Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as you know, this will be my last term in the Senate. My 17 years here have been exciting and challenging. And I'd like to think my work here has made a real difference in giving Americans a healthier, safer country. But I have not done it alone. I had a lot of help from a very dedicated staff. And one staffer in particular deserves special recognition for her outstanding leadership and her commitment to the causes that have defined my career in the Senate. That staffer is Eve Lubalin, my chief of staff, who recently announced her retirement after 17 years with my office. Eve joined my staff as legislative director in 1983, when I was just getting to know my way around the Senate. From the start, she impressed me with her intelligence, her vision and her wit. She never lost sight of the goals that I set, and she never failed to deliver 100 percent of her talent and her energy to accomplish those goals. In 1986, I promoted her to chief of staff. She has been our team leader ever since. And somehow, even with all the hours she has put in on the job, and there were countless hours, she has managed to maintain a full healthy relationship with her husband, Jim, and their daughter, Kendra. And I know she looks forward to spending more time with them during the years ahead. Eve's high standards made her a star in the academic world even before she came to work for me. In 1966, she graduated summa cum laude from Syracuse University. From there, she went on to obtain a master's degree from the University of Virginia and a Ph.D. in Political Science from Johns Hopkins. She later worked in several key staff positions for Senator Birch Bayh from Indiana. After her tenure in Senator Bayh's office, she also worked as an advocate for the city of New York on legislative issues. When she arrived in my office, Eve made my priorities her priorities. And we scored some significant victories together. The laws I authored raising the national drinking age to 21, banning smoking on domestic airplane flights, cleaning up the environment--these were battles we fought together. I could not have asked for a more loyal comrade-in- arms than Eve Lubalin. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing Eve the very best as she moves on from the Senate. And I want Eve to always remember how much I and everyone connected with my office appreciates her contributions. She is a model public servant, a spectacular leader and person. I wish her a happy and rewarding retirement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota up to 7 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In the final minutes of the debate, I hope we can clear the air so that everybody understands what we are talking about. There are these kinds of random accusations about demagoguing this issue, et cetera. We are not demagoguing the issue. It is very simple. We ought to be able to discuss it on the floor of the Senate without having the amendment tree filled up so you can't offer amendments, without having cloture offered the minute the bill is introduced, so that there is a lame suggestion there is a filibuster going on when there is no time, 1 hour equally divided--that is a filibuster? That is not a man-size filibuster at all. We have had filibusters that have taken 20 hours. So that is not a filibuster. It is all an excuse to lock out other opinion, controverting what is being presented to us. Yesterday our good friend from Michigan said that we refused to let that bill go forward, that the Secretary of the Treasury said that we could go into default. That is what he said. We hear these descriptions that are ignored on the other side. We heard our friend from Illinois say that Social Security has these meaningless instruments to protect the trust fund. Meaningless? All they have is the full faith and credit of the United States. If any of you have any money, it says on there ``full faith and credit,'' consider it meaningless, even if you have a lot of it. This is a nonsense kind of discussion. What they are saying is there is nothing to increase Social Security's solvency being offered. Whatever surplus there is in Social Security stays with Social Security. We agree with that. We want to take the non-Social Security surplus and use 40 percent of that to preserve Medicare. That is what we want to do. Our friends do not want to let us do that. They do not want to have the debate, and they do not want the American public to have their Medicare protected. That is not where they are; they are at protecting it for tax cuts or other uses they find appropriate, not for what the American people want. I assume that we are out of time, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are in the final minutes of this debate. I wonder whether could we get unanimous consent to extend this debate by 10 minutes equally divided.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The last word?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say, I wonder whether our friends on the other side know they filled up the amendment tree as soon as they laid down yesterday's bill. What are they talking about when they say you can offer amendments, when they closed it? They know very well. This chicanery should not get past the public, I will tell you that. Why should we not spend a little time? Filibuster? We have a half- hour available. I want the American public to know they think that is enough time to discuss Social Security and Medicare. That is what the public has to know. Not cut off the filibuster--what kind of filibuster is this? That is not even an pinkie-size filibuster. That, I think, is important for the Record to reflect.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 1 minute, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No questions, no speeches.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend and colleague from Michigan. I am inclined to agree with him on a couple of things; that is, that people really want their Social Security protected. That is what they are thinking about. That is what they are looking at. I rise now to oppose the motion to invoke cloture on the House-passed Social Security bill lockbox legislation, because it doesn't protect Social Security as it is commonly believed. I want the public to know that this isn't an internal debate about some arcane process. We are talking about whether or not Social Security is going to be stronger as a result of this tactical approach to preparing perhaps for a nice tax cut in the future. When we talk about the filibuster, sometimes the public doesn't quite understand. A filibuster can be an appropriate delay. If I think something is wrong, if someone on the other side of the aisle thinks something is wrong, they have a right to defend their point of view standing on this floor for as long as they have the energy and the time is available. So cloture isn't a simple thing. It is designed to cut off other people's opinion. It is designed to give the majority a chance to roll over the minority and perhaps what the public really wants. I want to say right from the beginning that I strongly support enactment of a Social Security lockbox. In fact, we want to pass a lockbox that not only protects Social Security, but for many people, while they worry about Social Security, Medicare, which is high on their list of concerns because Social Security will be there but Medicare, conceivably if it is not protected and made more solvent, may not be there. Ask anybody what their primary concerns are once they get past their Medicare family needs, and they will tell you that it is health care. There is a crying need for reliability in health care systems across this country. People are worried that they will lose out in one place and not be able to get it in another place. They are worried about having a condition where that is ruled out for them--a long-term disease. Medicare has to be protected as well. We want a lockbox that has an impenetrable lock, not one that includes all kinds of loopholes that will leave these programs largely unprotected. That is the thing we have to keep in mind; that is, what is the ultimate outcome? The bill before us now is an improvement over the version that we considered yesterday. But unlike that legislation, the one that was considered yesterday, the House-passed bill, does not pose a risk of Government default. So there is a slight measure of more security there. Therefore, it doesn't pose the same kind of threat to Social Security benefits. However, the House-passed bill still desperately needs improvement. Most importantly, the bill's lack of protection for Medicare is a primary part. In addition, the bill lacks an adequate enforcement mechanism. It relies solely on 60-vote points of order. Again, I don't like to get into process discussions when the public has a chance to evaluate. Why should there be 60 votes necessary to change it? In almost every other situation we rely on the majority to take care of it with 51 votes. It doesn't back up these 60-vote points of order, across-the-board spending cuts should Congress raid these surpluses in the future. In addition, the legislation before us includes a troubling loophole that would allow Congress to raid surpluses by simply designating legislation as ``Social Security reform'' or ``Medicare reform.'' But it is not what you really get when you look at the title of these programs, because under Social Security reform it is conceivable that some could favor a major tax cut for wealthy people, and say: Listen. They are going to be paying more into the fund as a result of earning more as a result of a more buoyant economy. They could say that is Social Security reform. But, aha, really what we want to do is give a good fat tax cut to people who do not need it. There is no definition of what constitutes Social Security or Medicare reform. We want to do that. But this obscure definition permits hanky-panky all over the place. This could allow Congress to raid surpluses for new privatization schemes, no matter how risky, or even tax cuts--big tax cuts. Democrats want to strengthen this bill to make it better. But we are being denied an opportunity in the process by the majority. They are saying that 45 Democrats representing any number of States, any number of people--if we just take the States of California and New York, we have a significant part of the population in this country. However, the majority is saying: We will not let you offer any amendments; we have decided we have the majority, and we are locking you out. That is the real lockbox. It is not right. That is not the proper way to operate. It is not the way the Senate is supposed to function--not permit the offering of amendments? What are they afraid of? Let the public hear the debate. Let the public look at the amendments. Maybe we will help them pass a bill we also can agree to. Right now, they are afraid to let the public in. The public doesn't have a right to know, as far as they are concerned. For too long now, the majority has engaged in a concerted effort to deny rights to Democratic Senators. They have repeatedly tried to eliminate our rights. The once rare tactic of filling up the amendment tree--again, another arcane term that blocks out any other amendments-- has now become standard operating procedure. The majority thinks they have a right to dictate how many and which amendments. They are asking to see our amendments before we can offer them. That is unheard of in the process as structured in the Senate. Compounding matters, cloture is no longer being used as a tool to end debate. It is being used as a tool to prevent debate. The majority leader, in his technical right, has filed a cloture motion on this bill before either side even has an opportunity to make an opening statement. That, too, is unheard of. We used to have debate, and one side or the other would finally say: Listen, they are delaying; they are filibustering, and we want to shut off debate. Now what happens, as soon as the bill is filed, a cloture motion is filed that says the minority or those who are in opposition will not even have a right to speak. The majority is even going further in limiting the period known as morning business, when we can talk about things that are on our agenda. Eliminate that right? I hope the American public will understand what this mission is; that is, not to give the public what they want but to give them what the Republicans want. This effort to restrict minority rights is not appropriate. It is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. We Democrats are not going to put up with it much longer. There is no reason this Senate cannot approve a Social Security and Medicare lockbox and do it very soon. We are willing to work toward a unanimous consent agreement to limit amendments. Debate on these amendments should not take very long. However, we cannot accept being entirely locked out of the legislative process. We will not tolerate being denied an opportunity to make this Social Security lockbox truly a lockbox, a safe deposit box, one that can't be opened casually, that protects both Social Security and Medicare in a meaningful way. The majority understands, if they continue to function this way, we will not get a Social Security and Medicare lockbox enacted into law. It is as simple as that. Perhaps they don't want to live under this lockbox but would like to talk about it, hoping they do not have to pass the test of reality. Maybe they just want an issue to talk about. That is why they are following procedures guaranteed to produce gridlock and not results. I hope that is not true. I look at actions. I see them speaking louder than words. There is every indication the Republican leadership is not trying seriously to produce a bill that can win bipartisan support. I call on my colleagues to oppose cloture, to oppose cutting off debate. I urge my colleagues in the majority to change their mind, rethink it, talk to this side about it, allow this bill to be considered privately or openly, with a full opportunity for debate and for amendments. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator from Massachusetts want 3 minutes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do we have on our side, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to two very close friends, Henry and Marilyn Taub in honor of the June 15, 1999 dedication of the Henry and Marilyn Taub Science and Technology Center Faculty of Computer Science. This state-of-the-art facility, located at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel, will be one of the largest computer science facilities in the world. It is only the most recent example of the Taubs' contributions to education. They have had a long history of philanthropic activity. As Henry Taub's long-time business associate, I witnessed the Taubs' extraordinary commitment to the Technion. They established both the Taub Loan Fund, which aids faculty members in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Faculties, as well as the Henry Taub Prize for excellence in research. And their support helped the Institute establish the Morris and Sylvia Taub Computer Center. These outstanding contributions to Israel's top technology institution are but one example of the Taubs' commitment to Israel's strength and independence through science and learning. They have helped students keep pace with technological advances in this century and have helped make Technion one of the leading technology centers for the next century. It has been one of my life's most rewarding experiences to have worked with Henry and his brother Joseph. We shared successes together but more significantly, a commitment to a strengthened Israel and world wide Jewish community. I am honored by my friendship with Henry and Marilyn Taub. The course of my life was heavily influenced by my association with the Taubs and I am grateful for the example that Henry provided for all of us who know him. His activities serve as an outstanding model of how to respond to success available, to those who will work for it, in this blessed America. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this thoughtful, selfless couple for the excellent work they have done to improve life in America and Israel.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a piece of legislation which I rise to introduce. This legislation is designed to protect a segment of our population that can't protect itself. I am talking about pets-- dogs, cats, and others that travel by air. I want to put this into perspective. Over 70 million households in America have pets--70 million. So it affects a significant portion of our population. Pets become family members and they become a source of significant affection and attachment. In some cases, they are the vision for those who are sightless. They establish precious relationships. Over the last 5 years, there have been over 2,500 documented instances of dogs and cats experiencing severe injury in air travel, and 108 cats and dogs have died just as a result of exposure to excessive temperatures. Pets aren't baggage. They are part of a family, in many instances, and they ought to be treated that way when they accompany their masters when they fly. Over 500,000 pets a year are transported by air across this country. News reports have detailed stories of pets being left out on hot days, sitting on tarmacs while flights were delayed, or stuffed into cargo holds with little or no airflow, causing them to injure themselves in the desperation to escape this entrapment and very difficult environment. Some pets have actually had heavy baggage placed directly on top of their carriers. It is unacceptable. We can and must prevent these inhumane practices. So today I am introducing The Safe Air Travel for Animals Act. This bill responds to the tragic stories we have heard involving the death or injury of many beloved pets while traveling by airplane. The legislation has three goals. First, it ensures that airlines are held accountable for mistreatment of our pets, to ensure that animals are not treated like a set of golf clubs or other baggage. This legislation will put airlines on a tight leash. Second, the bill provides consumers with the right to know if an airline has a record of mistreatment or accidents with pets. Third, the bill addresses the problems of the aircraft themselves, making sure that the cargo hold is as safe as it possibly can be for animal travel. Airlines need to be held accountable for the harm they permit to happen to our pets. Right now, airlines are only liable to owners for up to $1,250 for losing, injuring, or killing a pet. That is no different from what they would be liable for if they lost your suitcase. Under my bill, that limit for liability will be double. Now, anyone who owns a pet knows how expensive veterinary bills can be. If an animal is injured or dies as a result of flying, my bill would require the airlines to pay for the costs of veterinary care. Mr. President, my bill also provides consumers with the right to know about the conditions they face when they transport their animals by plane. My bill requires airlines to immediately report any incidents involving loss, injury or death of animals. Most importantly, the bill puts this information into the hands of the flying public. Pet owners should know which airlines are doing a good job, and which need to do better. Just as consumers favor airlines with solid, on-time records, they will also favor the airlines that have a good safety record with our pets. And, an airline that does a good job will want this information in the hands of consumers. Finally, the bill addresses the problem of the aircraft themselves. The airline industry is undergoing a retrofitting process, as required by the FAA, of all ``class D'' cargo holds, to prevent fires. These are special holds that have the facility to turn off the oxygen in the event of smoke or fire. But that also means that that is an execution for the pets that are in those holds. I believe that the industry should use this opportunity to see what improvements can be made to allow for better oxygen flow and temperature control to protect our pets. Mr. President, we must do more to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by lack of oxygen flow or exposure to heat. With this bill, travelers will feel more secure about using air travel to transport their pets. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a piece of legislation which I rise to introduce. This legislation is designed to protect a segment of our population that can't protect itself. I am talking about pets-- dogs, cats, and others that travel by air. I want to put this into perspective. Over 70 million households in America have pets--70 million. So it affects a significant portion of our population. Pets become family members and they become a source of significant affection and attachment. In some cases, they are the vision for those who are sightless. They establish precious relationships. Over the last 5 years, there have been over 2,500 documented instances of dogs and cats experiencing severe injury in air travel, and 108 cats and dogs have died just as a result of exposure to excessive temperatures. Pets aren't baggage. They are part of a family, in many instances, and they ought to be treated that way when they accompany their masters when they fly. Over 500,000 pets a year are transported by air across this country. News reports have detailed stories of pets being left out on hot days, sitting on tarmacs while flights were delayed, or stuffed into cargo holds with little or no airflow, causing them to injure themselves in the desperation to escape this entrapment and very difficult environment. Some pets have actually had heavy baggage placed directly on top of their carriers. It is unacceptable. We can and must prevent these inhumane practices. So today I am introducing The Safe Air Travel for Animals Act. This bill responds to the tragic stories we have heard involving the death or injury of many beloved pets while traveling by airplane. The legislation has three goals. First, it ensures that airlines are held accountable for mistreatment of our pets, to ensure that animals are not treated like a set of golf clubs or other baggage. This legislation will put airlines on a tight leash. Second, the bill provides consumers with the right to know if an airline has a record of mistreatment or accidents with pets. Third, the bill addresses the problems of the aircraft themselves, making sure that the cargo hold is as safe as it possibly can be for animal travel. Airlines need to be held accountable for the harm they permit to happen to our pets. Right now, airlines are only liable to owners for up to $1,250 for losing, injuring, or killing a pet. That is no different from what they would be liable for if they lost your suitcase. Under my bill, that limit for liability will be double. Now, anyone who owns a pet knows how expensive veterinary bills can be. If an animal is injured or dies as a result of flying, my bill would require the airlines to pay for the costs of veterinary care. Mr. President, my bill also provides consumers with the right to know about the conditions they face when they transport their animals by plane. My bill requires airlines to immediately report any incidents involving loss, injury or death of animals. Most importantly, the bill puts this information into the hands of the flying public. Pet owners should know which airlines are doing a good job, and which need to do better. Just as consumers favor airlines with solid, on-time records, they will also favor the airlines that have a good safety record with our pets. And, an airline that does a good job will want this information in the hands of consumers. Finally, the bill addresses the problem of the aircraft themselves. The airline industry is undergoing a retrofitting process, as required by the FAA, of all ``class D'' cargo holds, to prevent fires. These are special holds that have the facility to turn off the oxygen in the event of smoke or fire. But that also means that that is an execution for the pets that are in those holds. I believe that the industry should use this opportunity to see what improvements can be made to allow for better oxygen flow and temperature control to protect our pets. Mr. President, we must do more to prevent unnecessary deaths caused by lack of oxygen flow or exposure to heat. With this bill, travelers will feel more secure about using air travel to transport their pets. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the mark of a truly great person may be identified by their generosity, and generosity is the reason I rise today. I would like to honor Mrs. Maxine Whitney, a long- time Fairbanks, AK resident, businesswoman and philanthropist, for her multi-million dollar contribution of Native Alaskan artwork to the Prince William Sound Community College in Valdez, AK. For the past 50 years in Alaska, Mrs. Whitney and her husband, Jesse, have traveled extensively in rural Alaska to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of Native people and cultures. During their travels, Maxine amassed what is reportedly the world's largest private collection of Native Alaskan art and artifacts. Maxine's hobby of collecting Native Alaskan art soon became a much larger commitment when she purchased a small private museum in Fairbanks to house her treasures. For nearly 20 years, Maxine's Eskimo Museum showcased Native Alaskan history and the important contribution Native culture has had on the formation of Alaskan society. Mrs. Whitney maintained the museum from 1969 until the late 1980s. Maxine's dedication to the arts is apparent from her recent donation of her extensive collection of Native Alaska art to Prince William Sound Community College, part of the University of Alaska education system. The collection, known as the Jesse & Maxine Whitney Collection, is the nucleus of the college's Alaska Cultural Center. This multi- million dollar donation will provide a means for all visitors to the center to learn about past and present Native Alaskan cultures as well as the history of Alaska. Mrs. Whitney's dedication to keeping the Native Alaskan history alive should be celebrated. Her generous gift will enhance the knowledge and appreciation of Native cultures. It is people like Maxine Whitney, a patron of the arts and education, who enrich our lives with their gracious gifts. In donating the Whitney Collection, Maxine has provided a world- renowned educational gem for all who visit the collection . . . she has provided a unique legacy for all Alaskans, and for all Americans. Thank you Maxine Whitney.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to talk as in morning business for up to 10 minutes, and that it not be charged to either side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, page 95 of the report accompanying S. 1122 contains language that encourages the Army to include Rock Island Arsenal in all aspects of the development, design and production of the Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer Program. This directive is problematic for many reasons. If followed, it would undermine industrial competition and conflict with the fair and competitive process that has occurred to date. It would preclude further competition for the 155mm Towed Howitzer and all future towed artillery programs. And the report language would potentially contradict several statutes, including the Army Industrial Facilities Act, the Working Capital Funds Act, and the Arsenal Act. The contract for this program has already been awarded on a competitive basis. Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering LTD developed the original design and owns background intellectual property in the current Lightweight 155mm system. Attempting now to direct the work to Rock Island would potentially detract from work done at Picatinny Arsenal in my home state of New Jersey, as well as potentially create all sorts of legal fights. While Rock Island should be encouraged to compete for a subcontract, all future awards should be made on a ``best-value'' basis. Any legislative micromanagement that compromises the competitive bidding process is inconsistent with legal and economic prudence. I urge such ill-advised acquisition guidance to be dropped when the Senate convenes with the House to conference this bill. Mc Gregor Range Withdrawal

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago recently released an informative survey which documents the attitudes of Americans on the regulation of firearms. I think that my colleagues will find the results of this survey to be valuable, and I ask that an executive summary of the survey be printed in the Record. The summary follows: 1998 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center Released May 6, 1999 executive summary Results from a national survey indicate strong public support--including substantial majorities among gun owners-- for legislation to regulate firearms, make guns safer, and reduce the accessibility of firearms to criminals and children. Key findings of the 1998 National Gun Policy Survey include: Three-fourths of gun owners support mandatory registration of handguns, as does 85 percent of the general public. Government regulation of gun design to improve safety gets support from 63 percent of gun owners and 75 percent of the general public. Two thirds of gun owners and 80 percent of the general public favor mandatory background checks in private handgun sales, such as gun shows. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research with funding from the Joyce Foundation. The third in a series of surveys of American attitudes toward gun polices, it shows a continuation of an upward trend in public support for more control over firearms and more attention to making all firearms safer. Other key findings include: Three quarters of those surveyed want Congress to hold hearings to investigate the practices of the gun industry, similar to the hearings held on the tobacco industry., Sixty percent of Americans want licenses to carry concealed weapons to be issued only to those with special needs, e.g., private detectives. And 83 percent of the public believes that public places, including stores, theaters and restaurants, should be able to prohibit patrons from brining guns on the premises. Americans strongly support measures to keep guns from lawbreakers. 90 percent favor preventing those convicted of domestic violence from buying guns, 81 percent would stop gun sales to those convicted of simple assault, and 68 percent to those convicted of drunk driving. People are willing to pay higher taxes for measures to reduce gun thefts and root out illegal gun dealers, and they express a willingness to pay higher prices for guns that are designed for greater safety. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed opposed importing guns from a country where those guns could not be legally sold. A total of 55 percent are against all gun imports. Nearly nine out of ten Americans believe that all new handguns sold should be childproof, that is, designed so that a child's small hands cannot fire them. Eighty percent of the people asked say owners should be liable for injuries if a gun is not stored to prevent misuse by children. When asked if there should be a mandatory background check and a five-day waiting period in order to purchase a gun, 82 percent of the people owning a gun, as well as 85 percent of the general public, agreed that position was a good idea. Nearly one out of ten adults report having carried a handgun away from home during the last months. About half of those did not have a permit for doing so, and about half of the handguns were loaded. Just under half of adults who own a handgun obtained the gun through a ``less regulated source,'' defined as pawnshops, private sales, gifts and inheritances. The data were collected in the fall of 1998, before the recent school shootings in Colorado and Georgia, but following similar highly publicized shootings in Arkansas, Kentucky and Oregon. The telephone survey of 1,200 U.S. adults has a margin of error of three percent. The final report is entitled ``The 1998 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings.'' Affiliated with the University of Chicago, NORC has conducted national surveys in the public interest for over 55 years. As a pioneer in the field of survey research, NORC is noted for the high quality of its survey designs, methods, and data. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, established in 1995, is dedicated to preventing gun-related deaths and injuries. Located in The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the Center applies a science-based, public health approach to gun violence. It provides accurate information on firearm injuries and gun policy; develops, analyzes, and evaluates strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and conducts public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs. Based in Chicago with assets of $947 million, the Joyce Foundation supports efforts to strengthen public policies in ways that improve the quality of life in the Great Lakes region. Since 1993, it has granted over $13 million to support public health approaches to reduce gun violence. Full results of the survey are posted on the NORC web site at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/.