Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent months, some Members of Congress have questioned the Department of Housing and Urban Development's authority to conduct gun buyback programs under the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act. As the author of that legislation, I rise to set the record straight. In proposing the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act, my intent was to make our streets safer, particularly in federally- assisted and low-income housing where the federal government has a clear responsibility to protect families. And that intent is reflected in the statutory language, 42 U.S.C. Section 11902(a), which provides that HUD is to make grants available for use in ``eliminating drug- related and violent crime.'' Certainly, violent crime includes all of the offenses involving guns, whether it is murder, robbery, or gang- related activity. In short, gun buybacks are an eligible activity under the Act, and HUD has acted properly in assisting housing authorities and local communities with this important effort. Furthermore, HUD's efforts to combat gun violence have been very successful. HUD's Gun Buyback and Violence Reduction Initiative has taken about 18,500 guns off the streets in more than 70 cities, and this program has received strong support from community organizations and law enforcement. Every year, gun violence claims an average of 30,000 lives and wounds another 100,000 people. Congress should support, and not impede, local efforts to get guns off our streets and reduce crime.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Joshua S. Weston, a longtime friend, and one of New Jersey's most actively involved citizens, on the occasion of his receiving the ``Distinguished Achievement Award'' by B'nai B'rith International. Mr. President, over the years Josh and I have worked together on many endeavors. In 1949, Josh joined me and a childhood friend to form Automatic Data Processing (ADP), a small payroll services company. Thanks to the tireless efforts of many and Josh's leadership as Chairman, ADP is now the leading provider of payroll services worldwide. When I first heard that Josh was being honored, I was not surprised. Josh has always been an active participant of worthy causes. Josh and his wife, Judy, formed the Weston Science Scholars Program, an innovative science program that affords selected ninth- and tenth-grade students from Montclair High School the opportunity to work with Ph.D. scientists at Montclair State University. While Josh knows the educational value of a good math and science program, he also recognizes the need for American Jewish students to form a bond with Israel. For more than five years, Josh has underwritten the costs of a United Jewish Federation program in which a college student attends a semester abroad in Israel. In addition to Josh's philanthropic contributions, he sits on many committees. Josh is the president of the Josh and Judy Weston Family Foundation of Montclair. He serves on the governing boards of the International Rescue Committee, the New Jersey Symphony, the New Jersey Business Partnership, the Liberty Science Center, Mountainside Hospital, Boys Town of Jerusalem and Yeshiva University Business School, among others. He is the recipient of many awards, including an honorary degree from Montclair State University. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor my good friend Joshua Weston on this acclaimed occasion. We are indebted to him for his service. He has demonstrated to his family, his friends, and his community that this honor is well-deserved. I salute him on yet another great achievement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota for offering this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Wellstone amendment on prison labor. China has an extensive prison labor system, and many people are in China's prisons for expressing their opinions, practicing their religion, or engaging in other activities we would regard as the exercise of their fundamental human rights. Many of these political prisoners have been sentenced to what the Chinese call ``re-education through labor'' without even being accused of a crime, much less having a fair trial. In the early 1990s, the U.S. had reason to believe China was using prison labor to produce goods for export, including goods intended for the U.S. market. China's government denied this until we found a document directing the use of prison labor to produce goods for export. China had long agreed not to use prison labor to make items destined for the U.S. market. In August 1992, after protracted negotiations, the United States and China signed a memorandum of understanding on prohibiting import and export trade in prison labor products. This was followed by a statement of cooperation in 1994. For several years, the system put in place by these agreements allowed U.S. Customs to investigate when we suspected that prison labor was being used to make goods for sale in the U.S. Under the agreements, U.S. Customs officers--working with their Chinese counterparts--investigated suspicious sites. Cooperation under the MOU included visits to 11 sites over several years. In 1997--this is 4 years after the agreement was signed--China stopped allowing U.S. Customs to conduct these inspections. Apparently, the Chinese felt that the U.S. should give them a clean bill of health and accept their assurances on prison labor without further inspections. They went so far as to seek a renegotiation of the memorandum of understanding. For me, China's compliance with its freely accepted international obligations on prison labor is a critical issue in considering PNTR. China's willingness to suspend implementation of the memorandum of understanding is very troubling. For China's accession to the World Trade Organization and the 1999 bilateral market access agreement to be meaningful, we need to have confidence that China will fulfill the letter and spirit of its international obligations. Senator Harkin and I recently traveled to China, and China's failure to fulfill its commitments on prison labor was a major focus of our visit. Before we left, we worked with the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Embassy in Washington to arrange to accompany U.S. Customs on a long-overdue prison labor site inspection visit. When we arrived in Beijing, we were told that the Chinese authorities did not understand our request, and then we were told such a visit would not be possible. But we did not give up. We pressed the point in our first formal meeting in Beijing, with Vice Foreign Minister Yang. We did not make any progress on the issue, but I think the Chinese Government got the message that we were serious. Later the same day, we met with Vice Premier Qian Qichen. We again pressed the point that China must fulfill its obligations to allow U.S. Customs to inspect suspected prison labor sites, and we asked that we be permitted to join an inspection. Vice Premier Qian agreed that the time had come to resume implementation of the MOU on prison labor. He agreed that the first inspection would take place in September. We had a debate about the interpretation of understanding. We wanted to go with Customs. At first, they said we could go to a prison, but that was not our mission. I was distressed by the fact that they chose to interpret what the understanding was after having worked on it for a month before we left the United States for China. We saw Premier Zhu Rongji and he reaffirmed China's readiness to resume full implementation of the prison labor agreement. We urged that U.S. Customs be allowed to conduct inspections sooner than they planned. While this trade-related agreement should have been implemented all along, without need for our intervention, I am glad our visit produced progress. The first long-overdue prison labor site inspection by U.S. Customs took place last Friday, September 8. According to a preliminary report from our Embassy in Beijing, Chinese authorities cooperated well with U.S. Customs and other personnel inspecting a factory in Shandong Province. I hope the implementation of the agreement will now resume in full, including rapid completion of other outstanding inspection requests. The amendment before us would make China's implementation of the prison labor memorandum of understanding and statement of cooperation a condition for granting PNTR. In my view, this is a reasonable condition that Premier Zhu has already assured me China will fulfill and that appears to be back on track. If the Chinese follow through, the President should have no problem reporting to Congress that China is complying with its international obligations under the prison labor agreement by the time China enters the WTO. I believe this issue of prison labor is critical to our consideration of PNTR for China. I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone amendment so that we can be assured China understands that when we have an agreement, we want it complied with. That is one of the questions that loomed large in our visit. We had an opportunity to meet some of the distinguished leadership of the Chinese Government. We met with the mayor of Shanghai. We met with people who had an influence in provincial policy. More than anything else, I wanted to know that when we had an agreement, when we had an understanding, it was going to be followed through and it was not sufficient to produce excuses such as: Well, we didn't understand what was meant and that wasn't our interpretation; or, we are sorry we can't quite do that now. That is not sufficient. This is an important agreement we are facing overall--this amendment first and then the overall decision on PNTR. We need, in my view, to have a positive relationship with the Chinese Republic. It is such an enormous country with so much potential that it would be a positive step for the United States and China to work together for us to have access, not just to their marketplace. The marketplace is important, but there is something more. One billion two hundred million people reside in China, and we do not want to have an area of constant instability. We want to let them know that democracy works. What they have in place now just does not cut the mustard, as we say. So we want to have this understanding. But in order to move ahead with it, we have to have a clear view that promises made--especially those that are so clear as to have been signed on a document--we want upheld; we do not want them skirted with purported misunderstandings. So I congratulate my friend from Minnesota for having, as he usually does, a look at the side of the issue that says: This is what is fair and equitable. That is what counts. And when we look at the marketplace, that is important. But in order to have the kind of wholesome relationship I would like to see us have with China, I think we have to deal with this issue of prison labor right now. I hope our colleagues will support it. I thank the Chair. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dennis Cavanaugh to the United States District Court for New Jersey, and I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed him. Dennis Cavanaugh has compiled an impressive record in both the public and private sectors. He has consistently demonstrated the efficiency, fairness and compassion that we have come to expect from our federal jurists. And he will be a tremendous asset as a district judge. Since 1993, he has served as a magistrate judge. In that position, he has handled a number of difficult and complex cases. His current duties include managing all the civil cases assigned to two active district judges and half of the civil cases assigned to a senior district judge. That brings his total workload to more than 600 cases. In fulfilling these duties, Magistrate Cavanaugh has shown the strong work ethic that is essential for judges who are called on to handle literally hundreds of cases at a time. Magistrate Cavanaugh's legal career also includes several years of service as a public defender--from 1973 until 1977. After that, he entered private practice as a trial attorney handling civil litigation and some criminal cases. And he has been a partner with several distinguished firms in New Jersey. His clients have included small businesses, educational institutions, insurance companies, public entities and police benevolent associations. And his experience with such a broad range of interests is one of the reasons he has performed so effectively as a magistrate judge. Magistrate Cavanaugh has also done his part to help ease the caseloads overwhelming other judges. He volunteered for pro bono assignments at the Superior Court in Essex County, where there was a severe backlog of civil cases. In addition to his judicial duties, Magistrate Cavanaugh also finds time to teach as an adjunct professor at his alma mater, Seton Hall University School of Law in Newark. That is the kind of experience and energy that has made New Jersey's federal bench one of the most impressive in the country. Magistrate Cavanaugh's entire career reflects the integrity and dedication that we want to see in all our federal judges. And I know his service on the district court bench will be equally outstanding. I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed Magistrate Cavanaugh's nomination. With his confirmation, there will be no vacancies on New Jersey's district court. I thank Chairman Hatch for moving this nomination so expeditiously, and I thank all of my colleagues for their support of Magistrate Cavanaugh.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell, who passed away Tuesday in Atlanta. Mr. President, while Senator Coverdell and I came from different political parties and ideologies, we shared several things in common. We both served our country in the U.S. Army, and after our service we both returned home to run successful businesses. With our military and business background we decided to turn our attention to serving the public, and Senator Coverdell had a impressive record of public service. Senator Coverdell served in the George State Senate--rising to the position of Minority Leader. He then served as Director of the Peace Corps under President Bush, focusing on the critical task of serving the emerging democracies of post-Soviet Eastern Europe. In 1992, he was elected to serve in the United States Senate. Although we failed to agree on many issues before this body, Senator Coverdell always demonstrated honor and dignity in this chamber. He argued seriously for the positions he believed in. When he pushed legislation to fight illegal drugs or promote volunteerism, it was obvious that his heart was always in it. And his motivation was sincere and simple--to help the people of Georgia and the nation. I send my deepest sympathies to his wife Nancy, his parents, and the entire Coverdell family. I also extend my sympathy to the people of Georgia. We will all miss Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell, who passed away Tuesday in Atlanta. While Senator Coverdell and I came from different political parties and ideologies, we shared several things in common. We both served our country in the U.S. Army, and after our service we both returned home to run successful businesses. With our military and business background we decided to turn our attention to serving the public, and Senator Coverdell had an impressive record of public service. Senator Coverdell served in the Georgia State Senate--rising to the position of minority leader. He then served as Director of the Peace Corps under President Bush, focusing on the critical task of serving the emerging democracies of post-Soviet Eastern Europe. In 1992, he was elected to serve in the United States Senate. Although we failed to agree on many issues before this body, Senator Coverdell always demonstrated honor and dignity in this Chamber. He argued seriously for the positions he believed in. When he pushed legislation to fight illegal drugs or promote volunteerism, it was obvious that his heart was always in it. And his motivation was sincere and simple--to help the people of Georgia and the Nation. I send my deepest sympathies to his wife Nancy, his parents, and the entire Coverdell family. I also extend my sympathy to the people of Georgia. We will all miss Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Specter amendment. I hope it will prevail for reasons that I don't think have been discussed thus far. One thing that we are not talking about is whether or not, since legislation was passed some time ago that might be more restrictive to Amtrak, the conditions have changed. One need not be a transportation engineer to know you can't get off the ground at airports. I waited the other day 5 hours for a flight to go to New Jersey from here. We were on the ground 5 hours. There are almost no airports of any size that aren't constantly late. There aren't places that one can travel by car or by bus that you can get where you want to be in a reliable period of time. We saw the front page news on the Washington Post 2 days ago about the disappearance of mountaintops, surrounded by smog, because the country is being overwhelmed by transportation and environmental problems. Conditions have changed. When we want to make comparisons between Amtrak and private businesses, we have to recognize there is no place in this world, no place, where there isn't a subsidy provided for rail service so people can travel from place to place--such as the subsidy we offer when we build airports and we provide and charge the passengers a tax to ride in an airplane. We have a passenger facility charge. Or that if one wants to buy gas at a gas station, we have a Federal tax; we have State taxes. Amtrak doesn't have that ability. Amtrak is the poor stepchild. It offers a service to lots and lots of people who can't find any alternative that is satisfactory or available to them. I don't like spending money. I happen to come from a strong business background. I know the difference between business and government. Amtrak is not a business like other businesses. It requires help. What we said in the commitment that was made for Amtrak was that we would not require that they meet operating needs out of the fare box. That is what we said would happen. Capital costs--and those are the things we are talking about--are part of the operating budget. We are forced at times to use operating funds for capital costs. The thing is all backwards. We are similiar to a Third World country in a process that has us asking passenger railroads to do things that no other country does. Germany has advanced their transportation systems, investing $10 billion a year in developing rapid rail transportation. In France, you can travel from Brussels to Paris in an hour and 25 minutes; the distance is 200 miles. That is what we ought to be talking about. Take the pressure out of the skies. There is no more room for airplanes in the skies. There is no latitude. We can build more airplanes but you still won't be able to fly the planes. We have broken the rules. We expanded the number of slots at Reagan National because of requests from some of the people here, Senators who wanted to have particular access. Break the rules. Give us access. What do we care about the rules, about the number of flights that can come in and go, from whatever distances. Break the rules. We are not talking about breaking the rules. We are talking about extending an opportunity for many in the American public to be able to travel and get to their destinations on time with a degree of comfort that permits them to arrive at their destination and be able to conduct their business or see their families or get to school or whatever else they have to do. It is a fairly simple equation. I hope we will support the Specter amendment. I think what it does do is it says to people who need passageway, who need an opportunity to get from place to place that is not otherwise ordinarily available, and that is to permit these leases to be supported by GSA. To save Amtrak? No, not to save Amtrak; to save the passengers, to save the rail riders $15 million a year. That is what we are talking about saving. Amtrak is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we can transport the people who inhabit this country in a way that is reasonable without continuing to foul the air or delay them interminably. I hope we can conclude this vote and get the issue resolved. I do not like disagreeing with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. They have jurisdiction. But in this case I happen to think the perspective is wrong; that there is not recognition of what our country's needs are. They have changed so radically in the past few years. Look at airline passenger traffic. See how much it has grown. See how much more the highways are used now than only a few short years ago. The situation has changed. Are we going to continue to take an attitude that it doesn't matter what we are doing to the environment; it doesn't matter how late the airplanes are; it doesn't matter how costly rides are; regardless of that, we are not going to permit it to happen? I hope we will extend this extra opportunity for Amtrak and for its passengers to continue to operate and get us to the point, when we get high-speed rail in there, we can meet our operating costs and we can provide the kinds of service one would expect in a country such as ours. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Montana. Five minutes, or fewer, will be OK. If we talk about it long enough right now, we won't have any time left to talk. Mr. President, I hope the American public is looking at this because this is kind of ``inside baseball.'' This is what helps people get from place to place, get to work on time, get to the hospital on time, get to church on time. We are terribly short of funds altogether for highway repair and development. Everybody knows that. We have about a $30 billion highway bill. This 5-month hiatus will take $10 billion away. The worst part of it is that the benefits are not going to go to the public because all of us need to remember that the taxes are remitted by the oil companies--by the companies that, in many cases, are gouging the public this very day. So they can hold on to that and that will make the year-end profit statement look even better. Stock prices will be higher. The public will not get what they thought they were getting. They are going to get stuck; that is what will happen. They will be stuck in traffic because we won't be able to continue the highway work. Once you stop it, it is very hard to get it started again. Is that what we are going to say to the public? People in this country who want to go someplace may see a nice yellow barrier saying ``work halted'' on the highway, or an interchange, or at access to factories, their jobs, or other places where the community gathers, including schools, clinics-- you name it. Sorry, the work has stopped. We have run out of money. We are certainly not going to take it from the General Treasury, since we are all so fully committed to paying down the debt and keeping this country out of debt. If we are going to give targeted tax cuts, then we ought to talk about those specifically. But to suggest that we want to give the oil companies, the oil producers, an 18-cent-a-gallon tax cut, I think, is really unfair to the public at large. They ought to see through the fog and the smog being created by this. It is not going to happen, Mr. and Mrs. America. You may feel that you are getting a bargain now, and the distinguished Senator from Michigan--who is my friend--talked about people who responded to a price cut at a gas station. But sometimes you put away money for a later day to pay off a mortgage, or to try to accumulate money for a college education for your child, or to assure there is enough there to pay doctor bills that may fall your way. It may feel good at this moment, but when that highway is all backed up, and smog envelopes the place, and the air quality turns sour, then people will be saying: Now what happens? We didn't get what we paid that money for. I know this amendment is offered with all good intentions, but if the public is listening, hear what is being said. You get an 18 cent cut in the gas tax so you can give it to the gasoline company. That is hardly the way we want to see things done. America has to pull together and we have to stand against those on the outside of our borders who are drilling oil, and just enough to keep the prices up. When they dial 911, they want America there immediately. That is why we sent over 400,000 of our best to the Persian Gulf. That is why we did it. So we need help there. I hope they hear the alarm go off here. That will get prices down. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Montana for giving me this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Robb in opposing the Santorum-Lieberman amendment. I support the new markets initiative promoted by the President and Speaker Hastert, but I think it is important for my colleagues to understand that this amendment is not the President's initiative. No one is arguing against reform, not at all. But to introduce a factor that permits religious discrimination--it does do that--to enter into these evaluations as to who can participate, will we see a sign that says ``no people of this faith allowed'' or ``only people of that faith allowed.'' I hardly think that is an improvement, regardless of the fact that there may be some modest, or perhaps more than that, improvements made in the way the new markets initiative operates. The fact is, we should not be introducing an opportunity to discriminate against one group or another, not to set religious boundaries on how an organization performs these services, how they encourage people to strike out for themselves and to be able to make a living on their own. I hope our colleagues will examine this amendment seriously. Hidden in the good that it is doing is some, I would call, possible serious evil. We ought not to be, in this Chamber, saluting the ability of organizations to discriminate against one person or another based on their religious preferences. With that, I hope we will not support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask what the parliamentary situation is regarding the time allocation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are going to take a couple of minutes to develop our opposition comments regarding the elimination of the inheritance tax. The repeal of it is an interesting prospect but not one that has much merit. My strong opposition to the ultimate repeal of the inheritance tax will be obvious with my comments. This legislation would provide a huge windfall to a handful of very wealthy individuals at the direct expense of ordinary, hard-working Americans. Without meaning to brag, I had a successful business operation before I came here. I was chairman and CEO of a very large company with over 16,000 employees, a company that I began with two other fellows from my home city of Paterson, NJ--a mill town with a great industrial past, at the time I was growing up there, but with a dismal current situation-- the three of us, by dint of hard work. My parents and the parents of the two brothers with whom I was associated were all immigrants. My parents were brought as infants by my grandparents, and my colleagues' parents came at a later date and time in their lives. We were poor. I just retraced these roots with a newspaper because I am in the process of ending my Senate career come January 2001. We were very successful. That company we started without anything today employs 33,000 people. It is one of America's leading examples of what happens when there is hard work and initiative and there is creativity in this great country of ours. I am one of those people who will fit in the 2 percent who are going to be principally affected by the reduction and ultimate elimination of the inheritance tax. I have four children. I am a proud grandfather. I have seven grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 6. When I am called upon to ascend to a different place, there is going to be an estate. My children have never said to me: Dad, you have to get rid of the inheritance tax, or, Dad, make sure we are well taken care of. They have had a decent life. I stand here to say, yes, my estate is going to pay a lot of tax when I go, a lot of tax. It is OK; it is all right with me. It has to be all right with my children. Talking about the three of us who ran the company ADP, we succeeded in this country not just because we were willing to work hard and we had some smarts and we did the right thing. We were made successful because of the resources available in this country. We were made successful because lots of people who struggled to make a living and support their families did the work they had to. We were made successful because this great land in which we live provided the opportunity. We could be just as clever and just as hard working in lots of other places around the world, but we never could have accumulated the resources we had. Neither could Mr. Gates or the other people now almost legendary multibillionaires. They couldn't have done it without lots of little people, lots of people doing the scut work, doing the hard labor, or using their brains that were developed by investments through our society, through this Government, helping to develop schools that would cultivate the thinking and the creativity that went into making their contribution. A lot of them, as was true in my own company, got rewarded, but they were not in the $20 million estate group or even higher. They weren't in the number 374 with an average amount of assets of $52 million. They are not in that group. The group isn't very large, but it is very powerful. This group is very powerful. When they speak, everybody here listens--just about. They hear from the leaders of these companies. They hear from the people who bought the boats, the private yachts, and the airplanes. Now there is almost a contest within our society--and I know some of these folks--about who can build the biggest yacht. They are up to over 300 feet now. That is the largest private yacht sailing the seas. It has a crew of almost 50 people. I don't know what is going to happen to that man's estate, but I don't think he deserves to have that estate protected without acknowledging the fact that he owes something back to this society. He has an obligation--his estate has an obligation to make sure something remains so there can be other entrepreneurs, business leaders, scientists, and physicians created, to make sure this country is able to carry on. Part of what is in the basic ethic of this Nation of ours--and it goes back to its founding days--is hard work; do your share. I used to hear in my household from my grandmother that you had to ``leave something over for those who need help.'' You could not just take it and walk away. What is going to happen to that work ethic? Bill Gates is worth, they say, somewhere around $100 billion. I don't know him personally, but I hear he is a real good guy, very philanthropic. He gives away a lot of money to very noble causes. But if he chose to say, look, my estate will pay the 55-percent tax, that will leave, by my calculation, $40 billion or $60 billion to be divided among his children. I don't hold him out to be evil or the devil. I use the arithmetic description to try to make the point; it is to make the point that we ought to be very careful. None of us like taxes. I don't like them. But I know they are necessary. If you want to belong to ``Country Club America,'' you have to pay the dues--especially if you succeed, as only you can in this country of ours because of the resources that are here. Some of them are natural resources. We have a wonderful location and the ability to ship goods from our oceans. This is one incredible place. Boy, are you lucky to belong to ``Country Club America.'' But I think it is necessary to pay your dues. I think it is necessary for me to pay dues. I think it is necessary for my estate to pay dues. My estate will be assessed at the high rate. It is not going to leave my kids poverty stricken, nor is it going to leave the 346 wealthiest people who will leave estates at $52 million poverty stricken. I don't even think the heirs to estates of from $10 million to $20 million--there are 688 of them and they will pay $3.7 million in taxes--will be impoverished. We are looking at estates of from $5 million to $10 million. There are roughly 1,800 of them. Those estate taxes will be $1.9 million. That leaves $4 million to the beneficiaries. That doesn't sound like impoverishment. Look at what the picture is. On this chart, we have the 374 largest estates. If the Republican tax plan goes through, they will save $11.8 million each. That is just 374 estates. And roughly 300,000 estates will pay zero estate tax. Is that fair? That is the question. Is it fair that we take such good care of people who have a $50 million estate, on average? And some are substantially larger. Where is the conscience here? Roughly, 2 percent of the people in the country have estates that pay any tax at all. Out of the 2.3 million, only 2 percent have any inheritance tax at all. Most people don't leave estates that hit inheritance tax levels. They don't pay taxes. By the way, all through this successful person's lifetime--and some are successful because they pick the right father-- those estates pay a very small portion of the inheritance tax revenues. But we want to reduce the portion that they do. All of the rest of the people in America, the people who work hard and try to provide for their kids, the people who try to educate their children so they can go on and succeed in their own right, they don't pay any estate tax because before you must pay estate taxes, you have quite a hurdle to get over. Also, for the benefit of those considering this, let's remember that if it is a husband and a wife in a family, that family can give $20,000 a year to each child. If they have three kids, they can give $60,000 to those kids. The wealthy people we are talking about can do that. They can give $60,000 to those children, and if it is a 20-year lifetime, you are talking about $1.2 million that you can give away absolutely tax free. You can do that to lots of people. They don't have to be your kids. They can be your friends, your neighbors, or distant relatives. You can give a lot of money away in a lifetime. Then you get a $1.3 million exemption before you start paying any tax at all. So we are looking at a tax that is not fair. This Nation has its taxes structured on the basis of graduated incomes, and you pay higher taxes. We have had tax reductions. Now, capital gains is 20 percent. The maximum rate we have on income is 39 percent. I am always willing to look at ways to reduce that. Frankly, I think maybe one of the things we ought to consider--and I haven't run the costs on it--is to say that for people over 65 we even start reducing that 20 percent. Maybe by the time somebody is 70, there would be no capital gains tax, and maybe that will stimulate their investments into the economy and charities--the amount of money given philanthropically--because there is a pebble in the shoe, and also a generosity of spirit. Some people say they would rather give it to a university, a hospital, or a library, than just leave it out there to be taxed. That is a good idea. I know very few people who have these big fortunes who don't do a lot philanthropically. I also know some people who are in the multibillions of dollars worth of estates who have said they are not going to leave anything to their kids, that they will have given them their head start in a lifetime. I see that the Chair is poised to strike the gavel. I thank you for the time I have had. I hope we are mindful of the public reaction. Taking care of the rich is not an obligation in which we have to specialize.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Kerry's effort to make sure the Federal government plays by the same environmental rules that the private sector lives by. The Defense Department, in carrying out its military mission operates a vast, sprawling industrial complex with a potentially huge impact on the environment. I think I'm only stating the obvious when I say it's absolutely crucial to make sure that the Defense Department and all federal agencies are held to the same environmental standards that apply to the private sector. Under most current environmental laws, that's already the case. Federal facilities, including military installations, are subject to civil penalties for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, certain provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. Congress specifically recognized the importance of these penalties when it passed the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992. During the past several months I've received letters on this issue from environmental and state organizations, as well as the Statement of the Administration's strong opposition to this provision. I ask unanimous consent that copies of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, these letters are opposed to authorization or appropriation language that limits the importance of penalties in deterring environmental violations. In fact, the letter signed by twenty-one environmental groups states ``Creating a special exemption for DoD from penalties for environmental violations sends the message that this federal agency can ignore and discount the laws by which everyone else must abide.'' My final point is that every time the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee has raised this topic in hearings, the Committee has leaned toward expanding the role of fines and penalties in enforcing environmental laws at federal facilities. They did that so federal, state, and local governments would have all the tools they need to make sure all federal facilities comply with health and environmental laws. Finally, as the Administration pointed out, ``all federal agencies should be held fully accountable for environmental violations and should be held to the same standards as the private sector.'' That is precisely what the Kerry amendment would do and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from North Dakota is going to yield the time. How much time do the proponents of the second-degree amendment have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the second-degree amendment, which I am pleased to be cosponsoring with Senator Conrad. This amendment would establish a lockbox to protect both Social Security and Medicare surpluses from being raided to pay for other programs or tax breaks. The amendment would take Medicare completely off-budget, and it would add iron-clad guarantees to ensure that neither Social Security nor Medicare surpluses can be used for any other purposes. This amendment is based on a proposal first put forward last week by Vice President Gore. And I want to commend the Vice President for his leadership in this area. As he has argued so forcefully, it is wrong for Congress to use Social Security or Medicare surpluses as a piggy bank either for tax breaks or new spending. Instead, Social Security and Medicare should be taken off the table, and out of the Federal budget. Social Security already is officially off budget. That is the law. There is a bipartisan consensus that we should not use Social Security surpluses for any other purpose. We all agree on that. But what we have not all agreed on is that Medicare surpluses should be protected, as well. Senate Democrats have long argued that Medicare must be included in any Social Security lockbox. That is why last year, when Republicans sought to move a lockbox that dealt only with Social Security, we held firm and insisted on our right to offer at least one amendment. The amendment we wanted to offer would have added Medicare to the GOP proposal. But the Republicans were so opposed to that, they pulled the bill from the floor. In fact, this happened several times. Each time, we Democrats insisted that Medicare be part of the equation. And, each time, Republicans said: No. I am hopeful that Republican opposition to protecting Medicare is softening, and I give Vice President Gore a lot of the credit for that. He has taken the lead and put this issue at the forefront of the public agenda. With the spotlight now clearly on the Congress, I am optimistic that we will respond. We should not respond with half-hearted measures, like the bill approved in the House of Representatives or the pending Ashcroft amendment. We should do ti right, and that means taking Medicare completely off-budget, with all the procedural protections now provided to Social Security. That is what this amendment does. It treats Medicare just as we are already treating Social Security. It says: Medicare, like Social Security, will now be taken completely off of the Government's books. It will not be counted in the President's budget calculations. It will not be counted in the budget resolution, and it will not be used as a piggy bank for tax breaks, or for any other Government programs. The legislation also creates points of order against any legislation that would deplete the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for any other purpose. Similar points of order already apply for Social Security. Medicare deserves the same protections. In addition, the amendment would protect Medicare from across-the- board cuts that could be triggered if Congress exceeds other budgetary limits. Under current law--the so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' rules--if Congress raids surpluses either for tax breaks or mandatory spending, Medicare automatically gets cut. That is not right, and that will end under this amendment. In addition to taking Medicare off-budget, the amendment also strengthens existing rules that protect Social Security. For example, the amendment would establish a supermajority point of order against any measure that would put Social Security back on budget, or violate the prohibition against including Social Security in a budget resolution. Our amendment also strengthens existing law by requiring every budget resolution to include Social Security totals for each year covered in the resolution, and then establishing a point of order to protect those funds in each year. This is an improvement over current law, which protects Social Security surpluses in the first year of a budget resolution, and for the entire period of the resolution, but not in each individual year. There is no similar provision in the pending Ashcroft amendment. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to comment on the Ashcroft amendment. The Ashcroft amendment is described as taking Medicare offbudget, something deserving consideration. But the proposed amendment does not really do it. It does not fully protect Medicare. And the public must know why it is an inferior proposal to the second-degree amendment proposed by Senator Conrad and myself. The Conrad-Lautenberg amendment calls for more than a surface accounting change. Yes, we take Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund off-budget, and that's important. But we are also insisting that we include procedural protections against any budget resolution or legislation that would use Medicare funds for other purposes, and permit undermining its solvency. We do that by establishing a process that will protect Medicare by requiring a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would invade the trust fund's solvency to be used for other purposes. Under our amendment, if you want to use Medicare funds to pay for tax breaks, or for anything else, you will need those 60 votes to do it. That is not true of the prevailing amendment, however. The Ashcroft amendment isn't really able to protect Medicare. It does establish a point of order, a higher hurdle, that obstructs creation of a larger budget deficit. And that's a good thing that will help promote debt reduction. But preventing an on-budget deficit is not the same thing as protecting the Medicare Trust Fund. For example, if legislation was proposed that reduced revenues into Medicare's Trust Fund and increased the possibility of earlier Medicare insolvency, that legislation would not be subject to a point of order under the present Ashcroft amendment. That is because, again, the Ashcroft amendment isn't really designed to protect the solvency of Medicare. It is only designed to prevent on-budget deficits. And that just doesn't go far enough. The point of all this talk about Medicare is to ensure that the program will still be solvent and strong in the future, when the baby boomers retire. Well, if you don't protect Medicare's solvency, you are really not accomplishing that goal. That is why the Ashcroft amendment is grossly inadequate and why I urge my colleagues will instead support the Conrad-Lautenberg second degree amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, with Senator Crapo, my colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee, as an original cosponsor. This bill will require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to give businesses one point of contact for all federal environmental reporting requirements, and to otherwise minimize the administrative burdens of environmental reporting. This ``one-stop'' reporting system will use a common nomenclature throughout and use language understandable to business people, not just to environmental specialists. Its electronic version will also provide pollution prevention information to the business. The bill will also give each State, tribal, or local agency the option of reporting information to one point of contact at EPA, which will facilitate their efforts to streamline environmental reporting. Mr. President, a law streamlining environmental reporting will obviously benefit industry. It will be of great environmental benefit as well. High-quality environmental information is the foundation of environmental policy-making. Unfortunately, there are significant gaps and inaccuracies in the environmental information reported by businesses today. This is because environmental reporting currently involves scouring several different EPA offices for the applicable requirements, and then mastering a bewildering variety of reporting formats and regulatory nomenclatures. Reducing needless complications, as our bill does, will increase compliance with reporting programs and improve the accuracy of the information reported. In addition to improving environmental information, a law streamlining environmental reporting will help businesses prevent pollution at the source. Mainstream business decision-makers--those who design the business's product, decide how to make it, manufacture it, and instruct customers in its use--inadvertently make the vast majority of environmental decisions at the business. When a business designs its product and the process for manufacturing the product, it is locking in its major environmental impacts. Streamlining environmental reporting will make it easier for mainstream business decision-makers to understand their environmental obligations. This will make it easier to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of products and production processes, and instructions on their use--that is, preventing pollution at the source. This bill is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Printing Industries of America, the National Association of Metal Finishers, the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense, the National Environmental Trust, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support, the text of the bill, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be entered into the Record. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan win-win bill that will be good for U.S. industry and good for the environment. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, with Senator Crapo, my colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee, as an original cosponsor. This bill will require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to give businesses one point of contact for all federal environmental reporting requirements, and to otherwise minimize the administrative burdens of environmental reporting. This ``one-stop'' reporting system will use a common nomenclature throughout and use language understandable to business people, not just to environmental specialists. Its electronic version will also provide pollution prevention information to the business. The bill will also give each State, tribal, or local agency the option of reporting information to one point of contact at EPA, which will facilitate their efforts to streamline environmental reporting. Mr. President, a law streamlining environmental reporting will obviously benefit industry. It will be of great environmental benefit as well. High-quality environmental information is the foundation of environmental policy-making. Unfortunately, there are significant gaps and inaccuracies in the environmental information reported by businesses today. This is because environmental reporting currently involves scouring several different EPA offices for the applicable requirements, and then mastering a bewildering variety of reporting formats and regulatory nomenclatures. Reducing needless complications, as our bill does, will increase compliance with reporting programs and improve the accuracy of the information reported. In addition to improving environmental information, a law streamlining environmental reporting will help businesses prevent pollution at the source. Mainstream business decision-makers--those who design the business's product, decide how to make it, manufacture it, and instruct customers in its use--inadvertently make the vast majority of environmental decisions at the business. When a business designs its product and the process for manufacturing the product, it is locking in its major environmental impacts. Streamlining environmental reporting will make it easier for mainstream business decision-makers to understand their environmental obligations. This will make it easier to incorporate environmental considerations into the design of products and production processes, and instructions on their use--that is, preventing pollution at the source. This bill is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Printing Industries of America, the National Association of Metal Finishers, the American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense, the National Environmental Trust, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support, the text of the bill, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be entered into the Record. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan win-win bill that will be good for U.S. industry and good for the environment. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Crapo and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which has been moved to third reading. Most immediately, the supplemental emergency funding for Assistance to Plan Colombia--requested by the President at the beginning of the year, and passed by the House months ago--can finally be included in the Military Construction Appropriations bill already in Conference. In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a democratically-elected government which is committed to combatting drug production and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the heroin and about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States. Mr. President, I recently visited Colombia to assess what our aid could accomplish. I went to see the scope of drug crop cultivation and processing, to look into the political context, the human rights situation, the goals of the Pastrana Government, and to assess the capabilities of the military and the police. I went with an open mind, though I was concerned about the horrendous abuses of human rights and with the effects of Colombian cocaine and heroin on the streets of New Jersey and other states. I left Colombia convinced that we can help Colombia and help America by cooperating in the fight against drug production, trafficking, and use. Let me briefly share a few of my observations and conclusions: Aid for Plan Colombia is strongly in the U.S. interest. While there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the exact content of the aid package, we must use the opportunity to cooperate with a fellow democracy to fight the scourge of drugs which harms both our people. This is a genuine emergency and should be funded as such. Drug crop eradication, training, and counter-narcotics military and police operations have been curtailed for lack of funds. Other elements of the package--like helicopters and alternative development aid--have longer lead times, but the process cannot start until the funds are passed. Every week we delay, 1,000 more acres of coca are planted, so the problem grows ever larger and narcotics-trafficking groups grow stronger. Colombia's political will is strong. While the political situation in Colombia is uncertain, President Pastrana and the Colombian Congress have backed away from forcing early elections and appear to be working out their differences. But the Colombian people and their elected representatives want an end to the violence. They support peace negotiations with the FARC and ELN guerrillas. And they know the violence will not end as long as it is fueled by drug trafficking and its dirty proceeds. The U.S. and Colombia have a symbiosis of interest in combating drug production and trafficking. While the Colombians mainly want to end financial support for various armed groups, they are highly motivated to cooperate with our main goal--eliminating a major source of narcotics destined for the United States. Colombia's military and police need reform and assistance. I was appalled to learn that any conscript with a high school education is exempt from combat duty, so only the poorest, least-educated people serve in front-line units. Moreover, the standards of training for most military personnel are quite low, and the NCO corps is particularly weak. Colombia needs to accelerate military reforms, some of which require legislation. But the U.S. can also help a great deal by providing sound training to the Counter-Narcotics Battalions which will be most directly involved in operations supporting the Colombian National Police as they eradicate crops, destroy laboratories and processing facilities, and arrest traffickers. We need to improve protection for human rights in Colombia. The Colombian people face very real risks of murder, kidnapping, extortion, and other heinous crimes, so they always live in fear. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the violence. The Colombian Government-- including the military and the police--take human rights issues very seriously. We need to hold them to their commitments to make further progress, as the Senate bill language Senators Kennedy and Leahy and I authored would do. I was particularly impressed that the independent Prosecutor General's Office--known as the Fiscalia --is firmly committed to prosecuting criminals, particularly human rights violators. But in meeting with Colombian human rights groups, I learned that the overwhelming majority of human rights abuses are committed by the paramilitary groups, followed by the guerrillas. Colombia must sever any remaining ties between its military and the paramilitary groups and treat them like the drug-running outlaws they are. On the whole, winning the war on drugs in Colombia should do more to improve security and safeguard human rights than anything else we or the Colombian government can do. Mr. President, I reluctantly opposed the Amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone. I share his conviction that we as a country must do more to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in our society. In 1998, the most recent year for which I have these statistics, more than 5 million Americans were chronic, hard-core users of illegal drugs. Just over 2 million--less than half of them--received treatment. I firmly believe that we should provide drug treatment for every drug addict willing to make the tremendous effort to overcome his or her addiction. In my view, we should ensure that no one leaves our prisons--whether federal, state, or local--addicted to narcotics. We absolutely must do more to reduce demand and thus reduce the use of dangerous drugs and reduce the terrible toll drug use and related crime takes on our society. Where I differ with the Senator from Minnesota is that I do not believe we should undermine our Assistance for Plan Colombia to pay for increased domestic drug treatment and prevention programs. Even if we were to fully fund the President's request for Assistance to Plan Colombia, our international programs would account for only about one-tenth of our counter-narcotics budget. In Colombia, we have a real opportunity to work with a democratically-elected government which is committed to combating drug production and trafficking in a country which supplies most of the heroin and about 80 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States. In short, Mr. President, I opposed the Wellstone Amendment because I believe we need to keep working to reduce demand for drugs here in America, but not at the expense of cutting efforts to eliminate a major source of drugs to our country. I also opposed the Amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton. I voted against a similar Amendment in the Appropriations Committee, and my subsequent visit to Colombia leaves me more convinced than ever that I was right to do so. Our vote on the Gorton Amendment was, quite simply, a vote on the proposed Assistance to Plan Colombia. We all know that President Pastrana's Plan Colombia--which includes an aggressive counternarcotics effort--could not go forward with only one hundred or two hundred million dollars in U.S. aid. Even if the Gorton amendment had merely delayed funding, as its sponsor has argued, it would have prevented President Clinton from seizing the opportunity to act now. In my view, we have waited too long already to address a major source of the narcotics which bring so much harm on the American people. We have a tremendous opportunity--if we are willing to devote a reasonable level of funding--to drastically curtail the production cocaine and heroin in Colombia while supporting democracy and the rule of law in that country. I am concerned that other emergency needs have not been met. The President requested emergency supplemental funds for Kosovo and the Southeast Europe Initiative to help bring peace and stability to that troubled region, but those funds have not been provided. Funding for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, multilateral debt relief trust fund also was not provided, so we cannot fulfill our goals to help relieve the world's poorest countries from the crushing burdens of debt. I hope we will be able to address these deficiencies in Conference with the House on emergency supplemental appropriations. Let me turn now to the underlying Foreign Operations Appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As I noted when we considered this bill in Committee, I believe Subcommittee Chairman McConnell and Ranking Member Leahy, working with other Senators and aided by their capable staff, have done a good job of allocating the resources available to them. I particularly appreciate their help to include revised language to ensure our aid in Bosnia and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia is used to help bring war criminals to justice. I also support the creation of an account for Global Health, with increased funding for tuberculosis, AIDS, and other health challenges. And the bill fully funds support for our ally Israel and peace in the Middle East. That said, Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the funds provided for the Foreign Operations Subcommittee simply are not sufficient to sustain America's global leadership as we begin a new century. President Clinton requested increased funding for international programs in fiscal year 2001, though still far less in real terms than we spent in the mid-1980s. But the bill before us today falls about $1.7 billion short of the President's request. Let me cite just a few examples of the cuts: Funding for the Global Environment Facility is more than $125 million below the President's request, so our arrears will continue to mount and environmentally-sustainable development projects in poor countries will not be funded. Even the International Development Association, or IDA--the main institution known as the World Bank--is funded below last year's level and more than $85 million below the Administration's request. While I appreciate Chairman McConnell's strong funding for Central and Eastern Europe, it's not nearly enough to make up for the Kosovo supplemental which was apparently not funded. Meanwhile, assistance to the Independent States of the former Soviet Union--many of them still at a critical stage in their economic and political transition--is $55 million below the level requested by the Administration. The International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement and Non- Proliferation, Anti-Terrorism and Demining accounts are each cut by nearly $100 million from the President's request. I don't want to waste the Senate's time citing all the examples, but I hope I've made my point. President Clinton sought a more responsible level of international affairs spending within his balanced budget, but this bill is more than 11 percent below the Administration's request. Mr. President, I believe we need to strengthen Foreign Operations funding as this bill goes to Conference with the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the subcommittee to make that happen, so we can avoid having this bill vetoed. We need to work together to achieve a responsible Foreign Operations funding level which will advance America's interest and reflect America's values around the world. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota. While I share his conviction that we as a country must do more to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in our society, I do not believe we should undermine our assistance for Plan Colombia to pay for increased domestic drug treatment and prevention programs. Mr. President, I recently visited Colombia to assess what our aid could accomplish. I went to see the scope of drug crop cultivation and processing, to look into the political context, the human rights situation, the goals of the Pastrana Government, and to assess the capabilities of the military and the police. I went with an open mind, though I was concerned about the reported abuses of human rights and with the effects of Colombian cocaine and heroin on the streets of New Jersey and other states. I left Colombia convinced that we can help Colombia and help America by cooperating in the fight against drug production, trafficking, and use. Mr. President, aid for Plan Colombia is strongly in the U.S. interest. While there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the exact content of the aid package, such as what kind of helicopters should be provided, we must use the opportunity to cooperate with a fellow democracy to fight the scourge of drugs which harms both our people. Colombia's political will is strong. While the political situation in Colombia is uncertain, President Pastrana and the Colombian Congress have backed away from forcing early elections and appear to be working out their differences. But the Colombian people and their elected representatives want an end to the violence. They support peace negotiations with the FARC and ELN guerrillas. And they know the violence will not end as long as it is fueled by drug trafficking and its dirty proceeds. The U.S. and Colombia have a symbiosis of interest in combating drug production and trafficking. While the Colombians mainly want to end financial support for various armed groups, they are highly motivated to cooperate with our main goal--eliminating a major source of narcotics destined for the United States. Mr. President, we absolutely need to improve protection for human rights in Colombia. The Colombian people face very real risks of murder, kidnaping, extortion, and other heinous crimes, so they always live in fear. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the violence. The Colombian Government--including the military and the police--take human rights issues very seriously. We need to hold them to their commitments to make further progress, as the Senate bill language Senators Kennedy and Leahy and I authored would do. Mr. President, was particularly impressed that the independent Prosecutor General's Office--known as the Fiscallia--is firmly committed to prosecuting criminals, particularly human rights violators. But in meeting with Colombian human rights groups, I learned that the overwhelming majority of human rights abuses are committed by the paramilitary groups, followed by the guerrillas. Colombia must sever any remaining ties between its military and the paramilitary groups and treat them like the drug-running outlays they are. On the whole, winning the war on drugs in Colombia should do more to improve security and safeguard human rights than anything else we or the Colombian government can do. To return to the amendment now before us, Mr. President, I believe we need to keep working to reduce demand for drugs here in America, but not at the expense of cutting efforts to eliminate a major source of drugs to our country. We have a tremendous opportunity--if we are willing to devote a reasonable level of funding--to drastically curtail the production of cocaine and heroin in Colombia, while supporting democracy and the rule of law in that country. And, since Colombia is the source of most of the heroin and 80 percent of the cocaine sold in the United States, this is a real opportunity to help address the drug problem in our own country. I agree with the Senator from Minnesota that America must do more to reduce the demand for drugs, particularly by helping those already addicted. But we should not take away from our support of Colombia's efforts in the process. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Kennedy/Smith Hate Crimes Prevention Amendment. Recent events in the news have unfortunately offered a number of disturbing examples of why this legislation is so badly needed. All of my colleagues remember that terrible day in August of last year, when a hate-filled gunman, Buford Furrow, opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle at a Jewish Community Center near Los Angeles. We all remember that line of frightened children, holding hands as policemen led them to safety. Furrow's rampage wounded three children, a teenager and a 68-year-old receptionist. And he later used a handgun to kill a Filipino postal worker. There is every indication that Mr. Furrow, a white supremacist, was motivated by racial hatred. Then there was the brutal attack in August 1998 on Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming. Matthew was savagely beaten to death by two homophobic thugs who tied him to a fence and tortured him. That assault came just a few months after the horrific attack on James Byrd Jr., who was chained to a pickup truck, dragged along a Texas road and killed by avowed racists motivated by prejudice. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of meeting Matthew Shepard's parents, and the family of James Byrd Jr. at a ceremony honoring victims of crime. They are truly remarkable people, because they've turned their loss into a source of strength for others. They have devoted themselves to helping others--victims of crime everywhere--even while coping with their own personal tragedies. That's an example that this Congress should follow. Crimes that target race, or sexual orientation, or gender, or religion are the ugliest expressions of ignorance and hate. We need stronger federal laws to deal with these crimes and the people who commit them. Mr. President, current federal law is just too restrictive to allow federal prosecutors to try hate-crimes cases effectively. In 1994, a jury acquitted three white supremacists who had assaulted African- Americans. After the trial, jurors said it was clear the defendants had acted out of racial hatred. But prosecutors had to prove more than that. They had to prove that the defendants intended to prevent the African-American victims from participating in a federally protected activity--a major roadblock for the prosecution's case. The Kennedy/Smith amendment would remove that element from federal hate-crimes law. It would also allow federal prosecutors to prosecute violent crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. Mr. President, as all of us here know, no area of the country is free from hate crimes. In my home state of New Jersey, there were at least four incidents of hate-related violence between January 12 last year and January 15 this year. One of the victims was a 16-year-old gay high school student who was badly beaten. The Kennedy/Smith amendment would bring the full force of this country's legal system to bear on incidents like this. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to protect American citizens from crime motivated by bigotry and intolerance.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. These names come from a report prepared by the United States Conference of Mayors. The report includes data on firearm deaths from 100 U.S. cities between April 20, 1999 and March 20, 2000. The 100 cities covered range in size from Chicago, Illinois, which has a population of more than 2.7 million to Bedford Heights, Ohio, with a population of about 11,800. But the list does not include gun deaths from some major cities like New York and Los Angeles. The following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today--on June 20, 1999: Ed Barron, 20, St. Louis, Missouri, Wayne Burton, 21, Baltimore, Maryland, Nigal H. Cox, 27, Houston, Texas, Jermaine Davis, 39, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Myron Frenney, 22, Houston, Texas, Jose N. Garcia, 18, Chicago, Illinois, Agustin B. Gonzalez, 21, Houston, Texas, Fernando Gonzalez-Cenkeros, 35, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Jovel D. Gwinn, 22, Kansas City, Missouri, Roshon Hollinger, 5, Atlanta, Georgia, Antwaune Johnson, 29, Denver, Colorado, Edward Johnson, 36, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Loris Larson, 35, St. Louis, Missouri, Robert Mirabela, 20, Chicago, Illinois, Frederick Rathers, 16, Memphis, Tennessee, Coartney Robinson, 20, Dallas, Texas, Arnold Webb, 30, Detroit, Michigan. In the name of those who died, we will continue the fight to pass gun safety measures. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Ohio to yield me 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Ohio and congratulate him for his foresight. He is among the best to know what to do in a situation such as this, having served as a Governor of Ohio and mayor, as we earlier heard from our friend from Delaware. We are simply asking for flexibility to use certain highway funds for mass transit investments. I think that is a pretty good idea. The Voinovich amendment merely extends that flexibility to include Amtrak expenses. We do not have much new here, except to make certain that if a Governor, if a State, if the people in that State choose to use some of the highway money they are going to have on rail, they have an opportunity to do so. I, frankly, think it is an appropriate local decision. We often have disputes here about whether we are invading States rights, seizing their prerogatives. This one surprises me because what I hear from the opponents, largely, is: Well, my people have put money into the trust fund from the gasoline taxes and we want it spent on highways. I can tell you, coming from New Jersey, we don't get very much of a return on the money we send down here. As a matter of fact, I am embarrassed to tell some of my constituents that we have among the lowest--perhaps the lowest--return on money we send to Washington. So we understand the concerns there. But this is in the national interest. As we hear the discussion, we say it should be to guarantee a National Highway System. The highway system is getting by far the lion's share. If a State says it would also like to be investing in intercity rail service, I think it ought to be able to do it. Some say all the money going to rail, to Amtrak, is largely in the Northeast corridor. That may be a fact of life because most of the people in the country are squashed into that little area, the Northeast quadrant of the United States. But also, as we look at plans, there are plans to take trains from Chicago to St. Louis. If the investments are properly made there, we will knock about 2 hours off the trip from Chicago to St. Louis. I assume that is an important route. It is a Midwest route, Chicago to St. Louis, MO--that is a pretty busy area, too. And there is congestion there: Been there, done that; I have seen it myself. Traffic on the highways is bottled up. We are clogging the airlanes to such a point they cannot function. There was an article in the paper the other day about runway incursions. They are way up, 27 percent in just 5 months this year. That is an ominous thing to think about. We are always concerned about airplanes falling out of the sky. Our system is fundamentally safe, but runway incursions happen for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is it is just too crowded. There are too many airplanes fighting for the same space to land or to take off or for slots to permit their passengers to disembark. We are looking at a situation now, as we heard from the Senator from Delaware, where we cannot put anymore concrete down without recognizing there is a terrific consequence to that. We talk about urban sprawl; we talk about consuming all the land that is under us. We know one thing is true: Rail is an efficient way to go. So we ought to say, OK, I will butt out of your business. If the Governor of Missouri or Governor of Illinois or the Governor of New Jersey chooses to use some of their highway funds on intercity rail and convinces their legislature to do that, we ought to agree. We ought to do it. That is usually the cry here: Let the States decide. As much as possible, I would like to see them do that. What we see here is an excellent opportunity to present a States rights issue and allow the decisions to be made at the local scene where they are going to have the greatest impact. I hope we are going to see full support for this amendment. This is a matter of direct choice. I yield the floor and encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment the Senator from Ohio has wisely offered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the one thing we can always count on from Senator Byrd is to throw in some good, sensible reflection as we go on battering one another, at times over sometimes important things but sometimes not so important. There is a commercial about one of the brokerage firms, that when that firm speaks, everybody listens. When Senator Byrd speaks, everybody should listen. We have a collection of his papers on the Senate, but he has done so many other things. Just think of the voice, but look at the message, and you capture the essence of Senator Byrd. I am going to miss him terribly when I leave here.