gun violence that I have introduced this legislation. The fact is, Mr. President, concealed weapons make people less, not more, secure, You don't have to take it from me. Listen to the real experts: The police officers on the street. There is near-unanimous agreement in the law enforcement community that concealed weapons laws are bad policy. Arming more people is not the way to make the streets safer. It is a way to get more people killed. Mr. President, the National Rifle Association and its allies may believe that the presence of concealed weapons will scare criminals from committing crimes. To me, just the opposite is true. More likely, criminals will just get more violent. Think about it, Mr. President. If a criminal thinks that you might be carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells you that he is much more likely to simply shoot first, and ask questions later. Perhaps more importantly, concealed weapons will mean that many routine conflicts will escalate into deadly violence. Every day, people get into everything from traffic accidents to domestic disputes. Maybe these arguments lead to yelling, or even fisticuffs. But if more people are carrying guns, those conflicts are much more likely to end in a shooting, and death. Mr. President, the bottom line is that more guns equals more death. This legislation will help in our struggle to reduce the number of guns on our streets, and help prevent our society from becoming even more violent and dangerous. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on July 1, an era came to an end, when Robert N. Wilentz removed his robe for the final time and ended a 17- year tenure as chief justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. During a rare interview in 1993, when asked how the Wilentz years would be remembered, he replied, ``I would hope only that they would be remembered as years when a great court system was kept great and when a great supreme court was kept great.'' And they will be, due to the efforts of a truly great man--Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz. Greatness is based not on what you gain, but on what you give. And the contributions of Justice Wilentz to the legal profession and to the people of New Jersey are a benchmark against which the actions of others will be judged. An old Latin saying notes that justice must be fair and good; while Justice Wilentz wore the judicial robes, he assured both. He has been categorized as a liberal activist, but that is not entirely fair, for Justice Wilentz's decisions were not based on any political agenda, but on a mixture of extraordinary intellect and unusual compassion. Under his direction, the New Jersey Supreme Court achieved a national reputation for innovative decisions which often set an example for the entire country. The court instructed municipalities that they must provide housing for low-income residents. In separate opinions, which Wilentz authored, the court recognized the ``battered woman's syndrome'' as a defense for women charged with homicide and made a host liable for providing alcohol to a guest, if the host is aware that the guest is intoxicated and will soon drive. In the now famous Abbot versus Burke decision, which ordered the State to provide more money for city schools, Wilentz wrote, ``We realize that perhaps nothing short of substantial social and economic change will make the difference for these students, * * *. We have concluded, however, that even if not a cure, money will help, and that these students are constitutionally entitled to that help.'' Like all of his statements, this one demonstrates that behind the black robes was a daring thinker and visionary jurist. We may not agree with all of his decisions, but we must recognize his desire to always do what he believed to be right, and just. Since Chief Justice Wilentz's appointment by Governor Brendan Byrne in 1979, the New Jersey Supreme Court has been involved in an extraordinary number of such precedent setting cases. Yet, in nearly three quarters of these cases, the decisions were unanimous; this is a testament to the chief justice's leadership abilities. Justice Wilentz was not only a superior jurist and leader, but a skillful administrator. As chief justice, he tirelessly worked to improve the State's municipal court system. To enhance efficiency, he reorganized the courts into four divisions, civil, criminal, family, and general equity, and he divided the appellate division into eight four judge panels. Under his guidance, the court instituted the New Jersey Judicial College, the Municipal Court Judicial Conference and a speedy trial program; all have become national models. He also created separate task forces to investigate gender bias in the court system and to address minority concerns involving the judiciary. James Bryant Conant once remarked, ``each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance.'' And recently, the Newark Star-Ledger confirmed that ``his [Wilentz] record for excellence is secure and his place in New Jersey's history is fixed.'' I echo that opinion. All New Jerseyans have benefited from his leadership, his scholarship, his statesmanship. Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz will long be remembered for his love of the law, his reasoned eloquence and his uncompromising commitment to social justice. It will indeed be difficult to fill his shoes, and his robe.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on July 1, New Jersey lost one of its most dedicated public servants, former Gov. William T. Cahill. Whether as a New Jersey assemblyman, U.S. Congressman or Governor, Bill Cahill was always ready to fight for what he thought was right, regardless of whether it was expedient or popular. As he once remarked: It's not the role of the Governor to do what is popular. His role is to tell the people what's good for New Jersey. Undeniably, Governor Cahill was good for New Jersey. A blue collar Irish kid from a gritty Camden neighborhood, Governor Cahill was described by both friends and foes as a fighter; he continually battled for the environment, for education, for fairness in the tax system. In fact, his single term, from 1970 to 1974, is remarkable for the number of successful initiatives which he left as his legacy to New Jersey. Governor Cahill was in the vanguard of both the environmental and the consumer protection movements. He created the State Department of Environmental Protection, the Division of Consumer Affairs and the Board of Public Utilities. During his administration, the State passed the Coastal Area Facility Review Act to block construction of proposed offshore oil refineries and high-rise buildings. Cahill also fought for a series of unprecedented wetlands protection laws and strong air pollution control measures. His legacy has touched virtually every aspect of life in the Garden State. The Governor's initiatives led to the Nation's first daily lottery, which yielded new revenues to ease the burden on New Jersey's taxpayers. During his tenure, Cahill helped get no-fault auto insurance enacted and established full-time county prosecutors. He more than quadrupled State aid to New Jersey's economically challenged cities. Bill Cahill never shied away from a fight that he thought would benefit New Jersey. He even criticized then President Nixon, a fellow Republican, for not paying attention to domestic problems such as those that existed in Newark. In probably his best remembered role, Governor Cahill scored the ultimate touchdown for New Jersey. He helped to establish the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority and the Meadowlands Sports Complex, and he personally intervened to lure the Giants to the new stadium. When the New York financial community tried to ruin the deal, Cahill took the negotiations into overtime; he worked with the incoming Democratic administration to assure that New Jersey companies would finance the enormous project. Yet, some of Bill Cahill's most impressive accomplishments have largely been forgotten. On Thanksgiving Day, 1971, a violent inmate uprising erupted at Rahway State Prison. The memories of the Attica riot, only a few months before, still lingered in the public's and the inmates' minds. Cahill immediately went to the prison; his constant intervention, negotiation and steadying influence was credited with ending the riot, without a single life lost. He was hailed as a national hero for preventing Rahway from becoming another Attica. With all of his achievements, Bill Cahill could have rested on his laurels and perhaps easily won reelection to a second term as Governor in 1974. Instead, because he believed it was the right thing to do, he launched the on- going battle in New Jersey over education financing. While Governor, Cahill was the prime defendant in a 1973 case where the State Supreme Court ruled that the system of funding education through property taxes discriminated against children in poor districts. Due to the ruling, the State enacted the Thorough and Efficient Education Act. But the Governor was not finished. The New Jersey tax system, with its heavy reliance on property taxes, had always bothered Cahill. Specifically, the Governor wanted a broad- based income tax and an equalized State property tax. The income tax would be used to fund public education and, hopefully, would reduce inequities between rich and poor school districts. In essence, the Governor's dream was to give all children a chance at a decent education. So he tossed a politically risky revision of the tax code into the political ring. He pushed the State legislature for an income tax and an equalized State property tax. The legislature, however, took the gloves off and slaughtered the plan in the assembly. The promotion of the very unpopular tax, coupled with scandals in his administration, none of which ever directly involved or implicated him, ended Bill Cahill's career in government. He lost the Republican nomination for Governor in 1974. But when reflecting on his decision to attempt to revise the tax code, the courageous decision which cost him his political career, Cahill remarked, We were right then, and while many describe it as our worst defeat, I believe it was our finest moment. During those years in the Governor's office, Cahill demonstrated that he was a pragmatist, not a partisan. He often appointed Democrats to key positions, if he thought they could best serve New Jersey. These included former Governor Richard Hughes as chief justice of the State supreme court and future Gov. Brendan Byrne to the State superior court. The only thing that Governor Cahill was ever uncompromisingly partisan about was the State he loved. Early in his term, he was on a commercial flight from Washington to Newark. When the plane landed, the flight attendant welcomed everyone to the Port of New York. The very next day, Cahill was on the phone to officials at the Port Authority of New York, which operates Newark International Airport. Shortly afterward, the Port Authority redesignated itself ``The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.'' Among New Jersey's champions, he was always a heavyweight. Whether we agree with his decisions and priorities or not, Governor Cahill was a man who stood by his convictions, no matter what the consequences. As he once told an aide, forget about politics for a minute. What's the right thing to do? His concern was policy, not politics. Thomas Fuller once noted that ``Great and good are seldom the same man.'' He obviously never knew William T. Cahill. In his continual striving to do what was right, he proved himself a great Governor, and a great man. Undeniably, he always fought the good fight for New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on July 6, former New Jersey Assemblyman John S. Watson, Sr. died of cancer. A committed public official and compassionate private individual, he will be missed by the entire New Jersey community. Watson's life was a series of firsts. He was a public official for 23 years, serving at both the county and State level. In 1970, he became the first African-American member of the Board of Chosen Freeholders in Mercer County. Seven years later, he became the first black freeholder in New Jersey to be chosen president of a county freeholder board. In 1981, he was elected to the New Jersey Assembly where he represented the 15th District for 12 years. His career in the legislature was capped by being named chairman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee in 1992; he was the first African-American in the country to hold such a position. During his years in the Assembly, John also served on the Housing Committee, the Legislative Advisory Committee on Arts and Furnishings, and the New Jersey Capital Budgeting and Planning Commission. As a legislator, he successfully sponsored measures to create the minority opportunity skills training program, a college based computer training program, and the New Jersey pre-college program for high school students. Assemblyman Watson consistently supported State aid to urban areas, tax reform and programs for the elderly and poor. He successfully fought to establish a rainy day fund to reserve budget surpluses for times when revenue declined. He was also known for his unfailing courtesy to those on both sides of the political aisle. But if that is how John Watson will be remembered in Trenton, his district will remember him as a caring man who used his political power to aid individuals and families in need. New Jersey will indeed miss his service and his spirit. The great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer remarked, ``One thing I know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who will have sought and found how to serve.'' If that is true, then John S. Watson, Sr. was indeed the happiest of men.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the managers of this bill in approving this amendment. The amendment is straightforward. It asks the Deputy Secretary of Defense to provide a report, not later than March 1, 1997, to the Defense committees on examining the advantages and disadvantages of allowing commercial facilities to compete for future contracts of propellant raw material requirements, such as nitrocellulose. The report shall include an assessment of first, the projected future procurement requirements for propellant raw material, such as nitrocellulose; second, the capacity, ability, and production cost rates of the national technology and industrial base to satisfy DOD requirements; third, the national security advantage of preserving contractor owned, contractor operated facilities as part of the industrial base; and finally, the extent to which government owned, contractor operated rates for nitrocellulose are reduced as a result of their relationship with the DOD. Nitrocellulose is the basic chemical in the propellant mixture that provides the propulsion power for a projectile or cartridge, such as for the 120 millimeter target practice cartridge used on the M1A2 tank for gunnery training. Because of the shrinking Defense procurement budget, the Department of the Army had directed the production of propellant to its Government owned, contractor operated facility located at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Virginia in order to keep its industrial base operating. However, this decision has precluded a commercial facility in my home State from competing for certain grades of nitrocellulose. This commercial facility wants to compete for future contracts beginning in fiscal year 1999. Mr. President, this study is intended to make information available to help the Congress and the administration make an informed decision on this issue in the future. Therefore, Mr. President, I am pleased that my colleagues support this amendment.