Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We looked at the amendment. I have not worked out an understanding yet. Why don't we take a couple minutes to see what we have there so we can be responsive. Is the debate wrapped up on your side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for President Clinton's decision to use United States Armed Forces, together with our NATO allies, to stop the killing in Kosovo and help bring peace and stability to a troubled region of Europe. International intervention to stop the killing and atrocities in Kosovo is long overdue. The United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, must lead that international effort. Mr. President, I firmly believe NATO must follow through on threats of air strikes unless Milosevic immediately ends his assault on the people of Kosovo and accepts the Contact Group's interim agreement. If we do not, Milosevic will pursue his kind of peace in Kosovo--through ``ethnic cleansing.'' Air strikes are a means to an end. I hope Belgrade will agree to sign the Contact Group's interim peace agreement, as the Albanian side has done, without further revisions. President Clinton has decided and the Pentagon has planned to deploy about four thousand U.S. troops to participate in a NATO-led peacekeeping force to help implement the interim agreement, once it has been signed by both sides. I support this plan because I stand behind its goals. United States armed forces should participate in a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. I support the President's determination that this must be a NATO-led force, with sufficient forces and appropriate rules of engagement to minimize the risk of casualties and maximize prospects for success. U.S. participation is essential to the credibility of NATO's presence in Kosovo. NATO's peacekeeping role is essential to the implementation of a peace agreement for Kosovo. And implementation of a peace agreement is essential to stop the killing--and end the atrocities in Kosovo--and allow people to return to their homes and rebuild their shattered lives. But today we face a more immediate question: whether NATO should launch air strikes to stop the killing and end the atrocities in Kosovo. In my view we must end Milosevic's reign of terror. Some in this body have argued that these atrocities are an internal matter, that we should not get involved. Others have said U.S. national security interests in Kosovo do not rise to a level that warrants military intervention. I strongly disagree with those assertions. Allow me, therefore, to remind my colleagues of the fundamental United States interests which are at stake here: The first is U.S. credibility, going all the way back to the Christmas warning issued by President Bush and reaffirmed by President Clinton. If we fail to act, our threats in other parts of the world will not be taken seriously, and we may find ourselves having to actually use force more often. The second is the credibility, cohesion, and future of NATO. As the 50th anniversary Summit approaches, I believe we need to strengthen the Euro-Atlantic partnership. Particularly when a crisis arises in Europe, we need to be able to act in concert with allies who generally share our interests and values and who have the capability to undertake fully integrated military operations alongside U.S. armed forces. Third, we need to prevent this conflict from spreading. How can we expect Albania to stay out of the conflict as their kin are being slaughtered? What is to prevent citizens of Macedonia from joining up with different sides along ethnic lines? Would Bulgaria, and NATO allies Greece and Turkey, be drawn into a widening conflagration? I don't claim to be able to fully predict what will happen if we do not act, but it seems to me we're better off stopping the conflict now than risking another world war sparked in the Balkans. Finally, I would remind my colleagues that Milosevic and his police and military forces are killing people and driving them from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity--they are committing genocide. We have an obligation and a responsibility to act to stop genocide. How can we stand by and allow these massacres to continue and claim to stand for what is right in this world? The time has come to stop threatening and start making good on our threats. There is too much at stake. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution condemning anti-Semitic statements by Russian political leaders and commending President Yeltsin and others for raising their voices against such hateful speech. Anti-Semitism in Russia is not a new phenomenon. Throughout Russia's history, Jews have often been singled out for persecution during times of crisis. It happened in the seventeenth century, when a reign of terror was unleashed against Jews in Eastern and Central Europe, and it happened in the pogroms of World War I, when entire Jewish communities were annihilated. In short, when there's trouble in Russia, Jews are usually the first to be blamed. Anti-Semitic comments coming from high- ranking officials in Russia in recent months are particularly worrisome. They come at a time when Russia should be overcoming its troubled past and rejoining the world community by honoring freedom of religion, free speech and other human rights. The anti-Semitic statements made by prominent Russian officials are well known by now: Last November, retired General Albert Makashov blamed the country's economic crisis on ``yids.'' In an open letter, Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party chief, voiced his belief of a Zionist conspiracy to seize power in Russia. Another top Communist lawmaker, Viktor Ilyukhin, accused Jews of waging ``genocide'' in the country. Officials in the Russian government have criticized these statements. Yet not so long ago, Russian President Yeltsin went ahead with a summit with his counterpart, Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko, who himself blamed Jewish financiers and political reformers ``for the creation of the criminal economy.'' Alexander Lebed, a top contender for the presidential post in the 2000 elections, has also made negative remarks about several religious groups. We in Congress have asked senior Administration officials to lodge our protests against the anti-Semitic comments made by Russian leaders. During her recent trip to Moscow, Secretary Albright did exactly that and received assurances that anti-Semitism has no place in Russia. The Administration will have another opportunity to voice our concern when Vice President Gore receives Russia's Prime Minister Primakov next week. I will closely be watching events in Russia to ensure the government is in compliance with its international human rights commitments. There has been concern that the country's religion law, passed in 1997, cedes too much authority to local officials. The omnibus appropriations bill for 1999 directs a cutoff of Freedom Support Act aid to Russia unless the President determines and certifies that Moscow hasn't implemented statutes, regulations or executive orders that would discriminate against religious groups. That certification must be made by late April. I hope certification, as well as the International Religious Freedom Act, passed last year, will be strong incentives for Russian leaders to reverse a troubling anti-democratic trend. As you know, in 1989 I authored legislation making it easier for Jews and members of other persecuted religious groups in the former Soviet Union to obtain refugee status in the United States. I introduced this law because I felt deeply that religious freedom was a basic human right, which was anathema under the Soviet system of government. Recent events in Russia convince me my legislation remains very necessary and I will be asking my colleagues to support an extension again this year. During a trip to Poland last year, President Kwasniewski and Prime Minister Buzek reached out to the Jewish community to help bridge the gap between Poles and Jews. This is a difficult and long-term process, but at least leaders across the political spectrum are making a real effort to heal wounds and create a more welcome climate for Jews in Poland. I welcome President Yeltsin's rejections of anti-Semitism and I hope more members of the Duma will speak out in this manner. I want also to pay tribute to Parliamentarian Galina Starovoitova, a steadfast supporter of human rights and democracy, who was shot dead last November in the entry way of her St. Petersburg apartment building. Ms. Starovoitova, a non-Jew, was a leading voice in condemning anti-Semitism in Russian society. Her courage will be sorely missed. Congress understands Russia cannot be a great democracy until it makes progress in human rights, and doesn't revert to past practices. Russia's leaders must come to the same conclusion. We must all work together to reach a common goal--helping Russia integrate into the international community. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this timely resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand there is a unanimous consent agreement that says I should be permitted to use the remainder of the time on this side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution, of which I am an original cosponsor, opposing Palestinian statehood as a unilateral declaration. We need to send an unequivocal signal of the Senate's opposition to any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. I know the players here very well. I knew Israeli Prime Minister Rabin. I considered him a close friend. I had a lot of contact with him over a period of more than 20 years. I got to know Chairman Arafat when he came to Washington, and I have seen him in Jericho. I have seen him here several times; I have seen him in New York. When they got together, shook hands, and signed the Declaration of Principles that was negotiated in Oslo, it was a tremendous historical moment. The Oslo accords set in motion a process to end violence and bring peace to this troubled region. Despite obstacles and delays, Israel and the Palestinians have come a long way down the road to a better future. Last year, with the peace process stalled, President Clinton brought together Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat for intensive discussion on a plan that would achieve further progress in implementing the Oslo accord. With the help of a good friend to the United States, to Israel, and to the Palestinians--King Hussein of Jordan--President Clinton convinced the parties to sign the Wye River agreement. Both Israel and the Palestinians implemented their commitments in the first phase of the Wye memorandum. Unfortunately, the process remains stalled there, though important cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian representatives continues. President Clinton has rightly urged the parties to respect and implement the Wye memorandum, despite the pending election in Israel. Prospects for further implementation are good, in my view, even if this is not happening right now. The point is that, on the whole, the Oslo framework is still intact. Final status negotiations to resolve the most challenging issues should begin within a matter of months. In that context, the resolution we are considering today makes a vital point. The Palestinians must not jeopardize the peace process by unilaterally declaring statehood, as Chairman Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have suggested. By adopting this resolution, we send an unequivocal message that, certainly as far as the Congress is concerned, the United States would not recognize a unilateral statehood declaration and would instead condemn it as a violation of the Oslo accords. Mr. President, this resolution represents our strong commitment to a negotiated peace in the Middle East. I, on a personal basis, look forward to the fact that one day they will put aside violence there and they will get along. It is a necessity; this is not a matter of choice. I welcome the overwhelming support that is indicated for this message on the part of my colleagues, that no unilateral declaration of statehood will receive the support or the encouragement of the United States. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

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 today to submit a resolution designating July 2, 1999, and July 2, 2000, as National Literacy Day. Mr. President, the United States has one of the most sophisticated education systems in the world. We have more students enrolling in school than ever before, and more people attending college than ever before. But there is a significant part of the population that has been left behind--the ever growing population of people who can't read. Mr. President, approximately 44 million adult Americans are functionally illiterate. That means somewhere between 21 to 23% percent of the adult population read below the fifth grade level and are unable to perform basic functions you and I do every day. People reading at that level usually cannot locate an intersection on a street map or fill out a social security application form. Older people who can't read may not be able to understand the instructions on a vial of prescription drugs, causing a potentially life-threatening situation. Mr. President, it is not surprising that the inability to perform basic functions results in the inability of the illiterate population to fully participate in society. In fact, nearly half, or 43 percent, of the illiterate population lives in poverty. Other social problems associated with poverty are prevalent in the illiterate community, like the proclivity to commit crime, the need of welfare assistance, and the inability to get a job. A majority of the prison population in this country is illiterate. A majority of people who receive food stamps is illiterate. People who are illiterate work less than half the amount of time in a an average year than a fully literate person, and they earn approximately a third of the income. That is, Mr. President, if they hold jobs at all. Mr. President, the Federal government, as well as state and local municipalities, have shown a steadfast dedication to eradicating illiteracy through financial assistance. In 1998 alone, the major adult education and literacy programs were funded at $360 million. And millions more are spent on the state and local level, spent either by municipal government or donated by private sources. Mr. President, my resolution designating July 2 as National Literacy Day is a nice complement to all the resources we spend on adult education and the effort to boost literacy rates. The more we do to identify illiteracy as a problem and the more we publicize what resources are available to citizens who want to learn how to read, the closer we are to winning the war against illiteracy. Mr. President, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999 along with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Schumer, and Reed of Rhode Island. This legislation is aimed at one purpose: to force the gun industry to market and manufacture their products in a safer and more responsible manner. Mr. President, on Thursday, March 4th I was joined at the announcement of this bill by Mayor Bill Campbell of Atlanta and Mayor Alex Penelas of Miami-Dade County. They represent two of the now five jurisdictions that have filed claims against the gun industry on behalf of the taxpayers of their communities. They seek reimbursement for the massive costs of gun violence within their borders and ultimately, major changes in the way the gun industry sells its lethal products. Mr. President, the gun industry has long placed profits above the safety of society. The industry ignores numerous, patented safety devices for guns--even things as simple as an indicator of whether a gun is loaded. The distributors of firearms also intentionally flood certain markets with guns, knowing that the excess weapons will make their way into a nearby illegal market. The lawsuits by these courageous mayors will likely prove to be the most effective mechanism to get the Industry to alter their deadly practices. The reason is simple: it will bring the gun merchants into line by striking where they are most sensitive--the bottom line. To aid this effort, the Gun Industry Accountability Act will strengthen the hand of the cities in court against the formidable firepower of the gun industry and its team of high-priced lawyers. It will help these mayors in their quest to get the industry to lay down its weapons, come to the table and finally agree to behave as responsible corporate citizens. Mr. President, under current law, these cities filing claims against the gun industry are only able to recover the costs that their city or county has paid out due to gun violence. The Gun Industry Accountability Act will strengthen the mayors' hands by allowing them to recover both the city's costs for gun victims in their area as well as the Federal costs associated with these same victims. If a city eventually recovers Federal costs, either through a court judgment or settlement, then the city will be permitted to keep two thirds of the recovery and return the remaining one third to the Federal Government. By increasing the likely reward for bringing a lawsuit against firearms manufacturers, this legislation will serve as an incentive for more cities, counties and States to join the fight to hold the gun industry accountable. When our legislation passes, it will force the industry to stare down the double barrel of local and federal liability in these suits. Mr. President, the potential federal liability is substantial. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control tells us that 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearms injuries are paid for by taxpayers. Federal taxpayers pick up the tab for disability payments through SSI, Veterans Administration, Unemployment, Medicare and other costs of treating victims of gun violence. Mr. President, despite these enormous costs, the gun industry and its friends in the National Rifle Association will go to any length to avoid accountability. The NRA and its corporate members are seeking state and federal legislation to take away the rights of mayors to safeguard their citizens against unsafe products and irresponsible marketing practices. Unfortunately, the NRA's drive against the legal rights of local communities has already succeeded in at least one state. In Georgia, the state legislature has already passed a bill at the NRA's request to retroactively block the City of Atlanta's suit. Mayor Campbell has already asked the court system to throw out the legislature's unconstitutional action. The NRA's extremism has reached new heights in Florida. In that state legislature, a bill has been introduced that would not only block Miami-Dade's lawsuit, but also declare Mayor Penelas a felon! In the NRA's world, a public official should be imprisoned for acting to protect the safety of his or her constituents. Mr. President, here in Congress there is already talk of Federal legislation to block cities, counties and States from asserting their rights in court. If such a bill is introduced it will prove that the era of Big Government is certainly not over. Mr. President, I pledge that I will do all I can to make sure that bill will never pass the Senate. Senators Durbin, Schumer, Reed and I will work tirelessly against such an unconscionable proposal. Congress should be helping these local communities make their streets safer--not block them from accomplishing that goal. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Gun Industry Accountability Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize March 8th as the annual celebration of International Women's Day in the State of New Jersey. International Women's Day began in 1911, when over one million people from around the world gathered to honor women in the workplace and enhance women's rights universally. The many citizens from Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the United States attended rallies in their home countries and called for women to have the right to vote, the right to hold public office, for vocational training and to end discrimination against women in the workplace. Mr. President, women's rights have come a long way since then. But we still have farther to go. Mr. President, the purpose now of International Women's Day is to promote many causes important to women and girls, such as education, leadership development and ongoing human rights struggles. Supporters of this day would like to see economic justice for women, freedom from glass ceilings, violent workplace environments and sexual harassment, and the elimination of child labor in sweatshops. In addition, Mr. President, a concurrent celebration of International Women's Day has blossomed in New Jersey. New Jersey, in fact, is the only state where International Women's Day is celebrated state-wide in classrooms and community centers everywhere. In 1992, New Jersey's celebration was founded in Metuchen with the help of organizations like Women Helping Women, Citizens for Quality Education and the Metuchen Public Schools. Since then, the New Jersey state legislature, the White House and the United Nations have all recognized this celebration as important in the evolution of women's rights. The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) of the U.S.A., one of the oldest and largest women's organizations in the world, has also become a vital sponsor of International Women's Day. Mr. President, this year's celebration is entitled, ``Women Working for Health: Body, Mind, Spirit,'' focusing on women in the workplace. In classrooms across New Jersey, women from all walks of life, including veterinarians, pilots, judges, community leaders, and medical researchers, have been invited to discuss their personal and professional experiences with students at levels ranging from kindergarten to adult education programs. These priceless exchanges will provide young girls and women with mentors, role models and friends. Mr. President, I am happy to join in the celebration of International Women's Day in New Jersey, and all that it does to foster the promotion of equal rights for women. I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Industry Accountability Act of 1999 along with my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Schumer, and Reed of Rhode Island. This legislation is aimed at one purpose: to force the gun industry to market and manufacture their products in a safer and more responsible manner. Mr. President, on Thursday, March 4th I was joined at the announcement of this bill by Mayor Bill Campbell of Atlanta and Mayor Alex Penelas of Miami-Dade County. They represent two of the now five jurisdictions that have filed claims against the gun industry on behalf of the taxpayers of their communities. They seek reimbursement for the massive costs of gun violence within their borders and ultimately, major changes in the way the gun industry sells its lethal products. Mr. President, the gun industry has long placed profits above the safety of society. The industry ignores numerous, patented safety devices for guns--even things as simple as an indicator of whether a gun is loaded. The distributors of firearms also intentionally flood certain markets with guns, knowing that the excess weapons will make their way into a nearby illegal market. The lawsuits by these courageous mayors will likely prove to be the most effective mechanism to get the Industry to alter their deadly practices. The reason is simple: it will bring the gun merchants into line by striking where they are most sensitive--the bottom line. To aid this effort, the Gun Industry Accountability Act will strengthen the hand of the cities in court against the formidable firepower of the gun industry and its team of high-priced lawyers. It will help these mayors in their quest to get the industry to lay down its weapons, come to the table and finally agree to behave as responsible corporate citizens. Mr. President, under current law, these cities filing claims against the gun industry are only able to recover the costs that their city or county has paid out due to gun violence. The Gun Industry Accountability Act will strengthen the mayors' hands by allowing them to recover both the city's costs for gun victims in their area as well as the Federal costs associated with these same victims. If a city eventually recovers Federal costs, either through a court judgment or settlement, then the city will be permitted to keep two thirds of the recovery and return the remaining one third to the Federal Government. By increasing the likely reward for bringing a lawsuit against firearms manufacturers, this legislation will serve as an incentive for more cities, counties and States to join the fight to hold the gun industry accountable. When our legislation passes, it will force the industry to stare down the double barrel of local and federal liability in these suits. Mr. President, the potential federal liability is substantial. The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control tells us that 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearms injuries are paid for by taxpayers. Federal taxpayers pick up the tab for disability payments through SSI, Veterans Administration, Unemployment, Medicare and other costs of treating victims of gun violence. Mr. President, despite these enormous costs, the gun industry and its friends in the National Rifle Association will go to any length to avoid accountability. The NRA and its corporate members are seeking state and federal legislation to take away the rights of mayors to safeguard their citizens against unsafe products and irresponsible marketing practices. Unfortunately, the NRA's drive against the legal rights of local communities has already succeeded in at least one state. In Georgia, the state legislature has already passed a bill at the NRA's request to retroactively block the City of Atlanta's suit. Mayor Campbell has already asked the court system to throw out the legislature's unconstitutional action. The NRA's extremism has reached new heights in Florida. In that state legislature, a bill has been introduced that would not only block Miami-Dade's lawsuit, but also declare Mayor Penelas a felon! In the NRA's world, a public official should be imprisoned for acting to protect the safety of his or her constituents. Mr. President, here in Congress there is already talk of Federal legislation to block cities, counties and States from asserting their rights in court. If such a bill is introduced it will prove that the era of Big Government is certainly not over. Mr. President, I pledge that I will do all I can to make sure that bill will never pass the Senate. Senators Durbin, Schumer, Reed and I will work tirelessly against such an unconscionable proposal. Congress should be helping these local communities make their streets safer--not block them from accomplishing that goal. To that end, I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Gun Industry Accountability Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health (BEACH) Act of 1999, legislation which would amend the Clean Water Act to require states to adopt water quality standards for coastal recreation waters and to notify the public of unhealthy conditions. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Torricelli, Senator Boxer, and Senator Lieberman in sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, coastal tourism generates billions of dollars every year for local communities and beaches are the top vacation destination in the nation. A recent survey found that tourists spend over $100 billion in coastal portions of the twelve states that were studied. Travel and tourism to the beaches of the Jersey shore alone generates over $7 billion annually to local economies. Unfortunately, the increased use of the coastal waters at our public beaches and coastal parks for swimming, wading, and surfing can cause increased risk to public health if these recreational waters are not properly managed. Water pollution and water-borne bacteria and viruses from overflowing sewage systems can cause a wide range of diseases, including gastroenteritis, dysentery, hepatitis, ear, nose, and throat problems, E. coli bacterial infections, and respiratory illness. Upon contracting one of these water-borne diseases, the affected individual often remains contagious even when out of the water and may pass the illness to others. The consequences of these swimming-associated illnesses can be especially severe for children, elderly people, and the infirm. In Maryland, the outbreak of the toxic Pfiesteria organism in several Chesapeake Bay tributaries prompted the state to close several rivers for public health reasons. Fishermen and swimmers who were exposed to Pfiesteria complained of short-term memory loss, dizziness, muscular aches, peripheral tingling, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In a 1998 report on beach water quality, entitled Testing the Waters, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported over 5,199 closings or advisories of varying durations at U.S. beaches due to detected or anticipated unhealthy water quality in 1997. Many beaches closures and health advisories were a result of sewage spills and overflows. The number of beach closings and advisories, while large, may represent only a small portion of the actual problem. This is because of an inconsistent approach among the states toward monitoring the water quality of public beaches and notifying the public of unhealthy conditions. In fact, as of 1999, only nine states have comprehensive monitoring programs and adequate public notification. Thirteen states have regular monitoring and public notification programs for a portion of their recreational beaches. Among the remaining coastal and Great Lakes states, some lack any regular monitoring of beach water quality, while others have monitoring programs, but no programs to close beaches or notify the public. As a result, a high bacteria level can cause a beach closure in one state while, in another state, people may be allowed to swim in the water, despite the health risks. Due in part to my urging, in 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) program to recommend appropriate monitoring criteria and public notification of beach water quality. While this program is a good start, the reality is that the majority of states have not adopted EPA-recommended criteria to protect swimmer's health, and the agency does not possess the authority to require states to adopt their recommended criteria. Mr. President, my legislation would provide EPA the authority to require states to develop beach water quality monitoring and public notification programs that adequately and uniformly protect public health. The BEACH Act would require EPA to conduct studies for use in developing a more complete list of potential health risks associated with unhealthy beach water quality, develop more effective testing methods for detecting the presence of pathogens in coastal recreation waters, and revise its water quality criteria for pathogens in such waters. The legislation would also direct EPA to establish regulations requiring monitoring of water quality at public beaches to determine compliance with water quality and public safety criteria. The bill would require states to notify local governments and the public of current beach water quality. Where a state wishes to delegate its testing, monitoring, and notification requirements to local governments, EPA must issue delegation guidance to a state and the state must make resources available to the local government. Lastly, the BEACH Act would authorize $9 million dollars in grants to the States for the purposes of carrying out the requirements of this Act. Mr. President, a day at the beach shouldn't be followed by a day at the doctor. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to ensure safe and healthy beaches for the citizens of New Jersey and the nation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``E-21''--the Education for the 21st Century Act. The E-21 Act will help ensure that all middle school graduates attain basic computer literacy skills that will prepare them for high school and beyond, and ultimately, for the 21st Century workplace. The E-21 Act will also allow all school districts to obtain and utilize the latest high-quality educational software, free of charge. Mr. President, the first piece of legislation I introduced in the Senate was to provide financial assistance to introduce computers into schools, to help students learn and expand their horizons. That was in 1983. Back then, it was the exceptional school that even had a computer. It was an unusual teacher or student who knew how to use one. That legislation was enacted into law. Along with other resources, it helped bring computers into our schools as part of everyday learning. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I got my start in the computing business. Back then, computers filled large rooms and were so expensive that only the largest corporations could afford their own computing centers. Today, even more powerful computers sit on a desktop in millions of homes, schools and businesses across the nation. Mr. President, we've made great strides toward introducing computers into schools, but too many of these computers are not being utilized to their potential due to lack of updated computer training for teachers. Mr. President, a recent study by the Educational Testing Service confirmed that computers do increase student achievement and improve a school's learning climate. However--and this is critical--the study specified that to achieve those results, teachers must be appropriately trained and use effective educational software programs. Otherwise, these computers become mere furniture in a classroom. To boost student achievement through computers and technology, my ``Education for the 21st Century Act'' will provide up to $30 million per year to train a team of teachers from every middle school in the nation in the most up-to-date computing technology. These Teacher Technology leaders could then share their training with the rest of the faculty in their schools, so all teachers are ready to pass these skills on to their students. Mr. President, the E-21 Act will also create national educational software competitions, open to high school and college students, to work in partnership with university faculty and professional software developers. The best of these software packages would be available free-of-charge over the Internet through the Department of Education's web page. Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that this emphasis on computer training is not at the expense of the fundamental, basic skills that underlie education: reading, writing and arithmetic. It's still important to master these traditional basics. But we should also add a ``new basic'' to the list--computer literacy. Americans will need those skills to compete in the 21st Century. Mr. President, this proposal is part of President Clinton's FY 2000 Budget, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will work to see that it is funded for years to come. Mr. President, as a businessman who got his start at the beginning of the computing age, I am proud to see the way our nation has led the world in computer technology. I want to make sure that we continue to lead--through the second computer century--the 21st Century. I therefore ask my colleagues to support ``E-21''--the Education for the 21st Century Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce ``E-21''--the Education for the 21st Century Act. The E-21 Act will help ensure that all middle school graduates attain basic computer literacy skills that will prepare them for high school and beyond, and ultimately, for the 21st Century workplace. The E-21 Act will also allow all school districts to obtain and utilize the latest high-quality educational software, free of charge. Mr. President, the first piece of legislation I introduced in the Senate was to provide financial assistance to introduce computers into schools, to help students learn and expand their horizons. That was in 1983. Back then, it was the exceptional school that even had a computer. It was an unusual teacher or student who knew how to use one. That legislation was enacted into law. Along with other resources, it helped bring computers into our schools as part of everyday learning. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, I got my start in the computing business. Back then, computers filled large rooms and were so expensive that only the largest corporations could afford their own computing centers. Today, even more powerful computers sit on a desktop in millions of homes, schools and businesses across the nation. Mr. President, we've made great strides toward introducing computers into schools, but too many of these computers are not being utilized to their potential due to lack of updated computer training for teachers. Mr. President, a recent study by the Educational Testing Service confirmed that computers do increase student achievement and improve a school's learning climate. However--and this is critical--the study specified that to achieve those results, teachers must be appropriately trained and use effective educational software programs. Otherwise, these computers become mere furniture in a classroom. To boost student achievement through computers and technology, my ``Education for the 21st Century Act'' will provide up to $30 million per year to train a team of teachers from every middle school in the nation in the most up-to-date computing technology. These Teacher Technology leaders could then share their training with the rest of the faculty in their schools, so all teachers are ready to pass these skills on to their students. Mr. President, the E-21 Act will also create national educational software competitions, open to high school and college students, to work in partnership with university faculty and professional software developers. The best of these software packages would be available free-of-charge over the Internet through the Department of Education's web page. Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues that this emphasis on computer training is not at the expense of the fundamental, basic skills that underlie education: reading, writing and arithmetic. It's still important to master these traditional basics. But we should also add a ``new basic'' to the list--computer literacy. Americans will need those skills to compete in the 21st Century. Mr. President, this proposal is part of President Clinton's FY 2000 Budget, and as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, I will work to see that it is funded for years to come. Mr. President, as a businessman who got his start at the beginning of the computing age, I am proud to see the way our nation has led the world in computer technology. I want to make sure that we continue to lead--through the second computer century--the 21st Century. I therefore ask my colleagues to support ``E-21''--the Education for the 21st Century Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I strongly support the goals of this legislation, to improve recruitment and retention rates. Those rates have sagged in the last year to 18 months, and we need to do something about that. After all, our nation's security depends on ensuring that the military is able to recruit and retain high quality personnel. President Clinton agrees with that. He's proposing to increase the defense budget by $112 billion over 6 years, and he's allocated $35 billion to meet the challenges of recruitment and retirement. The President's budget provides an across-the-board pay raise of 4.4 percent, reforms the pay table to reward personnel for high performance, and modifies the current retirement system. President Clinton is proposing these initiatives within a comprehensive and balanced plan that enhances troop readiness and increases the pace of our force's modernization. He also does it as part of a budget that reserves the surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare, pays down the debt, and provides tax relief to average Americans. S. 4, on the other hand, provides a more generous pay raise, more aggressively changes the military retirement system, creates a Thrift Savings Plan for military personnel, and increases GI bill benefits. Based on data from CBO staff, this bill will cost $7.5 billion more than the President's initiatives over the next 6 years, and $19 billion more over the next 10 years. Mr. President, given my support for the underlying goals of this legislation, I'm reluctant to oppose it. But I do have real concerns about the way we're proceeding. First, the Armed Services Committee hasn't held a single hearing to analyze the causes of the current recruitment and retention problems, or to evaluate remedies. Many argue that increasing pay and retirement benefits won't really solve the problem. GAO, CBO, and Rand are all conducting studies on these issues and are due to issue reports in the next few months. In addition, the committee has failed to say where the additional funding will come from. If it comes out of other defense programs, Secretary Cohen fears we could end up compromising our troops' readiness and DOD's modernization program. If it comes out of other programs, what will that mean for programs like Social Security and Medicare? Unfortunately, we're considering this legislation before the Budget Committee has even begun consideration of a budget resolution. And that's a mistake. In my view, before we approve any bill that commits ourselves to significant new spending, we need to reach agreement on a broader fiscal framework. We need to figure out how to save Social Security, strengthen Medicare, provide tax relief for ordinary Americans, and make needed commitments to education and other needs. Mr. President, I understand that this legislation is not likely to move in the House of Representatives any time soon. And so it probably won't be sent to the President until after the broader budget debate is concluded. With that understanding, I am not inclined to oppose the legislation, which will send a needed signal that Congress is serious about dealing with military recruitment and retention. Still, Mr. President, we need to put a lot more thought into this before sending it to the President. We need to be sure we're promoting recruitment and retention in a cost-effective way. And, more importantly, we need to figure out how we're going to pay for this. As it is, Mr. President, we're putting the cart before the horse. And that, in my view, is a poor way to legislate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which will close the loophole in our gun laws which allows criminals to buy and sell firearms at gun shows. Last year, there were more than 4,400 gun shows across America. While most of the citizens who participate in these gun shows are law- abiding, there is mounting evidence that criminals are using these events for more sinister purposes. The problem is that current law allows unlicensed dealers to sell countless firearms without any background checks on the buyer or documentation of the sales. Criminals are aware of this loophole and exploit it. A study by the Illinois State Police showed at least 25 percent of illegally trafficked weapons came from gun shows. Militia members including Timothy McVeigh and Michael Fortier used gun shows to easily sell previously stolen guns and obtain a ready supply of firearms in undocumented transactions. Additionally, the gun show loophole is unfair to law-abiding Federal Firearms Licensees. When they participate in a gun show, they must comply with all background checks and record-keeping, while an unlicensed dealer at the next table can make unlimited sales to any person without the same requirements. The ease of these sales drains significant business from law-abiding gun store owners and other licensees, and penalizes them for following the law. Recognizing this problem, the National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers recently endorsed tighter regulations of gun shows: ``[W]e want to make it clear that persons attending Gun Shows to skirt laws and acquire guns for criminal use are unwelcome patrons of these events and diminish their purpose and quality.'' During the 105th Congress, I introduced the Gun Show Sunshine Act in an effort to address this issue. Subsequently, President Clinton directed the Attorney General to study gun show firearm transactions and make recommendations to crack down on illegal sales. The Administration's recently released report confirmed what other law enforcement officials have been saying: gun shows are becoming illegal arms bazaars, where criminals buy and sell deadly weapons with impunity. The report looked at 314 recent Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigations involving 54,000 firearms linked to gun shows. Nearly half of the investigations involved felons buying or selling firearms, and in more than one-third of the cases, the firearms in question were known to have been used in subsequent crimes. Today, I am introducing legislation that proposes a simple approach to the gun show loophole--no background check, no gun, no exceptions. This measure incorporates the recommendations made by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department and I appreciate the Administration's support. This bill would take several steps designed to make it harder for criminals to buy and sell weapons at gun shows. It would require gun show promoters to register and notify ATF of all gun shows, maintain and report a list of vendors at the show, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. Also, it would require that any firearms sales go through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). The idea is that if an unlicensed person was selling a weapon, they would use a FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transactions. The FFL could charge a fee for the service. In order to make it easier for law enforcement to bring criminals to justice, the bill would also require FFLs to submit information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/improper, model, and serial number of the firearms. These reasonable requirements will make our streets safer by making it harder for criminals to get guns. At the same time, these regulations will not unduly burden those law-abiding Americans who enjoy gun shows. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to close the gun show loophole. We must do more to prevent the easy access to firearms which fuels the gun violence across the country. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which will close the loophole in our gun laws which allows criminals to buy and sell firearms at gun shows. Last year, there were more than 4,400 gun shows across America. While most of the citizens who participate in these gun shows are law- abiding, there is mounting evidence that criminals are using these events for more sinister purposes. The problem is that current law allows unlicensed dealers to sell countless firearms without any background checks on the buyer or documentation of the sales. Criminals are aware of this loophole and exploit it. A study by the Illinois State Police showed at least 25 percent of illegally trafficked weapons came from gun shows. Militia members including Timothy McVeigh and Michael Fortier used gun shows to easily sell previously stolen guns and obtain a ready supply of firearms in undocumented transactions. Additionally, the gun show loophole is unfair to law-abiding Federal Firearms Licensees. When they participate in a gun show, they must comply with all background checks and record-keeping, while an unlicensed dealer at the next table can make unlimited sales to any person without the same requirements. The ease of these sales drains significant business from law-abiding gun store owners and other licensees, and penalizes them for following the law. Recognizing this problem, the National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers recently endorsed tighter regulations of gun shows: ``[W]e want to make it clear that persons attending Gun Shows to skirt laws and acquire guns for criminal use are unwelcome patrons of these events and diminish their purpose and quality.'' During the 105th Congress, I introduced the Gun Show Sunshine Act in an effort to address this issue. Subsequently, President Clinton directed the Attorney General to study gun show firearm transactions and make recommendations to crack down on illegal sales. The Administration's recently released report confirmed what other law enforcement officials have been saying: gun shows are becoming illegal arms bazaars, where criminals buy and sell deadly weapons with impunity. The report looked at 314 recent Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigations involving 54,000 firearms linked to gun shows. Nearly half of the investigations involved felons buying or selling firearms, and in more than one-third of the cases, the firearms in question were known to have been used in subsequent crimes. Today, I am introducing legislation that proposes a simple approach to the gun show loophole--no background check, no gun, no exceptions. This measure incorporates the recommendations made by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department and I appreciate the Administration's support. This bill would take several steps designed to make it harder for criminals to buy and sell weapons at gun shows. It would require gun show promoters to register and notify ATF of all gun shows, maintain and report a list of vendors at the show, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. Also, it would require that any firearms sales go through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). The idea is that if an unlicensed person was selling a weapon, they would use a FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transactions. The FFL could charge a fee for the service. In order to make it easier for law enforcement to bring criminals to justice, the bill would also require FFLs to submit information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/improper, model, and serial number of the firearms. These reasonable requirements will make our streets safer by making it harder for criminals to get guns. At the same time, these regulations will not unduly burden those law-abiding Americans who enjoy gun shows. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to close the gun show loophole. We must do more to prevent the easy access to firearms which fuels the gun violence across the country. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the work of an extraordinary woman from the state of New Jersey, Sister Jane Frances Brady. Sister Jane, as she is widely known, has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the poor and uninsured. She has done this most visibly through her 26-year tenure as both president and chief executive officer of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues know, Paterson is my home town and I am privileged to be able to call Sister Jane a good and longtime friend. Sister Jane has just recently stepped down from her position as president, and will leave her post as CEO of St. Joseph's by the summer. I know that she will be sorely missed there. But Sister Jane is not leaving health care altogether. She will be the new executive vice president of Via Caritas Health System in Parsippany. The combination of Sister Jane's tough administrative style and endless compassion has enhanced St. Joseph's facilities and reputation immensely. During her time there, the hospital has excelled in providing care for people living with HIV, newborns, bone marrow transplant candidates, patients needing open-heart surgery and trauma victims. Mr. President, one of the most important things that Sister Jane has done through her work at St. Joseph's is to care for poor children. A huge part of fighting that battle is waging a campaign to provide health insurance coverage for those children. I would like to share with my colleagues a recent editorial in the Bergen Record about Sister Jane, and her fearless courage to fight for the right of the urban poor population to have access to adequate health care. Mr. President, I congratulate Sister Jane on all her hard work at St. Joseph's, and wish her well in her new position at Via Caritas. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Bergen Record, Jan. 12, 1999] Sister Jane Steps Down An estimated 290,000 children in New Jersey go without medical insurance. So last year, when the Whitman administration withdrew some funding for a health-care program for uninsured children because of lower-than-expected enrollment, Sister Jane Frances Brady, president and chief executive officer of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson, was furious. With the help of St. Joseph's, Passaic County alone had registered more than 1,400 children--nearly one-fifth of the statewide enrollment up until that point. ``If we did that, why can't the state do as much?'' Sister Jane asked. Stung by criticism from Sister Jane and others, the state initiated a massive advertising campaign to sign up uninsured children. It included mass mailings, advertisements, and a radio spot by Governor Whitman. Sister Jane has always expected others to work as hard for the poor as she does, and that applied to state officials as well as St. Joseph's employees. In addition to championing the urban poor during her 26 years at St. Joseph's, Sister Jane has transformed the hospital into a regional health-care hub that attracts patients statewide for services such as high-risk births and open heart surgery. Earlier this month, Sister Jane stepped down as president. Patrick Wardell, the hospital's new executive vice president, will run the hospital on a day-to-day basis, but the 63-year- old nun will continue as CEO until July. At that point, she will assume full-time her role as executive vice president of Via Caritas Health System in Parsippany. Via Caritas is a Catholic health-care system--formed in 1997--that has St. Joseph's as its largest hospital member. Sister Jane set a fine example for dedication and leadership at St. Joseph's. Prior to suffering a small stroke in 1997, she had never taken a sick day. And under her leadership St. Joseph's became one of the most financially sound hospitals in the state. Although she will remain a tireless voice for compassion for the less fortunate, her day-to-day involvement in the medical care of the poor in Paterson will be missed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to friend and former colleague in Congress, Bernard Dwyer. Barney, as he was affectionately known, was a devoted public servant and respected New Jerseyan, having served 12 years in the House of Representatives. Mr. President, you might not know how devoted he actually was, since he never delivered a speech on the floor of the House. But Barney was proud of that record. He worked proudly, and tirelessly, behind the scenes in Congress as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to fund myriad projects for New Jersey and for the country. Only some of the examples of his hard work was his support of AMTRAK and New Jersey's transportation funding needs, his backing of an alcohol abuse program at Rutgers University, and his assistance in helping the Red Cross receive grants for AIDS education programs. Whether he was improving sidewalks, street lamps, public schools or community park paths, Barney approached his work with the same diligence and passion. Mr. President, Barney began his career over forty years ago, serving as councilman and mayor in Edison, New Jersey. He then served as a state senator of New Jersey for six years, acting as both senate majority leader and as chairman of the Legislature's joint appropriations committee. Before going into politics, Barney also served in World War II. He was the believed to be the only member of Congress to have survived the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Mr. President, Barney Dwyer stood out in New Jersey's political community as warm, compassionate, modest, even humble. He was an honorable statesman and a man of the highest integrity. And he will be sorely missed. I would like to send my sincerest condolences to Barney's family.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chief Justice, the Senate must now fulfill a weighty and solemn duty. For only the second time in the more than two hundred years since our founding fathers established the Constitution, we must vote on Articles of Impeachment against a President. When considering this issue, which goes to our core constitutional responsibilities as Senators, each of us must come to a conclusion based on his or her conscience. Guided by the Constitution, we must bring all of our moral beliefs, our education, our careers, and our experiences as public servants to the question. And we must try to reach a decision that will serve the best interests of the nation for generations to come. As I reflect on the impeachment proceedings, I think first of the range of emotions I have felt. From the moment I realized that the President had engaged in this shameful relationship, I have struggled with my thoughts. I was angry, of course. I was ashamed for the President, a talented man--someone I consider a friend. How could he risk so much with his disgraceful behavior? And I was saddened. I do not know how the President will reconcile himself to his family. I could imagine the embarrassment and the humiliation of the First Lady and his daughter Chelsea. I pitied them as they felt the searing glow of the public spotlight. I am sure that colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, have empathized with similar emotions. But now we must put those feelings aside. We have a very specific charge under the Constitution. That hallowed document delineates our duty. Under Article II, Section 4, we must determine whether the President has committed ``high Crimes or Misdemeanors'' requiring his removal from office. In my view, our founding fathers meant to set a very high standard for impeachment. Clearly, the phrase ``high Crimes or Misdemeanors'' does not include all crimes. But what are the crimes that meet that standard? I find the words of George Mason to be compelling. He understood the phrase to mean ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' When applying this standard, we must also consider the national interest. The founding fathers vested the impeachment power in the Senate, and not the judiciary, precisely because this body would be accountable to the people. In the words of Alexander Hamilton, only the Senate would ``possess the degree of credit and authority'' required to act on the weighty issue of whether to remove a federal official. In my view, this means that we must look not just at the facts and the law, but we must also try to determine what is in the best interests of the nation. But we should not read the polls, or some other temporary gauge of the public temperament. Instead, we must look back through history, and toward the future, to reach a decision that will reflect well on the Senate and the nation for generations to come. In my view, this case does not involve efforts to subvert the Constitution, and the national interest will not be served by removing the President from office. Before turning to the evidence, I want to express my concern with the way in which the Articles of Impeachment are written. They do not specify which statements and actions by the President are unlawful. Instead, they make general allegations. With this approach, we cannot fulfill our duty to the American people. The American people must know specifically what Presidential conduct justifies overturning an election. While the Articles could have been more clearly written, there is a more fundamental problem. There is simply insufficient evidence for a vote to convict. Whether you apply the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, or even the lower standard of clear and convincing evidence, the House Managers have not proved their case. With regard to Article I, the evidence does not support a charge of perjury. The President may have been uncooperative and evasive. He certainly was misleading. But he never committed perjury as that term is defined in the law. Consequently, the President should be acquitted on Article I. There is also insufficient evidence to convict the President on Article II, which charges him with obstruction of justice. The main problem with this Article is that testimony from the principal witnesses do not support the allegations. Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie, and Vernon Jordan testified that the President did not tamper with witnesses, conceal evidence, or take any other actions that would constitute obstruction of justice. All of the witnesses support the President's version of events. I realize that some of you may view the evidence differently. But I think we must still consider whether this is an appropriate case for the Senate to use the awesome power of impeachment to overturn a national election. I further ask you to consider the precedent we would set with a conviction of this President. We risk making the impeachment power another political weapon to be wielded in partisan battles. Our founding fathers warned against this. In the Federalist Papers, Number 65, Alexander Hamilton noted that the prosecution of impeachable offenses would ``connect itself with the pre-existing factions.'' And that this would create ``the greatest danger, that the decision will be regulated more by the comparitive strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Prior to the present case, the House of Representatives had seriously considered Articles of Impeachment against only two Presidents--Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon. In the more than two hundred years since the Constitution was established, the House set the impeachment machinery in motion in only two occasions. Today, no one doubts that the serious abuses of our constitutional system by the Nixon Administration warranted impeachment proceedings. And the bipartisan approach of Congress solidified President Nixon's decision to resign. But history has not been kind to those who pushed the impeachment of President Johnson upon the nation. Scholars agree that the charges were baseless--a purely partisan campaign. Indeed, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who has presided so effectively in this case, wrote in his book on impeachment that if the Senate had convicted President Johnson ``a long shadow would have been cast over the independence'' of the presidency. So for most of our history, the fears of our founding fathers have not been realized. Congress has not resorted to impeachment even when previous administrations faced far-ranging scandals--the Whiskey Ring scandal during the tenure of President Grant; the Teapot Dome scandal in the Harding administration. And more recently allegations that Presidents Reagan and Bush were not truthful regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. Historically, Congress has held its hand when circumstances might have warranted a pull of the impeachment lever. But contrast that history with the circumstances surrounding this case. President Clinton was a defendant in a civil lawsuit. In determining whether that lawsuit should be allowed to go forward while the President was in office, the Supreme Court of the United States noted that the case involved ``unofficial conduct.'' That case was eventually dismissed, and the plaintiff reached a settlement with the President. But with that lawsuit in place, the plaintiff's attorneys had license to probe into the President's personal life. The private lives of many people were paraded through the press. And then the Independent Counsel joined the hunt. Although he was originally appointed to investigate a real estate transaction in Arkansas, and even though he eventually cleared the President of any wrongdoing in that matter and other reckless accusations, the Independent Counsel turned his attention to a private affair. I think this background cautions against the use of the awesome and irrevocable power of impeachment. Think for a minute about how future partisans might proceed. We have a readily accessible legal system. Anyone with the filing fee can bring a lawsuit. And our laws provide great leeway in the discovery process. If we take the wrong path now, we can expect to see future Presidents hauled into court. They will be questioned repeatedly, and it will not be hard for skilled attorneys to hurl charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. We cannot allow the Presidency to be weakened in this way. Once again, we find the wisdom of our founding fathers providing guidance. James Wilson, who participated in the Philadelphia Convention at which the Constitution was drafted, observed that the President is ``amenable to [the law] in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.'' In other words, the legal system, our civil and criminal laws provide the proper venue for a President who has failed in his private character. And in this case, the legal system can and will continue to address the President's personal transgressions. The Paula Jones lawsuit has been settled. When he leaves office, the President could be subject to further prosecution. But there is simply no injury to our constitutional system, no aspect of what James Wilson called the President's public character, which must be remedied through a Senate conviction under the impeachment power. Of course, I understand the great pain inflicted by the President's private character. As I said earlier, his behavior was reprehensible. He has shamed himself, his family, and the nation. And I understand the desire to punish the President for his conduct. But we must remember the many ways in which the President has already been punished. He has suffered enormous embarrassment and humiliation. Beyond that personal pain, he has also been subject to public condemnation. Every Member of Congress is on the record rebuking his behavior. Of course, this may not satisfy some. They may want more punishment. But please remember--the purpose of the impeachment power is not to punish. Instead, impeachment serves to protect the nation from corrupt officials. So, to render a proper verdict, we must put aside the powerful desire to punish. And I submit that to impeach the President in this case would be a terrible use of the impeachment power, lacking proportionality and perspective. Now, we must step back from the partisan precipice. We must not weaken the Presidency for future generations. We must reject these Articles of Impeachment and help restore the balance of power between the branches of the government. Let us put this matter behind, heal the wounds inflicted by partisanship, and rededicate ourselves to the challenges facing our nation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will reduce the murder and mayhem on our streets by making it harder for criminals to run guns between states. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Torricelli, Schumer, Feinstein, Robb, Sarbanes, Kennedy, Kerry, and Mikulski. Gun traffickers continue to supply an illegal gun market by buying large quantities of guns in states with lax gun laws and then reselling them on the streets--often in cities and states with strict gun laws. If these traffickers cannot legally buy a gun themselves, or if they do not want to have their name turn up if the gun is later found at a crime scene, they find others to make the purchases for them. The trafficker pays a straw purchaser, in money or drugs, to buy 25, 50 or more handguns at a time. The trafficker then resells the guns to those who otherwise could not buy them--such as convicted felons, drug addicts, or children. The Stop Gun Trafficking Act would prohibit any person from purchasing, and any licensed dealer from selling to an individual, more than one handgun a month. This sensible limit on handgun purchases should substantially reduce gun running, while not creating an unreasonable obstacle to legitimate sportsmen and collectors. Under the law, individuals would still be able to purchase up to twelve handguns per year and hundreds of weapons during a lifetime. It is hard to imagine why anyone would need more handguns. Last year, I introduced similar legislation. In order to make my colleagues more aware of the deadly problem of gun trafficking, I sponsored a forum on the issue. The testimony I heard at the forum has made me even more determined to pass this legislation and make it more difficult for gun traffickers to obtain and sell their deadly merchandise on our streets. The witnesses at the forum included: Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, who is also the chair of the Conference of Mayor's Task Force on Gun Violence; James and Sarah Brady; Captain R. Lewis Vass of the Virginia State Police, and Captain Thomas Bowers of the Maryland State Police. We also heard from a panel of youth from right here in our nation's capital who live with gun violence every day in their communities. And what they had to say was terrifying. Guns were an everyday part of their lives. For these kids, D.C. does not stand for District of Columbia. It stands for Dodge City. These young people told us that guns are easy to get in their neighborhoods and schools. They call it getting strapped. And if you do not get strapped you might not make it through the day, they said. One young woman put it eloquently: ``It's not fair,'' she said. ``Other kids get to go to college. We get to go to funerals. These people who sell guns are the real predators. They feed off our pain.'' We must shut these predators down. And we can shut these predators down by passing this legislation. We know this approach works because three states--Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina--have passed one-gun-a month laws and the results have been dramatic. Gun-trafficking from these states has plunged. At the forum, officers from the Virginia State Police testified that after Virginia passed its one-handgun-a-month limit in 1993, the number of crime guns traced back to Virginia from the Northeast dropped by nearly 40 percent. Prior to one-gun-a-month, Virginia had been among the leading suppliers of weapons to the so-called ``Iron Pipeline'' that feed the arms race on the streets of Northeastern cities. Furthermore, in 1995, the Virginia Crime Commission conducted a comprehensive study of the one-handgun-a-month limit to determine if the law had achieved its purpose. That study found, and I quote, ``Virginia's one-gun-a-month statute . . . has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source state for gun trafficking.'' Maryland and South Carolina witnessed similar results. In South Carolina, according to the same Crime Commission report: ``Prior to the passage of the one-gun-a-month law, South Carolina was a leading source state for guns traced to New York City, accounting for 39% of guns recovered in criminal investigations. Following the implementation of the law, South Carolina virtually dropped off of the statistical list of source states for firearms trafficked to the northeast.'' Maryland--the most recent state to pass a limit on handgun purchases-- passed its law in 1996 and has already seen the benefits. According to testimony from the Maryland State Police: ``In 1991 Maryland was nationally ranked second in terms of suppliers of crime guns to the City of New York. By 1997, one year after the passage of Maryland's one gun a month law, Maryland moved out of the top ten suppliers of crime guns to New York City.'' So limits on gun sales are working in some regions. But we need a national law to prevent criminals from simply moving their operations from state-to-state. Poll after poll shows that Americans, including gun-owning Americans, want tougher controls on guns. A 1996 University of Chicago study found that 80 percent of those polled support legislation limiting handgun sales to one a month. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American people: stop turning a blind eye to the daily destruction caused by guns in America. I urge my colleagues to have the will to do something to help the youth of America live without the sound of gunshots in their lives. I ask my colleagues to support this common sense approach to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I can't hear.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to update my colleagues on the status of the Public School Modernization Act, which I introduced on January 19 as S. 223. The bill already has 15 cosponsors and I expect the list to continue to grow. Mr. President, I was very pleased to see that the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2000 will call for $25 billion in nationwide bond authority through the Public School Modernization Act. This is a higher total than first contemplated in my bill, S. 223, but I want to make it clear to my colleagues that my cosponsors and I will gladly update the numbers when my bill reaches the Senate floor as an amendment or a stand alone measure. The President's FY 2000 Budget illustrates why the Public School Modernization Act is a great return on our Federal investment. The five year cost of this program will be $3.7 billion, but it will create nearly $25 billion in new bond authority for school districts all over the country. Of this authority, $22.4 billion will be through the School Modernization Bond Program and $2.4 billion will come through the Qualified Zone Academy Bond Program. In addition, $400 million of bond authority will go to Native American tribes or tribal organizations for BIA funded schools. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support this effort to invest in our children's future. I ask all of my collegues to join me in cosponsoring S. 223, the Public School Modernization Act of 1999.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route so that we can allow the National Park Service, together with its partners, to complete its work in bringing recognition to New Jersey's rich coastal history. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Torricelli in sponsoring this legislation. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route was first authorized in 1988 through legislation sponsored by former Senator Bill Bradley and myself. This legislation authorized the Secretary of the Interior to design a vehicular route that would enable the public to enjoy the nationally significant natural and cultural sites along the New Jersey coastline. Thanks to the work of the National Park Service, the Coastal Heritage Trail Route will, at completion, have five theme trails to allow for the self-discovery of topics ranging from maritime history to wildlife migration. These five vehicular discovery trails will travel along the coast of New Jersey, through eight different counties, by way of the Garden State Parkway and State Highway 49. The first theme trail completed is the Maritime History trail. The purpose of this trail is to explore the coastal trade, defense of the nation, and fishing and ship building industries. The second trail is the Coastal Habitats trail. This trail enables visitors to learn about the special natural resources of the New Jersey coast and the plants, animals and especially birds that live there. The recently opened Wildlife Migrations trail, allows individuals to explore the special places that migrating species depend on along New Jersey's coast. A fourth trail is the Historic Settlements trail. When completed, this trail will bring the historic communities whose economies were based on local natural resources to life. The final tour, Relaxation and Inspiration, will depict how people have traditionally used their leisure time, at places such as religious retreats and historic boardwalks. The project, which was originally conceived and designed to recognize the importance of New Jersey's coastal areas in our nation's history, has grown into a rich partnership between the federal government, state and local governments, and private individuals. This partnership demonstrates a commitment among many levels of government and the private sector to bringing history to life. Mr. President, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route is clearly one of the National Park Service's success stories. Legislation to renew authorization for the trail enacted in 1994 appropriately called upon the Park Service to match 50 percent of its federal funding with non-federal funds. I am pleased to report that the Service has gone well beyond that matching requirement. Since 1994, appropriations for the Trail Route totaled $1.8 million. During that same period, the Park Service has raised $2.8 million in matching funds. However, the work is not yet finished. Even though the Park Service has been able to meet the funding requirements, at this time, only the first three trails have been completed. The Park Service plans call for completing the two remaining trails, and adding three new visitor centers and interpretive materials to aid school children as they learn about New Jersey's history. Our bill would make this possible by increasing the authorization level for the trail to $4 million, and extend the authorization to the Year 2004, which would give the Park Service the additional time it needs to complete the Trail Route. The Coastal Heritage Trail Route brings national recognition and stature to many of New Jersey's special places, and helps to contribute to New Jersey's number two industry, tourism. Most importantly, the Trail Route provides residents and visitors with an opportunity to explore New Jersey's natural and cultural history and develop an appreciation for its importance. But what should happen if we don't reauthorize the funds for this program? Among other effects, New Jersey residents and visitors to our state will have lost valuable educational opportunities. Much of the $2 million in grants that the project has successfully generated will have been lost. And there would be a severe impact on tourism if the five themes are not fully developed. Mr. President, I just wanted to take a moment to commend Senator Murkowski, the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senator Thomas, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. They and the members of their staff worked hard in the last Congress to mark up this legislation and report it favorably to the full Senate. Although this bill was approved overwhelmingly by my colleagues in the Senate in the last Congress, the House of Representatives did not vote on this legislation prior to adjournment, and thus we must begin again. I have every confidence that this important legislation will pass both houses of Congress in a timely fashion during this session. Just today, the House Resources Committee reported out the House version of this bill, H.R. 171, introduced by Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo. The completion of the Coastal Heritage Trail Route is an important priority for New Jersey. The trail system will provide a sense of history, not solely for the residents of New Jersey, but for its visitors as well. By repealing the sunset provision on the original act, and increasing the authorization, the National Park Service will be allowed to complete the project that deserves to be finished. I ask unanimous consent that copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that now we proceed directly to morning business. Is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on Monday morning just past, President Clinton submitted his annual budget to the Congress, but unlike prior submissions, this budget is much more than a plan for a single fiscal year; this is a long-term blueprint for the 21st century. It prepares for the impending retirement of the baby boomers. It ensures that younger Americans will enjoy the security of Social Security and Medicare. And it provides a $500 billion tax cut to promote savings by ordinary Americans. Now, importantly, it achieves these goals while increasing national savings and dramatically reducing our public debt. Mr. President, the Clinton budget is a historic one. It begins a new era in budget policymaking and promises to shape our Nation's future for years, for even decades, to come. The Federal Government at long last has put its fiscal house in order. Last year was the first year since 1969 that we ran a budget surplus--a unified budget surplus, I point out. This year that surplus will be even larger. And many analysts see budget surpluses continuing for years to come. Our Government is the smallest that it has been, on a relative basis, in a quarter century, and we have improved our fiscal condition for 7 years in a row--the best record in U.S. history. Much of the credit for this success goes to President Clinton and the congressional Democrats, but I hasten to point out that much of the impetus that brought us to the point that we are came because we did this in a bipartisan fashion. And I speak as the ranking member of the Budget Committee. The President lent the considerable force of his office and his persuasion and worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get to this fairly enviable position to produce a balanced budget agreement. So there is plenty of credit to go around for an accomplishment that is well in place. I hope we can resume our work in similarly bipartisan and cooperative ways because there is so much left to be done. In my view, President Clinton's budget submission provides an excellent roadmap for that work. The heart of the President's plan is its allocation of roughly 90 percent of projected budget surpluses to three key areas: Saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and cutting taxes to promote savings for ordinary Americans. Social Security now is projected to be insolvent by 2032. The President's plan would preserve the program until 2055. The plan also would extend Medicare solvency from the year 2008 to 2020. In addition, the budget includes a $500 billion tax cut to promote savings among ordinary Americans in new ``USA accounts.'' That is way more than a tax cut; it is a way to help all Americans invest in the private sector and share in the benefits of economic growth. These priorities--saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, and cutting taxes for retirement--are all designed to increase savings, and that is essential. After all, while we have a unified surplus today, our public debt--that debt owed outside our Government--is still $3.7 trillion. That is the debt owed to the public. We will also face huge unfunded liabilities when the baby boomers begin to retire. We need to prepare for that future, and that is why it is important that we pay off our debts, reduce interest costs, and increase private investment. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testified that that is the best way to promote long-term economic growth. And it is the only way to ensure that when the baby boomers retire we will be able to meet our obligations. Beyond devoting most of the budget surpluses for savings, President Clinton's budget also includes some important investments in our future. All are fully offset as required by budget rules and therefore protect the budget caps. Perhaps most importantly, the budget makes a strong commitment to quality education. It would help modernize our schools, hire more teachers, reduce class size, and improve educational standards. Together these initiatives would help ensure that Americans are equipped to compete in the global economy. Everyone is aware that this century, the 20th century, has been defined as the American century because of the progress that we made. After winning two World Wars and having engaged in other conflicts that ultimately produced peace, American leadership was at the helm of global economic growth. The budget also calls for a variety of other targeted tax cuts such as new credits to help families support long-term care and child care. It increases our commitment to our men and women in the military. It was made clear in newspapers across the country in the last few days that we are having significant problems recruiting and retaining those people that we would like to have serve us in the military. So it reflects the President's commitment to strengthen that; possibly to encourage young people to spend some time in the military and to encourage those who have experience and longevity to continue to do the job that they are capable of and not be attracted simply by a momentary better opportunity in the private sector. The budget also reflects the President's commitment to strengthening our communities by hiring more police officers, cleaning up our environment, and fighting sprawl. We cannot go into every detail of the budget here today, but overall I think this is an excellent proposal. It is bold, it is innovative, and it has the right priorities for our future. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed that the response to the President's budget, like other things that happen in Congress, has so far been too partisan. Some Republicans have accused the President of returning to an era of big government. This claim is so preposterous it is difficult to take it seriously when we look at the amounts of moneys being spent on government and see that, relative to the GDP, it is at the lowest point that it has been since 1974. This budget, after all, would reserve almost 90 percent of the surpluses for debt reduction. It would be hard to get more fiscally responsible. I respect the views of my Republican colleagues who have honest disagreements with the President. I hope we can work together on this budget issue. However, I do want to express my strong opposition to one element of the Republican's budget plan, and that is their proposal for cuts across the board in tax rates. I want to emphasize that I strongly support tax relief for ordinary Americans. In particular, I support the $500-plus billion in tax cuts for savings that are included in the President's budget for ordinary Americans. Unfortunately, the Republican position is to spend much of the budget surplus for tax rate cuts that go disproportionately to Americans with the highest incomes. According to one analysis, the Republican proposal would provide more than $20,000 for those in the top 1 percent of earners who have incomes of more than $800,000. Just look at the chart. It looks like a fairly ridiculous comparison, but the top 1 percent of those earning $833,000--those folks are in the top 1 percent; that is not the entire 1 percent--they would get a tax cut of $20,697, but the person who works hard and is included in the 60 percent of our American wage earners whose incomes are below $38,000 would get a $99 tax cut. Mr. President, $20,000 for the high-income wealthy people, $99 for the average American; it is not fair and I hope that it will be reconsidered by our friends on the Republican side. Even worse, these tax breaks for the highest income Americans would come at the direct expense of Medicare. Medicare has become such an important program in our society, such a commitment, that it is valued by Americans across the board. We see its effects on the better health and the longevity that our citizens enjoy and the quality of life they experience in those longer lives in their later years. So it would be wrong to sacrifice some addition to the solvency of Medicare for a tax break across the board that gives someone earning over $800,000 in a single year a $20,000-plus tax break. President Clinton's budget reflects the values and priorities of most Americans, and I hope that many of its proposals will enjoy bipartisan support. The American public loves it when we work in a bipartisan fashion, and I noted that when we got to the balanced budget agreement for fiscal year 1997. We had all kinds of comments--it is a pleasure not to see any bickering, not to see any sharp diatribes, not to see any acerbic discussions; it is a pleasure to see Senators working together on behalf of all Americans. So this focus for this budget is on the future: saving Social Security, strengthening Medicare, providing tax cuts and promoting savings for ordinary Americans. Together these policies will help ensure a vibrant economy and a secure future for all Americans. So I hope my colleagues will support the President's approach. I look forward to doing what I can to work with them to address the serious fiscal issues facing our Nation and to prepare us for the 21st century, which I think can become the second American century. I yield the floor.