Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens an important Army research and development effort in nonlinear acoustic landmine detection being done at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey. Mr. President, let me begin my thanking Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for their leadership last year in working with me to obtain $1 million in funds to initiate this very promising effort, in which engineers at the Stevens Institute of Technology are applying expertise in non-linear acoustic phenomena to develop a new method for detection of mines and other buried man-made objects. The technology can differentiate between rocks, other solid objects, and actual land mines. This will improve landmine removal safety and speed, and contribute to our efforts to save lives and prevent injuries. With an additional $3 million the Stevens Institute can fully land this technology's development, which has so much promise for protecting our military personnel as well as civilian populations. Although the allocation's situation we faced in the Appropriations Committee in considering the DOD Appropriations measure made it very difficult to fund this effort, I look forward to working with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in conference to continue this research effort. It is my understanding that the House has included $1.4 million related to this effort, half of which is intended specifically for the research and development at Stevens. But given the great life-saving promise of this technology, I hope to work with Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye in achieving an increase of $3 million for the Stevens Institute of Technology effort. In this regard, I yield to Senator Stevens for his thoughts on this effort.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye the situation at the Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY). As the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee recall this military facility was closed as a result of the 1995 round of the BRAC Commission closings resulting in the loss of 3,000 jobs and economic hardship in Bayonne and Hudson County. The environmental and infrastructure problems existing at the base at the time of its closure were enormous and not completely disclosed or maybe not completely known by the Army. I thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their help in providing $7 million for MOTBY last year for demolition and removal of facilities, buildings and structures. This funding was critical for MOTBY as it struggles to deal with the substantial environmental and infrastructure problems left by the Army when it left the base. But, Mr. President, there is so much left to be done. Among the problems remaining are significant amounts of friable asbestos in dozens of buildings, major leaks in the water and sewer systems, contamination of the land and ground water and piers that are structurally unsafe and in danger of collapsing into the water. Mr. President, $5 million is contained in the House appropriations bill for stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY. I strongly urge the distinguished chairman and ranking member to uphold the House position of $5 million for the MOTBY South Berths in conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the New Jersey Devils for winning the National Hockey League's 2000 Stanley Cup Championship. On Saturday night, the Devils defeated the Dallas Stars 2 to 1 in double overtime to win the finals in six games. This is the second time in five years that the Devils have hoisted Lord Stanley's trophy above their heads. The Devils are what New Jersey pride is all about. Their heart, stamina, and drive have endeared them to millions of fans and have made them a permanent part of New Jersey's culture. Team members, who hail from all over the globe, also reflect the tremendous diversity of New Jersey's population. One player--Scott Gomez--is the first Hispanic player to compete in the NHL and the league's rookie of the year. The Devils have turned their cultural differences into a source of strength and have proved what is possible when team members work together to achieve a sport's highest honor. Mr. President, apart from their contributions to hockey, the New Jersey Devils are also outstanding citizens. Defenseman Ken Daneyko, for example, is a leader both on and off the ice. Ken is one of the original Devil players and was an alternate captain. He has played 1,071 games in a Devils uniform and has participated in all 109 Devils playoff games. Ken is also a community leader who owns an Italian restaurant in Caldwell and is an active member of New Jersey's chapter of the national Children's Miracle Network. Indeed, all the team members are proud to play for New Jersey and spend much of their free time giving back to the community. The success of any organization starts at the top. And there is no question that the success the New Jersey Devils have enjoyed would not have been possible without the leadership of two great New Jersey citizens: team chairman John J. McMullen and co-owner John C. Whitehead. John McMullen is one of the NHL's most innovative, committed owners. A graduate of Montclair High School and the Naval Academy, John has been honored many times for his civic contributions. He and John Whitehead, a former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, brought the team to New Jersey as a service to their home state. Mr. President, the players, coaches and staff with the New Jersey Devils showed outstanding dedication, teamwork and sportsmanship in achieving hockey's highest honor. They are not only the best team in the NHL, they are one of the finest organizations in professional sports.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is an honor to pay tribute to Jynell Harris as she retires after nearly 40 years of continuous and dedicated service to the Vineland School District in my home state of New Jersey. Mr. President, Ms. Harris' achievements extend back to Clayton High School, where she graduated with honors. She later received her B.A. in Elementary Education from Glassboro State College. Ms. Harris began teaching in the Vineland school system in 1963. She taught pre-school children at the Micro-Social Learning Center, served as a Special Education teacher for the mentally handicapped, implemented seminar programs for gifted and talented 7th and 8th graders and led remedial reading and writing classes for 9th and 10th grades at Vineland High School. In addition to her contributions as a teacher, Ms. Harris has served as Grade-Level Chairperson, Teacher-in-Charge of the Gifted and Talented Magnet School and coordinator of the Cumberland County College Summer Youth Program. Ms. Harris has been honored repeatedly for her achievements. Her honors include the 1989 Martin Luther King Academy's Harriet Tubman Award, the 1992 Delsea Regional High School Black Student Association Outstanding Community Service Award and recognition as an outstanding educator by the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority. Ms. Harris also has been effective in the political arena. She coordinated Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign in Cumberland County and served as the county's NAACP Education Chairperson. Ms. Harris actively participates in many community organizations and is a member of New Jersey Education Association and the National Education Association. Mr. President, Ms. Harris has shown extraordinary dedication to improving her community and clearly deserves recognition on the occasion of her retirement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I'm very pleased to announce that, after months of very hard work, we have bipartisan legislation which will clean up and redevelop the abandoned industrial sites known as Brownfields--S. 2700, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000. I first introduced Brownfields legislation in the Senate in 1993, in the hopes of both protecting public health, and addressing the problems of blighted areas. Since that time, it has become clear that there are even more reasons to address Brownfields than we originally thought. In fact, there are few environmental issues which cut across so many problems and offer so many solutions. Mr. President, Brownfields threaten the health of our citizens--and the economic health of communities across the country, by leading to abandoned inner cities, increased crime, loss of jobs and declining tax revenues. Brownfields also lead to urban sprawl, loss of farmland, increased traffic and air pollution and loss of historic districts in older urban centers. But once they're cleaned up and made useful again, they also represent tremendous potential in new jobs and a cleaner environment. Now, finally, we have a bipartisan plan to achieve those goals. The legislation we're introducing today provides federal money to investigate and clean up Brownfields sites. State and local governments would use this money to determine which sites pose environmental problems, to decide which redevelopment options hold the greatest promise, and most important, to get these sites cleaned up. Second, the legislation promises important private investments in the cleanup effort--by providing liability protection for people interested in buying and cleaning up these sites and for people who bought a Brownfields site without knowing it was contaminated. It also removes potential liability for parties who own property which becomes contaminated through no fault of their own, from hazardous substances from an adjacent site. These liability limitations and clarifications will help innocent parties and provide incentives to get these properties cleaned up and back into use. Third, this bill does several new and positive things for communities and for the environment. For the first time, it creates a public record of Brownfield sites handled under state programs, because the public has a right to know what's happening at the sites near their homes. And it is the first Brownfields bill to provide funding not just to assist in redevelopment projects, but also to provide assistance to state and local governments to create and preserve open space, parklands and other recreational areas in former Brownfields sites. Finally, the bill gives states incentives and funding to develop state programs to clean up their Brownfield sites quickly and safely. It has provisions to encourage cooperation and coordination between the federal and state governments, both of whom play an active role in cleaning up these sites and protecting the citizens. The bill strikes a delicate balance. It provides deference to state cleanup programs but still ensures that the federal superfund program will be able to come in and address problems when a site poses a serious problem. The Brownfields cleanup and redevelopment strategy in this legislation is comprehensive. It's fiscally responsible. And it will improve the quality of life for people throughout the country. It promises thousands of new jobs and millions in new tax revenue. It promises increased momentum for smart growth, which means cleaner air and less congested roads. It promises a new focus on revitalizing downtown areas, which will reduce urban sprawl, lower rates and protect parkland and open space. I come from the most densely populated state in this country, and I understand the importance of protecting open space. Mr. President, the nation's mayors estimate that Brownfields cost between $200 million and $500 million a year in lost tax revenues. Returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. Just look at the progress we've made even over the last few years. Grants from the EPA to aid in cleaning up Brownfields sites have helped generate more than 5,800 jobs and about $1.8 billion in revenues. In New Jersey alone, we've rescued more than 1,000 Brownfields sites, replacing polluted lagoons with office centers and covering abandoned rail yards with condominium complexes. These successes benefit everyone--both environmentally and economically. Which is why this legislation has strong support from both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. President, in the 1960s, this country turned its attention away from downtown areas and started focusing on the suburbs. We see now what that got us: clogged highways, overcrowded airports, and increased pollution. It's time to turn that trend around. And that's exactly what this legislation will do. I also want to thank my three colleagues for their determination and hard work in hammering out this compromise. Senator Smith, our new Chairman, has really reached out to all members of the Committee to try to craft good environmental legislation. Senator Baucus, the Democratic leader on our Committee, has been a stalwart advocate for a good Superfund program and a compromise Brownfields bill. We have fought many battles together over the years. Finally, Senator Chafee has shown great courage and energy, bringing us together to do what was once unthinkable, a Superfund related bill that has bipartisan support. I look forward to working with all of them to ensure that this bill is signed into law. Thank you. Following is a summary of the bill. Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000 (S. 2700)--Key Provisions Provides critically needed funds to assess and clean up abandoned and underutilized brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax revenues, preserve and create open space and parks; Provides legal protections for innocent parties, such as contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, and innocent landowners; Provides for funding and enhancement of state cleanup programs, including limits where appropriate on enforcement by the federal government at sites cleaned up under a State response program. Provides a balance of certainty for prospective purchasers, developers and others while ensuring protection of the public health. Creates a public record of brownfield sites and enhances community involvement in site cleanup and reuse. Provides for deferral of listing sites on the National Priorities List if the state is taking action at the site.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is a distinct honor for me to pay tribute to John P. Sputz on the occasion of his retirement from BAE Systems North America. Mr. President, for more than four decades, John has devoted his life to serving this country's defense needs. Under John's leadership, he and I worked together to further the efforts of the Link-16 program. This program, which includes systems that use secure, anti-jam, line- of-sight data radio communications, has moved from the research phase in 1971 to a major Defense Department program in the 1990s. Thanks to John, this program is about to go into service for the Army, Navy and Air Force as well as for our allies in NATO and elsewhere. John was also responsible for developing and expanding programs like the F-22 advanced tactical fighter program, the Joint Striker Fighter Program and the programmable digital radio technologies that will one day replace all legacy radios with cost-effective and flexible communications systems. Mr. President, John's commitment to BAE Systems North America is unsurpassed. Even after retiring, John will continue serving his company as President of MIDSCO, a multi-national joint venture company which helped manage the development of the MIDS Program. I hope the example that John set will inspire BAE Systems North America to achieve even higher goals. I know I speak for everyone who knows John when I thank him for his dedication to our country and wish him the very best in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for the courtesy of being able to speak at this time. I believe very strongly in the issue which is before us. I am in opposition to section 2410 in the military construction appropriations bill, which in the view of most, I think it is fair to say, effectively terminates the U.S. military role in Kosovo. I opposed this amendment when it was offered in committee, and I am proud to join with Senator Levin in offering an amendment to strike it here in the full Senate. Last year, the Armed Forces of the U.S., our NATO allies, and other countries, valiantly fought to stop the killing in Kosovo. They ended Slobodan Milosevic's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Albanians and prevented his genocidal warfare from being carried out to its full extent. Like many of my colleagues, I have made many visits to the area. I watched with admiration and awe when I saw our fliers flying out of Aviano, Italy, to the front in Kosovo. That flight--in a fighter plane there is not much room--typically would take up to 8 or 9 hours to complete. It also needed four to five refuelings in the air to keep that pilot and that equipment going. It was an incredibly well-done campaign. Our pilots' morale and commitment was second to nothing I have ever seen. I served 3 years in World War II, so I have seen war directly before. I remember even then, when everybody was so committed, how sometimes the morale would flag after a period of time. But these pilots would get in those planes almost daily and exhaust themselves in carrying out their missions. They were at high, high risk. Fortunately, with good planning, skilled pilots, skilled crews and ground personnel, we only had one plane go down, and the rescue of that pilot is something that will live in the annals of military history-- how they scooped him up in the middle of the night in a carefully planned evacuation. They got him and brought him home safely. When I met him a couple of days later, he wanted to fly again and was ready to go back and do his duty. In Kosovo, we watched hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people being uprooted from their homes--men, women, and children. A few men they would take away. Even before the air campaign, I met a family in Albania where they lifted grandpa up to cross the mountains along with lots of little kids--about five of them--to cross the mountains to try to protect themselves. It was a sad story they related. They got to Albania to their relatives and slept on the floor and thought they were in heaven. This was a genocidal act, if we have ever seen one. It was a brutal massacre involving the worst crimes that one could imagine--mutilation, rape. It was a terrible situation. We were compelled sometimes by our heartstrings more perhaps than our planning to intervene, and to say to the world you can't do that kind of killing while civilized nations exist around the world. We violated that, if we look at Africa. But we had a direct interest there. When we think now of just pulling out--and I will say arbitrarily. I hate to disagree with two very distinguished and good friends in this Senate, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee--I don't like to argue with him. He is too smart. He has too much knowledge--and the Senator from West Virginia, not in a different category. But I disagree with them on this very important decision that is about to be made. In my view, and in the view of the Senate in the past, the United States and our allies were right to act last year in Operation Allied Force. And we were right to stay in Kosovo to accomplish our goals in Operation Joint Guardian. We won the war. Now we have to ensure that victory by maintaining the peace. Mr. President, the discussion and the debate on this provision since the Appropriations Committee markup has shed considerable light on the Byrd-Warner amendment and its consequences. Most immediately, it ties our military presence in Kosovo to burden- sharing criteria for European reconstruction and humanitarian aid. They are doing it. It has been my belief for a long time that our allies must do more burden-sharing. I talked about it with Japan; I talked about it with Saudi Arabia; I talked about it with South Korea--that there has to be burden sharing by our allies. I believe that the European countries should fulfill their broad commitment to take the lead in the reconstruction of Kosovo, as well as their specific aid pledges. But I don't think threatening to reduce our peacekeeping presence is a constructive way to speed up European aid disbursement. More importantly, I don't think anyone can predict with any certainty that the President will be able to meet the burden-sharing certification requirements by July 15 as this bill requires. July 15, 2000, is not very far away. Administration people--top people at OMB-- say it is unlikely that it can be done. They are saying it certainly cannot be done now, and I know some of my colleagues who supported the amendment in the committee had a different understanding about whether or not the certification of the allies meeting their obligation could be done at this time. It can't be. If the Europeans fail to meet even one of the yardsticks, U.S. funds for military operations could only be used to withdraw U.S. forces. This provision could force U.S. troops to withdraw from Kosovo this July, 2 months from now. I think even some of the sponsors of the measure would consider this highly undesirable. But let us suppose the Europeans do indeed fulfill their aid pledges as is required, after the first phase, which is July of this year, 2000. What happens then? Section 2410 in this bill is quite clear on this point: Unless the President gets explicit congressional authorization in the form of a joint resolution, the next President will have to pull our troops out of the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo by July of next year at the latest. Just a reminder: The Second World War ended in August of 1945. We had troops stationed in Germany and Japan. We still have troops stationed in Europe and Japan as a result of that war. After more than 50 years, we still have troops there. We still have troops in South Korea as a result of that war. Why? Because we have determined we are better off keeping the peace than fighting another war. I believe that is the attitude that ought to dominate. We were never asked permission to keep those troops there. Two-hundred thousand Americans have been stationed around the world--in Japan and Germany, in the Pacific and European theaters. We were never asked if it was OK to continue. It is automatically thrown into the budget. Why, I ask, isn't that question raised? Why doesn't someone say, hey, if the burden-sharing falls behind--mind you, there was a time when it was way behind, and I fought very hard to get that up to date--why don't we write legislation that would say, should one of those countries--Japan, South Korea, or Germany--fall behind in fulfilling their share of the burden, pull our troops out arbitrarily? Just pull them out. One would never dare think of that. It has been 9 years since we concluded the war in the Persian Gulf. We have 9,000 troops stationed there in harm's way. We have lost a bunch of our people during the last 2 years because of an attack on a barracks. But we still have 9,000 people there monitoring the no-fly zones and making sure we have reserve troops to move in in case Iraq gets frisky and attacks again. I do not hear anybody saying, OK, look, done with; let's get out of there. The reason we don't do it is common sense. It is military sense. It is foreign policy sense. We are leaders because of the actions we take. That is the position America is in. This debate, I think, is a real tough one because there are two very popular Senators who are offering this amendment. I know they don't want to win this battle based on their popularity, I am sure, but the fact of the matter is this is a very important policy decision. Proponents of this measure argue that they are upholding the role of the Congress in deciding when and where to send our troops into harm's way. I just gave you a list of some places where we have troops. We all know that South Korea is on the border with North Korea, and our troops could very easily be in harm's way. The President asked Congress to support his decision for U.S. Armed Forces to participate in the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. Unlike the House, the Senate, on March 23, 1999, on the eve of the first air strikes, adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 authorizing U.S. participation in the NATO air campaign. The issue now is not authorization for offensive military action but continued deployment of U.S. troops in a peacekeeping mission that is carried out with our NATO allies and other nations. Congress has in the past used the constitutional power of the purse to support or to end U.S. participation in peacekeeping missions. For example, in 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia to cut off funding for the U.S. participation in peacekeeping operations in Somalia after the tragic death of U.S. marines. The Congress has never passed a joint resolution authorizing deployment of U.S. troops in a peacekeeping mission and has never before required the President to seek one. In fact, Congress has generally supported U.S. deployments abroad by providing funding. In my view, that is what we should do right now for Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo. Historically, when our armed forces have prevailed in war, we have counted on our armed forces to remain deployed to consolidate our victory, to keep the hard won peace, to ensure that our values of democracy and human rights are respected. The distinguished Senator from Virginia knows that. He was in the military for some time. He headed one of our most important divisions of the military. He knows after a conflict is over, we don't just walk away, pack up our bags, fold the tent, and go home. That is impossible. Remember, this whole military engagement started late because we couldn't get agreement among our NATO allies. It was in March of last year, just over a year ago. We are being asked to continue this operation. We ought not put strings on it that impair the ability of the President to make decisions. After more than half a century, in the war in which I was honored to serve, we still have the troops in Europe. I haven't heard my colleagues demanding we withdraw from those situations unless explicitly authorized by a joint resolution in the Congress. In fact, in all of my years in this body, I have never been asked to authorize the deployment of United States forces in Germany, Japan, Korea, or many other places, other than by authorizing and appropriating funds to continue those deployments. The alternative in this bill would not really leave it to the next President to decide whether to continue the deployment of U.S. troops in Kosovo, as the sponsors have asserted. Rather, section 2410 requires that the pullout by July 1, 2001, essentially be a done deal during President Clinton's term of office. Do we want to do that? I have a short term remaining, and I share the same schedule as the President. I am out of office in just a few months. To say that my successor ought to do exactly what I have done, Heaven forbid, we would never consider that. Do we want to tie the hands of the next President of the United States? We don't even know which party that President will come from. Under section 2410, this President, President Clinton, must ``develop a plan, in consultation with appropriate foreign governments, by which NATO member countries, with the exception of the United States, and appropriate non-NATO countries, will provide, not later than July 1, 2001, any and all ground combat troops necessary to execute Operation Joint Guardian or any successor operation in Kosovo.'' This President, President Clinton, must submit ``an interim plan for the achievement of the plan's objectives'' to Congress by September 30, 2000. That means President Clinton has to plan for a pullout and prevail upon our allies to pick up the slack within the next few months. I am not trying to protect President Clinton's initiatives. I am trying to protect the President's initiative, whoever that President may be. Whether it is Al Gore or George W. Bush, our next President would have to reverse course to fulfill our small share of the burden to keep the peace in Kosovo, to keep the soldiers, the brutes from attacking the men and women. By the way, that could be from the Albanians to the Serbs, or the Serbs to the Albanians. Kosovo is a tinderbox. In my view, this part of the bill puts a fuse on that tinderbox. If we pass it, we will light that fuse. I hope my colleagues now understand the issue posed by section 2410 of this bill. It is not about burden-sharing. We don't need to threaten to pull our troops out to make a point that the Europeans need to fulfill their commitments to take a lead in the reconstruction effort. This is not about the prerogatives of Congress. We can exercise our rights by providing or denying funds to continue to deploy. We have every right to do that. This is not about presenting the next President with a decision on a national security issue, since it would instead present the next President with a fait accompli, a done deal. The issue now before the Senate is whether to force the President, this President, to withdraw U.S. troops from Kosovo in this year, or at the latest by July of 2001, hoping our allies will go on without us. If they fail to, are we ready to bring those pilots back and assemble our armada, when we could avoid that? It is a mission that carries some danger, there is no doubt about it. Our brave men and women are there to do that. They are well trained and ready to take on the obligation. The issue we are deciding in the Senate is about policy and about making policy. What we do is immediately strap the hands of the President and the military leaders in our country, a pretty bright group. We strap their hands behind their backs and say: Sorry, we've decided to subject this to a perhaps appropriate political or power discussion. The policy now codified in this bill is against the national security interests of the United States. Why should we support the continued deployment of U.S. forces in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo? Let me give you some reasons. First, leadership. U.S. leadership in Europe and around the world does not just mean having modern and effective armed forces backed by a nuclear deterrent. U.S. leadership does not mean just defending our territory, our citizens at home, or our supply of foreign oil. U.S. leadership means standing up for our interests and values and standing up for those who cannot themselves prevent genocide, as we have done and should continue to do in Kosovo. The second reason is burden-sharing. United States aircraft, the best technology flown by the best pilots, flew most of the missions in the air campaign against Yugoslavia, but many of our allies were there with us providing aircraft, bases, and other critical resources. The Europeans have agreed to bear most of the burden of peacekeeping and reconstruction in Kosovo, and while some assistance has been slow in coming they are unquestionably doing the lion's share of the tasks we now face. The United States contributes fewer than 6,000 of more than 45,000 NATO troops deployed in Kosovo for Operation Joint Guardian. This is more than a token presence; we have accepted responsibility for security in a sector of Kosovo and have the robust force necessary to do the job right without unnecessary risk. But this limited role shows our allies that we understand the importance of doing our part to achieve a common interest. The third reason is peace and stability in the Balkans and in Europe. Maintaining a significant U.S. presence in a robust, NATO-led force lets the Serbs and the Kosovar Albanians know that the future of Kosovo and its people will not be determined by renewed ethnic violence. Over time, and with a strengthened civilian effort, this should open the way to development of civil society and self-government in Kosovo and a negotiated solution on its international status. Maintaining peace in Kosovo helps prevent a wider war which could otherwise draw in NATO allies as combatants. In contrast, withdrawal of U.S. forces would likely weaken Operation Joint Guardian. The Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs would instead rearm and prepare to resume fighting for control of territory once our allies join us on the sidelines. The killing we intervened to stop would eventually resume, with devastating consequences. The fourth reason we should continue our limited role in Operation Joint Guardian is credibility. If we show the world that we don't have the resources or the political will to stay on the ground in Kosovo, then all our potential enemies will believe they can prevail simply by waiting us out. We were far too reluctant to use ground forces or even helicopters to stop the killing in the first place. Do we really want to cut and run now? Finally, we should maintain our forces in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo to maintain the NATO alliance which is vital to our national security. The nations of the European Union, in trying to deepen their unity, are developing a European Security and Defense Identity, or ESDI. We are at a critical juncture in the evolution of the NATO, as we work to give the European Union a stronger identity and more autonomy within the alliance rather than dividing it. Failing to stay on the ground to address a threat to European security would reinforce calls for Europe to make unilateral decisions on the use of military force. We must not undermine the unity of purpose and unity of action that has been the strength of an alliance which has been a mainstay of our national security for more than half a century. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will look at this in the context of other decisions we have made about our military presence and its necessity. We will look at it in terms of whether or not in this Chamber, in these offices, we are making decisions that should be reserved for the military. Let's hear from them. We heard from General Clark, one of the brightest leaders we have had in the military in the history of this country. He said this could be disaster. Montenegro and other nearby countries could explode with Milosevic's ambition; he has been looking at Montenegro, salivating for the opportunity to get in that small division of Yugoslavia and absorb it. So to maintain the strength of NATO, to preserve our own credibility, to keep the peace in the Balkans and Europe, to uphold our commitment to burden-sharing, and to demonstrate United States leadership, the United States Senate should reject Section 2410 of the Military Construction Appropriations bill. Instead we should support our Armed Forces deployed in Kosovo by voting for the Levin amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say in response to the commentary of the Senator from Oklahoma, I talked of hundreds of thousands. If the Senator listened carefully, I talked about displacement, and I talked about movements. I did not talk about deaths. We can get the number of deaths from the records. I want to make sure that is clearly understood.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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 session. These names come from a report prepared by the United States Conference of Mayors. The report includes data 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 May 18th, 1999: Gregory Babb, 24, Philadelphia, PA; Clifford Clark, 54, Detroit, MI; James Courtney, 20, Providence, RI; Julius Ford, 32, San Antonio, TX; Derrick Hall, 24, Chicago, IL; Jason Horsley, 25, Denver, CO; Keith Mitchell, 21, Detroit, MI; Laredo Schetop, 48, Dallas, TX; Jamaar Wynn, 15, Nashville, TN. In the name of those who died, we will continue the fight to pass gun safety measures.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have just witnessed one of the most significant demonstrations this country has ever seen: 750,000 moms, some pops, some grandpops, some grandmas, people who love their children, people who want to protect their children, sending a message, when they gathered 750,000 strong, just in Washington, DC. There were other cities across the country where not too dissimilar demonstrations and marches were being held. There were large turnouts in lots of cities. As a matter of fact, one in New Jersey, one mom march, was headed by people who have become my friends. Their name is LoCicero. Jake LoCicero and his wife lost their daughter on the Long Island train, killed by an assassin who took quite a few lives. They were active gun club members, NRA. They said: Enough; we are not doing this anymore. We don't want our daughter to have died in vain. She was young, about to get married, in her early twenties. They believed she had to make a contribution. Her life was so valuable, she had to leave a legacy that went beyond her short time on Earth. Then we hear the trivialization of laws to try to protect children, as we just heard: It is just politics; it is only politics. What do you mean, you want to protect your kid when they go to school? That is politics. When are we going to stop this nonsense here? ``Nonsense,'' I use the word advisedly. We just heard our friend from Idaho talk about how many children die in automobile accidents and how many die falling off bikes and how many die suffocating in their cribs. I ask any of my colleagues, don't we have regulations that say put a safety belt on, put a child in a child seat? I have seven grandchildren. I watch my daughters put their children in the seats because they don't want them to get hurt. They know what the rules are. They could violate the rules and say, no, I am not going to do it, but good sense says you have to do it. There are all kinds of warnings about different mattress covers and plastic bags and things of that nature. There are warnings about wearing helmets when you go out for a bike ride. We try to stop the mayhem in those situations. But our friend over here said: No. Don't worry about the few kids who are killed by guns. He made a statement-- and I want the Record to be checked to be sure that that statement was what I heard, and I listened carefully--guns don't kill. How does that lead pellet get through a kid's heart or his head if it doesn't come from a gun? It doesn't come from a knife. It is not because of a slingshot. It comes from a gun.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will check the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. You said guns don't kill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the floor, thank you very much. Trivializing the ownership of guns, saying that if we have gun enforcement laws, guards from the Federal Government will come into every room in every house. Don't protect the children. He wants to have a statistical debate about how many really died. Not that many. Heck, no, not so many. A few maybe, but not a lot--unless it is your kid, unless it is your friend, unless it is your niece or your nephew or your sister's kid or your brother's kid. A lot of us have not experienced it directly, but anyone who doesn't empathize or sympathize with someone who has lost a child, who doesn't understand the emotion that renders, doesn't get it, just doesn't understand it. When 12 young people were shot in Columbine High School, those were not the only wounds. There were some who were hit by guns who also were wounded. But that wounding took place throughout the school, throughout the community, throughout the country. People had a vision of that boy hanging down from the window pleading for help: Save me. We couldn't hear the words, but we could see the gesture. Well, we are detached from that. Why do you have to control guns? Just because a few kids got killed? That is what is being said here. I can't believe my ears. We will check the Record. We could be mistaken about one thing, but check the Record and see what it says. Kids get killed from drowning. It is as if to say, if kids get killed from bike rides, from car rides, from suffocating in a crib or drowning, then that is kind of normal. It isn't normal because we have lifeguards and all kinds of protections. But when it comes to guns, no, you can't touch that. We hear about the second amendment. I am always reminded, when we discuss the second amendment, it was said by the Supreme Court that the amendment guarantees the right to be armed only in service to a well regulated militia. No one has an automatic right to own a firearm. No one has the right to own a firearm without a license. No one has the right to buy a gun without those of us in the community asking who they are. I authored the Lautenberg law, along with Senator Kerrey from Nebraska. Both of us served in the military. I wasn't as heroic. He is a Medal of Honor winner, having lost a leg in Vietnam. I spent my time in World War II. I was not touched. We know something about guns. Should someone be able to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer? That is the subject. From an unlicensed dealer, no questions asked, buyers anonymous --oh, protect the identity of that potential felon, protect the identity of someone who may be so disturbed, that if they get their hands on a gun, they will kill somebody. It has happened. We have seen it lots of times. We have seen it at Columbine, with two young boys who were too young to buy a gun. A girl testified before the Colorado Legislature that she went around with them to find a nonlicensed dealer to buy guns. She said, ``If I knew then what I know now, I would have never done it.'' Twelve children and a teacher are now dead. There have been bombs and everything else. We didn't have to openly say, OK, because kids get killed in swimming pools, cars, or in bike accidents, you can have guns. Why shouldn't you have guns? What does one thing have to do with the other? Heaven forbid it is a child in your family. Talking about the second amendment, Chief Justice Warren Burger--a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon, and a gun owner himself--called the NRA's distortion of the second amendment ``a fraud on the American public.'' Cases are never tested on the second amendment in court. Now, they can't prove that. But there is this mythology about what happens when it comes to guns. If you want to own them, you can. If you want to identify yourself, fine. If you don't want to, that is OK, too. What I heard proposed was that maybe every child or every person who walks this Earth should have a gun, and they can act quickly enough so if a law enforcement guy doesn't get there on time, they can stop a murder that might be taking place. I ask the manager, is there any more time available?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will wrap up, Mr. President. This is a passionate debate, and it ought to be. It ought not to be called politics. I would like to hear any of those who advocate not shutting down the unlicensed dealers tell it to the 750,000 women out there, those who were talking from experience, who lost a child. We have heard them. The Senator from California and the Senator from Illinois are on the floor. We heard them talk about the child who had a bullet go through his spine here in Washington, DC--19 years old, a promising young man just in the beginning of life. Mr. President, I have to ask this question. If this sense-of-the- Senate resolution is so insignificant that it should have just been in law, then why not let it pass? Why not have this Senate say: Million moms, we salute you; we commend you; we understand you; and we hear you--not, oh, no, no; we don't want to do that because that only encourages, in some perverse way, violence. And you have to get guns in everybody's hands so they can protect themselves. I fought as hard as I could to get an amendment into law--a piece of legislation that would prevent spousal abusers from getting guns. I fought tooth and nail with Senators on the floor. Some might say that is a worthless thing; why bother? Well, 150,000 times a year it is reported that a woman in this country gets a gun pointed at her head and he says, ``I'm going to blow your brains out.'' What happens to the children who see that or the neighbors who hear that? What happens to the woman when he pulls the trigger? We know what happens. They fought me tooth and nail. But the President and I worked together and got it on a budget bill that had to pass. Mr. President, 33,000 permits for guns have been denied when the applicant wasn't of sufficient mind or character to own a gun--33,000 times we have said no in 3\1/2\ years to those people who wanted to have guns. We had a fight over the Brady bill. Over 500,000 gun permits have been denied since the beginning of Brady. Does that help prevent lives from being lost?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is time to put the rhetoric aside. Let's see if there really is an interest in doing what we want to do, and that is express ourselves and pass a sense of the Senate that we Senators agree we ought to do something about gun violence and not go into long tales about kids dying from drownings and other things. Why can't we regulate, in some form, the way guns are handled out there and make sure we know who the buyers are, make sure that we have the right kind of law enforcement? We do it because it has increased substantially since gun laws were on the books. We have reduced the number of people who are out on the streets with guns. They are in jail. But to try to minimize the value of controlling who buys a gun--how does that hurt anybody who wants to buy a gun, a legitimate gun purchaser? It doesn't hurt anybody. I hope we can finally come together here and say, OK, this sense of the Senate doesn't hurt anything anyway. Let's do it and say we are serious. Let's say to the moms who marched out there last Sunday: We hear you and we understand what you are talking about. A million moms were marching from across the country. We hear debate about whether or not kids get killed from other sources as well. It hardly seems serious. It hardly seems real. It hardly seems possible that we could be having this kind of debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, now that we are considering the conference report on the free trade bill, which I support, I point out while this legislation is designed to improve economic conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, many of these sub-Saharan countries have struggled economically for years. As a result, that economic stagnation has also led to political unrest, civil wars, and bloody violence. Reducing violence should be a high priority all across the globe, not only on the African Continent but also a high priority in our country. In this country, we are going to see this weekend hundreds of thousands of mothers and families in Washington marching against violence as part of the Million Mom March. My resolution simply commends the participants of the Million Mom March this weekend for rallying their communities to ask for sensible gun safety legislation. It calls on the Congress to complete action on the juvenile justice bill, which will help promote safety and sensible legislation, and I hope to offer that resolution before the Memorial Day recess. I will be on The Mall for the march this Sunday with, I am sure, many of my colleagues on Mother's Day, May 14, 2000, with Americans from all walks of life. In Washington and communities across the country, people will join together to call for meaningful, commonsense gun safety policies. My resolution commends these families, citizens, members of religious congregations, schools, community-based organizations, businesses, political, and cultural groups for coming together as a local and national community to recognize the violence committed against our children from guns must cease. I am going to continue to try my best to see if we can get action on the stalled gun safety provision that American families want us to pass. It has now been more than a year since that terrible tragedy at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. Students at that high school were attacked in the halls of their school, in their classrooms. The result everyone knows: 12 students dead, a teacher shot dead, another 23 students and teachers injured. I have to ask, just as they are asking--I hear it; and I know colleagues of mine hear it--what has Congress done since that time, since that awful day 1 year ago? What have we done to help reduce this violence? As I see it, not much--virtually nothing. I think it is shameful. It is shameful because shootings have not stopped. Columbine was the most deadly school shooting. But there have been many others. It is peculiar, you often think--at least I do; I speak for myself--that we have seen the ultimate outrage, one after another: Columbine; the children being led, hand in hand, by policemen out of the school in Los Angeles; young people at a prayer meeting in Texas--and still nothing happens. In February of this year, a little first grader was shot and killed by a classmate--a 6-year-old killing a 6-year-old. The child, Kayla Rolland, a beautiful little girl, is taken from her family. There was no explanation except that this little boy got a gun and pulled the trigger. In December of last year, a seventh grader in Fort Gibson, OK, took a handgun to school and wounded four students. These are just the school shootings since the terrible tragedy at Columbine. Since 1997, there have been school shootings in Pearl, MS, West Paducah, KY, Jonesboro, AR, Edinboro, PA, and Springfield, OR. There have been many other outrages outside our schools. Recently, a racist in Pittsburgh killed six people, and not too far from where we are standing, seven children were shot at the National Zoo. Some of us have tried to address this violence. During the debate on the juvenile justice bill, the Senate passed several gun safety measures, including my amendment to require criminal background checks at gun shows. It was a very close vote. The Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, voted to break the 50-50 tie. I remind my colleagues that the gun show amendment had bipartisan support. I did not get 50 votes without getting some of our colleagues on the Republican side. I was pleased to have that support from Senators DeWine, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Voinovich, Warner, and Senator John Chafee, who is no longer with us. They all voted for the amendment. The final juvenile justice bill passed by a vote of 73-25. There was strong bipartisan support for moving forward on juvenile crime and for trying to reduce gun violence. But what has happened since then? The gun lobby, and its congressional allies, have stalled the bill. It has been held hostage in the conference committee for more than 9 months. We need to move forward on gun safety because stopping gun violence and keeping our kids safe is too important. When you talk about a million women marching, while they would like it, they are not marching for equal pay; they are not marching for job opportunity; they are not talking about ``glass ceilings;'' they are not talking about an invasion of the rights as we conventionally see them. There is one issue that is more important than any other. They say: Dear God, help us protect our children. When we send them to school in the morning, they are healthy and smiling. We want them to come back from school the same way at the end of the day--even though they now know that there are going to be metal detectors, there are going to be guards, and there are going to be additional measures to try to maintain security. Violence has won over much of our attention, certainly much of our budget. But we have to work to help families, some of whom have already paid a terrible price for gun violence, and others who worry about it each and every day. Because the wounds that were received were not simply the wounds that came from the gun attack, as horrible as that was, but everybody in the vicinity, everybody in those schools, were wounded by those attacks, so was our Nation. It changed the tenure of things. It made us all apprehensive. So the gun safety provisions in the juvenile justice bill are simply commonsense measures that Congress should have enacted a long time ago. First, we have to close the gun show loophole. There is no question that closing the gun show loophole will help prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, including the hands of schoolchildren. The proof is in the testimony of Robyn Anderson before the Colorado Legislature. She is the young woman who went with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to the Tanner gun show in Adams County, CO. She bought two shotguns and a rifle for Klebold and Harris, three of the four guns that they later used in their massacre, their shooting rampage at Columbine High School. She testified, saying very clearly: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gone to the Tanner gun show on Saturday and they took me back with them on Sunday. . . . While we were walking around, Eric and Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private--and not licensed-- because there would be no paperwork or background check. She said: It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check. More recently Patty Nielson, a teacher at Columbine High School, spoke about the need to close the gun show loophole. She said: All we know for sure is that if they [Klebold and Harris] hadn't gotten these guns, they never would have killed those innocent people. And the shocking thing is that they got those guns so easily from the gun show.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I certainly would agree to that provided that I regain the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the majority leader will yield, when would he expect that the MILCON bill will come up and be available for debate?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would there be any likelihood of a vote tomorrow on that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the teacher, Patty Nielson, from Columbine is right in her statement. It is shocking that anyone can get a gun so easily at a gun show. The American people understand this issue. In every poll, more than 80 percent of the American people support background checks at gun shows. In fact, two-thirds of the gun owners--66 percent--support background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. Some of the other loopholes in our gun laws are also shocking. There is no reason why we should allow large-capacity ammunition clips to be imported. We banned them from being manufactured in this country, but they can still be brought in, imported.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. April 20.