Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to call up my amendment regarding property conveyance at Nike Battery Base 80 Family Housing Site in East Hanover Township, New Jersey. This provision would convey roughly 14 acres to the Township of East Hanover for the development of low and moderate income housing, senior housing, and parkland. Using this land for these purposes is consistent with the 1994 Base Closure and Community Redevelopment Homeless Assistance Act. The Township needs this land to fulfill its obligation to provide such housing under New Jersey state law. I understand a similar provision exists in the bill reported from the House Armed Service Committee. In the interest of expediting the Senate's consideration of this bill, I am willing to withdraw my amendment contingent upon a commitment from the managers of the bill that they will give the House position full consideration in conference.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it was on December 21, 1988, over 10 years ago, that Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people, including 189 American citizens. Two Libyan intelligence agents have been indicted for planting the bomb in this deliberate terrorist attack. Over the past decade, I have watched with respect and admiration as the victims' families have courageously pieced together their shattered lives. While these families have tried to move on, the agony of losing their loved ones will never disappear. Neither they nor we as a nation will find closure until those responsible for the bombing are prosecuted and Libya rejects terrorism in word and in deed. I therefore rise today to join with my friend and colleague from Massachusetts in offering an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that sanctions against Libya should not be lifted. Last month, Senator Kennedy and other colleagues joined me in writing to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to support her decision to keep U.S. sanctions in place at the U.N. until Libya demonstrates it has rejected terrorism. We also called for the United States to pursue an investigation to identify all those responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, including those who ordered, organized, and financed this terrible crime. Libya and other terrorist nations must know that the U.S. will not allow criminal acts against its citizens to go unpunished. We will use all available means to ensure justice prevails. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the letter that we sent to the Secretary of State printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Kennedy and I offer sends a message to Tripoli that the United States will do everything in its power to ensure continuing sanctions against Libya until it complies with international demands and renounces terrorism as state policy. Since the 1988 bombing, three United Nations Security Council resolutions--Numbers 731, 748 and 883--have demanded that Libya cease all support for terrorism, turn over the bombing suspects, cooperate with the investigation and trial, and address the issue of appropriate compensation. To date, Tripoli has only fulfilled one of the four conditions-- turning the two bombing suspects over to Scottish authorities to stand trial at a specially-constituted court in the Netherlands. We have seen no indication that the Libyans intend to fulfill the other requirements. In early July, the U.N. Secretary General will report to the Security Council on Libya's compliance with the conditions set by the international community. Once he submits that report, members of the Security Council may well introduce a resolution to lift sanctions against Libya, which until now have only been suspended. Mr. President, Libya must not be allowed to gain relief from sanctions through half-measures. This Amendment therefore calls on President Clinton to use all diplomatic means necessary, including the use of the U.S. veto, to prevent sanctions from being lifted until Tripoli fulfills all the conditions set out in the resolutions. I would urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment, to speak with one voice to say that sanctions against Libya should not be lifted until and unless Libya forever renounces terrorism and fulfills the other conditions set out in U.N. resolutions. As Americans, we must take action to ensure such horrors never happen again. We must punish the guilty and continue to exert pressure until Libya resolves to become an accepted member of the world community. This amendment is one step in the right direction to make sure that happens. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What was the order?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to give the public the Right to Know about contaminants in their drinking water that are unregulated, but still may present a threat to their health. Mr. President, when we passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, I praised the bill because I believed it would enhance both the quality of our drinking water and America's confidence in its safety. While the bill did not require that states perform every measure necessary to protect public health, it provided tremendous flexibility and discretion to allow the states to do so. I was especially hopeful that in my state--the most densely-populated state in the country, a state with an unfortunate legacy of industrial pollution, a state in which newspaper articles describing threats to drinking water seem to appear every few days--that our state agencies would exercise their discretion to be more protective of public health than the minimum required under our 1996 bill. Mr. President, I am sad to say I have been disappointed. I am sad to say that in my state, and probably in some of my colleagues' as well, the state agency has clung too closely to the bare minimum requirements. A good example of this is in the ``Source Water Assessment Plan,'' proposed by the state of New Jersey last November, as required by the 1996 law. Under the law, the state is required to perform Source Water Assessments to identify geographic areas that are sources of public drinking water, assess the water systems' susceptibility to contamination, and inform the public of the results. The state's Source Water Assessment Plan describes the program for carrying out the assessments. An aggressive Source Water Assessment program is essential if a state is going to achieve the goals we had for the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act. Source Water Assessment is the keystone of the program by which the state will prevent--not just remediate and treat, but prevent-- contamination of our drinking water resources. Source Water Assessment also underpins what I believe will be the most far-reaching provisions of the law--those giving the public the Right to Know about potential threats to its drinking water. Mr. Chairman, there are serious deficiencies in my state's proposed Source Water Assessment Plan. These are deficiencies that I fear may characterize other states' plans as well. First, under the proposed plan, the state will not identify and evaluate the threat presented by contaminants unless they are among the 80 or so specifically regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under its proposed plan, the state might ignore even contaminants known to be leaching into drinking water from toxic waste sites. For example, the chemical being studied as a possible cause of childhood cancer at Toms River, New Jersey would not be evaluated under the state's plan. Radium 224, recently discovered in drinking water across my state, might not be evaluated under the state's plan until specifically regulated. With gaps like that in our information, what do I tell the families when they want to know what is in their drinking water? In addition, under its proposed plan, the state would not consult the public in identifying and evaluating threats to drinking water. This exclusion would almost certainly result in exclusion of the detailed information known to the watershed groups and other community groups which exist across New Jersey and across the country. Also, the state's plan to disclose the assessments are vague and imply that only summary data would be made available to the public. The public must have complete and easy access to assessments for the Right to Know component of the drinking water program to be effective. The Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will address these deficiencies by amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve Source Water Assessments and Consumer Confidence Reports. First, under my bill, when the state performs Source Water Assessments, it will assess the threat posed, not just by regulated contaminants, but by certain unregulated contaminants believed by EPA and U.S. Geological Survey to cause health problems, and contaminants known to be released from local pollution sites, such as Superfund sites, other waste sites, and factories. The bill will also require the state to identify potential contamination of groundwater, even outside the immediate area of the well, perform the assessments with full involvement from the public, and update the assessments every five years. Second, the Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will make several improvements to the ``Consumer Confidence Reports'' required under the 1996 law to notify the public of water contamination. The bill will require monitoring and public notification, not only of regulated contaminants, but of significant unregulated contaminants identified through the Source Water Assessments, and of sources of contamination. The bill will not require local water purveyors to monitor for every conceivable contaminant--only those identified by the state as posing a threat and having been released by a potentially significant source. In addition, the bill will require notification of new or sharply-increased contamination within 30 days. The bill will also require reporting not just to ``customers,'' but to ``consumers,'' such as apartment-dwellers, who do not receive water company bills. Finally, the bill will require that consumers be provided information on how they can protect themselves from contamination in their drinking water. Third, the bill will require that testing for the presence of radium 224 take place within 48 hours of sampling the drinking water, so that public water supplies can have an accurate assessment of this rapidly-decaying radioactive contaminant. Mr. President, the public has the Right-to-Know about the full range of contaminants they might find in their tap water. The Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will guarantee them that right. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am introducing today the Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to give the public the Right to Know about contaminants in their drinking water that are unregulated, but still may present a threat to their health. Mr. President, when we passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, I praised the bill because I believed it would enhance both the quality of our drinking water and America's confidence in its safety. While the bill did not require that states perform every measure necessary to protect public health, it provided tremendous flexibility and discretion to allow the states to do so. I was especially hopeful that in my state--the most densely-populated state in the country, a state with an unfortunate legacy of industrial pollution, a state in which newspaper articles describing threats to drinking water seem to appear every few days--that our state agencies would exercise their discretion to be more protective of public health than the minimum required under our 1996 bill. Mr. President, I am sad to say I have been disappointed. I am sad to say that in my state, and probably in some of my colleagues' as well, the state agency has clung too closely to the bare minimum requirements. A good example of this is in the ``Source Water Assessment Plan,'' proposed by the state of New Jersey last November, as required by the 1996 law. Under the law, the state is required to perform Source Water Assessments to identify geographic areas that are sources of public drinking water, assess the water systems' susceptibility to contamination, and inform the public of the results. The state's Source Water Assessment Plan describes the program for carrying out the assessments. An aggressive Source Water Assessment program is essential if a state is going to achieve the goals we had for the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act. Source Water Assessment is the keystone of the program by which the state will prevent--not just remediate and treat, but prevent-- contamination of our drinking water resources. Source Water Assessment also underpins what I believe will be the most far-reaching provisions of the law--those giving the public the Right to Know about potential threats to its drinking water. Mr. Chairman, there are serious deficiencies in my state's proposed Source Water Assessment Plan. These are deficiencies that I fear may characterize other states' plans as well. First, under the proposed plan, the state will not identify and evaluate the threat presented by contaminants unless they are among the 80 or so specifically regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under its proposed plan, the state might ignore even contaminants known to be leaching into drinking water from toxic waste sites. For example, the chemical being studied as a possible cause of childhood cancer at Toms River, New Jersey would not be evaluated under the state's plan. Radium 224, recently discovered in drinking water across my state, might not be evaluated under the state's plan until specifically regulated. With gaps like that in our information, what do I tell the families when they want to know what is in their drinking water? In addition, under its proposed plan, the state would not consult the public in identifying and evaluating threats to drinking water. This exclusion would almost certainly result in exclusion of the detailed information known to the watershed groups and other community groups which exist across New Jersey and across the country. Also, the state's plan to disclose the assessments are vague and imply that only summary data would be made available to the public. The public must have complete and easy access to assessments for the Right to Know component of the drinking water program to be effective. The Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will address these deficiencies by amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve Source Water Assessments and Consumer Confidence Reports. First, under my bill, when the state performs Source Water Assessments, it will assess the threat posed, not just by regulated contaminants, but by certain unregulated contaminants believed by EPA and U.S. Geological Survey to cause health problems, and contaminants known to be released from local pollution sites, such as Superfund sites, other waste sites, and factories. The bill will also require the state to identify potential contamination of groundwater, even outside the immediate area of the well, perform the assessments with full involvement from the public, and update the assessments every five years. Second, the Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will make several improvements to the ``Consumer Confidence Reports'' required under the 1996 law to notify the public of water contamination. The bill will require monitoring and public notification, not only of regulated contaminants, but of significant unregulated contaminants identified through the Source Water Assessments, and of sources of contamination. The bill will not require local water purveyors to monitor for every conceivable contaminant--only those identified by the state as posing a threat and having been released by a potentially significant source. In addition, the bill will require notification of new or sharply-increased contamination within 30 days. The bill will also require reporting not just to ``customers,'' but to ``consumers,'' such as apartment-dwellers, who do not receive water company bills. Finally, the bill will require that consumers be provided information on how they can protect themselves from contamination in their drinking water. Third, the bill will require that testing for the presence of radium 224 take place within 48 hours of sampling the drinking water, so that public water supplies can have an accurate assessment of this rapidly-decaying radioactive contaminant. Mr. President, the public has the Right-to-Know about the full range of contaminants they might find in their tap water. The Drinking Water Right-To-Know Act of 1999 will guarantee them that right. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed into the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, in support of my amendment to close the gun show loophole, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfield Cleanup Act along with Senators Daschle, Baucus, and Lincoln. This bill will strengthen and improve the current Superfund program by cleaning up urban and rural brownfields and removing small, innocent parties from unnecessary superfund litigation. Unlike the alternative Superfund proposal offered by the Republicans on Environment and Public Works Committee, this bill continues what is best about the Superfund program and makes the minor adjustments necessary to make it cost effective. Mr. President, way back in the 103rd Congress, the critics of Superfund raised a number of issues. They asserted that the program was too slow, that not enough cleanups were taking place, that there was too much litigation. At the time, we were seeking solutions which would make the program faster, streamline cleanups, treat parties more fairly and get the little guys out earlier, all while keeping those responsible for the problem also responsible for cleaning it up. This was all within the general goals of achieving more cleanups and therefore providing better protection of human health and the environment. I am proud of those proposals, and many of us still on the Environment and Public Works Committee, including Chairman Chafee, who voted for that bill way back in the 103rd Congress should also be proud. Many of those proposals, although never enacted into law, were adopted administratively by EPA and radically altered the Superfund Program as we know it. Others have been tested and been improved upon. In general, the thrust of this bill has resulted in many of the achievements of the current program. According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office, by the end of this fiscal year all cleanup remedies will have been selected for 95 percent of nonfederal NPL sites (1,109 of 1,169 sites). In addition, approximately 990 NPL sites have final cleanup plans approved, approximately 5,600 emergency removal actions have been taken at hazardous waste sites to stabilize dangerous situations and to reduce the threat to human health and the environment. More than 30,900 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory of potential waste sites, to help promote the economic redevelopment of these properties. During this same time, EPA has worked to improve the fairness and efficiency of the enforcement program, even while keeping up the participation of potentially responsible parties in cleaning up their sites. EPA has negotiated more than 400 deminimis settlements with over 18,000 small parties, which gave protection for these parties against expensive contribution suits brought by other private parties. Sixty six percent of these have been in the last four years alone. Since fiscal year 1996, EPA has offered ``orphan share'' compensation of over $145 million at 72 sites to responsible parties who were willing to step up and negotiate settlements of their cases. EPA is now offering this at every single settlement, to reward settlors and reduce litigation, both with the government, and with other private parties. These are just a few highlights of the improvements made in the program, many drawn from our earlier legislative proposals. Other improvements, such as instituting the targeted review of complex and high-cost cleanups, prior to remedy selection, have reduced the cost of cleanups without delaying the pace of cleanups. EPA's administrative reforms have significantly improved the program, by speeding up cleanups and reducing senseless litigation, and making the program fairer, faster and more efficient overall. But despite the fact that this is a program that has finally really hit its stride, we are now faced with proposals from the majority which could undercut the progress in the program, and which are premised on a goal of closing down the program rather than a goal of cleaning up the sites. Indeed, the very title of their bill, the Superfund Program Completion Act, reflects this intent. I am deeply troubled by many of the provisions in the Republican bill, which would have the effect of ramping the program down without regard to the amount of site work left to be done. This bill provides for lowered funding levels, a cap on the NPL, waivers of the federal safety net, and some broad liability exemptions. At the same time, it creates a number of new, expensive obligations which would further reduce the amount of money available for cleanup. It also shifts the costs of the program to the taxpayers and would not include an extension of the Superfund tax. In short, while I am encouraged by the fact that the Republican bill drops some troubling provisions from prior bills, it introduces a whole set of new issues that are cause for great concern. I think it is very clear that what we need here is a better Superfund program, not a retreat from tackling our environmental problems. We need a bill that continues to accelerate the pace of cleanups, keeps cleanups protective, reduces litigation and transaction costs, is affordable and does not shift costs to the American taxpayer. That is why I am introducing the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1999. I believe that this bill, is in some areas very close to the provisions supported by my Republican colleagues, but differs in some critical areas. It would protect cleanups, reduce litigation and not shift costs to the American taxpayer. I hope that these are goals we can agree on. And I urge my colleagues to not throw the Superfund baby out with the bathwater. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen the Superfund program in the 21st century not dismantle it. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the Legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfield Cleanup Act along with Senators Daschle, Baucus, and Lincoln. This bill will strengthen and improve the current Superfund program by cleaning up urban and rural brownfields and removing small, innocent parties from unnecessary superfund litigation. Unlike the alternative Superfund proposal offered by the Republicans on Environment and Public Works Committee, this bill continues what is best about the Superfund program and makes the minor adjustments necessary to make it cost effective. Mr. President, way back in the 103rd Congress, the critics of Superfund raised a number of issues. They asserted that the program was too slow, that not enough cleanups were taking place, that there was too much litigation. At the time, we were seeking solutions which would make the program faster, streamline cleanups, treat parties more fairly and get the little guys out earlier, all while keeping those responsible for the problem also responsible for cleaning it up. This was all within the general goals of achieving more cleanups and therefore providing better protection of human health and the environment. I am proud of those proposals, and many of us still on the Environment and Public Works Committee, including Chairman Chafee, who voted for that bill way back in the 103rd Congress should also be proud. Many of those proposals, although never enacted into law, were adopted administratively by EPA and radically altered the Superfund Program as we know it. Others have been tested and been improved upon. In general, the thrust of this bill has resulted in many of the achievements of the current program. According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office, by the end of this fiscal year all cleanup remedies will have been selected for 95 percent of nonfederal NPL sites (1,109 of 1,169 sites). In addition, approximately 990 NPL sites have final cleanup plans approved, approximately 5,600 emergency removal actions have been taken at hazardous waste sites to stabilize dangerous situations and to reduce the threat to human health and the environment. More than 30,900 sites have been removed from the Superfund inventory of potential waste sites, to help promote the economic redevelopment of these properties. During this same time, EPA has worked to improve the fairness and efficiency of the enforcement program, even while keeping up the participation of potentially responsible parties in cleaning up their sites. EPA has negotiated more than 400 deminimis settlements with over 18,000 small parties, which gave protection for these parties against expensive contribution suits brought by other private parties. Sixty six percent of these have been in the last four years alone. Since fiscal year 1996, EPA has offered ``orphan share'' compensation of over $145 million at 72 sites to responsible parties who were willing to step up and negotiate settlements of their cases. EPA is now offering this at every single settlement, to reward settlors and reduce litigation, both with the government, and with other private parties. These are just a few highlights of the improvements made in the program, many drawn from our earlier legislative proposals. Other improvements, such as instituting the targeted review of complex and high-cost cleanups, prior to remedy selection, have reduced the cost of cleanups without delaying the pace of cleanups. EPA's administrative reforms have significantly improved the program, by speeding up cleanups and reducing senseless litigation, and making the program fairer, faster and more efficient overall. But despite the fact that this is a program that has finally really hit its stride, we are now faced with proposals from the majority which could undercut the progress in the program, and which are premised on a goal of closing down the program rather than a goal of cleaning up the sites. Indeed, the very title of their bill, the Superfund Program Completion Act, reflects this intent. I am deeply troubled by many of the provisions in the Republican bill, which would have the effect of ramping the program down without regard to the amount of site work left to be done. This bill provides for lowered funding levels, a cap on the NPL, waivers of the federal safety net, and some broad liability exemptions. At the same time, it creates a number of new, expensive obligations which would further reduce the amount of money available for cleanup. It also shifts the costs of the program to the taxpayers and would not include an extension of the Superfund tax. In short, while I am encouraged by the fact that the Republican bill drops some troubling provisions from prior bills, it introduces a whole set of new issues that are cause for great concern. I think it is very clear that what we need here is a better Superfund program, not a retreat from tackling our environmental problems. We need a bill that continues to accelerate the pace of cleanups, keeps cleanups protective, reduces litigation and transaction costs, is affordable and does not shift costs to the American taxpayer. That is why I am introducing the Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1999. I believe that this bill, is in some areas very close to the provisions supported by my Republican colleagues, but differs in some critical areas. It would protect cleanups, reduce litigation and not shift costs to the American taxpayer. I hope that these are goals we can agree on. And I urge my colleagues to not throw the Superfund baby out with the bathwater. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen the Superfund program in the 21st century not dismantle it. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a summary of the Legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And the Senator yields----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, first of all, want to say to my colleagues on the other side--to Senator Smith, to Senator Jeffords, to Senator Gregg, to Senator Hatch--I really do appreciate the fact that they are trying to arrive at a consensus. I think what was said in the earlier presentation was that it is a bipartisan agreement. I wonder whether parents in Littleton, CO, care whether it is bipartisan or not, or whether it is a compromise or not. What they want to make sure of is that it never happens again, as it did this morning in Georgia. It is a pity we are discussing whether or not there is too much regulation, or whether or not the law enforcement people are hard at work. I want them to look at the statistics. We will talk about that in just a minute. That is not the issue. The issue is, do you want to save lives, or do you want to save the NRA? Do you want to permit them to continue to oppose all sensible legislation? There are people sitting here, I am sure, who have children at home and they don't want to worry about them when they go to school. That is the issue. What are we talking about here? Eighty-nine percent of the American people say they want the gun loopholes closed--finally shut. What do you think the percentage might be out of Georgia today, or out of Colorado, or out of Pearl, MS; or Paducah, KY; or Springfield? What do you think the percentage of those families are? I will bet you it is 100 percent. We know one thing. It was admitted by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, or at least suggested--not admitted. He said 40 percent of the people who buy guns at gun shows do so without any identification at all. ``Buyers anonymous.'' Buy your gun. Don't tell anybody who you are. Forty percent, by my calculation. It is around 800,000 guns a year. Maybe I am wrong by 100,000 or 150,000. Over 5 million handguns are sold in this country each and every year. Mr. President, I want us to stand up to the American people and say we care more about your kids; we care more about your family; we care more about violence in this country than we do about whether or not this one gets credit, or whether it looks like we are imposing an extra burden. I want to talk about the burdens for just a moment and talk about Federal gun prosecutions. The distinguished Members on that side will say they are down. I would tell you this: Twenty-five percent more criminals are sent to prison for State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992. That is because we work more closely with our partners in State and local law enforcement. Look at the result. Stop looking at the process. Look at where we want to come out. Overall violence and property crimes are down by 20 percent. The murder rate is down 28 percent--the lowest level in 30 years. We have accomplished something. Do you know why? Because we are asking questions about guns. Yes. There are things wrong in our culture. There certainly are. But I look at our culture, and I look at other nations which are well developed. We have 35,000 Americans killed each year with firearms compared to 15 in Japan--15 people--30 in Great Britain. Just take the murder side of that--homicides, almost 14,000; suicides, 18,000. That happens, I guess, in other countries. But I am sure it doesn't happen to the same extent with guns. When we hear our friends decrying this extension of time that is needed to get your mitts on a gun, why should we slow down the process? Somebody wants a gun. They give it to them. That is what they are saying. I will tell you something. If they read the law carefully--the Lautenberg law--then they would see that the law limiting enforcement to 24 hours for gun show background checks is only if--72 hours; forgive me--only if there is some detection in the first minutes that something is wrong. If there is nothing wrong, you can have a gun in 5 minutes. Is that quick enough? Is a day quick enough? I think it is quick enough for the American people. Ask those in Littleton and ask them in other places how quickly the guns ought to be available. No, Mr. President, we are missing the boat. We are arguing about process while we are exposing more and more of our kids to accessibility to guns. It is not right. The Lautenberg amendment closes the loopholes once and for all. Again, I commend Senators Smith and Jeffords for closing the pawnshop loophole, but they don't close all of the loopholes. There is still limited liability for gun sellers. There are still people who are going to be able to buy guns without registering them. They are not registering without going through a background check. They are not insisting that everybody go through a background check, and they are not insisting that 24 hours be extended to 72 for normal purchases. I think what we ought to do is say once and for all--I hope my colleagues will respond--to the American people, enough of the debate about the process. The process is fair. We are not talking about increasing taxes. We are not talking about increasing the bureaucracy. I would like to mention one thing--that even as our friends talk about more enforcement being the difference, the fact is that when we tried to hire 280 new ATF agents, requesting over $10 million to hire those people, and over 40 new Federal prosecutors as well, the NRA has never supported backing its tough talk with real money for State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest and prosecute. They like to talk about it here. But they don't want to pay for it. It is time to face up to reality. One is we are going to probably pass the Smith-Jeffords amendment with an overwhelming vote. That is OK, because it starts the process. But it doesn't complete the process. The process will be complete when the Lautenberg amendment is passed, and I hope we have enough courage in this room to stand up and say, ``Yes, I vote for the Lautenberg amendment.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, very simply, we have just made a decision to close a couple of the loopholes that existed before on gun show sales, and I commend the Senators who offered the amendment. But we are still left with significant numbers of people who do not have to have a background check, and that is not the way we want to do it. We want to close all the loopholes. They have insisted we remove the 72-hour window for investigation of backgrounds, and that is only triggered if there is something that discredits the individual. Otherwise, it is 24 hours or less. If there is nothing on the person's record, the sale goes through. It is hard to imagine why we cannot take enough time to investigate the prospective buyer sufficiently to make sure we are protecting our people. That is the issue, and I hope our friends on the Republican side who voted with us last time will continue to vote with us. We could have won this several times if we had support from the Republican side of the aisle. I hope they will demonstrate to the American people that there is concern about limiting access to guns as the citizens of the country want us to do.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to give the proponents time.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. To be sure, the Parliamentarian may be able to tell us. How much time will we have on the Smith and Lautenberg amendments combined?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Parliamentarian, is there a moment allotted for discussion of the amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support this supplemental emergency appropriations bill. It is far from perfect, and I have serious reservations about some provisions. At the same time, the legislation would provide vitally important funding for our operations in Kosovo, as well as several other important provisions. So, on balance, I have concluded that the bill deserves my support. Mr. President, of the $15 billion in new spending this bill contains, $12 billion is to support our important mission in Kosovo, to punish Slobodan Milosevic for his brutal policy of ethnic cleansing, compel a political settlement, and facilitate the return of the Kosovar Albanian refugees to their homeland. The tragedy in Kosovo represents a turning point for NATO, European security, and American leadership in the 21st century. I am glad that Congress has shown its support for the President with the funding contained in this bill for the military operation and the humanitarian assistance. The bill also contains funds to ensure that the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia can effectively investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the atrocities committed in Kosovo and those in Belgrade who ordered them to carry out this campaign of terror. They must be brought to justice. I am also glad that after a long delay we have provided the necessary assistance for Central American countries to recover from the devastation imposed last fall by Hurricanes Mitch and Georges. Mr. President, this bill also contains a provision that helps family members of the victims of the terrible Pan Am 103 bombing to attend the trial of the charged criminals before the Scottish court in the Netherlands. As you know, Mr. President, many New Jersey natives were on that flight. These families have waited too long for justice to be brought, and I am glad that they will be able to see it rendered firsthand. The bill also provides $100 million for Jordan, to help support its role in advancing the Middle East peace process. The region stands at a critical juncture after the death of King Hussein and the election of Ehud Barak as Israeli Prime Minister. I am glad we provided this down- payment for Jordan. Now we must follow through on our commitment for Israel and the Palestinian Authority per the Wye River Memorandum the U.S. helped broker. Mr. President, despite these positive elements, the bill before us has many flaws. It contains more than $6 billion in unrequested defense spending, far in excess of what it will take to prosecute the air war against Milosevic. It stretches the definition of what constitutes an ``emergency'' to such an extent that it mocks the notion of fiscal discipline. This year's concurrent resolution on the budget established five explicit criteria to guide the use of the emergency designation, which allows funding beyond the discretionary caps. These criteria relate to whether an item is (i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or beneficial); (ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; (iv) unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (v) not permanent, temporary in nature. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see how some of this defense spending constitutes an emergency. For example, while increasing military compensation may be a laudable goal, it hardly represents an emergency under these criteria. I also am disturbed by the apparent disparate treatment of offsets. As my colleagues know, under the Budget Act, funding for emergency spending does not count against the discretionary caps and therefore does not have to be offset. For some reason, however, the Majority feels that offsets are necessary--but for only for the agriculture and humanitarian emergencies, not the military portion. This double standard defies logic. If something is an emergency, no offsets should be required. If it is not an emergency, then we should not use the emergency designation and we should pay for it with spending reductions. However, of all the problems with this bill, I am most disappointed in the provisions related to the recent multi-state tobacco settlement. These provisions waive the Federal government's right to recoup its share of recovered tobacco Medicaid costs without any guarantees that State governments will spend even a penny of these settlement funds on tobacco control programs. Mr. President, these provisions--stuck into this large emergency supplemental appropriations bill--hand the tobacco industry a big victory. The tobacco lobby wanted to avoid an effective, nationwide anti-youth smoking effort. And unfortunately, it looks like their wish was granted. Mr. President, some have characterized this recoupment of Federal Medicaid dollars as a Federal ``money grab'' of State dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is without question that a large portion of the state settlements with the tobacco industry represents a recovery of Federal funds. I should know, because I have been working with the state attorneys general on these cases since they were filed. In fact, I introduced the first ``Tobacco Medicaid Waiver'' bill back in 1996. At that time, I was joined by Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore and Minnesota Attorney General Skip Humphrey at the introduction of a bill that would allow States to keep part of the Federal share of Medicaid. At the time, there were only ten states suing, and my bill was aimed at urging more States to bring claims. Mr. President, back then, none of these pioneering state officials ever said that the Federal Government had no right to Medicaid recoupment. It is a preposterous argument. The states sued under the Federal Medicaid statute--they knew that then and they know that now. Mr. President, there is no question under current law that a portion of these settlements are Federal funds. It is also important to note that the tobacco settlement signed by the States blocks the Federal government from seeking reimbursement for Federal Medicaid costs caused by tobacco company misconduct in the future. So, in other words, the States waived our rights too. Let me be clear: I think we should ultimately give this money back to the States--but we must have guarantees that a portion of this tobacco recoupment will be used to reduce youth smoking, assist children and promote public health. Mr. President, the provisions stuck into this bill are bad policy and primarily benefit one party: the tobacco industry. The losers will be America's children. Because of this provision, more young people will begin to smoke. And many of them, ultimately, will die as a result. Mr. President, that's not right. And I hope Congress will reconsider this decision in the future. Still, Mr. President, this conference report does contain several other important provisions, including funding for our operations in Kosovo. So, while I do so with some reluctance, I will support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the majority leader yield? Has the Smith-Jeffords amendment been sent up and discussed? We have several amendments that have already been offered, and I do not know why we are--maybe I do know why and I just don't want to realize after this very amiable discussion, Mr. Leader, that we had earlier about how we were going to cooperate and let the public hear what we are really doing here. I ask--we have several amendments, on both sides--what would the regular order be, Mr. Leader? As I understand it, the Parliamentarian can answer that. There was no Smith-Jeffords in there. We have an order, and it would be nice to not suddenly suggest that perhaps 60 votes would do it. And then we could hear--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I did see it. I was pleased to see it, as a matter of fact.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I be recognized to join in this tribute?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I be recognized to join in this tribute?