Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are spending a few moments discussing the budget. There are obvious differences on both sides with respect to this budget. I commend the chairman, Senator Domenici, and the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for their efforts over many months to fashion a budget and bring it to us. My focal point is not on the vote that is forthcoming; it is on the vote we just concluded with respect to adjournment. In many respects, I share the overall sentiments of the Senator from West Virginia that it is about time we get down to work and business, and if we need to take time to consider the marriage tax penalty and other provisions, we should do that, rather than arbitrarily and conveniently walking away. The concern I have goes to another critical issue, and that is the issue of our inability over many months to bring to this floor a conference report on the juvenile justice bill which includes sensible gun safety measures we all adopted in the wake of the Columbine tragedy. The first-year anniversary of that tragedy is just 7 days away, and we will not be in Washington working on this issue; we will be scattered around the country. I believe--and that is why I joined many of my colleagues voting against adjournment--that we should be here working rather than off about the country on April 20 saying, I am sure, thoughtful and pious comments about our outrage at what happened at Columbine High School and the need to do something. We should be here instead doing something, and our departure should be tempered with the realization that we have for months foregone effective action to provide sensible gun safety rules in this country. We all were shocked last April 20 by the carnage and horror at Columbine High School. Within a month, in May, we passed extremely sensible provisions as part of the juvenile justice bill to provide for child safety locks, to close the gun show loophole, ban the importation of large-capacity ammunition clips for automatic weapons, and many other provisions. Yet all of our efforts have languished for months. In fact, the conference committee met just one time in August in a perfunctory meeting, and since that time, it has not even come together to consider these difficult issues and to seek a compromise resolution so we can send this measure to the President to become law. We are leaving today with our work undone. I had hoped we could have stayed. I had hoped we could have worked harder and more efficiently so that we could, in fact, have a conference report with gun control measures that would be sent to the President for his signature. The Columbine tragedy is just one aspect of a pervasive climate of gun violence in this country that claims 12 children a day. We have to take effective steps to prevent that tidal wave of gun violence. I note the other body, responding to the pressure of public opinion and the sensible nature of the provisions we are talking about, moved last Tuesday to enact legislation that provides enhanced penalties, mandatory minimum sentences on any person who uses a gun while committing a crime of violence or is involved in serious drug trafficking offenses. No one is going to argue about the need for strong enforcement and stiff penalties, but enforcement without adequate, sensible, comprehensible laws misses the point. We have to do both. Indeed, we insist both be done. My colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, has been very forceful in trying to, within the context of this budget, enhance the resources devoted to the enforcement of our gun laws. He has met opposition. That opposition, I believe, should fade. We can and must do both: Prevent gun violence by good, sound, commonsense laws, and enforce those laws so we further add to the prevention of violence in our community. One other aspect of this enforcement issue is the simple fact that we cannot enforce loopholes. We have to have legislation that is sensible, practical, and works. We found, particularly in the case of the gun show legislation, that the current regime just does not work. Senator Lautenberg's amendment on the juvenile justice bill will effectively close that loophole and give our authorities credible and effective means to prevent easy access to firearms by those individuals who are prohibited, either through criminal records or a history of mental instability. There are other aspects within the bill that are so clearly and obviously necessary and, indeed, noncontroversial. In poll after poll, 89 percent of Americans support child safety locks, support the notion that these safety locks should be sold with a weapon and, indeed, should be incorporated in the design of a new weapon. The State of Maryland last week, in a very courageous legislative act, passed legislation that will do just this. The need is quite clear. For children under the age of 15, the rate of accidental gun deaths in America is nine times higher than the rate of 25 other industrial countries combined. Often, I believe, there is a misperception about the nature of gun violence in this country; that it is the result of hoodlums attacking innocent citizens, victimizing them with handguns, when, in fact, there is an extraordinary number of children who are killed accidentally. Here, certainly, is a situation where a child safety lock can and should make a difference. There is another aspect of gun violence in America and, again, it is not the gangs with guns attacking innocent citizens. It is the fact that guns are frequently used in suicides. For young children under 15, suicide deaths from guns are 11 times higher than that of the other 25 industrial nations combined. In fact, 54 percent of all firearms- related deaths in 1996 were suicides. Once again, a child safety lock might have helped, might have deterred for a moment a child, or even an adult, who was so desperate, so distraught that they contemplated and sadly acted out a death wish. These statistics alone warrant the legislation--in fact, demand the legislation. There is a wealth of research that suggests the likelihood of suicide among adolescents increases by the ease of access to firearms--suicide by firearms. According to the National Journal, one study last year found that three-fourths of adolescents who use a gun to commit suicide obtain the gun from the family home. The Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health found in a 1999 survey that 20 percent of gun owners stored their guns loaded and unlocked. This is a situation, again, that cries out for sensible control of weapons to prevent these tragic and unnecessary deaths. There is a national survey--the largest ever conducted--on gun storage by the American Journal of Public Health which found that more than 22 million children in the United States live in homes with firearms; and in 43 percent of those homes, the guns are not locked up or fitted with trigger locks. Simply by the adoption of a national requirement to have trigger locks on weapons, we cannot ensure that each and every gun will be locked up and secured. But certainly, we will have a much higher percentage of those weapons that are secured if we pass legislation of this kind. If we require a safety lock to be provided when a gun is sold, if we give parents and adults who buy these weapons not only the incentive but the actual lock, we can, I hope and expect, reduce these types of deaths among children. In fact, we probably should be doing more because there are many States that have child access prevention laws--or CAP laws as they are called--which encourage the safe storage of firearms by holding adults accountable if they knowingly keep a firearm within their home where a child might have access to it and that child, in fact, obtains the weapon and uses it to harm themselves or to harm others. Senator Durbin has such a bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. This legislation is working. A 1997 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed the effect of CAP laws in 12 States. The JAMA study found that, on average, there was a 23-percent drop in accidental firearm-related deaths among children younger than 15 years old. There has been an overall downward trend in unintentional shootings in the United States since 1979. That is encouraging. But indeed, we saw a much steeper decline in those States that had child access prevention laws. But if we are not yet ready to consider a child access prevention law, the least we can do, the minimum we can do, is follow through on our vote of last May and ensure the conference committee sends to us quickly the child safety lock legislation that we passed. There is another important part of the legislation that is pending in the conference committee, and that is the legislation that was sponsored and championed by Senator Lautenberg with respect to the gun show loophole. This particularly resonates at this moment when we are days away from the Columbine tragedy, because, in fact, three of the weapons used in the Columbine tragedy were bought at gun shows from unlicensed dealers who did not have to perform background checks. The two killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, along with an older woman friend, Robyn Anderson, went to a gun show and obtained these weapons. In fact, it is reported that both Harris and Klebold went from table to table, from booth to booth, trying to find an unlicensed dealer, knowing they would not be subjected to a background check. In fact, Robyn Anderson herself testified before the Colorado Legislature that she would not have helped these young men if she knew she had to face a background check. What more compelling evidence can we have of the need and the effects of this legislation than the reality of the tragedy at Columbine High School? There has been a lot of talk by the gun proponents that a 72-hour waiting period is involved in this amendment. It is not the case at all. There is not a waiting period. What it requires, though, is that the law enforcement authority would have 72 hours to fully conduct the background check. The gun lobby and their allies say that would completely undermine gun shows, which are weekend events, which start up on a Saturday and end perhaps in midafternoon the next day, Sunday. They say they could not do that. In fact, not only could they do it in the vast majority of cases, but they should do it because we should have the same Brady law applying to all dealers at a gun show. It turns out that the FBI indicates, in their statistics, that most gun purchases are processed extremely quickly. In fact, using the national instant check system, the FBI clears 72 percent of gun buyers within 30 seconds; another 23 percent are cleared within 2 hours. So 95 percent of the people who attempt to obtain guns are cleared within 2 hours. It is only that other 5 percent who might require an additional day or two. But of that 5 percent, they are 20 times more likely to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. So the reality is that those people who argue for no background checks at gun shows or they have to be limited to 24 hours are simply protecting those who are most likely to be prohibited under the law from purchasing a firearm, a handgun. In fact, the vast majority of gun purchasers, those law-abiding citizens, those individuals that the NRA points to as their sterling members, would not be impeded at all. They would be checked within 2 hours. The other aspect of this, in terms of requiring additional time for law enforcement officers, is that if there is a problematic application for a purchase, if there is a suggestion or indication that the individual is not qualified, then those law enforcement officers need the time to check out records, to go to a county courthouse or to go someplace else to get the records that would be virtually impossible if this was limited to 24 hours on a Saturday or a Sunday. Frankly, they have to do it because there is a due process requirement. If you are going to turn down an individual from obtaining a firearm, that police officer has to have sufficient evidence, real evidence--not hearsay, not the feeling that something is wrong, not a thought that they heard about this individual someplace, in the coffee shop, that he is unreliable or might have been convicted of a crime-- they have to have tangible evidence. Otherwise, they will be sued, probably by advocates and proponents of the gun lobby. So this is a real, practical and necessary need for enforcing the law. But what we hear consistently from the gun lobby is lots of misinformation: It will close down gun shows. There is a waiting period. All of this is wrong. The Lautenberg amendment is sound, practical, pragmatic legislation that will deal with the problem, that will not at all impede the vast majority of purchases of firearms at gun shows, and will contribute significantly to the elimination of, we hope, or at least a diminution of the gun violence we are seeing in the country today. In the Senate last week, we had the opportunity to vote on a resolution I proposed that would urge the conferees to send a report back to us before April 20, including all of the provisions I have spoken about, that would, in fact, give us the chance to send this to the President for his signature. The vote on April 6 was 53-47, with a bipartisan majority. That vote has started some wheels turning. On April 11, Mr. Hyde, chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the other body, and John Conyers, the ranking member, sent a letter to Senator Hatch saying: We write to request a juvenile justice conference meeting as soon as possible. We are making progress, but we are going to lose this momentum and this progress as we leave this week. Perhaps that is intentional. Perhaps this is about stopping the momentum that is building up, playing for time, hoping that we forget about Columbine, hoping that when the anniversary comes, we will be all around the country and the world and not here to respond to the concerns of families in this Nation who are deeply concerned about this issue. I have spoken about the aspects of the legislation. I have spoken about the logic behind it, the statistics that strongly support it. Ultimately, this is about people's lives in America --sadly and too often, about children's lives. On February 29, a 6-year-old, Kayla Rolland, was shot to death by her 6-year-old classmate in Mount Morris Township, MI. I have said this before and it bears repeating: If any of us last May stood on this floor and said a 6-year-old child would be shot to death with a handgun by another 6-year-old child in a school in America, we would have been accused and lambasted as a hysterical demagog who was trying to stir up unreasonable fears and concerns for political advantage. The truth is, it has happened. A 6-year-old is dead, shot by another 6-year-old in a school in this country. That week, Kayla's death was just one of other deaths of children that go unheralded because 12 children die a day. For example, one young woman in Carroll County, MD, 18 years old, died of an accidental gunshot wound to the head after she and her friends were admiring her father's .22-caliber revolver. Where were her parents? They were in Costa Rica as missionaries. Had there been a law requiring a trigger lock, had the gun salesman been required to provide a trigger lock with this weapon, I have to believe parents such as that would have locked up the weapon. As those teenagers were admiring the weapon, it wouldn't have discharged. We might have been able to save a life if we had acted. Think of the lives that are being lost because we are not acting. Another 16-year-old boy in Shopiere, WI, and his friend were horsing around with a .22-caliber pistol his mother kept for protection. It was usually stored in a dresser, but they got ahold of it. After posing with the gun for pictures, the boy pointed the gun to his head. It went off, killing him. As his grandmother said: It was kid's play, total kid's play. Ask yourself, had that weapon been secured with a child safety lock, would it have gone off as two young kids horsing around posed with it? Probably not. Then a 15-year-old boy in San Bernardino, CA, found his stepfather's handgun, while his pregnant mother slept, and used to it shoot himself. Perhaps at the height of desperation, if he had seen a lock on that weapon, he might have been deterred for a moment, enough time perhaps to somehow come back off the edge rather than to plunge into the abyss and take his own life. A 16-year-old girl in Altoona, PA, argued with her father about her curfew. He was a gun collector; he had handguns. She found one and killed herself--over a curfew. Perhaps, again, if there had been a child safety lock, some other protective device, that momentary pique, that momentary anger we have all had with our parents, would have resulted in perhaps an annoyance but not death. That is just one week in America, the week Kayla Rolland died. But it is every week in America, 12 children a day. We can do more. We should do it, rather than leaving today and going off on our recess. That would be the greatest tribute to the 12 young people and the 1 teacher who died in Columbine High School. I would like to say the conference committee has been working, but that is not accurate. They have been waiting for a year. We have been waiting for a year. We can do more. We should do more. We must do more. The American people want it. The American people expect it. The American people deserve it--certainly the families of those children who were killed at Columbine and the 12 children a day who are victims of gun violence in this country. I realize we have lost that vote on adjournment. We will be back. We will come back again and again and again until we pass sensible gun safety legislation to make this country a bit safer and, hopefully, do what the American people sent us here to do: To protect their children and ensure a rule of law and not an error of violence that claims the lives of children each and every day. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks, regretfully noting we are leaving without passing the juvenile justice bill conference report, without adopting sensible gun control legislation, missing the opportunity, I think, to do what the American people want us to do. I have long been a supporter of effective gun controls, working hard for the Brady bill and for the assault weapons ban while I was in the other body. But I have been galvanized to an even more concerted effort by an event that took place very recently in Providence. This, I think, is an example of the gun violence we face. Two young men were horsing around wrestling. One got offended by the other one. Unfortunately, this happened in a neighborhood, like so many neighborhoods, where it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a library book. Someone in the crowd had a handgun. In an act of absolute recklessness, one young man fired at the other young man, critically wounding him in the head. That young man, the shooter, was so distraught that he rushed off and took his own life. That is the face of gun violence in too many places in America today. We can do something about it. We should do something about it. We should not leave until we do something about it. Regretfully, we are leaving but we are coming back, I hope, with a renewed commitment to ensure we will, in fact, pass the provisions in the juvenile justice committee report. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, who has particularly championed the legislation to close the gun show loophole. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request to be recognized out of my time under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join Cambodian- Americans in celebration of the Cambodian New Year, Chol Chnam, one of the major celebrations of the Cambodian culture. Over the next three days there will be gatherings across the United States to celebrate the beginning of the Year of the Dragon. I take this opportunity to wish all of these people a very happy New Year. The Cambodian New Year represents more than just a renewal of the calendar and traditional end of the harvest, it is also a celebration of faith. Entry into the New Year, or Maha Sangkrant, is marked by the sounding of a bell. With the sounding, it is believed that the New Angel arrives. Throughout the day people participate in ceremonies and bring food to the Buddhist monks and religious leaders. The second day of celebration, or Vana Bat, is a time to show consideration for others. Gifts are given to parents, grandparents and teachers as a show of respect and charity is offered to the less fortunate. The third day, or Loeng Sak, includes more religious ceremonies and rituals to bring good luck and happiness to families. In my home state of Rhode Island there are numerous businesses owned by Cambodian-American families, most of them in the capital city Providence. These establishments contribute much to the local economy. The Cambodian New Year is an appropriate time to remind all Americans why we must support the political and economic stabilization of Cambodia. As the nation continues to recover from three decades of civil conflict, including the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge, it is critical that the United States and international community aid the Cambodian people in their efforts to build a lasting democracy. Therefore, on this day marking the beginning of Chol Chnam, I encourage all U.S. citizens to join in the spirit of this special holiday.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, by a bipartisan vote of 53-47, the Senate adopted the Reed amendment to the budget resolution calling on the conference committee on the juvenile justice bill to submit a report by April 20 of this year, which is the 1-year anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine High School, and include in that report commonsense gun control provisions which this Senate passed last May. These provisions include an amendment that child safety locks be sold with all handguns; an amendment to close the gun show loopholes so a complete background check can be done on all purchasers at gun shows; a ban on the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips; and a ban on juvenile possession of semi-automatic assault weapons. We adopted the Reed amendment, sponsored by many and supported by 53 Senators, because we wanted to send a message to the leadership of the House and Senate that America has waited too long for us to respond to the tragedy at Columbine High School, too long to respond to the pervasive floodtide of gun violence that every day kills 12 American children. We have been down this road before. In 1993 and 1994, after a long legislative battle, we were able to pass the Brady law and the assault weapons ban over the objections of the gun lobby and their allies in Congress. Since 1993, we have seen a 20 percent reduction in crime in the United States. Gun crimes in particular fell 37 percent between 1993 and 1998. No one can claim the Brady law or the assault weapons ban alone was the cause of this decline. There are other factors. We also know that preventing 500,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited purchasers from easily obtaining firearms has made a significant contribution to that reduction in gun violence. The American people were with us when we passed those commonsense gun initiatives in 1993 and 1994, and they are with us today. Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor requiring a background check on all sales at gun shows. A similar percentage, 89 percent, favors requiring child safety locks be sold with all handguns. Unfortunately, the gun lobby and its allies in Congress are trying to hide behind a claim there is inaction in enforcement, arguing that we need tougher enforcement, not new gun laws. We agree, we need good, strong enforcement of our gun laws. We need additional resources devoted to this task. That is why we support the President's request for substantial new resources for gun law enforcement, including 1,000 new prosecutors, 500 new ATF agents and inspectors, an expansion of the Project Exile program to toughen sentences for gun crimes, and new ballistics testing procedures. We need all these things. But the gun lobby presents us with a false choice between tougher enforcement or more legislation. The American people know we need both. You cannot enforce a loophole. We need legislation to close these loopholes so our authorities can truly and effectively and efficiently enforce the law. The gun show loophole is just one example. When one-quarter or more of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed and therefore are not subject to the Brady background checks--they do not have to check the background of the purchaser--it does not take a genius to figure out, if a prohibited person seeks to purchase a weapon, where they will go. They will go right to those unlicensed dealers at the gun shows. Under current law, someone who is a felon, someone who is prohibited from purchasing a firearm under the Brady law, and other laws, could go to an unlicensed dealer at a gun show and purchase as many weapons as he or she wanted without any type of background check, and they would not be effectively screened for the acquisition of a firearm. Senator Lautenberg has many times on this floor pointed to Robyn Anderson--the woman who went to a Colorado gun show with Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to help them buy 3 of the guns they used to kill 13 people at Columbine High School--who has said that the process was much too easy. In fact, it is reported that Harris and Klebold repeatedly asked dealers at the gun show if they were licensed or unlicensed, eventually finding a private seller, an unlicensed seller, in order to avoid paperwork and background checks. What could be clearer? What could be more compelling for the need to close this loophole than the demonstration that these two young men were clever enough--and, frankly, the law is so wide open, you do not have to be that clever--to find a way to purchase weapons when they were supposed to be prevented from doing it? And they did. Robyn Anderson later testified before the Colorado legislature, saying: It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check. We need to move promptly and swiftly to pass the Lautenberg amendment which was included in the juvenile justice bill to close this loophole and give our authorities the leverage they need to truly enforce the laws. The time has come for action. We have waited for an entire year. That wait is unforgivable. The memories of those students and what happened there linger. We should have done something much sooner than this. But we have a chance. What is even worse is that Congress is about to go into a recess at the end of this week. So when all of those grieving families in Colorado and across the country come together on April 20 to ask, ``What have we done,'' not only will we say ``nothing,'' but we will be far from the center of Washington where we should have done something. We can pass this legislation. What kind of message does that send, not only to the people of Columbine but the families of thousands and thousands of people who die each year? Over half of them are not killed in some type of confrontation; over half of them are killed by accidents and suicides. We have to do something. We can do something. If we had safety locks on weapons, that could help, or we could think about, as some States do, having a waiting period. We used to have a waiting period with the Brady bill, but, again, to get that legislation through the Congress, we had to--as soon as the instant check system was put into place-- abandon the waiting period. There is more we can do. Finally, I thank those Republican and Democratic Senators who joined last week to pass the Reed amendment, to send a strong signal to the leadership that we have to do something--words are insufficient--to express truly what we should express with respect to the tragedy at Columbine. We need action. We need legislation. We need laws that will give our enforcement authorities the tools to do the job and do it well. Although the time is dwindling away, I hope we can move quickly so that on April 20 we will not only commemorate a tragedy but celebrate the passage of legislation that will help prevent, I hope, future tragedies. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Somewhere between 5 and 7 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Bingaman, and others. It expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress enact legislation this year that grants the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. This amendment does not specify what form of regulation will be adopted, but it authorizes the FDA to adopt a legislative scheme to regulate tobacco products. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added to the amendment as a cosponsor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, with the recent Supreme Court decision, it is imperative Congress act, and it is imperative it act this year to ensure we can properly regulate tobacco products in society. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3037.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I would like to finish. My colleagues want to speak on other matters. Let me say something about this mantra about enforcement: You just have to enforce the laws.

Mr. REED. The NRA, the gun lobby, talks about enforcement. They have persistently, over decades, frustrated real enforcement. For 10 years they refused to support the Brady bill and told their members it would effectively destroy the right to bear arms in America, resulting in total, strict gun control on all Americans. With respect to the operation of inspections, in 1986 the McClure- Volkmer Act was supported strongly by the NRA--$1.5 million of lobbying activity. That legislation limits ATF's ability to conduct unannounced inspections. If you want to enforce the law, that is fine. Then why does the gun lobby go ahead and try to constrain the law so that we can't effectively enforce laws that are on the books already? If you look at the number of ATF agents, it has declined. Fortunately, they have increased over the last year. As a result, we have more prosecutions, more referrals. The Wall Street Journal suggests, based upon evidence from a Chicago investigation: While firearm-rights enthusiasts argue that there are enough gun laws on the books, and the problem is merely lax enforcement, the Chicago case illustrates that in some areas, the gun laws have holes and enforcement is harder than one might think. That is the Wall Street Journal, not some radical newspaper in this country.

Mr. REED. I would like to finish my remarks. We can do much more, and we should do much more. I have heard people say all weapons should be secured in the home, if they are stored there. The child safety lock will ensure that takes place. On the gun show loophole, the GAO has done a report that suggested, under the Brady instant check, 73 percent of these background checks are finished almost immediately, conducted almost simultaneously with the request, that 95 percent of all checks are completed within 2 hours. It is only those checks that raise serious questions that go beyond 2 hours, which will in no way interfere with the operation of a gun show. It is in those checks where the most likely violations occur in terms of getting a weapon which you should not have. In fact, those people are 20 times more likely to be unable to acquire a weapon. In the nature of a gun show, many of the dealers at gun shows are licensed gun dealers. They are subject to the Brady law. They have to do the background check. We can't abandon reason when we come to the floor. If you are looking for a weapon and you know you are going to face a Brady check when you go to a gun show, where are you going to go? You will go not to the licensed gun dealer but someone who is selling guns and doesn't have to do a background check. Then you will hope, if any check is done, it will be done so arbitrarily that you won't be caught. That is what the statistics show in the GAO report.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Nevada. My resolution is very clear. It asks that the conferees return the report back to us on the juvenile justice bill so we can vote up or down on the measures we passed on May 20 of last year, in response to Columbine, which provide for safety locks on handguns, ban large clips for automatic weapons, and would also close the gun show loophole. All of these measures are supported by an extraordinary majority of Americans. Nearly 90 percent of Americans favor requiring child safety locks on all new handguns, including 85 percent of the gun owners who were surveyed. In addition, 89 percent also favor background checks on all sales at gun shows. This is what the American people want. It is not what the gun lobby wants. That is why we have waited 1 year, not in principles compromise and debate but essentially trying to strangle this measure we passed so that it won't come back to the floor. There has been one meeting of the conferees, which is just trying to kill it off by indifference, hoping we will forget about Columbine, that we will forget about the violence that is plaguing the country. Anyone who is suggesting that these measures are designed to end crime in America is being slightly hyperbolic. What it might do is prevent those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths a year by handguns through accidents, through suicides, through the mishandling of weapons. That in itself will be a great achievement. I had the opportunity this morning to talk about some of the incidents involving children, young people, who might have been deterred, not from criminal activity but gun accidents, gun violence. I was particularly shocked in my home community of Providence by a bunch of young people, 16-, 17-year-olds, horsing around, getting into a little bit of an ego contest. What happened? They were in a place where, when they turned around, somebody in the crowd had a gun. Not the two young people wrestling but somebody had a gun. They got the weapon. One person, out of a sense of just total irrationality, fired, hitting the other young man in the head, critically wounding the young man, and was so distraught by remorse for what he had done that he ran into a backyard and killed himself. That is what we are talking about in terms of gun violence. There is no law that would prevent that.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as I pointed out, we were all shocked by the death of Kayla Rowland. That week, People magazine conducted a review of other deaths of children which are symptomatic of what is happening in America. They don't capture the headlines across the country as the tragic death of that 6-year-old did, but they suggest what is happening day in and day out--the 12 children in America killed each day. I will recite some of the stories in which youngsters were killed by firearms. A woman in Carroll County, MD, 18 years old, died of an accidental gunshot wound to the head after she and her friends were admiring her father's .22-caliber revolver. Her parents were out of the country. They were doing missionary work in Costa Rica. A simple safety lock on that weapon perhaps could have saved that young woman's life. This is one of those classic accidents the gun lobby doesn't want to talk about because it can be effective and should be passed by our legislation which will put trigger locks on the weapons. It is not a question of irresponsible, reckless parents whose moral or ethical values contribute to the death of a child. These parents are missionaries, literally doing the Lord's work, in Costa Rica, when their child accidentally shoots herself. A 6-year-old boy and a friend in Shopiere, WI, were horsing around with a .22-caliber pistol his mother kept for protection and usually stored in her dresser. After posing with the gun for a photograph, the boy pointed the gun at his head. It went off, killing him. As his grandmother said: It was kid's play, total kid's play. Again, would a trigger lock have helped? Perhaps. How about the 15-year-old boy in San Bernardino, CA, who found his stepfather's handgun while his pregnant mother slept, and he used it to shoot himself. A 16-year-old girl in Altoona, PA, argued with her father, a gun collector, about her curfew, and then took a .22-caliber handgun from under his mattress while he was out and shot herself in the head. All of these young lives were lost in just 1 week in America. We could catalog such deaths every week in America. The gun lobby says we don't need gun locks; we don't need gun laws; we just have to do a better job enforcing those already on the books. How is law enforcement going to save the lives of kids such as those I have talked about? They are not hardened criminals. They are not in bad families. They are not out robbing banks or terrorizing in gangs. The only way they can be helped is through prevention--not enforcement but prevention. That is what will save these kids. Prevention is the key--not to the exclusion of enforcement; we have to enforce our laws and be tough. Later today, Senator Durbin will introduce a resolution that will amend it and ask us to put more resources into enforcement. I strongly support that. But we need prevention and enforcement. We require safety caps on bottles of aspirin and bottles of prescription drugs. It makes no sense that we don't require the same types of safety devices on handguns. We have to do it. It is included in our juvenile justice bill. If we maintain it in conference and bring it to the floor, we can save many children in this country. Regarding gun shows--and I see my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who was the leader in this effort--with the help of Vice President Gore, by one vote we were able to pass sensible rules to close the gun show loophole to require that background checks would always be conducted for all the thousands of gun shows around the country. Currently at most gun shows, one-fourth or more of the dealers are unlicensed. Therefore, they do not have to perform a Brady law background check. This is a serious loophole. If someone is a felon, if someone has a shady background, if someone is irrational and looking for a gun, he or she would go to a gun show, go to a licensed dealer, and then the dealer would explain they have to do a gun check. Then what would happen? That person would certainly keep looking around until he found an unlicensed dealer who had a whole cache of guns and say, Do I have to do a background check? No, no, not at all. We can see in that supermarket, that bazaar of guns, that is where, likely, those people who do not want a check can go and today they will be able to get a handgun. It is just common sense to effectively enforce the Brady law, to make sure this gun show loophole is closed, and closed in a way that allows for checking those people who should be checked, the ones for whom you might have to find State records that are not available on a weekend; for whom you might need indeed more than 72 hours to conduct a background check. Another is the ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons. There is absolutely no reason a youngster should have an assault weapon. These weapons were designed to kill people. I served in the Army at the point where the transition was made between the old M-14 weapon, which was a rifle that had great accuracy, that was part of what some people derided as the old musket Army of aimed fire, and the tactics of the strategists back in the 1960s who said: We do not need aimed fire; we just need a weapon that, in close quarters, can deliver massive rates of fire, high rates of cyclical fire. The whole purpose being not hunting, not target shooting, but destroying other people, which is the nature of warfare. That is where the assault weapon comes. No child needs to have those. A ban on the importation of large-capacity clips is another provision. It is illegal for these clips to be produced by American manufacturers, but through another loophole they can be imported into the country. Once again, if you are a sportsman out hunting, you do not need a magazine that can accommodate 45 rounds. People who need these types of magazines are folks who should not have them, in a sense, because the potential for violence, the potential for criminal activity is much more enhanced, I believe, when you have a magazine that has 40 or 50 rounds rather than those old-fashioned hunting rifles which are part and parcel of the American story. In addition to these provisions, the underlying legislation would increase the enforcement capacity of Federal agents and local agents by expanding the successful youth crime gun interdiction initiative to 250 cities by the year 2003, enhancing the efforts to trace guns used in crime and identify and arrest adults who sell guns to children. All of these other worthy provisions are there; also, increased penalties on so-called straw purchases--those individuals who buy guns knowing the ultimate recipient is unable to have the gun either because of a criminal record or because of age. It would keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders. It would also allow the Federal Trade Commission and Attorney General to study the extent to which the gun industry markets and distributes its products to juveniles. They are all reasonable measures. All should be done. But what has been done? Because of the inaction, and deliberate inaction, of the leadership, nothing has been done. The American people have waited too long. Later today, I will be offering, along with 22 of my colleagues, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution calling on the juvenile justice conferees to complete and submit the conference report before April 20, the first anniversary of the Columbine shooting, and to include in the conference report the amendments I have just discussed, that were passed by this Senate, seeking to limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. Will the passage of this amendment stop every gun crime in this country? No, but it will save lives, the lives of those children I talked about, the lives of children shot accidentally, the lives, perhaps, of people who, if they do not have easy access to firearms, may think a moment before taking their lives. If we do these things: Close the gun show loophole, require safety locks to be sold with handguns, if we ban the importation of large- capacity clips and juvenile possession of assault weapons, we will bring some sense to our gun laws and we will provide a meaningful memorial to those children who died at Columbine and those children who die each day by gun violence. I notice my colleagues from New Mexico and from Vermont are here. I suspect they would like to speak also. As a result, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding time. I am going to take a moment to discuss an amendment that I will propose later today. On May 20 of last year, this Senate passed effective, commonsense gun safety legislation as part of the juvenile justice bill. The vote was overwhelming--73-25. It was in response to the tragedy at Columbine High school, a tragedy that shook the very foundation of America's sense of security, their sense of the well-being for their children. In response to that great tragedy, this Senate acted. It passed a commonsense gun control provision that would close loopholes in our Nation's gun laws--not only to help prevent future Columbines but to try to stop this pervasive wave of gun violence that is sweeping America and claiming 12 children each and every day. Yet here we are, almost 1 year from the day of the Columbine tragedy, and we still have not brought to this floor the conference report so that we can vote upon it and send it to the President for his signature. Leadership, both the House and the Senate, has stood idly by while all of America asked us for a very simple request to get on with the business we started last May to bring the juvenile justice bill to the floor for a vote, for passage we hope, and for the signature of the President. What happened in the intervening year is that this conference committee met only once last August. In effect, the message that I think is being communicated is there is a hope and an expectation by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate that this problem will go away, that people will forget about Columbine, and that people will forget about this tragedy. We cannot forget. We have to take active steps to ensure that the measure we pass will at least come back for a clear vote and, hopefully, come back so we can incorporate it in real legislation. It is very unusual that a conference would take this long. I can recall being part of a financial service modernization bill--very contentious legislation; legislation that involved numerous interest groups; legislation that effectively failed at the very last moment in the last Congress; and, again, in this Congress--that was subject to a tumultuous series of legislative maneuvers on both sides of Congress. Yet it only took us 3 months to rationalize, to compromise, and to ultimately pass this bill in the conference. We just spent 1 month dealing with the issues of transportation in the Transportation Act, a $209 billion legislative initiative. My suggestion is pretty clear, that this is not routine business as usual by taking this long for a conference. It represents a deliberate decision not to act, a deliberate decision to try by stalling, by delay, by tying this up with the approaching elections so that effectively what we will do is end prematurely the important steps we began last May 20 by adopting commonsense gun control legislation. This is something the American people clearly want. It is something that, when they are asked, they will overwhelmingly say are commonsense measures. A poll was recently conducted in which over 90 percent of Americans responded by saying they wanted child safety locks. In this group, 85 percent of the gun owners responded saying they, too, wanted child safety locks. They also want us to close the loopholes on the gun shows by an overwhelming majority. Yet despite overwhelming public support, despite our already accomplished legislation in this party the bill languishes in conference. In this debate, there is a great hue and cry that we don't need more laws, just enforce the ones on the books. In this debate, law enforcement is on our side. They recognize that in addition to enforcing the laws, we need other commonsense laws that will give them additional tools, that will go to the heart of many issues that have to be addressed if we want a sane and peaceful society. This chart indicates the number of associations of law enforcement officials that are strongly supportive of our initiative, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Police are on our side. They stand with us to demand we take effective, prompt action to send this juvenile justice legislation to the President for his signature. In addition to that, I was this morning with a group of police officers from my home State of Rhode Island and others from Maryland. They were quite clear; they want to see prompt action. When we have the American people overwhelmingly supporting this provision, when we have law enforcement, those men and women who stand most in the line of fire, demanding this legislation be passed, it is indeed puzzling we are not taking effective steps to pass this legislation. Let me briefly review what is at issue in the juvenile justice bill so we can be clear about the nature of this legislation. First, in the juvenile justice bill we passed an amendment requiring that a secure storage or safety device be sold with all handguns. Unlike virtually every other product in the United States, firearms produced in this country are not subject to regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Again, one of the great ironies of present-day America is that a toy gun is subject to safety provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Commission; a real gun that can cause real harm and real damage--death in many cases--is not subject to such regulation. As a result, manufacturers of firearms produce weapons lacking, in some cases, even the most rudimentary safety features designed to prevent the accidental or intentional shooting of children or by children. The tragic consequences are undeniable. Each year, suicides and accidental shootings make up more than half of the tens of thousands of gun deaths in the United States. Kids are frequently the victims. This is an important point. The gun lobby tries to suggest that the victims of shootings are being waylaid by armed desperados who are law breakers who will never follow laws. In fact, the reason they are on the streets is that the laws are ineffectual for putting them behind bars. More than half the shootings are accidents, with no criminal intent, or suicide, in which the individual is so depressed and despondent, they are seizing a weapon to destroy themselves. We have been shocked recently by the tragic death of Kayla Rowland, a 6-year-old shot by another 6-year-old in Mount Morris Township, MI. I believe if a Member came to this floor last May 20 and predicted that a 6-year-old child would be shot by another 6-year-old child in a schoolroom in the United States, we would have been hooted down as hysterical demagogs. Sadly and tragically, that has happened.

Mr. REED. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 20 of last year, America and the world was shocked by the gun violence and carnage at Columbine High School. Shortly thereafter, on May 20, this Senate passed legislation within the juvenile justice bill that provided for sensible gun control measures, including safety locks for handguns, background checks on all guns at gun shows and the ban on the importation of large clips for automatic weapons. Since our vote on May 20, the measure has languished in the conference committee that has met only once--last August. My amendment is very straightforward and simple. It asks that the conferees send to the House this measure so we can vote so we can do what the American people want. Over 90 percent of the American people want gun locks on weapons. A large number of them want to close all the loopholes in the gun shows. We must do that to respond to America, not just with respect to Columbine, but for the 12 young children each day that die in America because of gunfires. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2964.

Mr. REED. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Collins, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords and 32 others in introducing the Home Health Payment Fairness Act. The intent of this important legislation is quite simple--to eliminate the 15 percent reduction in home health payments that is scheduled to go into effect in October 2001. Last year, Senator Jeffords and I introduced a more broad home health bill, called the Preserve Access to Care in the Home, or PATCH Act, which among other things, would have eliminated this potentially devastating payment reduction. Although we were not able to get this provision included in the 1999 Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA), we were successful in getting a delay in the implementation of this reduction. However, we must see to it that the 15 percent cut is eliminated--and I hope we can achieve that goal this year. Over the past thirty years, there has been a tremendous shift in the location where health care is actually provided. Increasingly, older and sicker patients are able to receive care in the comfort of their own home, instead of a hospital or nursing home. This incredible change can be attributed to four primary causes: greater reliance on alternative care settings because of the growing cost of inpatient care; technological improvements that have enhanced the capacity to provide sophisticated medical treatments in the home setting; the growing aging population; and the increasing popularity of home- and community-based care as an alternative to the institutional care of a nursing home. Indeed, home health care is an integral part of the spectrum of long term care. As a result, by the mid-1990's the average annual growth rate for Medicare home health spending was 5.3%. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) sought to restrain the unbounded growth in outlays for this benefit. Originally, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) anticipated that savings through changes in the benefit would total $16.1 billion over five years. In reality, we have saved a total of $19.7 billion in just two years, and are expected to reduce outlays by $69 billion over the five year period--four times what was originally projected. Not surprisingly, since the BBA's enactment, there has been a remarkable 48 percent decline in Medicare home health expenditures. These dramatic reductions have all too often been borne on the backs of small, nonprofit home health agencies and the elderly and disabled beneficiaries they serve. Home health care agencies in my home state of Rhode Island have been especially hard hit by these changes. We have seen a significant decline in the number of beneficiaries served and access to care for more medically complex patients threatened by these cuts. These reductions have clearly had negative impact on patients who heavily rely on home health services. In one instance, a woman from Pawtucket, Rhode Island had to wait 112 days after being discharged from the hospital before getting home health services. In the wealthiest nation in the world, this kind of situation is simply unacceptable. Mr. President, nationally, between 1997 and 1998, the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services has fallen 14 percent, while the total number of home health visits has fallen by 40 percent. We have seen a similar trend in Rhode Island, where over 3,000 fewer beneficiaries are receiving home health care--representing a decline of 16 percent--and the total number of visits has fallen 38 percent. These individuals are either being forced to turn to more expensive alternatives, such as institutional-based nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities for their care, or these individuals are simply going without care, which places an immeasurable burden on the family and friends of vulnerable beneficiaries. I truly do not believe this is the path we want to remain on when it comes to home health care. In light of the impending ``senior boom'' that will be hitting our entitlement programs in a few short years, we should be doing what we can to preserve and strengthen the Medicare home health benefit. We can begin to do this by eliminating the 15 percent reduction in home health payments. By taking this step, we will alleviate an enormous burden that has been looming over financially strapped home health agencies and the frail and vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries who rely on these critical services. I urge my colleagues to join us in enacting legislation that will repeal this unnecessary and inappropriate reduction. I look forward to working with Senator Collins, Senator Jeffords and my other colleagues on this critical issue.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, that we hope will mark the beginning of a dialogue on an issue that has tremendous implications for our nation's public health, and more specifically, the health and well-being of our children. Today, we are introducing the ``Tobacco Regulatory Fairness Act of 2000''. The goal of this legislation is quite simple--to grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to regulate the manufacture, labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco products. A week ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products, thus nullifying regulations promulgated by the agency in August 1996. While a slim majority of the court found that the agency lacked the jurisdiction necessary to act on this class of products, the Justices in the majority and minority both opinions acknowledged the clear threat unregulated tobacco products poses to public health. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that tobacco was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' Similarly, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a former professor of mine at Harvard University School of Law, pointed out in the dissenting opinion that FDA's ability to regulate tobacco products clearly fit into its basic authority, ``the overall protection of the public health.'' Although the court upheld the 1998 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the decision does not dispute, and, in fact, it reaffirms that the FDA is the most appropriate agency to regulate tobacco products, given the general scope of its authority and its emphasis on protecting the public health. Now, it is a matter of Congress taking action to clearly give the FDA the long overdue authority it requires. So today, I introduce this legislation as a challenge to my colleagues to do what is right--to debate and pass legislation that will once and for all give FDA the tools it needs to enact regulations that will help to protect children and others from the dangers of tobacco. After the long and protracted debate in the Senate two years ago on the McCain tobacco bill, I am sure that most of my colleagues are familiar with the numerous statistics that are often cited in relation to the dangers of smoking and its devastating impact on society in terms of health care costs, lost productivity, disability, and loss of life. However, I believe these figures bear repeating. It is estimated that today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco, and one out of every three long-term users will die from a disease related to their tobacco use. The cost of tobacco use not only results in lives lost, but also has a considerable toll on health care expenses. It is estimated that the health care costs associated with treating tobacco-related disease totals over $80 billion a year--with almost half being paid for by taxpayer financed health care programs. We also know that tobacco addiction is clearly a problem that starts with children: almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using tobacco at or before age 18. Each year, one million children become regular smokers--and one-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, and similar tobacco caused diseases. Unless current trends are reversed, five million kids under 18 alive today will die from tobacco related diseases. In Rhode Island, while overall cigarette use is declining slightly, it has increased by more than 25 percent among high-schoolers. Currently, over one-third of New England high school students under age 18 use tobacco products. In Rhode Island, over one third of high school students smoke. Indeed, tobacco use continues to permeate the ranks of the young. For decades, the tobacco industry has ingeniously promoted its products. It has done so with total disregard for the health of its customers. It has relied upon cool, youthful images to sell its products. The tobacco industry has taken an addiction that prematurely kills and dressed it up as a glamorous symbol of success and sex appeal. By providing the FDA with the appropriate and unambiguous authority, we can be assured that these products comply with minimum health and safety standards. Tobacco should be regulated in the same way every other product we consume is regulated. I will concede that there are some formidable challenges ahead--but these challenges are not insurmountable. During the 1998 debate on the McCain tobacco bill, a majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agreed our country needed a national tobacco control policy. While we may not have succeeded then, we cannot and must not allow the progress the FDA has made in limiting minors' access to tobacco be lost. We all know that tobacco is a substance that not only reduces the quality of one's life in the short term, but with lifelong use results in untimely death. We have an opportunity this year to make a real difference. Through the legislation I am introducing today, I call my colleagues to action in the ongoing fight to protect the long term health of the children of this country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this commitment to enacting legislation granting FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman, that we hope will mark the beginning of a dialogue on an issue that has tremendous implications for our nation's public health, and more specifically, the health and well-being of our children. Today, we are introducing the ``Tobacco Regulatory Fairness Act of 2000''. The goal of this legislation is quite simple--to grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority it needs to regulate the manufacture, labeling, advertising, distribution and sale of tobacco products. A week ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products, thus nullifying regulations promulgated by the agency in August 1996. While a slim majority of the court found that the agency lacked the jurisdiction necessary to act on this class of products, the Justices in the majority and minority both opinions acknowledged the clear threat unregulated tobacco products poses to public health. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that tobacco was ``perhaps the single most significant threat to public health in the United States.'' Similarly, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a former professor of mine at Harvard University School of Law, pointed out in the dissenting opinion that FDA's ability to regulate tobacco products clearly fit into its basic authority, ``the overall protection of the public health.'' Although the court upheld the 1998 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the decision does not dispute, and, in fact, it reaffirms that the FDA is the most appropriate agency to regulate tobacco products, given the general scope of its authority and its emphasis on protecting the public health. Now, it is a matter of Congress taking action to clearly give the FDA the long overdue authority it requires. So today, I introduce this legislation as a challenge to my colleagues to do what is right--to debate and pass legislation that will once and for all give FDA the tools it needs to enact regulations that will help to protect children and others from the dangers of tobacco. After the long and protracted debate in the Senate two years ago on the McCain tobacco bill, I am sure that most of my colleagues are familiar with the numerous statistics that are often cited in relation to the dangers of smoking and its devastating impact on society in terms of health care costs, lost productivity, disability, and loss of life. However, I believe these figures bear repeating. It is estimated that today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco, and one out of every three long-term users will die from a disease related to their tobacco use. The cost of tobacco use not only results in lives lost, but also has a considerable toll on health care expenses. It is estimated that the health care costs associated with treating tobacco-related disease totals over $80 billion a year--with almost half being paid for by taxpayer financed health care programs. We also know that tobacco addiction is clearly a problem that starts with children: almost 90 percent of adult smokers started using tobacco at or before age 18. Each year, one million children become regular smokers--and one-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, and similar tobacco caused diseases. Unless current trends are reversed, five million kids under 18 alive today will die from tobacco related diseases. In Rhode Island, while overall cigarette use is declining slightly, it has increased by more than 25 percent among high-schoolers. Currently, over one-third of New England high school students under age 18 use tobacco products. In Rhode Island, over one third of high school students smoke. Indeed, tobacco use continues to permeate the ranks of the young. For decades, the tobacco industry has ingeniously promoted its products. It has done so with total disregard for the health of its customers. It has relied upon cool, youthful images to sell its products. The tobacco industry has taken an addiction that prematurely kills and dressed it up as a glamorous symbol of success and sex appeal. By providing the FDA with the appropriate and unambiguous authority, we can be assured that these products comply with minimum health and safety standards. Tobacco should be regulated in the same way every other product we consume is regulated. I will concede that there are some formidable challenges ahead--but these challenges are not insurmountable. During the 1998 debate on the McCain tobacco bill, a majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agreed our country needed a national tobacco control policy. While we may not have succeeded then, we cannot and must not allow the progress the FDA has made in limiting minors' access to tobacco be lost. We all know that tobacco is a substance that not only reduces the quality of one's life in the short term, but with lifelong use results in untimely death. We have an opportunity this year to make a real difference. Through the legislation I am introducing today, I call my colleagues to action in the ongoing fight to protect the long term health of the children of this country. I urge my colleagues to join me in this commitment to enacting legislation granting FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss a reauthorization bill introduced yesterday by Senators Jeffords and Kennedy, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, S. 2311. This legislation is very important in that it will help to continue to improve the quality and availability of care for low-income, uninsured, and under insured individuals and families affected by AIDS and HIV disease. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this initiative. Ryan White died on April 8, 1990 at age 18. He was a prime example of someone whose own community rejected him when he was only 13 years old because of his health status. As a result of his courageous battle to attend public school in Indiana, we all learned and understood more about AIDS. Ryan White played a major role in changing people's views concerning the disease and AIDS patients. Through his actions, he conveyed the importance of education and awareness to combat the spread of this deadly disease. Even after his death, the story of his courageous battle with AIDS continues to impact the common man. His legacy lives on through the Ryan White CARE Act. This reauthorization provides us the opportunity to improve this bipartisan legislation to adequately care for those persons affected with AIDS and HIV. As noted by Ryan's mother, Jeanne, ``We have come a long way since Ryan's death, but we still have so far to go.'' Although the number of AIDS cases continues to decline each year, the number of HIV-positive individuals continues to grow at an alarming rate. This legislation would expand the duties of the Planning Council, provide for a Quality Management Program, establish requirements for heath care referral relationships, fund early intervention services, and improve resources for infants, children, and women. Until a cure is found, the Ryan White CARE Act will continue to be the ``payer of last resort'' for thousands of individuals who otherwise cannot afford health care or basic subsistence needs. In my home State of Rhode Island, $3,463,706 of Ryan White CARE funding was provided during fiscal year 1999 to ensure access to life-sustaining drugs and other critical health and social services for those individuals affected with AIDS and HIV. Because AIDS and HIV is a national problem, it deserves national attention. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to make further enhancements and improvements to the bill. Specifically, I understand my colleague, Senator Bingaman, has been working on a provision that would allow more states to have access to dental care grant funding under Part F of the act. I believe this is a very important issue for individuals with HIV and AIDS and hope this provision will be incorporated into the overall bill.