Frank Lautenberg

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. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help prevent the tragedies that occur when children gain access to firearms. Each year, there are 10,000 injuries and deaths due to the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a firearm. Many of these incidents involve children who have gained access to improperly stored guns. Recently, a family in my home state of New Jersey suffered this type of tragedy. Akeen Williams, a 4-year-old boy for Lawnside, was visiting a relative with his 5-year-old sister, Gabrielle, and their 6-year-old brother, Phillip. Eventually, the children were put in a bedroom for an afternoon nap. But they found a gun stored in the room, and Akeen and Gabrielle began playing with it. The gun accidentally discharged, and Akeen was hit in the face by the ricocheting bullet. Across the nation, similar stories have become all too common. Families in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, Edinboro, and Springfield are still struggling to deal with the horrific shootings in their communities. We must find new ways to stop gun violence. In many other areas the federal government has taken steps to protect consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags; drug containers have childproof caps; and lawn mowers have guards and automatic braking devices. It is hard to understand how anyone can oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time has come to hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety. The bill I am introducing today will help prevent children from being killed or injured in firearm tragedies. My bill would require that all handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired by an authorized user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this requirement would not go into effect until 3 years after the bill is enacted. Additionally, to spur additional innovation and help lower the cost of the new handgun designs, my bill would also authorize the National Institute of Justice to provide grants for improvements in firearms safety. In order to prevent the unauthorized use of handguns and better protect children in the 3-year period before this regulation goes into effect, my bill would also require that, 90 days after enactment, all handguns be sold with a locking device and a warning concerning responsible firearm storage. Despite what some members of the gun lobby may say, the technology to make handguns childproof exists today. Since 1976, more than 30 patents have been granted for various technologies that will prevent a handgun from being fired by anyone except the authorized user. For example, the SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-button combination lock that is incorporated into the grip of a handgun. If the buttons are not pushed in the proper sequence, the gun will not fire. These locks sell for $80 each, and the Boston police department recently announced that these locks will be standard equipment for its officers. Similarly, the Fulton Arms company in Texas has developed a revolver that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic ring. And Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has designed a prototype handgun that emits a radio signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a small transponder that returns a coded radio signal. In addition to making children safer, these technologies will also help law enforcement. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows that about 16 percent of the officers killed in the line of duty, as many as 19 in a single year, are killed by a suspect armed with either the officer's firearm or that of another officer. Because of the potential to stop these ``take away'' shootings, the National Institute of Justice has funded studies of these technologies and supported development of the Colt prototype. However, in order to ensure that the police have the weapons they need to protect the public, law enforcement entities are exempt from the requirements in the bill. None of the provisions in this legislation will burden the vast majority of firearm owners who are already storing their handguns safely and securely. Of course, Congress cannot legislate responsibility. But we can and should take steps to lessen the likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands and be used improperly. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this measure and help make homes, school, and communities safer for our children. Mr. President, 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 legislation that will help prevent the tragedies that occur when children gain access to firearms. Each year, there are 10,000 injuries and deaths due to the accidental discharge or unauthorized use of a firearm. Many of these incidents involve children who have gained access to improperly stored guns. Recently, a family in my home state of New Jersey suffered this type of tragedy. Akeen Williams, a 4-year-old boy for Lawnside, was visiting a relative with his 5-year-old sister, Gabrielle, and their 6-year-old brother, Phillip. Eventually, the children were put in a bedroom for an afternoon nap. But they found a gun stored in the room, and Akeen and Gabrielle began playing with it. The gun accidentally discharged, and Akeen was hit in the face by the ricocheting bullet. Across the nation, similar stories have become all too common. Families in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, Edinboro, and Springfield are still struggling to deal with the horrific shootings in their communities. We must find new ways to stop gun violence. In many other areas the federal government has taken steps to protect consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags; drug containers have childproof caps; and lawn mowers have guards and automatic braking devices. It is hard to understand how anyone can oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time has come to hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety. The bill I am introducing today will help prevent children from being killed or injured in firearm tragedies. My bill would require that all handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired by an authorized user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this requirement would not go into effect until 3 years after the bill is enacted. Additionally, to spur additional innovation and help lower the cost of the new handgun designs, my bill would also authorize the National Institute of Justice to provide grants for improvements in firearms safety. In order to prevent the unauthorized use of handguns and better protect children in the 3-year period before this regulation goes into effect, my bill would also require that, 90 days after enactment, all handguns be sold with a locking device and a warning concerning responsible firearm storage. Despite what some members of the gun lobby may say, the technology to make handguns childproof exists today. Since 1976, more than 30 patents have been granted for various technologies that will prevent a handgun from being fired by anyone except the authorized user. For example, the SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-button combination lock that is incorporated into the grip of a handgun. If the buttons are not pushed in the proper sequence, the gun will not fire. These locks sell for $80 each, and the Boston police department recently announced that these locks will be standard equipment for its officers. Similarly, the Fulton Arms company in Texas has developed a revolver that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic ring. And Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has designed a prototype handgun that emits a radio signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a small transponder that returns a coded radio signal. In addition to making children safer, these technologies will also help law enforcement. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows that about 16 percent of the officers killed in the line of duty, as many as 19 in a single year, are killed by a suspect armed with either the officer's firearm or that of another officer. Because of the potential to stop these ``take away'' shootings, the National Institute of Justice has funded studies of these technologies and supported development of the Colt prototype. However, in order to ensure that the police have the weapons they need to protect the public, law enforcement entities are exempt from the requirements in the bill. None of the provisions in this legislation will burden the vast majority of firearm owners who are already storing their handguns safely and securely. Of course, Congress cannot legislate responsibility. But we can and should take steps to lessen the likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands and be used improperly. I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this measure and help make homes, school, and communities safer for our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to introduce the Public School Modernization Act of 1999. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my cosponsors, Senators Robb, Kennedy, Daschle, Conrad, Bingaman, Edwards, Torricelli, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Boxer, and Johnson. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today is about opportunity. If there is one essential job of a responsive government, it is to provide opportunity--especially for young Americans. A solid education allows young people to open the door to a world of opportunity. However, too many American children open the door each morning to enter a schoolhouse with inadequate facilities for a modern learning environment. To help remedy this situation, my Public School Modernization Act will fuel a nationwide effort to renovate older schools and build new, state-of-art educational facilities. Mr. President, that is why this legislation must be at the top of the agenda for the 106th Congress. As we face the new millennium, we must invest in our young people--our future. Congress must look ahead to the challenges of the next century and prepare a new generation of Americans to continue our world leadership in innovation, industry, arts and science. Mr. President, this legislation will improve the very base, the very foundation of American education. Our children's educational experience begins with the buildings they learn in every day. We know the condition of these buildings has a direct impact on learning. A Georgetown University study revealed that the achievement levels of students taught in substandard educational facilities were 11 percent lower than students in modern facilities. Similarly, a 1996 Virginia study also found an 11 percentile point difference between students in substandard buildings and those in modern facilities. Both of these studies were controlled for other variables, such as a student's socioeconomic status. Mr. President, this data, and numerous other studies like it, allows us to formulate a simple equation: Modern Schools Equal Better Learning. Unfortunately, too many of our nation's school buildings fall into the inadequate category. A 1995 General Accounting Office report revealed that one-third of all schools, serving 14 million students, need extensive repair or replacement. In addition, 7 million students attend school every day with life-threatening safety code violations. How can we expect our children to effectively focus on their lessons in such an environment? In my home state of New Jersey we have a range of school modernization needs. The condition of low income, urban school facilities were at issue in a decades-long lawsuit that was recently settled. However, the problem is not just an urban problem. In my State, and across the U.S., it is a suburban and rural problem as well. For example, suburban Montgomery Township has seen its enrollment grow by 99.6 percent over last 6 years. Another suburban district, South Brunswick, has seen enrollment grow by 60 percent in the past five years. One South Brunswick's student, sixth grader Amy Wolf, told me that the overcrowding of facilities has prevented teachers from working on a ``one to one'' basis with students. This overcrowding often costs students their normal recreation area. Former playgrounds and sports fields on many suburban school campuses are becoming classroom trailer parks because of escalating enrollment. In addition to overcrowding, suburban schools are crumbling. Many of these facilities, built quickly in the 1960s, are not holding up well and need extensive repair. And in older, urban schools the condition and age of buildings is making it harder to move more computers into the classrooms or wire schools to the Internet. According to the GAO report, nearly half of all schools don't have an electrical system ready for the full-scale use of computers. In addition, 60 percent lack the conduits necessary to connect classrooms to a computer network. Mr. President, to remedy this situation, my Public School Modernization Act presents school districts all over the country with a unique opportunity to renovate existing buildings and build new schoolhouses from the ground up. The bill will provide special bond authority to school districts that will allow these districts to raise the necessary funds for school modernization by offering Federal tax credits to bondholders in lieu of traditional interest payments by States or school districts. The low cost feature for school districts is a simple concept. The districts will not be obligated to pay interest to the bondholders. Rather the bondholders would receive a Federal tax credit equivalent to interest payments. Mr. President, these savings will free up local school district funds for teaching and learning. The savings could also result in significant property tax relief for the community. In addition, this federal legislation will not interfere in local control of education. The Public School Modernization Act offers opportunity--not continuous Federal oversight or Federal agency sign- off for every project. The act simply requires States and school districts to conduct a survey of their school facility needs and make sure that the bonding authority is distributed in a way that ensures that schools with the greatest needs and least resources do indeed benefit from the program. This new bond authority will be split between two programs. Most of the authority will result from a new program, called Qualified School Construction Bonds. The majority of this bond authority, 65 percent, will be allocated to States in proportion to each State's share of funds under the Title I Basic Grant formula. The remaining 35 percent of the authority to issue these special, 15 year bonds, would be allocated to the 100 school districts with the largest number of low income children and in addition, to as many as 25 districts that demonstrate a particular need, such as very high enrollment growth or a low level of resources. The rest of the bond authority will come from an existing program, Qualified Zone Academy Bonds, created by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It also provides a tax credit in lieu of interest, but for a variety of school expenses, including school modernization. This bond program will be significantly expanded and improved by this legislation. Mr. President, the time for this legislation is now, and it must be enacted during this Congress. The vast majority of Americans support a major federal investment in modernizing public schools. It should be a bipartisan goal, and I hope that a number of Republicans will cosponsor on this bill before it becomes law. The Public School Modernization Act is long overdue, especially when you consider that President Eisenhower first called for Federal school construction legislation in his 1955 State of the Union address. I hope we can make this proposal a reality before the 45th anniversary of President Eisenhower's call to action. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1999 with Senator DeWine--a bill that will, if enacted into law, save 500-700 lives a year. The Safe and Sober Streets Act establishes a legal limit for drunken driving at .08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) in all 50 states. Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I offered this very bill last March as an amendment to the ISTEA reauthorization bill, now known as TEA-21, on behalf of the millions victims of drunk driving crashes. We were joined by 22 other cosponsors. I am proud to say that the Senate--this body--voted 62 to 32 to adopt this amendment. It was supported by one half of each caucus. The Senate cast this strong vote because it knew that establishing .08 as the legal definition of drunken driving is responsible and will save lives. The Senate knew that this bill would encourage states to adopt .08 BAC laws. Without it, states will get bogged down in legislative gridlock and will not be able to pass their own .08 BAC laws. As a result, lives that could have been saved will have instead been lost. Mr. President, the Senate spoke loud and clear when it voted to adopt .08. We voted to save lives. We voted to protect our families from the grief associated with losing a loved one to drunk driving. We resisted the pressure of a powerful special interest and voted against drunk driving. The President called on Congress to pass the bill and he would have signed it into law. The problem came after the Senate's resounding vote. The special interests stepped up their pressure tactics to stop our .08 amendment. Despite commitments granted, the House Rules Committee denied a vote. Democracy was squelched in back-room politics. Last May, Mr. President, the TEA-21 conference leaders--seven people--ignored the will of the Senate and the American people. The final TEA-21 bill dropped the .08 BAC provision and replaced it with a $500 million, six-year incentive grant program specifically for .08 BAC. The incentive grant program, as constructed in TEA-21, will not produce national .08 standard. Mr. President, when it comes to an issue like the minimum drinking age, which I authored here in the Senate in 1984, or the Zero Tolerance for underage drinking and driving, authored by Senator Byrd in 1995 or .08 in 1998, there are only two things the federal government can do. We can encourage the states to act by giving them money or withholding it until they have acted. The former has never worked, but the latter already has. Withholding federal resources, which has been tested and proven constitutionally sound, has worked. All 50 states have a minimum drinking age of 21. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tell us that the 21 law has saved the lives of over 10,000 precious young Americans. South Carolina just became the 50th state to pass a Zero Tolerance statute. No state has ever lost federal highway dollars because of the federal government's efforts to insure that our nation's young people do not drink and drive. The only consequence has been that lives have been saved. Mr. President, under the bill that In am introducing today, all states would have three years in which to adopt .08 BAC as the DWI definition. After those three years, states would, as with the 21 drinking age and Zero Tolerance, face a withholding of five percent of their highway construction funds. Those who voted against the Safe and Sober Streets Act or prevented a vote in the other body said this was a choice between sanctions and incentives. It is not. This was, and is, a choice between what works and what does not. Worse, the incentive grant program contained in TEA-21 is a classic case of how not to construct an incentive grant program. For example, most of the money goes to states that have already adopted .08 laws. Why provide incentive grants to states which have already acted? What incentive does a state need to pass .08 if it has already passed .08? Yet, that's what the $500 million incentive grant program does. Mr. President, we have provided a fig leaf to cover our shame for failing to do what 70 percent of the American people expected us to do--to override the narrow special interest and act to protect public health and safety. Mr. President, we know that .08 BAC is the right level for DWI. Adopting this level will simply bring the United States into the ranks of most other industrialized nations in setting reasonable drunk driving limits. Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Austria and Switzerland have .08 BAC limits. France, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands' limit is .05 BAC. Sweden's is .02 BAC. Last year, supporters of our amendment included President Clinton. The National Safety Council. The Center for Disease Control. The American Automobile Manufacturers Association. Kemper, State Farm and Nationwide insurance companies. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. American College of Emergency Physicians. Consumer Federation of America. National Fire Protection Association. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Newspaper editorial boards, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Baltimore Sun. But more important than the support of scores of businesses, health and science organizations, governmental agencies, public opinion leaders, is the support from the families and friends of victims of drunk driving--like the Fraziers of Westminister, Maryland, and Louise and Ronald Hammell, of Tuckerton, New Jersey. Brenda and Randy lost their nine year old daughter, Ashley, to drunk driving. Louise and Ronald lost their 17 year old son, Matthew, to drunk driving. Mr. President, organizations who support this bill have one thing in mind: the public's interest. The health and safety of our communities and of our roads is in the public's interest. Every thirty minutes, someone in America--a mother, husband, child, grandchild, brother, sister--dies in an alcohol related crash. In the United States, 39 percent of all fatal crashes are alcohol related. Alcohol is the single greatest factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries. .08 is a reasonable and responsible level at which to draw the line in fighting drunk driving. It is at .08 that a person is drunk and should not be driving. Adopting .08 BAC is just common sense. Think of it this way: you are in your car at night, driving on a two lane road. Your child is sitting next to you. You see a car's headlights approaching. The driver is a 170 pound man who just came from a bar, and drank five bottles of beer in one hour on an empty stomach. If he were driving in Maryland, he would not be considered drunk. But if he were driving in Virginia, he would be. Does this make sense? We should not have a patchwork quilt of laws when we are dealing with drunk driving. This bill--.08--simply reflects what sound science and research proves, and interjects some reality into our definition of drunk driving and applies it to all 50 states. No objective, credible person or organization can deny that adopting .08 BAC laws is the right thing to do. This bill does not eliminate the incentive grant program. In deference to those who authorized the incentive grant program, but who also supported my .08 bill, this bill specifically keeps the grant program. States will have the benefit of incentives for the first five years. After that, the money will be withheld. But, given past experience, I expect no state to lose funds. The Senate has strongly supported this once. It should do so again. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help my constituent Vova Malofienko, and his parents, to live a healthy and productive life in the United States. Tragically, Vova was a victim of the Chernobyl reactor explosion. He has battled Leukemia his whole life. Since his arrival in the United States for cancer treatment in 1992, he and his parents have sought to remain here because the air, food, and water in the Ukraine are still contaminated with radiation and are perilous to those like Vova who have a weakened immune system. Additionally, cancer treatment available in the Ukraine is not as sophisticated as medical care available in the United States. Although Vova's cancer has gone into remission because of the excellent health care he has received, the seven other children who came to the United States with Vova were not as fortunate. They returned to the Ukraine and they died, one by one, because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not one child survived. Because of his perilous medical condition, Vova and his family have done everything possible to remain in the United States. Since 1992, they have obtained a number of visa extensions, and I have helped them with their efforts. In March of 1997, the last time the Malofienkos' visas were expiring, I appealed to the INS and the family was given what I was told would be final one-year extension. Across the country, people have rallied in support of Vova's cause. The Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund, national Ukrainian and religious organizations, and Vova's classmates at Millburn Middle School have all worked to help the Malofienkos. During the last session of Congress, I introduced legislation to help Vova and his family. With the help of Senators Abraham, Hatch, and Daschle, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. However, the House failed to pass it before the end of the last session. I hope that my Senate colleagues will help move this legislation forward expeditiously. We must give Vova and his family a chance to live their lives in peace. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Daschle, Baucus, Reid, Boxer, Wyden, Breaux, Bryan, Levin, Murray, Schumer, Torricelli, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Lieberman, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup of potentially thousands of toxic waste sites across the country. Just as importantly, this bill is about jobs, revenue and economic opportunity, because it will help turn abandoned industrial sites into engines of economic development. Mr. President, I have been interested for a long time now in the issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial sites, commonly known as brownfields. Our Nation's great industrial tradition was the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. But this industrial tradition also entailed tremendous environmental costs. Sites were contaminated, and then when the manufacturers, the companies left, the legacy remained behind. Today, decaying industrial plants define the skyline and contaminate the land in many of our urban areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of those manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs and often inner- city hope with them. However, ``brownfields'' as we have come to know them, can be found anywhere--in the inner cities, the suburbs and in rural areas. Any time that an industry leaves an area or a business goes out of business we face the specter of the unknown--they contaminate not only the aesthetics of the area but also the opportunity for jobs and for business investment. This bill provides the means to help investigate and facilitate funding for the cleanup of these areas, wherever they are found. I continue to feel as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 1993, 1996, and again in 1997, that a brownfields cleanup program can spur significant economic development and create jobs. The nation's Mayors have estimated that they lose between $200 and $500 million a year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting idle, and that returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. Each day that Congress fails to act on brownfields liability, it deprives our cities of unique redevelopment opportunities. This type of cleanup initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense. A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private investment, a $1 million increase on the local tax base, and more than 170 new jobs. In Elizabeth, NJ, a former municipal landfill is being turned into a major mall with 5,000 employees. Mr. President, the potential for job creation across the country is enormous, and every revitalized brownfields may represent for someone a field of dreams, especially to an unemployed urban worker. But this bill is not about jobs alone. Brownfield cleanup also means that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment, and future generations are not left with unknown problems and unused properties. On the other hand, the risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low and others even nonexistent, because brownfields are often abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by just the perception of environmental contamination. But their full economic use is being stymied because there is no ready mechanism for getting them evaluated or, if necessary, cleaned up, even when the owner of the property is ready, willing and eager to do so. In addition, prospective purchasers and developers are reluctant to get involved in transactions with these properties because of their concern, however minimal, they might potentially create environmental liability. The challenge is to turn these abandoned properties into thriving businesses that can generate needed jobs and act as a catalyst for economic development. My legislation would provide financial assistance in the form of grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate brownfields sites. This would enable interested parties to know what would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit the property. My bill would also provide grants to State and local governments to establish and capitalize low-interest loan programs. These funds would be loaned to prospective purchasers, municipalities and others to facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where traditional lending mechanisms may not be available. The minimum seed money involved in the program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, as well as turning lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future. The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when parties couldn't have reasonably known that the property was contaminated. It would also provide Superfund liability relief to persons who own property next door to a brownfields property, so long as the person did not cause the release and exercises appropriate care. Mr. President, for several Congresses there has been bipartisan interest in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other body on the other side of the Capitol. I am hopeful we can move this legislation forward in a cooperative way with support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Daschle, Baucus, Reid, Boxer, Wyden, Breaux, Bryan, Levin, Murray, Schumer, Torricelli, Mikulski, Durbin, Leahy, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Kennedy, and Lieberman, I am introducing the Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to foster the cleanup of potentially thousands of toxic waste sites across the country. Just as importantly, this bill is about jobs, revenue and economic opportunity, because it will help turn abandoned industrial sites into engines of economic development. Mr. President, I have been interested for a long time now in the issue of these abandoned, underutilized and contaminated industrial sites, commonly known as brownfields. Our Nation's great industrial tradition was the lifeblood of our Nation's economy. But this industrial tradition also entailed tremendous environmental costs. Sites were contaminated, and then when the manufacturers, the companies left, the legacy remained behind. Today, decaying industrial plants define the skyline and contaminate the land in many of our urban areas. Their rusting frames, like aging skyscrapers, are a silent reminder of those manufacturers that left, taking inner-city jobs and often inner- city hope with them. However, ``brownfields'' as we have come to know them, can be found anywhere--in the inner cities, the suburbs and in rural areas. Any time that an industry leaves an area or a business goes out of business we face the specter of the unknown--they contaminate not only the aesthetics of the area but also the opportunity for jobs and for business investment. This bill provides the means to help investigate and facilitate funding for the cleanup of these areas, wherever they are found. I continue to feel as I did when I introduced similar legislation in 1993, 1996, and again in 1997, that a brownfields cleanup program can spur significant economic development and create jobs. The nation's Mayors have estimated that they lose between $200 and $500 million a year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting idle, and that returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. Each day that Congress fails to act on brownfields liability, it deprives our cities of unique redevelopment opportunities. This type of cleanup initiative makes good environmental sense and good business sense. A pilot project in Cleveland resulted in $3.2 million in private investment, a $1 million increase on the local tax base, and more than 170 new jobs. In Elizabeth, NJ, a former municipal landfill is being turned into a major mall with 5,000 employees. Mr. President, the potential for job creation across the country is enormous, and every revitalized brownfields may represent for someone a field of dreams, especially to an unemployed urban worker. But this bill is not about jobs alone. Brownfield cleanup also means that dangerous contaminants are removed from our environment, and future generations are not left with unknown problems and unused properties. On the other hand, the risks posed by many of these sites may be relatively low and others even nonexistent, because brownfields are often abandoned or underutilized industrial or commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by just the perception of environmental contamination. But their full economic use is being stymied because there is no ready mechanism for getting them evaluated or, if necessary, cleaned up, even when the owner of the property is ready, willing and eager to do so. In addition, prospective purchasers and developers are reluctant to get involved in transactions with these properties because of their concern, however minimal, they might potentially create environmental liability. The challenge is to turn these abandoned properties into thriving businesses that can generate needed jobs and act as a catalyst for economic development. My legislation would provide financial assistance in the form of grants to local and State governments to inventory and evaluate brownfields sites. This would enable interested parties to know what would be required to clean the site and what reuse would best suit the property. My bill would also provide grants to State and local governments to establish and capitalize low-interest loan programs. These funds would be loaned to prospective purchasers, municipalities and others to facilitate voluntary cleanup actions where traditional lending mechanisms may not be available. The minimum seed money involved in the program would leverage substantial economic payoffs, as well as turning lands which may be of negative worth into assets for the future. The bill also would limit the potential liability of innocent buyers of these properties, and it would set a standard to gauge when parties couldn't have reasonably known that the property was contaminated. It would also provide Superfund liability relief to persons who own property next door to a brownfields property, so long as the person did not cause the release and exercises appropriate care. Mr. President, for several Congresses there has been bipartisan interest in addressing brownfields, both in the Senate and in the other body on the other side of the Capitol. I am hopeful we can move this legislation forward in a cooperative way with support of Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their support, and for their continued work in this very important component of our national HIV/AIDS strategy. parkinson's disease funding

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy concerning pediatric AIDS demonstrations funded under Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would first like to commend and thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their work to ensure our Nation's continued strong commitment to our children and families tragically infected with HIV by providing support for Title IV of the Ryan White CARE Act. Title IV programs are designed to coordinate health care and assure that it is focused on families' needs and based in their communities. These programs are the providers of care to the majority of children, youth, and families with HIV/AIDS in our country, ensuring these families have access to the comprehensive array of services they need. A portion of Title IV funds may be used to provide peer-based training and technical assistance through national organizations that collaborate with projects to ensure development of innovative models of family centered and youth centered care; advanced provider training for pediatric, adolescent, and family HIV providers; coordination with research programs, and other technical assistance activities. The Senate report stated that the Committee intends for the Department to continue its Title IV support of the National Pediatric and Family HIV Resource Center located within the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The Title IV funding needed to support the Center's work is $1.1 million per year. Is it correct that the managers intend for the Department to continue to support the National Pediatric and Family HIV Resource Center?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I very much regret that once again--for the 3rd Congress, that's six years--the Congress has refused to take action on brownfields legislation because of unrelated and very controversial issues related to the Superfund program. As I have for three Congresses, on the very first day of the 105th Congress, along with ten other Senators, I introduced S. 18, a bill to encourage brownfields revitalization efforts. Brownfields are abandoned, or idle, former industrial properties which may or may not be contaminated. Brownfields exist in cities, suburbs and rural areas. Their reuse can result in badly needed jobs and significant revenues along with environmental cleanup of hundreds of thousands of communities across the country. One section of S. 18 established an exemption from potential Superfund liability for developers who clean up brownfields but had nothing to do with any contamination that might be present. These provisions merely clarified that Congress did not intend the specter of Superfund liability to deter the purchase and redevelopment of brownfields properties. This simple clarification has long enjoyed broad-based, bipartisan support. Mr. President, on November 7, 1997, I also introduced S. 1497. This bill is in some ways analogous to the brownfields bill, in that it provides an exemption from Superfund liability for homeowners, small businesses, and non-profit organizations which sent only municipal solid waste to Superfund sites. Mr. President, S. 1497 was, so to speak, dedicated to Barbara Williams, and all those like her, who got caught up unfairly in a litigation web that the Congress never intended when Superfund was written. Barbara Williams is the owner of Sunny Ray Restaurant. Ms. Williams was sued and asked to pay for cleanup of a Superfund site, though she only disposed of mashed potatoes and other restaurant waste at that site. She has testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee twice. Mr. President, I find it appalling that this woman was stuck in a Superfund lawsuit, brought by industries that had polluted the site but did not want to pay to clean up their mess. S. 1497 included a provision clarifying that Congress did not intend parties such as homeowners, pizza parlor owners, or girl scouts--that disposed only of household, or household-like trash--to be subject to suit under Superfund. Like brownfields liability exemptions, these exemptions for innocent parties enjoy broad, longstanding, bipartisan support. Mr. President, this is the third consecutive Congress we have negotiated comprehensive Superfund reform, but failed to pass legislation. In the 103rd Congress, the Committee marked up a comprehensive Superfund reform bill that boasted unusually broad-based support, and reported it out on an 13:4 vote. But for reasons which had little to do with Superfund, for reasons that were blatantly political, the bill was not enacted into law. In the 104th Congress, consensus evaporated, and the Republican Majority introduced comprehensive reform bills that can only be described as extreme. In the 105th Congress, the parties got closer, yet, despite the hundreds of hours of work by our staffs, did not get close enough. I personally spent weeks negotiating painstaking details of this complex statute. But unfortunately, rather than resolve remaining differences, the Committee elected to proceed to a partisan mark-up. Indeed, it reported its Superfund bill, S. 8, almost entirely along party lines, with the vote on final passage at 11:7. Mr. President, the Committee may or may not take up comprehensive reform again in the 106th Congress. Given GAO's August, 1998 report finding that EPA has already selected remedies at 95% of non-federal Superfund sites, I question whether this effort is at all worthwhile. But the battle lines are beginning to be drawn. It is reported that some are urging industry to spend as much as did the tobacco industry-- some $40 million--to have their way. But while my Republican colleagues persist in an all or nothing strategy, I urge that this body be cognizant of the price exacted by this approach. This posture essentially takes our nation's cities and small businesses as hostages in a war over Superfund. And the consequences are very real. The nation's Mayors estimate they lose between $200 and $500 million a year in tax revenues from brownfields sitting idle, and that returning these sites to productive use could create some 236,000 new jobs. They, as well as developers and bankers, say immediate action is imperative, since new tax laws provide incentives for brownfields redevelopment, but expire in 2001. In short, the window is narrow during which brownfields reform will make any difference at all. Each day Congress fails to act on brownfields liability, it deprives our cities of unique redevelopment opportunities. And as for municipal solid waste, as Mrs. Williams testified, neither her lawyer's fees nor her settlement costs are covered by insurance, nor are they business expenses she can deduct. She must make enough money to pay these penalties on top of her other bills and her payroll. Each day Congress fails to free Barbara Williams and requires that she pay still more lawyers' fees, Congress adds to her burden, or as she testified, expands the ``cloud'' cast over her head. Mr. President, I submit that holding these non-controversial, practical and entirely beneficial bills hostage to an ideological fight over the Superfund program is not in the public interest. I am very disappointed that for the sixth year in a row, we withheld action on legislation that could provide enormous benefits to the public. This is what gives government a bad name.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to convey to the full Senate my overwhelming support for the confirmation of Harold Lucas to be the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) new Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. I especially want to thank Chairman D'Amato and Ranking Member Sarbanes, and all the members of the Senate Banking Committee, for moving Mr. Lucas' nomination so quickly through the Committee. Mr. Lucas has first-hand knowledge of the challenges facing our nation's public housing authorities. Prior to his nomination, Mr. Lucas served as Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the City of Newark, New Jersey. When Mr. Lucas took hold of the reins at the Housing Authority in 1992, HUD considered it to be a ``troubled'' agency, and had given it failing grades since its creation in the 1970s. Within two years of taking over, Mr. Lucas turned things around. Last year, the agency received a 94 percent rating--an A in anyone's book--and is now considered one of the top performing housing agencies in both New Jersey and the nation. During his tenure, Mr. Lucas tore down many dilapidated high-rise buildings and replaced them with more attractive townhouse-style housing that provides a better quality of life for tenants and improves the neighborhoods that surround it. Mr. Lucas' dedication to helping public housing residents achieve self-sufficiency, and his strong commitment to ensuring the safety and viability of our public housing stock, are testament to his qualifications for this position. I am confident that our nation's housing authorities will be well served by having someone as dynamic and experienced as Mr. Lucas at the helm. Mr. President, I therefore urge the full Senate to conform, without delay, Mr. Lucas to be HUD's new Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the confirmation of Cardell Cooper to be the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. I thank the members of the Banking Committee, Chairman D'Amato, and Ranking Member Sarbanes for moving Mr. Cooper's nomination swiftly through the Committee. Mr. Cooper served with distinction as mayor of East Orange, New Jersey from 1990 to 1997. Prior to serving as mayor, from 1988 to 1990, Mr. Cooper was County Administrator for Essex County, where he was responsible for day-to-day management of the one of the largest and most urban counties in New Jersey. As a mayor and county administrator, Mr. Cooper was on the front lines. His practical experience, coupled with his passion for public service, makes him an excellent choice for this post. He knows the critical difference that development programs can make to communities and their residents, and the importance of forging strong partnerships between local, state and federal governments. His commitment to local economic development programs serving our young people, such as YouthBuild, and urban environmental initiatives, such as the brownfields program, will fuel his efforts to help our urban leaders succeed. Through his work with the Conference of Mayors, he has built solid relationships with mayors across the country and enjoys bipartisan support. His endorsement by the Conference of Mayors is a testament to the leadership he has provided. Mr. President, while professional experience and particular skills are important for effective service, Cardell Cooper has the personal strengths and attributes the Senate looks for in nominees to high posts. He is an energetic leader, with a strong work ethic and a deep commitment to public service and the mission of the Department. I can personally attest to his integrity and ability to work well within a larger organization. Mr. President, I hope the full Senate will act expeditiously to confirm Cardell Cooper as HUD's new Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. confirmation of harold lucas

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I support this resolution, which is essentially a technical change that will facilitate enforcement of the Budget Act in the Senate. This resolution would update the following figures for purposes of enforcing points of order in the Senate only. First, aggregates for revenues, budget authority, outlays, and Social Security revenues and outlays. Second, Section 302(a) allocations for Senate committees. The resolution does not include functional totals or reconciliation instructions. It would not endorse the spending priorities included in the Senate-passed resolution, or any other spending priorities, for that matter. Also, it would not apply to the House of Representatives. It therefore it not a budget resolution in any sense. The allocations and aggregates in this resolution are based on CBO's August baseline estimates, updated for enacted legislation and some technical corrections. The resolution is based on legislation enacted as of today. However, it includes a provision allowing the Chairman to revise the aggregates and allocations once more based only on legislation enacted through the end of the session. This means that each committee, and the Senate paygo ledger, will start the year with a clean slate. Mr. President, since Congress has not adopted a budget resolution for FY99, the Senate is now operating under the budget resolution approved last year for FY98 and beyond. This has the effect of limiting the availability of points of order to enforce the basic rules of the Balanced Budget Agreement. For example, when the Senate considers legislation proposing revenue reductions or new mandatory spending, the Senate's ``pay-as-you-go'' rules require that all costs be offset in the first, the first five, and the second five years of the budget resolution in effect at the time. Since we are now operating under last year's resolution, there is now no point of order available based on the failure of such legislation, for example, to offset all costs in the first year after enactment. This resolution would address this problem. So, Mr. President, I support this resolution. It is not a budget resolution. It does not propose a set of spending priorities. It is simply a technical change that will help us enforce the basic structure of the Budget Enforcement Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the author of the original provision, Mr. President, I can assure my colleagues that it was my intention that state sponsors of terrorist acts against Americans pay the price for their deeds set by U.S. courts. I did not include a waiver because I don't believe countries which sponsor terrorism should be shielded from these judgements. On the interpretation of the waiver added in conference, I would have to rely on the Senator from North Carolina and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. department of energy's windows program

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my pleasure that legislation providing permanent residency in the United States for 13-year-old Vova Malofienko and his family, residents of Short Hills, NJ, passed the Senate. Vova Malofienko has leukemia from his having lived 30 miles from the Chornobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine during and after the infamous disaster. His leukemia is in remission only because of the emergency medical treatment he's received in the United States. Were Vova forced to return to Ukraine, the United States would be placing an innocent child near the front of the line on death row. Vova was one of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States in 1990--and when the seven others later returned to Ukraine, they died one by one because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not a child survived. On behalf of the Malofienkos, I thank my colleagues for their invaluable support of this legislation. We are a compassionate nation that has opened its heart to Vova and his family, who came in dire medical need. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my colleagues a bit more about Vova and his family. Vladimir ``Vova'' Malofienko was born on June 29, 1984 in Chernigov, Ukraine. His mother, Olga Matsko, was born on September 29, 1959 in Piratin, Ukraine, and his father, Alexander Malofienko, was born on December 25, 1957 in Chernigov, Ukraine. Vova was only 2 when the Chornobyl reactor exploded in 1986 and exposed him to radiation. He was diagnosed with leukemia in June 1990 at age 6. Vova and his mother came to the United States later in 1990 on a B-1 visitor's visa so that Vova could attend a cancer treatment camp for children, sponsored by the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. Vova was invited to stay in the United States to receive more extensive treatment and chemotherapy. In November of 1992, Vova's cancer went into remission. Vova's father, Alexander Malofienko joined the family in 1992, also on a B-1 visa. Vova and his family have wanted to remain in the United States because of the extraordinary health concerns facing Vova. Regrettably, as I mentioned earlier, Vova is the only survivor from a group of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States together in 1990. The seven other children returned to Ukraine and have since died. Now that Vova is in remission, it would indeed be tragic to return him to an environment which would once again endanger his life. The air, food, and water in Ukraine are contaminated with radiation that people residing there for several years have grown accustomed to, but which could be perilous to Vova's weakened immune system. Furthermore, treatment available in Ukraine is not as sophisticated and up to date as treatment available in the United States. Before Vova came to the United States, no aggressive treatment for his leukemia had been provided. Although Vova completed his chemotherapy in 1992, he continues to need medical follow-up on a consistent basis, including physical examinations, lab work and radiological examinations to assure early detection and prompt and appropriate therapy in the unfortunate event the leukemia recurs. According to Dr. Peri Kamalakar, Director of the Valerie Fund Children's Center at Newark Beth Israel hospital, where Vova has received care, Vova's cancer is considered high risk with a threat of relapse. He is also at risk to develop significant later complications secondary to the intensive chemotherapy he received, including heart problems and secondary cancers. Another significant risk is relapse in the bone marrow, testis, or central nervous system. Dr. Kamalakar has concluded that Vova's chance for a permanent cure is considerably better if he stays in the United States. I am pleased that this bill has passed today. It is now up to the House of Representatives to send this bill to the President and allow Vova and his family to remain in the United States. Finally, I would like to thank all of the Senators, from both sides of the aisle, who were involved in negotiations on these private relief bills.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I, too thank Senator Snowe, Senator McCain, Majority Leader Lott, and Senators Hollings and Breaux for their assistance on this important economic development initiative. The program will involve the development of an environmentally sound method for dismantling the Navy's many decommissioned vessels. Camden Iron and Metal, a critical partner in this initiative, intends to transport pieces of the Navy's ships on the barge from the shipyard to its facility in Camden for further processing. It is a very important project in the city of Camden and I am grateful for their help. I recognize that discussions are under way with the House regarding the Coast Guard authorization and want to ask the chairman for a commitment to giving this provision priority consideration in those discussions.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to pay tribute to our esteemed colleague from Kentucky, the Minority Whip, Senator Wendell H. Ford. I wish him well. All of us know that we have not heard the last from this dedicated and effective public servant. His retirement from the Senate will end a formal career of public service to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States which has lasted over three decades. After first serving in the Kentucky Senate, he was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1967 and then Governor of Kentucky in 1971. In 1974, he was elected to serve in the United States Senate. Mr. President, in the history of this body, few Senators have protected the interests of his or her state as doggedly as Wendell Ford. Whether the issue was aviation, tobacco, telecommunications or farm legislation, Senator Ford has always put the people of Kentucky first. And even though we have disagreed on a key issue or two, I know that he is guided by what he believes is best for the people of his state. As the senior Senator from Kentucky put it himself: ``If it ain't good for Kentucky, it ain't good for Wendell Ford.'' And the people of Kentucky have shown their deep appreciation to Senator Ford in return. In 1992, he received the largest number of votes ever recorded by a candidate for elected office in the Commonwealth. In March of this year, he became the longest serving United States Senator from Kentucky in history. Mr. President, although New Jersey and Kentucky are very different states, Senator Ford and I share many things in common. First of all, our vintage--we were born in the same year. We both fought for our country in World War II. We both ran businesses before we entered public life. These common experiences helped make Wendell Ford an instant friend and mentor to me when I arrived in the Senate. His extensive knowledge and public service experience has made him an invaluable asset to our caucus' leadership. And he has been quite a leader, now as Minority Whip, first as Chairman and then Ranking Member of the Rules Committee, and in prior years, the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. President, Senator Ford has left a formidable legacy to the nation as a whole, in addition to his legendary status in Kentucky. He was the chief sponsor of the National Voter Registration Act, also known as the ``motor voter'' law. This law helps ensure that more of our citizens are officially registered to participate in our democracy. He was also instrumental in the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1986, and many other landmark aviation and energy laws. The Senior Senator from Kentucky will be greatly missed here in the United States Senate. We will miss his leadership, his experience and also his great wit. But our personal loss will be the Commonwealth of Kentucky's gain. I wish him, his wife Jean, their children and grandchildren Godspeed as he returns to Owensboro.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that key members of the Senate have agreed to pass all the pending private relief bills in one package and send it over to the House. I would like to thank the principals who have been involved in this effort, Senators Hatch, Abraham, Leahy and Kennedy. This package will include my bill to help Vova Malofienko. Let me tell you a little about Vova Malofienko and his family. Vova was born in Chernigov, Ukraine, just 30 miles from the Chornobyl nuclear reactor. In 1986, when he was just two, the reactor exploded and he was exposed to high levels of radiation. He was diagnosed with leukemia in June 1990, shortly before his sixth birthday. Through the efforts of the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund, Vova and his mother came to the United States with seven other children to attend Paul Newman's ``Hole in the Wall'' camp in Connecticut. While in this country, Vova was able to receive extensive cancer treatment and chemotherapy. In November of 1992, his cancer went into remission. Regrettably, the other children from Chornobyl were not as fortunate. They returned to the Ukraine and they died one by one because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not a child survived. The air, food, and water in the Ukraine are still contaminated with radiation and are perilous to those like Vova who have a weakened immune system. Additionally, cancer treatment available in the Ukraine is not as sophisticated as treatment available in the United States. Although Vova completed his chemotherapy in 1992, he continues to need medical follow-up on a consistent basis, including physical examinations, lab work and radiological examinations to assure early detection and prompt and appropriate therapy in the unfortunate event the leukemia recurs. Because of his perilous medical condition, Vova and his family have done everything possible to remain in the United States. Since 1992, they have obtained a number of visa extensions, and I have helped them with their efforts. In March of 1997, the last time the Malofienkos visas were expiring, I appealed to the INS and the family was given what I was told would be final one-year extension. So we have a family battling for over six years now, to stay in this country. And why? So that they can save the life of their child, Vova. Because of the compelling circumstances of their case, I introduced S. 1460, which was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. After I introduced that bill, Senator Abraham, in his capacity as Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, requested a report from the INS and that stayed any further INS proceedings. But at the end of this Congress they would be subject to deportation. That is why I have worked so hard to get this bill passed this session of Congress. This family has endured enough. They cannot have the threat of deportation hanging over their heads. They are dealing with enough trauma from Vova's cancer. I wish my colleagues could meet Vova--then they would understand why I feel so strongly about this case. He is truly a remarkable young man. Throughout his battle against cancer, he has been an inspiration. He has been an honors student at Millburn Middle School, and he is an eloquent spokesperson for children with cancer. He has rallied the community and helped bring out the best in everyone. His dedication, grace, and dignity provide an outstanding example, not just to young people, but to all Americans. Again, I want to thank Senators Hatch, Abraham, Leahy and Kennedy for their diligence. I hope that we will pass this package on Monday and send it to the House and then the President. Then, Vova can continue his fight in the safety of United States.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Dan Coats. While he has only been in the Senate ten years, he has made an important contribution. One example is the work he put into developing the historic, bipartisan Family and Medical Leave Act. Mr. President, believe it or not, even though I am a Democrat from the Northeast and Senator Coats is a Republican from the Midwest, we have worked together on legislation. Senator Coats has consistently fought to improve the lives of our nation's children. This commitment led him to join me in support of the Juvenile Mentoring Program-- otherwise know as JUMP. This program supports mentoring programs across the country, including Big Brothers and Big Sisters. We have fought together for funding and reauthorizing the program because we share the belief that all children can succeed if we lend a helping hand. Senator Coats also became a leading expert in the Senate on military issues as a member of the Armed Services Committee. He also worked hard on education and poverty legislation as a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. Mr. President, during Senator Coats' tenure in the Senate, we did have disagreements over policy issues. One environmental issue consistently put the State of Indiana at odds with the State of New Jersey. We always had a vigorous debate when this issue came to the floor. Despite our differences, he showed me great respect and courtesy during these deliberations. I left these debates with a great respect for his energy and determination to help his state. Mr. President, I wish Senator Coats, his wife Marcia, and their children and grandchildren the very best for the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to an American hero, a great Senator and a wonderful friend--Senator John Glenn. Senator Glenn is retiring after serving the people of Ohio for four terms. But his service to our country did not begin in the Senate, nor will it end here. Senator Glenn served in the Marine Corps during World War II and fought in combat in the South Pacific. He also fought with valor in the Korean conflict and ended up flying 149 missions in both wars. He has received numerous honors including six Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with 18 clusters. He later became a test pilot and set a transcontinental speed record in 1957 for this first flight to average supersonic speed from Los Angeles to New York. In 1959, he was selected to be one of seven astronauts in the space program. Three years later, he made history as the first American to orbit the earth, completing a 5 hour, three orbit flight. His heroism inspired me and all of the American people. He received the Space Congressional Medal of Honor for his service. After 23 years in military service, he retired in 1965 and went into the private sector. Despite his outstanding service to his country, it was not enough for John Glenn. He ran for the Senate in 1974 and is now completing his 24th year. Despite his fame, Senator Glenn was a workhorse, not a showhorse in the Senate. He took on complicated issues like nuclear proliferation, troop readiness, government ethics, civil service reform and campaign finance reform. He did his work with great diligence and thoroughness, with his eye on accomplishment not partisanship. If you add his 23 years of military service to his 24 years of Service to the people of Ohio, that is 47 years of dedication to our nation. But even this is not enough for John Glenn. On October 29th of this year, he will return to space on a shuttle mission. He will be the oldest person ever to travel in space but even then his journey will not be over. He will continue to represent the best of the American spirit and be an informal ambassador for scientific exploration. I wish him, his wife Annie, his children and grandchildren the very best for the future.