Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The time is already allocated. I am sorry. We owe our friends on the other side a couple minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We had a good advantage of time here, so if the Senator might wrap it up.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. OK.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To be clear, because I think there is perhaps some misinterpretation of what the Senator is looking for, that is pay down the debt as a mandate of the budget process--pay down the debt, and that is regardless of where those payments come from. I understand the Senator wants to get the debt paid down. But I just want to be sure I am correct in what I understand his intention is, once again to pay down the debt. Regardless, we are going to take $15 billion out next year, and the next year it is $30 billion, and then $45 billion, et cetera, among the first things. That is a mandate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. While I wasn't present to hear Senator Byrd's presentation, there is no doubt in my mind that the Byrd proposal is one we have to support. The last thing we want to do now is to reduce that tax in order that we might give OPEC or the distributors, whomever, a chance to boost the price for the difference. One of the toughest things we have to do is to try to meet our obligations with the resources we have available. The American people know very well that one of the most important things we do is to maintain our transportation infrastructure. I plan to do whatever I can to see that that is done. My remarks are short, but they are very supportive. I congratulate Senator Byrd for his usual wisdom in presenting something that we have to think seriously about and, frankly, I support fully. I thank him for that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are on the eve of establishing a budget priority for the budget year 2000, the one that begins in October and to next September. I am the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee. I would like to establish some parameters about the budget as I see it because we are waiting patiently for the majority to produce a budget resolution, which is a responsibility of the Budget Committee. That is supposed to be done by April 1 of this year. Other than meeting that deadline, the alternative would be for the majority leader to present a budget as he sees it. The question arises: Why is it, when the target as proposed by the chairman of the Budget Committee is for a budget resolution to be here by March 1--and today is considerably past March 1--we are still waiting? I was advised yesterday as the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee that we could expect to have a markup yesterday or today. That was called off at a rather late moment last night. We are sitting here, I will not say breathless but certainly curious, about what it is that prevents us from getting a budget. I have to do my own interpretation because I have not been given any explanation. I know there are competent staff people working to get the budget finished. We have them on both sides --on the Republican as well as on the Democrat side. Why isn't it finished? Let me tell you why I think it is not and why we on this side of the aisle think it isn't being done. It is because they can't get an agreement between the members of the committee. The tax cut package of George W. Bush, candidate for President of the United States, is something that seems to me would break the back of this economy. It would destroy all the rosy plans for paying down the debt, for making sure we rid ourselves of this obligation, this mortgage that we have all over our country. There isn't a family around who wouldn't look forward to the day when the mortgage on their home or the debt that they have could be retired. When we talk about a nice, healthy tax cut, or juicy tax cut for the wealthiest in the country, it doesn't ring a good bell even within the party of George W. Bush, the Republican Party. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee has had his hands full. He is my friend as well as a colleague. He doesn't confide in me. We keep our party business and our intentions separate. We discuss them in the open. This is less than a bad joke. It is a travesty. It worries people. We are enjoying a boom the likes of which has never been seen in this country or anyplace in the world. The economy is perking along--almost boiling along. This is a wonderful opportunity to make needed adjustments within our structure. We can help families, particularly the middle-class families, people who need a little bit of tax relief here and there to help accomplish specific purposes. We can keep this commitment, which we consider sacrosanct, sacred, to save Social Security first. We want to take the surpluses which are generated by the robust economy and use them to extend the solvency of Social Security. At the same time, we want to pay down the debt. It has been the President's objective to try to rid taxpayers of the public debt, that debt which is owed outside of Government, within about 15 years--bring it down to zero. What a difference it would make in our economy. We would be able to see people borrowing money without having to compete with the needs of the American Government, companies able to borrow without having to compete with the Government for capital. It would be an excellent objective if we could get there. Protect Medicare, provide prescription drugs, extend the life of Medicare some 12-15 years, that is what the Democrats want to do. We want to invest in education. I speak about education with a degree of knowledge because I came from a working-class family in New Jersey. My father worked in the textile factories in Paterson, NJ. My mother waited on tables. They struggled to make a living during those very lean years we were going through. We couldn't afford a college education for me even though it was apparent I had the ability. College came later on. I enlisted in the Army and was a beneficiary of the GI bill of rights. What a bill of rights it was for me. I was able to go to Columbia University. I never would have been able to afford that otherwise. The Government said: Frank Lautenberg, you have served your country in Europe during World War II at the height of the war. I came back and was able to get an education that helped me, with two very good friends, start a business in the computing field. It was a long time ago. We were pioneers. That company that I helped start employs in the area of over 30,000 people today. I am listed as a member of the Information Processing Hall of Fame. It is in Dallas, TX. Then I was able to run for the Senate. I am now in my third and last term. It has made such a huge difference. I made a contribution to this society that has been so good to me between establishing a business, an industry, employing people, and now being in this great body. It means a lot when we talk about investing in education. We can say to young people across America: Even if you don't have the money, if you have the ability to learn, we will help you achieve your objectives--make an opportunity for yourself, lift yourself into a better lifestyle or better life pattern than your parents, who so often struggle so hard. Cutting taxes for working families to achieve those objectives, that is the Democratic budget agenda. We talk about targeted tax cuts for families; help families care for an elderly parent with a $3,000 long-term care tax credit; Expand educational opportunities; Provide marriage penalty relief; Help people prepare for retirement; Expand the earned-income tax credit for those who often need it desperately. That is our mission. Instead, we are presented with something that hardly resembles that mission. We show this in graphic form by presenting this picture: a ship at sea facing the tip of an iceberg. The iceberg is the Republican tax proposal, one that says you can spend more than you have and not admit that if you want to keep on living, you may have to borrow money. From where is that borrowing going to come? It will come from Social Security--that trust fund we hear everybody on each side, who would say under oath, ``I want to make sure Social Security is there for those who work and pay the taxes.'' They want to know when the time comes for retirement they will have something to look forward to. Instead, what we have seen from the House Republican budget presentation that was sent over to the Senate is that we will have a surplus, non-Social Security surplus, in our financial account, our balance sheet, of $171 billion. However, the tax cut proposal we have seen is $223 billion. One doesn't have to be a mathematician to know if one takes $223 billion away from $171 billion, one has to go elsewhere to pay the bills. We made this very sacred promise, this commitment to the senior citizens of this country. I am one of those senior citizens; I like it. It is not bad. The fact is, we made a promise, almost on bended knee, that we absolutely will not touch, to paraphrase, a hair on yon gray heads for retirement opportunities. But the proposal we are looking at is one that says we will spend $50 billion more on tax cuts than we have in our non-Social Security surplus. That is not very good arithmetic. One does not have to be a mathematician, accountant, or economist to see that puts America deeper into a hole that we will have to dig our way out. Just take it from the Social Security, after we so diligently studied and agree that it is the most sacred obligation this country has. Where do we go from there? This graph ought to be presented differently. It shows a tip of the iceberg. The whole iceberg ought to be lifted up because this is a crash we can see coming. If this program stays in place, the economy is going to run into a full-sized iceberg with an enormous negative economic impact. We are not going to be able to protect Social Security. We are not going to be able to pay down the debt. We will not be able to take care of obligations we have to veterans in education and health care. We cannot do that if we go ahead as planned. We need to pay down our obligations. We need to give some targeted tax relief, to take care of the commitments we have. But, no, we cannot do it because we are not going to have any money left with which to do it unless we borrow once again from Social Security. We have been through that. We had years and years of borrowing from Social Security to make up for the lack of revenue coming from the non-Social Security side of the ledger. Finally, we are at a place in time where, with President Clinton's leadership and with the work of people on both sides of the aisle working on a balanced budget, we have developed a surplus and now we are ready to start taking care of the financial structure of the country in a way so that we know we will be able to assure people Medicare will be there for them, that prescription drug costs, which is such a problem for so many elderly, will be taken care of in some form. But we are not going to be able to do it if we put in place this tax scheme--and certainly, if not this one, Presidential aspirant George W. Bush's tax plan, which is more than twice, almost three times, the size of the one that has been proposed in the House budget. So the question for the American public is, Why is it that a Republican majority, a significant majority, cannot get an agreement out that says: This is where we stand. Let the public judge the value of it. Let Democrats, let people outside, make judgments about the truth in the presentation. We have all kinds of smoke and mirrors that disguise what we are going to try to do here. But we know in the final analysis we are going to be borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund. So let's get it out here. Let's let the public see what it is that is going on behind closed doors, because that is not the way we can operate anymore. We cannot operate with significant proposals and not permit the public to scrutinize what it is we are doing. We have to get to the job. We are way past the deadline we thought we would be through. I am not happy about the prospect that a budget resolution will be dropped on the floor without having had the benefit of a committee discussion, some debate, some analysis in the public eye before we go ahead and start voting on it. With that, I conclude by saying I and I know other members of the committee--Democratic members of the committee and I am sure many of the Republican Members of the Budget Committee--are anxious to get out the budget. If the leadership will accommodate us in the obligation we have to the public to present it, we will have a chance to talk about something other than what is whispered about through the halls here. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5- minute rule presently in place for morning business be extended for me to complete my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise now in strong support of a resolution offered by my colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. At the same time, I commend him for all of his hard work in support of gun safety measures. We are soon approaching an anniversary. Most anniversaries have a happy ring to them--wedding anniversaries, birthdays are often called an anniversary. Those are pleasant moments. But the anniversary we are talking about now is one we will remember for decades to come. It is the anniversary of a mammoth American tragedy. It is only 31 days until April 20, 2000, the 1-year anniversary of the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado. We all remember that awful day almost a year ago. Across the Nation, people saw and heard the shocking news reports. Two students had stormed into their school and systematically shot and killed 12 classmates and a teacher. They also wounded 23 other students and teachers. It makes me shudder when I recall the bloody carnage of that day. I had to shake my head in disbelief that this outrage could be committed in a school. No parent and no grandparent could avoid thanking goodness for the safety of their own families when they saw the horrors of those moments. Those innocent, young people, full of life, running, scared, desperate, trying to get away from the gunmen--the image of the young man hanging out of the window trying to reach safety. We thought that incident, that tragedy, would finally wake up Congress. That Congress would say: Let's end this; let's do what we can to stop this. And here, almost a year later, since that tragic moment, the American people have an obligation and a right to ask: What has Congress done to prevent another tragedy? How has Congress answered the cries and pleading of parents and grandparents who want to protect their children? What has Congress done to protect other families from gun violence? I ask the question and I will give the answer: Absolutely nothing. And it is a disgrace. I and some of my colleagues have tried. 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, a 50-50 tie. The Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, came in to break the tie. And with that vote the Senate passed my measure to require background checks at gun shows. But still Congress has not completed action on that legislation, despite the support of organizations that we all know and agree with when it comes to law enforcement, groups endorsing the Senate-passed gun safety amendments, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Police Executive Research Forum, Police Foundation, Major Cities Chiefs, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and others. They all ask why we can't do something about controlling gun violence in our society. We tried. I remind my colleagues that the gun show loophole amendment had bipartisan support. I was pleased to have that support from our friends on the other side of the aisle, people such as Senators DeWine, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Voinovich, Warner, and Chafee, who is no longer with us. They all voted for my amendment. And the juvenile justice bill, with the gun safety amendments, passed by a vote of 73-25. So there was strong, bipartisan support for moving forward on juvenile crime and trying to reduce gun violence. But that was back on May 20 of last year, 10 months ago. We have to look at what has happened since then. The shootings haven't stopped. Most recently, there was a 6-year-old shot by a classmate in Michigan. There was another shooting spree near Pittsburgh, where five people were shot and three died when a gunman opened fire on a McDonald's and a Burger King. There have been more shootings, from Fort Gibson, OK, to Los Angeles, CA, where a gunman opened fire at a daycare center. We all remember the little children being led from a day school--holding a policeman's hands. They were being led away from someone who would later kill a postal worker because he had a different complexion than the killer. And there was also Fort Worth, TX, where young people at a prayer meeting were assaulted by a gunman. It has been one shooting after another. And these tragedies demonstrate that unless all communities are safe from gun violence, no community is safe from gun violence. But while the vast majority of Americans want Congress to act, there is one special interest that says, no, the status quo is more than enough. The National Rifle Association has worked with its allies in this body and in the House of Representatives to block legislation every time it comes up. The same old reaction. Every time Congress wants to pass gun safety laws, the NRA calls on its friends to prevent progress. Recent statements from the NRA show how desperate and extremist they have become. A man named Wayne LaPierre, the NRA executive vice president, attacked President Bill Clinton. He said that President Clinton was ``willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.'' That comment is outrageous, insulting, reckless, and irresponsible. But Mr. LaPierre didn't stop there. He also accused President Clinton of having ``blood on his hands'' because of the shooting of the basketball coach, Ricky Byrdsong. Just when you thought the NRA could not go any lower, they managed to do it. The NRA is so wrong because, in that case, it was the State authorities who failed to pursue and prosecute Ricky Byrdsong's killer when he failed the background check. These painful comments are an outrage, and Mr. LaPierre and the whole organization, the NRA, ought to apologize to Mrs. Byrdsong. The NRA is out of touch with the American people. Look at the polls. There is overwhelming support for common sense gun safety measures. The American people are pleading with Congress to reduce gun violence. And they want to close the gun show loophole that permits unidentified buyers from getting guns without a background check. If you have money in your pocket, you can walk out with a gun at your waist. You could be one of the 10 most wanted criminals in all America, or one of the terrorists from abroad whose names have become legendary, and you could buy guns at these gun shows from unlicensed dealers--no questions asked. Who are you? What is your name? Where do you live? Have you had a bad record? No, not one question is asked. But the NRA attacks are nothing new. They constantly spout careless rhetoric. Some of my colleagues, and many other people, will remember when the NRA went after Federal law enforcement officials, calling them ``jack-booted thugs.'' That comment resulted in President Bush's resignation from the NRA. Now we have heard--I listened to it myself on a recent TV broadcast-- Charlton Heston, who ought to know better, defending the reckless attacks on President Clinton. And on the NRA web site you even see more rhetoric about the Holocaust that took 6 million people to their death. It says that if the Jews had their weapons with them, it would not have happened. What an outrageous and insulting thing to say. Six million Jews were put in gas chambers, put in trains, and systematically killed. The entire Nazi government and communities across Europe-- scientists, doctors, and teachers, all organized to put these people and 8 million more to their death. The NRA drops a casual remark like that and says maybe if they were allowed to carry weapons, or if they didn't have them taken away from them, they could have saved themselves. They are talking about kids who were 6 years old and babies who were thrown from trucks. They could have prevented it if they only had a chance to continue owning weapons. While that rhetoric is the most outrageous, there is more phony rhetoric coming from the NRA. The NRA says that all we need to do is enforce the laws we have on the books. Another outrageous, loose statement. The argument ignores the fact that the number of Federal firearms cases prosecuted by U.S. attorneys increased 25 percent, from 4,754 in 1992 to 5,500 in 1999. So the NRA's suggestion that law enforcement is not fighting gun crimes is just false rhetoric. They will say anything they want to if they feel it can help make their case. But they are not convincing the American people that everybody who wants to have a gun should get it in minutes. They say that 24 hours is more than enough time. But the FBI is trying to track down people who escaped the requirement for a thorough background check because there wasn't enough time to get it done. During the first year of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, there were 3,849 occasions where three business days went by and the gun transfer had to be allowed, but the FBI later received information that the transfer was to a prohibited person. In other words, even three business days is not long enough. And the NRA rhetoric also completely misses the point when it comes to gun shows. The problem with gun shows is there is no law to enforce. There is one giant loophole. As I said earlier, someone on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list can go to a gun show and buy a firearm from a nonlicensed dealer with no questions asked. The only questions are: How many guns do you want and do you have the money? That is the transaction. It is as simple as that--handguns, assault weapons, you name it; all kinds. This isn't an enforcement issue. There is no background check requirement to enforce. The NRA and its friends are out of touch with the American people. Even a major gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, said we need to do more on gun safety. The company reached an agreement with the Administration that will incorporate many of the measures stalled in the conference committee on juvenile justice--background checks at gun shows, child safety locks, and preventing the use of ammunition clips with more than ten rounds. For the benefit of those who do not work around here, a conference committee is comprised of a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House, both with jurisdiction over particular issues. They sit down and hammer out differences in legislation. The conference committee on the juvenile justice bill has met just once, in August of last year. It has done nothing for months because the NRA and its friends--some of them here and some of them across the Capitol in the House--don't want any gun safety measures to pass Congress. Despite that, the American people are demanding something be done. We have to move this conference. We want background checks at gun shows. We want child safety locks. We want to prevent the use of ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds. It is ridiculous that Congress is behind gun manufacturers on gun safety. We want to stop the phony rhetoric and get on with the job. And the American people should remind their Senators and their Congresspeople that they are demanding safety from guns for their children, their households, and their families. I hope the word goes out across this country that there is time now to start making changes to reduce gun violence. We ought to get on with the job. We have to stop the verbal attacks on law enforcement. We have to stop the excuses. The conference committee should complete its job. The American people should demand nothing less. I support Senator Reed's resolution and I hope many of my colleagues will vote for it. And we must show the American people that we have the backbone and the spine in this body to stand up to the NRA and campaign contributions from its political action committee. Listen to the voices of the American people. Listen to the cries of anguished parents who run to the schoolhouse hoping their child was not one of those who are listed as dead or wounded. Listen to the mothers who will march to Washington on Mother's Day--there may be a million rallying across the country--and say: for God's sake, please help me protect my child from violence. There is no more important or urgent plea than that. It must get through these walls. The American people can't understand Congress' failure to pass gun safety measures. I can't understand it and I work here every day. We must complete action on gun safety before April 20, 2000, the one year anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine High school. We cannot allow a year to pass with nothing done except people visiting cemeteries to see where their children are buried. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand that we are in morning business and that Senators may be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that I be given up to 10 minutes to make my remarks in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss a subject that is not terribly different than the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Virginia just now. He talks about our responsibilities, what we have to do to protect our citizens. He talked about it in a slightly different way than I am going to discuss it now. But we are at a point in time, Mr. President, when there are 43 days on the calendar left until the 1-year anniversary of the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. On April 20, 2000, it will be 1 year since the country listened, in shock, to the news that two high school students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had stormed into Columbine and systematically shot and killed 12 classmates and a teacher. When we talk about 43 days to go, those are calendar days. If we talked about the number of days left for us to enact legislation, there are somewhere around 23 days left. In addition to those 12 classmates and a teacher killed, 23 other students and teachers were wounded in the assault. It pains me--and I am sure it is true for all Americans--when I think back to the picture of that carnage: Young people running in a high school, fearful that their lives may be taken away, many weeping with terror as they fled. Who could ever forget the picture of that young man hanging out of a window to try to protect himself? But even in some ways more shocking is to see how quickly this Congress can dismiss those images. The American people must be wondering: What we have been doing since that tragic day almost a year ago? What have we done to reassure parents across the country that we are working to prevent it from happening again? We have shown no evidence of that. As a matter of fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. The evidence says: Congress had a chance to do it, but we chose not to. We have not done anything, and it is a disgrace. I heard yesterday that there was a shooting. I have recounted several incidents in the past year when I have heard news of a shooting here and news of a shooting there. My first question is, Is it a school? Is it a schoolyard that has become another killing field? Yesterday's shooting was not in a schoolyard. But when that 6-year-old child was killed by another 6-year-old child, it was in a schoolyard. It was an adult's fault more than that child's fault--the 6-year-old didn't know any better--the man whose gun was lying casually around when this boy picked it up and took it to kill his classmate. We have not dealt with that. We have not dealt with the problem of adult responsibility, keeping guns out of the hands of children. There is no doubt in my mind that the responsibility should fall directly on the adult and have them pay, and pay dearly, for their role in the crime. On Tuesday, the President tried to help. He met with leaders of the conference committee, where gun safety measures are stalled, to try to move this issue to the front burner. I salute his efforts. He understands the need for action. He recalls routinely the vote we took in this Chamber to pass my gun show loophole amendment. It did pass, 51-50, with the help of Vice President Gore, who voted to break the tie. But nothing happened. The legislation passed the Senate. But the House passed a juvenile justice bill without gun safety measures. While the President tried to make positive progress, the NRA, the National Rifle Association--I name them clearly--and the gun lobby continued to obstruct every single effort to pass commonsense gun safety measures. They do it by spreading false information about what these measures are designed to do. They distort the record to achieve their goal: no gun safety laws. That is what they want. They said my amendment was intended to shut down gun shows. It was a lie. It was an untruth. They also misquoted my remarks at a press conference. But when the video of my speech is reviewed, you see what I said. I said, ``Close the gun show loophole.'' These folks don't respect the truth. My amendment would simply shut out criminals who use gun shows as convenience stores to buy the firearms they will use to rob and commit violent crimes, to kill people. That includes our police officers, law enforcement people. The American people support criminal background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. It has to be hard for people across the country to understand that you have to get a permit, you have to get a bill of sale, to buy a car, in many cases, to buy an appliance. Why in the world would we not insist that people who are buying a gun identify themselves in some way? The support for identification is overwhelming. We saw it in an ABC news poll. Ninety percent of the people said they want to close the gun show loophole, the loophole that says unlicensed dealers, private dealers, can go ahead and sell guns to anybody who has the money. No need to ask the question: What are you going to do with it? They ask if you are 18. If you say you are 18, that takes care of it; then they just sell them. If you are a member of the Ten Most Wanted list, the most wanted criminals in the country, you can step up there and buy a gun. No one will ask you a question. What about the gun owners the NRA claims to represent? In a poll that was conducted by the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University, two-thirds--66 percent--of gun owners said they favor background checks at gun show sales. Last year, the FBI issued a report which noted that between November 30, 1998, and June 15, 1999-- less than a year, 6 months--the FBI failed to block about 1,700 gun sales to prohibited purchasers--in other words, people unfit, unable to meet basic standards--because it didn't have enough time to complete the background check. The FBI had to allow the gun sales to go through. Those transactions were completed because the FBI didn't have enough time to complete the background check. So consequently, they had to issue gun retrieval notices and law enforcement had to try to track down the criminals who got the guns. So we must not permit weakening of our criminal background check system. We should strengthen it, a system that has stopped more than 470,000 guns from being purchased in 6 years. Half a million people, almost, who wanted to buy guns, who were unfit to buy those guns-- criminals, fugitives, other prohibited purchasers--tried to buy a gun and were stopped by Federal law from doing so. I think that is a good thing for people in our country to hear. It includes 33,000 spousal abusers who were denied a gun because of a domestic violence gun ban I wrote only 4 years ago. The NRA makes another outrageous claim, that my gun show loophole closing bill won't make any difference; in other words, if there are guns out there bought by unknown people, that it doesn't matter. They say my legislation won't make it tougher for people to buy a gun to commit a crime. That is also nonsense. But don't take my word for it. Look at what Robyn Anderson told the Colorado State Legislature recently. She is the woman who went with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to the Tanner gun show in Adams County, CO. She said: 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. They needed Anderson's help because she was 18 and they were too young to buy guns. So Robyn Anderson bought 3 guns for them at the gun show, 2 shotguns and a rifle--3 guns that Harris and Klebold would use to murder 13 young people at Columbine High School. Here is what she said. You read it and you will understand it, I hope. 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. How much clearer could it be? Closing the gun show loophole will make a difference. I plead with all of my colleagues in this Chamber--I don't understand how we can ignore the cries of our people--I plead with them: Follow your conscience. Let's do the right thing. Whom are we hurting if we say you have to identify yourself when you buy a weapon? We are not hurting anybody. By not demanding it, we permit this kind of thing to take place, unidentified gun buyers. That ought to shock everybody in America. Let's do what the people of this country expect us to do. Ten months ago, the Senate passed my amendment to close the gun show loophole. Now that bill is being held hostage in a conference committee. For those who are not aware of what it is, a conference committee is a committee of the House and a committee of the Senate. They join together--it is called a conference committee--to iron out differences in legislation they want to see passed in both Houses. Nothing has happened. The committee has met only one time, last year. They have not debated the issues. We are asking: Please, let that legislation go free. Don't let the gun lobby prevail over the families across this country who want to stop the gun violence. Don't let the gun lobby rule what takes place in this Senate or in the House of Representatives. We have to do it now, before April 20, before the anniversary of that terrible day at Columbine High School. No one will forget it. No one who is alive and old enough to understand what took place will forget it. One year is time enough to act. April 20. People across this country are asking: What has Congress done? What will they do? If one thinks they will be satisfied to hear that we have done nothing at all, I urge them to think again. And I urge people within the range of my voice to listen to what some are saying--that Congress will do nothing about it, even though children die across this country and adults die across this country. Over 33,000 a year die from gunshot wounds. We wound 134,000. In Vietnam, we lost 58,000 over the whole 10-year period that war was fought. But we lose 33,000 Americans a year--young, old, black, white, Christian, Jewish, it doesn't matter. So I plead with my colleagues, give our people a safer country. They are entitled to that. If we have an enemy outside our borders, we are prepared to fight that enemy. We have service personnel and airplanes with the latest equipment. We try to provide our law enforcement people--the police departments, FBI, drug enforcement agents, and border patrol people--with the weapons to fight crime. But each year, 33,000 people die from gunshots in this country. We ought not to permit that. I plead with my colleagues to help our people. Let's try to move forward with gun safety legislation as quickly as we can when we return the week after next. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a bill that purportedly takes care of the problems of the FAA. I have to say, this bill guarantees funding increases in a manner that is grossly imbalanced. It threatens to cut funding from Amtrak, from the Coast Guard, from highway safety, and the NTSB in order to provide an aviation entitlement. Investments in aviation do have to be made, but it has to be in a balanced way if we are going to avoid gridlock. You cannot ignore the rail system or highway safety and only focus on aviation. The agreement seeks to guarantee a 64-percent increase in airport grants and a 37-percent increase in modernization funding. Tight budget caps mean either cuts in transportation appropriations--including the Coast Guard or Amtrak--or cuts to other discretionary programs, such as education, health care, veterans' benefits, or agriculture. Further, it does not provide for the kinds of funding that operations will need to put on more controllers to man this larger system. It does not provide money for the continued training of new controllers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard to get this bill to this point. It is not fun to oppose something that was reported out of the conference committee with such strong support. But I have a different responsibility given the fact that I serve both as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. In my view, this bill represents a missed opportunity to fully address the financing needs of our Nation's aviation system. To the degree the bill actually guarantees any real funding increases, it does so in a manner that I consider grossly unbalanced. Mr. President, if you ask the average Senator if they are willing to fund aviation at the expense of the Coast Guard, I guarantee you they would say no. If you asked each Senator whether they were willing to fund aviation at the expense of Amtrak, I guarantee you most would say no. If you asked the average Senator whether or not they were willing to fund aviation at the expense of our federal highway safety efforts, they would say: Certainly not. But if this conference agreement becomes law, we run the very real risk of cutting back funds for NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board, Amtrak, the Coast Guard, and other areas just to boost funding for two aviation capital accounts by almost $2 billion next year. And those two aviation accounts don't even finance the core operations of the air traffic control system--the area where the FAA is facing its most difficult challenges. Our national transportation system needs investments in several areas, not just aviation. Look at what is happening with the Coast Guard. All of us salute the Coast Guard. We saw in the papers just yesterday that they do not have enough people to monitor cruise ships that are dumping their waste in the oceans. They do not have enough maintenance funding to keep their aircraft in the air. They do not have enough people to monitor the attempts by illegal immigrants to enter this country. They don't have enough money for pollution control, for fisheries enforcement, and for recruiting. But I don't hear my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, who have jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, advocating for a Coast Guard ``guarantee.'' Mr. President, throughout my entire Senate career, I have led the fight for increased investment in transportation. My support for transportation started when I served as the Commissioner of the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey. At that time, I learned that you can't ignore the needs of one transportation mode in favor of another. Investments need to be made in a balanced way if you are going to avoid gridlock. You can't ignore the rail system or the highways to focus on aviation. You need to keep your eye on safety, not just construction. The requirement to reauthorize our aviation laws presented this Congress with a great opportunity to address the financing of our nation's aviation system in a comprehensive and bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, this bill misses the mark. This Conference Agreement took so long to produce because so many Members wanted to provide big funding increases for aviation without paying for them. Mr. President, the simple fact is that the revenue stream to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not adequate to fund the substantial funding increases for aviation that many members want. Because of that basic fact, the aviation conferees have been haggling for the last year over methods to develop a new mousetrap to produce those funding increases without adequate revenue. Over the last week, the Majority Leader and the majority members of the conference committee reached the agreement that is currently before us. It seeks to guarantee a 64 percent increase in airport grants, and a 30 percent increase in modernization funding. These so-called ``guaranteed'' increases come at a time when the Republican Majority is debating among itself whether to impose a hard freeze on discretionary spending at the current year's level, or provide for a minuscule 2.4 percent increase. The arithmetic is simple. The $1.9 billion or 47 percent increase that this bill seeks to ``guarantee'' for airport grants and modernization will either require cuts in the rest of the Transportation Department or the rest of the discretionary budget. I understand that the Chairman of the Budget Committee was a party to these negotiations. I am told that he is prepared to state that the Budget Resolution that he will propose fully funds the needs of these so-called aviation guarantees. While I have great respect for the Budget Committee Chairman, I have to say that I would like to know where the funding is coming from if he plans to impose a freeze on discretionary spending. That should be a concern to all Members, whether they care about the Coast Guard, Amtrak, education, health care, veterans benefits, agriculture, or anything else. Mr. President, one of the areas that will face greater budget austerity as a result of these so-called ``guaranteed'' increases is the operating budget in the FAA. The operating account pays for the operations of the air traffic control system. It pays the salary of every air traffic controller and every aviation inspector. It pays for security at our airports. It pays for the publication of every safety regulation. Three quarters of the operations budget goes just to pay the salaries of the people that keep the system safe every day. This account is where the FAA faces the most severe funding shortfall. So it is absurd that we are now going to pass a bill that will boost capital funding while subjecting the operations budget to even greater austerity. Due to existing shortfalls in its operating budget, the FAA just canceled all training activities except introductory training for air traffic controllers for the remainder of the year. We also have problems with new state-of-the-art equipment sitting in warehouses because the FAA doesn't have the operating funds to install them. There aren't even adequate operating funds to train our air traffic controllers how to use the equipment. FAA has had to delay the certification of new aircraft and new equipment. Those delays are hurting our U.S. aircraft manufacturers. The number of aviation safety inspectors is being allowed to trickle down and FAA can't afford to hire new inspectors to replace them. With that backdrop, the Republican Conferees on this bill produced a conference report that loaded all of the so-called ``guaranteed'' funding increases on capital investment programs and ignored the operations budget. Just two days ago, the FAA released its updated forecast for future aviation traffic. That forecast indicates that domestic airline traffic will increase more than 60 percent through 2011. That increased traffic will also put incredible pressure on the operation budget of the FAA. We will need more safety and security inspectors, not less. We will need better trained controllers and more of them. But the bill before us ignores those needs. This bill is simply lopsided and unbalanced. And in time, Mr. President, I believe the Members championing this bill will realize that they made a mistake. In fact, they may realize it sooner than they think. I am not sure, in the end, that all of these ``guaranteed'' funding increases will materialize. The point-of-order in the Senate that protects these funding guarantees is a 50-vote point-of-order. It will require 51 votes to waive that point-of-order. We all know that it is impossible to do anything in the Senate without 51 votes. So fiscal reality may require the Senate to revisit these guarantees sooner rather than later. It will only require a simple majority of the Senate to do so. Maybe that will not happen for a year or two. Maybe it will happen later this Spring. In my capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate Transportation Appropriations subcommittee, I will manage only one more Transportation Appropriations bill. But I promise that I am not going to silently watch the Amtrak budget, the Coast Guard budget, or the FAA's own operations budget get ravaged to pay for the so-called ``guarantees'' provided in this bill. I will see to it that every Member here will have the opportunity to vote on whether we should shut down Amtrak lines, tie up Coast Guard ships, or lay off aviation inspectors, in order to pay for these guarantees. In summary, Mr. President, this bill represents a missed opportunity. This bill missed the opportunity to provide momentum for funding increases in the FAA across-the-board to address all the agency's shortfalls, including the operations budget. By loading all of the so- called guaranteed funding on the capital accounts, it becomes plain as day, that the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not adequate to fund all of our aviation needs. It will only be a matter of time before we have to consider a tax increase or new user fees in order to truly meet all of the FAA's needs. Mr. President, this bill is shortsighted. It was produced in the back room without Minority Members present, and I do not believe it represents a sustainable aviation policy for our nation. The funding provisions in this bill may not even be sustainable for the coming fiscal year. For that reason, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking the Judiciary Committee--particularly Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Leahy--for moving the nomination of Judge Julio Fuentes through the committee process so efficiently. Judge Fuentes clearly is the kind of candidate that we want on the federal bench. In many ways, his life demonstrates the promise of America--the idea that anyone committed to getting an education and working hard can build a distinguished career. Judge Fuentes wasn't born to wealth or privilege. He was raised by a single parent--his mother who worked as a nurse. But he pursued his education diligently, earning a college degree while serving his country in the Army's Special Forces. Eventually, he earned not only a law degree but also two Masters degrees. After completing law school, Judge Fuentes began building a successful legal practice, honing his skills as an associate with a Jersey City law firm. He later established his own firm and gained experience handling a wide range of criminal and civil matters. In 1978, he was appointed a judge on the Newark Municipal Court, where he served until his appointment to the New Jersey Superior Court in 1987. As a Superior Court judge, he has presided over criminal cases and a wide range of civil disputes, including product liability actions, environmental suits, and property claims. He has also ruled on a number of federal and state constitutional issues. In addition to his professional endeavors, Judge Fuentes has also volunteered his time to help members of the community. He has mentored many Hispanic youths and he has received several awards for his public service. Judge Fuentes' hard work on and off the bench has earned the respect of his judicial colleagues, the lawyers who appear before him, and the people of New Jersey. The people who know him well describe him as ``bright,'' ``dedicated,'' and ``even-tempered.'' In short, I feel certain that Judge Fuentes' depth of experience, his legal knowledge, his compassion and his temperament would make him an exceptional federal judge. Again, I thank Senators Hatch and Leahy for their hard work on this nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Fuentes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how is the time managed?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will begin by talking about the underlying bill which is entitled the Affordable Education Act. I stand in opposition to the bill as it is presented because I don't know who can afford it. Can the citizens of this country afford to have resources diverted from the public school system? With all of its deficiencies, it is the underlying educational system that exists throughout the country. The bill will shortchange our public schools and provide more than 70 percent of the tax breaks to families in the top 20 percent of the income brackets. I come from the State of New Jersey. As everyone knows, New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. We are essentially an urbanized State. We do have some suburbs; we have very little by way of rural population. When we say we are going to provide our citizens with an ``option,'' the option is more or less to abandon the public school systems, particularly in our urban centers which are struggling to make ends meet and struggling to educate our children. I was born in the city of Paterson, NJ. It is highly industrialized. Initially its growth was from textile production, textile manufacturing. My father and grandfather worked in those mills. I visit the city of my birth quite often. It is a very low-income city, as is Newark, our largest city in New Jersey, as is Jersey City, another of our large cities in New Jersey--small in comparison with other States, where one city can be 10 or 20 percent of the population. We don't have that. We have lots of cities. They struggle, and we are often disappointed in the SAT scores. We look beyond the SAT scores and we see young people who can learn and accomplish things and get through the maze and make something of their lives despite the inconveniences that often come with insufficient physical structure in the schools, schools with instructors who do not have the appropriate teacher training, and schools that do not have sufficient revenues to make the needed investments. I, personally, since I come out of the computer business, have been involved with some of our schools. I picked Patterson, NJ, in particular and tried to make a financial as well as a physical contribution, pulling wires into some of the schools so they could have some connection to the Internet--not fully, not sufficient for all the students, but we are living almost on spare change in cities such as that. We have to figure out a way to improve those educational standards. By permitting people to avoid going to those schools, those few who have enough income to go elsewhere, we are not going to help the basic educational system that has done so well in this country. Before private schools became as interesting as they are now, public schools produced the talent and the brilliance and the leadership this country has seen. We put up a sign that says: Abandon the schools if you can afford it, abandon the public school system; get out of town if you can. We made mistakes in our planning over the years. One of the most obvious is, although we did something very positive by building our National Highway System--it was begun in the 1950s--it had an unanticipated consequence and that was to encourage abandonment of the cities. Move out of town, get some nice space--and I don't blame people for wanting to do that--and leave the problems behind. As a consequence, the average income of the people who inhabit the cities has gone down substantially; the tax base has gone down substantially, and the revenues are just not there. So, as that happened, as people had less loyalty to the cities, they also wanted different school options. Now what we are seeing is, with these tax breaks for people who can afford to send their kids to private schools, that they, too, will abandon their interest. It will also cost the country, by my calculation, somewhere close to $15 billion over the next 10 years, possibly even more. That is significant when we are trying to pay down the debt, trying to find ways to provide prescription drugs for people who need them, when we are trying to find other ways to improve the educational system altogether. Now we are saying the plan in this act is to have the revenue losses offset by other opportunities. Adding insult to injury, our distinguished friend, Senator Roth, has offered an amendment that would eliminate the revenue-raising portions of the bill and seek to spend surplus funds for the tax breaks in the legislation. To use an expression: That compounds the problem. Before we start spending projected surpluses that may or may not exist, we ought at least understand how large those surpluses are likely to be and have an overall plan for using them. Otherwise, before we know it, we will have frittered away the surpluses and used up funds that will be needed for higher priorities. In particular, I am concerned we reserve enough of the surpluses to ensure we can protect Social Security, extend the life of Medicare, make sure we consider the prescription drug program, give targeted tax breaks, and pay down the debt. The American people salute that. They know when you are in debt it is never easy to plan ahead. Boy, we would set one incredible example if we could get our debt paid down by 2013, which is the objective of the President's plan. I also think we ought to make sure we protect those surpluses for other needs that will be discussed in our upcoming budget debate, which I hope will commence very shortly. In my view, those priorities I discussed are more important than subsidizing private schools for a relatively small number of families. But even if you support the goals of this bill, I hope my colleagues will agree that, at a minimum, we ought to have in front of us a plan for using the surpluses before we start spending them. That makes sense. Not many people make expenditures without knowing what their paycheck is going to be. That is why we have a budget resolution. That is why we have a budget process. I am the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and the chairman of the committee, someone widely respected, is Senator Domenici. While we have our differences, there is a process at play, and we want to see it worked out before we start making expenditures from surpluses we are not even sure of arriving or what the amount of those surpluses is going to be. The Budget Committee has not begun to mark up the budget resolution. We still have some time to meet our deadline, so it is premature to be considering a bill such as this. Before we start handing out scarce private resources to public-subsidized private schools for a few families, let's adopt a plan to protect Social Security, protect Medicare. Let's provide prescription drugs for our seniors. Let's make sure we are on a path toward eliminating our publicly held debt. I also point out there is a technical flaw in this amendment. By eliminating the revenue-raising provisions of the bill, this amendment would trigger an across-the-board cut that we know as a sequester. Such a cut would be required under the Budget Act. The end result is it would force a cut in Medicare, veterans' benefits, farm aid, child support enforcement and foster care, among other programs. I do not think that is the intent of the sponsors. I think the point of this amendment is to spend future projected surpluses. But its actual effect, unless corrected, would be to cut programs such as Medicare and others. Either way, I think it would be a mistake to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. Let's adopt a budget resolution before we start squandering projected budget surpluses. Let's make sure we can protect Social Security and Medicare before we start raising these funds. And let's not adopt an amendment that perhaps would unintentionally require real and immediate cuts in Medicare, veterans' benefits, and other programs. While I urge defeat for this amendment, I do not want it misunderstood. I do not want it to ensure the passage of the underlying bill, which is to give those tax benefits to people at the upper end of the income scale and help abandon our schools, as opposed to facing up to our problems and working on the public school system; just help people walk away from it. I don't think that is a good way to solve problems. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fire Safe Dorm Act of 2000. I am pleased that my colleagues in the House, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Rush Holt, will join me in offering this important legislation. On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire in a Seton Hall University dormitory claimed the lives of three students and injured 58 others, including at least 54 students, two police officers and two firefighters. The dormitory, Boland hall, was built in 1952, and although it was equipped with smoke detectors, it was not required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system. Nothing is as painful as a senseless accident that takes the lives of young people. And unfortunately, the Seton Hall community is not alone in its grief. In fact, in the last decade, at least 18 young people lost their lives in dormitory fires. We must do all we can to prevent future tragedies. Students have a fundamental right to pursue an education in a safe, secure environment. Parents have a right to know that their children are protected from harm while on school property. That is why I am pleased to offer the Fire Safe Dorm Act of 2000. This legislation is straightforward. It takes two important steps to ensure the safety of student housing. First, the bill requires nationwide standards. Under the Fire Safe Dorm Act, the U.S. Fire Administration would develop comprehensive standards for dormitory fire safety. These standards would include such safety devices as fire sprinklers, smoke detectors, and flame resistant furniture and mattresses. Colleges and universities would be required to develop plans to adopt these new standards within 10 years of the bill's enactment. Second, the Fire Safe Dorm Act requires disclosure. It requires colleges and universities to tell students, prospective students, and their parents, about the safety of campus housing. Specifically, are dormitories equipped with sprinklers? Are the furniture and mattresses fire resistant? Learning institutions are already required to disclose statistics about crime on campus. They should also have to tell the public about the steps they've taken to protect students from fire. Mr. President, the Fire Safe Dorm Act takes important steps to safeguard against another tragedy like the fire at Seton Hall. I urge all my colleagues to support this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Fire Safe Dorm Act of 2000 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a maximum of 15 minutes.