Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for Senator Leahy's amendment promoting peaceful self determination for the peoples of East Timor and bringing the attention of the United States to the long and difficult climb of the East Timorese towards democracy. I am pleased to join Senator Feingold as a cosponsor of this amendment which underscores the importance of the historic opportunity which the East Timorese face, and our duty to support them in their struggle for peace and self determination. The upcoming August vote, or consultation, on East Timorese autonomy is crucial, not only for the East Timorese people, but for America and for every nation that supports democracy and stands against the rule of terror and violence which has shaped twenty years of East Timorese history. The past year has witnessed extraordinary progress. The efforts of Portugal, the United Nations, the global community and the East Timorese leaders have been impressive. Combined with the willingness of the Indonesian government, these efforts have at last resulted in a plan for the peaceful and democratic determination of East Timor's political destiny. I would like to recognize all those whose courage and commitment have led us towards the August consultation, a consultation which will allow the East Timorese, at long last, to decide for themselves how they are to be governed. Nevertheless, much remains to be done. As great an achievement as the promised consultation may be, the future is far from certain. East Timor, already troubled by years of bloodshed, has seen even greater escalations in human rights abuses in recent months. Although it has already buried 200,000 people who have died violently since the 1975 Indonesian invasion, East Timor continues to be riven by conflict. Organized campaigns of terror and intimidation have been aimed at East Timorese leaders and journalists who favor autonomy. Some international observers have reported that East Timorese have been systematically herded into camps in efforts to provide large blocs of pro-Indonesian votes in the August consultation. Militia activity, violence, and destruction continue unabated. If the violence in East Timor is to cease, the militias must be stripped of their weapons and disbanded. International observers will play a critical role, both in the course of the consultation and in the implementation of the results that follow. Only subjecting this process to the harsh light of international scrutiny can we hope to prevent East Timor's violent past from serving as prologue to an equally violent future. Without our active participation and support, the hope of a lasting peace in East Timor is in danger of being lost. Mr. President, this historic opportunity for peace must not be allowed to slip away. The United States has a proud tradition of championing those who seek freedom and democracy across the world. It is my hope that this amendment will encourage the United States to intensify efforts to ensure that the people of East Timor find peace at last. amendment no. 716 (Purpose: To allocate funds for scholarships for doctoral graduate study in the social sciences to nationals of the independent states of the former Soviet Union) On page 12, line 6, strike ``$7,000,000'' and insert ``$5,000,000''. On page 12, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: (c) Muskie Fellowship Doctoral Graduate Studies for Nationals of the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.-- (1) Allocation of funds.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(1)(B), not less than $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, and not less than $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, shall be made available to provide scholarships for doctoral graduate study in the social sciences to nationals of the independent states of the former Soviet Union under the Edmund S. Muskie Fellowship Program authorized by section 227 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2452 note). (2) Requirements.-- (A) Non-federal support.--Not less than 20 percent of the costs of each student's doctoral study supported under paragraph (1) shall be provided from non-Federal sources. (B) Home country residence requirement.-- (i) Agreement for service in home country.--Before an individual may receive scholarship assistance under paragraph (1), the individual shall enter into a written agreement with the Department of State under which the individual agrees that after completing all degree requirements, or terminating his or her studies, whichever occurs first, the individual will return to the country of the individual's nationality, or country of last habitual residence, within the independent states of the former Soviet Union (as defined in section 3 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801)), to reside and remain physically present there for an aggregate of at least one year for each year of study supported under paragraph (1). (ii) Denial of entry into the united states for noncompliance.--Any individual who has entered into an agreement under clause (i) and who has not completed the period of home country residence and presence required by that agreement shall be ineligible for a visa and inadmissible to the United States. On page 12, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to support and strengthen America's school libraries. The school library plays a vital role in the education of students. It is where reading skills are reinforced; the laboratory where ideas taught in class are explored and tested; the arena in which children explore new ideas and learn on their own; and a vital bridge to the remarkable and growing resources of the information age. Research shows that well-equipped and well-staffed school libraries are essential to promoting learning and achievement. Indeed, a 1992 study found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and professional library media specialists perform better on achievement tests for reading comprehension and basic research skills. This finding was echoed in a 1994 U.S. Department of Education report on the impact of school library media centers which noted that the highest achieving students tend to come from schools with strong libraries and library programs. And, a 1993 review of research studies concluded that free voluntary reading is the foundation for good grammar, writing, and reading comprehension abilities. For the average American student, the school library is the single most available source of reading material. Mr. President, with our ever-changing global economy, access to information and the skills to use it are vital to ensuring that young Americans are competitive and informed citizens of the world. That is why the school library is so important in supplementing what is learned in the classroom; promoting better learning, including reading, research, library use, and electronic database skills; and providing the foundation for independent learning that allows students to achieve throughout their educational careers and their lives. While the promise of a well-equipped school library is limitless, and its importance greater than ever, the condition of libraries today does not live up to that potential. As Linda Wood, a school library media specialist from South Kingstown High School in Rhode Island, recently noted during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, school library collections are outdated and sparse. Indeed, schools across the nation are dependent on collections purchased in the mid-1960s under the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As a result, many books in our school libraries predate the landing of manned spacecraft on the moon, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the end of Apartheid, the growth of the Internet, and advances in DNA research. In a rapidly changing world, our students are placed at a major disadvantage if the only scientific, historical, and geographical materials they have access to reflect times long gone by. In sum, school library funding is grossly inadequate to the task of improving and supplementing collections. Library spending per student today is a small fraction of the cost of a new book. Indeed, while the average school library book costs $16, the average spending per student for books is $6.73 in elementary schools; $7.30 in middle schools; and $6.27 in high schools. Consequently, many outdated books that should be removed from shelves cannot be, since there is no money to replace them. One case in point is California which in response to its fourth-graders being ranked second to last among 39 states on last year's National Assessment of Educational Progress has begun an effort to restock school library shelves in order to weed out old and inaccurate books, including those rife with racial stereotypes and those which proclaim ``one day, man might go to the moon''. For a long time, according to a recent Los Angeles Times article, California school librarians could not afford to take such a step because there would be no books left on the shelves. Too few states, however, are taking similar steps to improve school libraries. My home state of Rhode Island is working on an innovative effort to ensure that students gain access to materials not available in their own school libraries. RILINK (the Rhode Island Library Information Network for Kids) gives students and teachers 24-hour Internet access to a statewide catalog of school library holdings, complete with information about the book's status on the shelf. RILINK also allows for on-line request of materials via interlibrary loan, with rapid delivery through a statewide courier system, and provides links from book information records to related Internet research sites, allowing a single book request to serve as a point of departure for a galaxy of information sources. Unfortunately, such innovations, which could benefit schoolchildren across the nation, cannot be expanded without adequate library funding. Indeed, the only federal funding that is currently available to school libraries is the Title VI block grant, which allows expenditure for school library and instructional materials as one of seven choices for local uses of funds. This program is slated for elimination under the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget and Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization proposal. Mr. President, well-trained school library media specialists are also essential to helping students unlock their potential. These individuals are at the heart of guiding students in their work, providing research training, maintaining and developing collections, and ensuring that a library fulfills its potential. In addition, they have the skills to guide students in the use of the broad variety of advanced technological education resources now available. Unfortunately, only 68% of schools have state certified library media specialists, according to Department of Education figures, and, on average, there is only one specialist for every 591 students. This shortage means that many school libraries are staffed by volunteers and are open only a few days a week. Mr. President, the bipartisan bill I am introducing today, along with Senators Cochran, Sarbanes, Wellstone, Kennedy, Daschle, Reid, and Murray, would restore the funding that is critical to improving school libraries. The Elementary And Secondary School Library Media Resources, Training, And Advanced Technology Act directs funding to schools with the greatest need and would ensure that students have access to the informational tools they need to learn and achieve at the highest levels by providing funds to update library media resources, such as books and advanced technology, train school library media specialists, facilitate resource-sharing among school libraries, and improve collaboration between school library media specialists and teachers. The bill also establishes the School Library Access Program to provide students with access to school libraries during non-school hours, including before and after school, weekends, and summers. Providing access to the most up-to-date school library collections is an essential part of increasing student achievement, improving literacy skills, fostering a love of reading, and helping students become lifelong learners. The Elementary and Secondary School Library Media Resources, Training, and Advanced Technology Act, which is strongly supported by the American Library Association, will help accomplish these essential goals. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation and a letter of support written by the American Library Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. As I mentioned, these provisions that would help protect children are provisions which the American people want and the American people will pay for. They are provisions that are at the heart of the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. I think it is time to move. It is time to move forward on a debate about this critical issue, an issue that affects every family in this country. It is an issue that is critical to their well-being. It is an issue, frankly, that they sent us here to work on, to debate and to vote on. Difficult votes they may be, but they sent us here to take these votes. So I urge my colleagues to join together to begin the debate, to reach a conclusion, and to do something the American people want us to do--give them the opportunity to protect their health and the health of their families. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today also to join my colleague from Illinois and to speak about an issue which is of great concern to the American people. That is the Patients' Bill of Rights. As is my colleague from Illinois, I am terribly frustrated. We are in the third week of June. Yet we have not been able to get this legislation to the floor for debate. Senator Dorgan today tried to do that, but he was frustrated. As Members go around this great country--and I will speak from my experience in Rhode Island--we talk to our constituents and there is a sense we have made progress on economic issues. The economy is doing better. People feel better about their jobs and about the future. If you speak with them for any length of time and ask them what really bothers them, they will quickly state they are afraid of getting sick. They are afraid, as a breadwinner, of becoming sick and not being able to get the care they need, even though they are in an insurance program. And they are particularly concerned about the health of their children. They have heard the stories and read the newspaper articles, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, about the numerous people who have been paying for insurance or have been the beneficiaries of employer- paid-for insurance. They have become ill, gone to their HMO thinking that at least they had insurance coverage, and they discovered they did not have it. They did not have it when it counted. They did not have it when they needed it, when they were ill or their children were ill. That is why we are advocating so strenuously bringing the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor for debate. In March, I participated in the deliberations in the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee. We voted out a bill on partisan lines. It is not the bill I prefer. It is a bill that is deficient in many respects. However, it is the basis of debate, and it is the basis of the debate we should be having today on the floor of this Senate. There are two versions of this legislation. There is a Republican proposal and there is a Democratic proposal which my colleague from Illinois was talking about so eloquently. There are many differences. One of the most startling differences is that the Republican proposal covers a very small fraction of Americans. Not all Americans that have private health insurance are covered by HMOs. Under the Republican bill, a lucky 48 million Americans would have some protections. Ask yourself, if these protections are appropriate for 48 million Americans, why aren't they appropriate for every American who is part of the managed care health plan? I think the answer is quite clear: The Republican version is more sham than substance; more window dressing than a valiant, serious attempt to address the concerns of every American. That is unfortunate. Why should there be one person who is lucky enough to fall within a narrow category that is covered by the Republican plan--that person having access to quality care, that person having certain appeal rights--yet his neighbor, who is also covered by an HMO plan but one that is funded slightly differently is without these protections? There is absolutely no logic to this. The Democratic proposal would cover all Americans who are in these private HMO plans. It would do so in a way that ensures people are getting what they paid for. That is the other irony in this whole debate. We are not talking about a program which, through the generosity of the government or the generosity of someone else, people are getting some health care from insurance companies and they are deciding they shouldn't get X or they shouldn't get Y. These health insurance companies are being paid significant premiums by individuals and their employers for coverage. Yet the coverage is not being provided in so many cases. I am particularly concerned that this narrow scope is extremely detrimental to the children of this country. Only about a third of the children in these managed health care plans would be protected by the Republican program. I ask, very sincerely, why can't we at least cover every child in America? Is that too much to ask? I think not. I believe every American would recognize the need to do that. Now, managed care has provided benefits for children in this country. Their emphasis on preventive care, their emphasis on immunizations are all very good. But, frankly, I have a distinct impression a lot of what they are calling coverage for kids amounts to taking the premiums but not providing the service. I had the occasion to meet with a physician from California, from the University of California at Los Angeles, who has a very innovative program. In this program, he goes from school to school with a van to cover children who have asthma. It is very effective because not only does he diagnose the children and then treat them and then follow them up, which is critical, but he also looks at the statistics. He was able to essentially categorize all his patients into three groups: Those with private HMO insurance, those with California Medicaid insurance for low-income children, and those children without any coverage at all. What was startling to me was that when he looked at these different populations, he found essentially these kids got the same coverage, regardless of their category of insurance. All they really got was an emergency room visit, and when they saw the doctor because they had a terrible asthma episode, they were given, in the emergency room, a little paper bag with an inhaler and a few bits of medicine and then they were sent home--those without insurance, those with Medicaid insurance, and those in managed care plans for which an employer was paying a great deal of money. That just goes to show we really have to do a great deal more to ensure that children get the benefit of the health insurance plan they are supposed to be part of. Then we have to ensure that all of our citizens who participate in these plans get fair and adequate coverage. That is at the heart of the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, ensuring that all of our citizens who are in these managed care plans get access to quality coverage at affordable prices. I would like, for a moment, to concentrate on children in these plans, because, as I said before, this is a special concern of mine. I think, at a minimum, we can emerge from this Congress with legislation that guarantees every child in America access to quality health care, provisions in their managed care plans that make sure children are treated and treated well. Senator Durbin was talking about a parent whose child had a rare cancer. The HMO said: Yes, your daughter is quite ill, perhaps terminally ill. We will send her for treatments, not to a pediatric oncologist or a pediatric surgeon, someone who specializes not only in cancer but pediatric cancers, we are just going to send her to a surgeon. Those parents had to pay out of their own pocket, presumably, to get the right kind of care for their child. In the Democratic bill, there would be a guarantee that a child would have access to a pediatric specialist and pediatric services, because children are not just small adults. They have specialized health care needs that are very different from those of adults. But too often in managed care plans throughout this country they are simply treated as small adults, if they are treated in particular at all. There are some other things we have to have for children in these plans, particularly for children. We have to have expedited review, not only if their life is in jeopardy but also their development because this is another difference between an adult and a child. Adults are usually fully developed. Children are not. There are conditions which might not be life threatening but certainly threaten their development, both physical and intellectual. In those situations there have to be expedited appeals. Then we have to have the continuity of care for chronically ill or terminally ill children. We also have to recognize the information parents get when they make a choice about their health care plans should include specific information about how that plan treats children. Too often such information does not exist. Too often it is all done in terms of adult outcomes, adult studies. Unless parents have this information, sometimes the only time they realize how well their child is covered is when they discover their child is not covered well at all because he or she is deathly ill and is not getting the kind of care he or she needs or deserves. I am encouraged because Senator Bond has introduced a bill entitled ``Healthy Kids 2000,'' which includes access to pediatric specialists similar to that in my legislation. Also, Senator Chafee has introduced a managed care bill, which also talks about access to pediatric specialists. So I hope there is an emerging consensus across the aisle that we have to do more for children in managed care. But let me say again, the Democratic bill strongly and emphatically defines the special rights of children in managed care. We have actually taken surveys and asked the American people, regarding access to care for children, what do they want; what do they demand. They want high-quality care. They want access to specialists. They want to be able to protect the development of children. They want to have expedited reviews when children's development or lives are threatened. And they are willing to pay for these provisions. What we found in too many managed care plans is that these types of protections just do not exist. In 1992, there was a study done of pediatricians. They found there were significant barriers to pediatric referrals in the managed care system, that pediatricians in the managed care system often encounter barriers to referring their patients to pediatric specialists. Of these pediatricians who were surveyed, 35 percent believed their patient's health was compromised because of the denial of access to pediatric specialists. This is a real problem, and it is a problem the Democratic proposal resolves.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, to discuss the issue of childhood lead poisoning and discuss the legislation we introduced. Over the last 20 years, the United States has made significant progress in reducing lead exposure, particularly among our children. We have enacted bans on lead-based paint, lead solder in food cans, and the deleading of gasoline. As a result, blood lead levels in the United States have decreased by 80 percent. That is good news. However, what is not good news is the fact that there are an estimated nearly 1 million preschoolers who have excessive lead in their blood, making lead poisoning one of the leading childhood environmental diseases, if not the most significant environmental disease that affects children today. Today, lead-based paint in housing is the major source of this exposure to our children. It has been estimated that approximately half of America's housing stock, roughly 64 million units, contain some lead-based paint. Twenty million of these homes contain lead-based paint in a hazardous condition--paint which is peeling, cracked, or chipped. Children typically get exposed to this, and young children particularly, while playing on floors that have minute particles of lead, from opening and closing windows, particularly old windows, because of the paint in the runners which crack when the window is opened or closed. Thousands of particles of lead are set off in the atmosphere, and children ingest these particles. Children also ingest lead in backyards in older neighborhoods where cars were worked on 20 years before but in the ground there are still significant quantities of lead. This is particularly a problem in my home State of Rhode Island, because we have a rather old housing stock; 43.7 percent of our houses and homes were built before 1950 when lead paint was ubiquitous; it was used everywhere. HUD estimates that 80 percent of pre-1950 homes used lead paint. There are only five States that have a higher percentage of older homes--those built before 1950--than Rhode Island. In Rhode Island this is a significant problem. Nationally we have found that 1 in 11 children has elevated blood levels. In Rhode Island it is one in five. Nationally this is still a problem. This is not just an issue that pertains to the Northeast or to some parts of the country. It cuts across every sector of this great Nation. Another example from the Rhode Island experience: In 1998, 15,000 Rhode Island children entering kindergarten had their blood levels screened; 3,000 of these children had elevated lead in their blood systems. That is an unacceptable percentage. We would like to see zero elevated lead levels but certainly not 3,000 out of 15,000. The impact is unfairly borne by minority children, low-income children. African American children are five times more likely than white children to contact lead poisoning. In Rhode Island, 14 percent of white children screened in 1998 had elevated lead levels, 36 percent of African American children, and 29 percent of Hispanic children. This is an environmental disease that is correlated highly with low income. Poor housing unduly affects minority children throughout the country. We also know that exposure to lead leads to health problems for children. It also has a profound impact on their educational development, because lead will attack the central nervous system and upset cognitive functions. It is a pernicious disease which will lead to impairment of educational ability and intellectual ability. One of the ironies of our program is that we spend very little relative to lead problems, but we are spending millions and millions and millions on special education. In fact, there is not one of my colleagues who has not heard his or her local school superintendent or the Governor say: We have to support special education; we have to reduce these costs. We can if we have a health care system that reacts and screens for lead in children. These lead-affected children are more likely, because of educational complications, to drop out of school. In fact, it has been estimated that they are seven times more likely to drop out of school if they have elevated blood lead levels. We continue to pay for special education through dropouts, through young people who do not have the skills to participate fully in our economy. It is our responsibility to do something. As my colleague, Senator Torricelli, mentioned, we have in the past instructed all the Federal health care programs to screen children and to treat children, but we have not been able to measure up to the task we have given them. We have not been able to effectively screen all the children. Certainly we haven't been able to treat all these children. We do have solutions: First, we have to make parents more aware, and also we have to insist upon comprehensive screening and treatment for children who are at risk. In January 1999, the General Accounting Office reported that children in federally funded health care programs such as Medicaid, WIC programs, and the Health Centers Program are five times more likely to have elevated blood levels than children who are not in these programs. The report also found--this is substantiated by what Senator Torricelli said and underscores the need for action now--that despite longstanding Federal requirements over 20 years, two-thirds of the children in these programs, more than 400,000, have never been screened at all, even though it is our policy that they all should be screened--400,000 children. Our legislation, the Children's Lead Safe Act, will ensure that all preschool children who are enrolled in Federal health care programs who are most at risk for lead poisoning are screened and receive appropriate followup care. We know that early detection of lead exposure is critical to the success and the health of that child. We also know that unless you screen the child, you will not know if that child requires extensive follow-on care. If we do the screening, as for years we have said we must, we will go a long way toward taking the first step in reducing this problem, finding out who is exposed, and getting those children into appropriate care. We want to ensure there are clear and consistent standards for the screening, that we don't have a hodgepodge of different standards, that we have a program that is sensitive to the latest scientific information. In addition to comprehensive screening, we are also going to insist on clear and consistent standards that will be applied by every health care provider who is screening these children. Another aspect of the legislation is to have a management system in place that follows these children. As an aside, I had an interesting conversation just a few weeks ago with a physician from Los Angeles who is an expert in asthma, which is another environmental childhood disease of significance. He has created a special program with a mobile laboratory which goes to each school. One of the key factors for the success of his program is that not only does he treat the child, but there is an elaborate information system to follow the course of that child. In fact, what he found is that without this elaborate followup, this information system that can monitor the results and the progress of children, initial treatment is seldom effective. If we begin to insist upon comprehensive screening, as we have said we wanted for 20 years, if we go ahead and require that there be universal screening standards that are applied everywhere, if we have a system of information that will follow these children and ensure that they get the care, and ultimately we provide the resources for the care, we can go a long, long way to do what we have wanted to do for decades, to ensure that every child in America is not exposed to lead and, if they are, they are treated properly and effectively. If we do these things, the payoff is going to be dramatic. We are going to have healthier children. We are going to have children who are more able and willing to learn. We will, I hope, reduce the dropout rate because, I remind my colleagues again, a child with elevated lead blood levels is seven times more likely to drop out. In sum, we are going to be able to spare children from a disease which is entirely avoidable. That is why we are so enthusiastic about the legislation we are proposing. Both Senator Torricelli and I believe this is a sensible, efficient way to do what we all want to do. We also believe in the long run--and I know this is said about so much legislation, but this certainly must be the case--this will be saving not only the children but will be saving dollars in special education and in dropout prevention. In many ways we are paying right now for a problem that not only could be addressed but effectively resolved. So I encourage all my colleagues to join us to ensure our legislation becomes law and that an unnecessary disease affecting children, the No. 1 environmental disease affecting children in this country, can be eradicated and will go the way of many other childhood diseases because we took action. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss S. 96, the McCain bill concerning Y2K litigation. It is unfortunate that this bill has, to some extent, been utilized by those on both extremes of the tort reform debate: with proponents arguing that opposition to the bill reflects contempt for our economy and a few opponents accusing the bill's supporters of contempt for consumers' rights. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between these two poles. As our economy evolves, becoming national and international in scope, situations will arise that demand procedural and substantive changes to our legal system. Moderate, balanced tort reform is an issue on which I have worked for some years. I approach each issue with the same question: can our legal system be made more efficient while continuing to provide adequate, just protections to consumers? This approach has led me to support reforms which have been validated by the test of time. Mr. President, in 1994, I supported one of the first tort reform measures to pass Congress, the Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. At that time small plane manufacturers had been almost extinguished by costly litigation. This narrowly-tailored legislation limited the period, to eighteen years, in which manufactures could be sued for design or manufacturing defects. In the six years since enactment, the industry has reemerged to create thousands of new jobs while providing consumers with safe products. In 1995, I sought to apply this same principle to all durable goods, some of which remain in the workplace for forty, fifty, sixty years or more. Tool and machine manufacturers in Rhode Island and the nation were saddled with costs stemming from litigation over products they made a half century ago, some of which had been modified by others. As a result, I supported tort reform for durable goods which limited the statute of repose, reasonably capped punitive damages, and implemented proportionate liability to de minimis tortfeasors. In an effort to further the reform effort, I voted for this bill even though I was concerned that its punitive damage caps and proportionate liability sections were too broad. My support for the bill included a vote to override President Clinton's veto. My concerns about this bill were borne out by the fact that the veto override was not successful. Proponents of tort reform allowed their view of perfection to become an enemy of good, sensible reform. Indeed, their stubbornness continues to frustrate progress to this day. Just last year, a compromise tort reform bill negotiated by Senator Rockefeller between the Clinton Administration and members of the business community was rejected by some who wanted only sweeping changes to current tort law. I am afraid that some have brought this same sentiment to the Y2K issue. In addition to addressing the products liability reform issue in 1995, I was also approached by members of the securities industry seeking to amend litigation rules pertaining to securities law. The industry wished to combat frivolous litigation. Indeed, it was obvious that some class action suits were being filed after a precipitous drop in the value of a corporation's stock, without evidence of fraud. Such lawsuits frequently inflict substantial legal costs upon corporations, harming both the business and its shareholders. This sort of activity benefitted no one but the attorneys who brought the cases. As a result, I supported both procedural changes and requirements that specific examples of fraud be listed in a lawsuit as embodied in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Again, my support for this legislation required my vote to override a veto. This time, that override was successful. In my view, that success was due to the moderate, balanced approach of the bill. In practice, the legislation successfully ended frivolous lawsuits in federal courts such that I worked with colleagues and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission to implement the same rules at the state level. This effort resulted in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. Again, this bill only received Presidential support after an attempt to inject overly broad provisions into the bill were defeated. Courts are now applying this standard in a manner that balances the interest we all have in ensuring consumer protection, while also deterring nonmeritorious law suits. I think the record is clear. When Congress addresses identifiable inequalities or inefficiencies in our legal system, progress can be made. However, when legislation focuses on broader, philosophical debates, directly pitting the interests of consumers against manufactures, consensus cannot be reached. It is my hope that the Senate will keep this lesson in mind when the Y2K legislation goes to conference. As the work of the Senate's Y2K Committee and the President's Council on the Year 2000 Conversion have shown, the millennium bug will cause disruptions. These disruptions will inflict costs on individuals and businesses. The question is: how will we adjudicate who will bear the burden of these costs? Thus far, as demonstrated by a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, there have been only 48 Y2K related lawsuits filed. Recently, the Gartner Group, a consulting firm specializing in Y2K redress, reported that a quarter of all Y2K failures have already occurred. Given the paucity of Y2K lawsuits today, one could question whether the dire predictions of billions of dollars in Y2K litigation is overestimated. At the very least, it is certain that the current 48 suits have not provided much in the way of proof concerning the inequities in our legal system that will allow attorneys to compound and exacerbate the costs associated with the Y2K problem. Some of these 48 lawsuits are class actions against inexpensive software manufactured several years ago. The merit of such suits is dubious, given that no harm has yet occurred and the ``reasonableness'' of a consumer's expectation that $30 software would last several years and withstand the millennium bug. These 48 lawsuits also contain examples, however, of companies attempting to improperly profit from their own Y2K unpreparedness. For example, one software company sold a product to small business men and women for $13,000 in 1996 with implied warrantees for proper use for a decade. A year later the company sent its customers notice that the software was not Y2K compatible. The software, would, therefore, not work in two years. The company offered its customers a $25,000 ``upgrade'' which would ensure that the software would work properly for half the time it was warranted. Needless to say, a free fix was quickly offered by this software manufacturer once a class action lawsuit was filed. The question the Senate must address in this legislation is what changes in our legal system will encourage everyone to address Y2K problems before they strike while allowing defrauded consumers continued opportunity to obtain redress. Indeed, the greatest danger would seem to be that this legislation unintentionally rewards bad faith companies that fail to address Y2K problems. Again, according to the Gartner Group, some $600 billion will be spent by the end of the year in trying to find, patch, and test computer systems at risk of fault. Bad faith companies that have not taken these responsible steps should not be rewarded. I supported legislation put forward by Senators Kerry, Robb, Breaux, Reid and Leader Daschle which encourages redress not litigation, deters frivolous lawsuits, provides good-faith actors with additional protections if they are sued, and allows individual consumers the protections they are afforded under current law. Specifically, the amendment requires that plaintiffs provide defendants with notice of a lawsuit and time for the defendant to respond with proposed redress to the problem. Additionally, plaintiffs would have to cite with specificity the material defect of their product as well as the damages incurred. Class action lawsuits are limited to those involving material harm. Current redress of Y2K problems is encouraged by the provision of the amendment which requires immediate mitigation and limits damages for those who fail in this regard. The amendment provides commercial transactions with the benefit of their express contract, while omitting consumers, who do not have the economic bargaining power or legal departments of large corporations, from the scope of the legislation. The amendment also discourages plaintiffs from simply suing the defendant with the ``deepest pockets'' by providing proportionate liability for companies that have acted responsibly in addressing Y2K problems in their products. On balance, the Kerry/Daschle amendment is a fair method of addressing identifiable problems in our litigation system as they relate to potential Y2K litigation. I must also acknowledge that the McCain legislation has markedly improved from its original form due in no small part to the efforts of Senator Dodd. As first introduced, the bill appeared to be a wish-list for those who have attempted over the past decades, without success, to completely overhaul our litigation system. S. 96, however, continues to contain provisions that simply appear to transfer Y2K costs from defendants to plaintiffs without equitable cause. The bill provides protections to plaintiffs not afforded defendants, caps punitive damages for bad faith actors, limits joint and several liability for bad faith businesses, prohibits states like Rhode Island from awarding non-economic damages even in instances of fraud, federalizes all class action lawsuits, and fails to distinguish between consumers and large corporations. Perhaps just as importantly as its substantive problems, the Clinton Administration has threatened a veto of S. 96. With six months until the end of the year, we do not have two, three, or four months to negotiate compromises. It is my hope that those of us who are truly in support of reforming the current system will prevail in softening some of S. 96's provisions to arrive at legislation that the Administration can and will support. While this will not result in legislation that organizations can use to fuel their drive to overhaul the entire tort system, it will allow us to mitigate Y2K litigation costs while protecting those who have been wronged.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the first time since the America's Cup left Newport for Fremantle in 1983, Rhode Island is home to a championship trophy. With a 5-1 victory over the Rochester Americans last night, the Providence Bruins won the esteemed Calder Cup as the 1999 Champions of the American Hockey League. The P-Bruins have won the hearts of sports fans in Rhode Island since professional hockey returned to the state in 1992 after a 16-year hiatus. But this victory was much deserved for a team that truly turned itself around. In winning the Calder Cup, the 1999 Providence Bruins became one of only four teams in AHL history to have gone from last place to first in one season. Under the able leadership of Coach Peter Laviolette and assistant Bill Armstrong, the Providence Bruins amassed a 56-20-4 record--tops during the regular season--then ran off a perfect 10-0 record at home in the playoffs. In winning the Calder Cup, this Bruins team can rightly boast that they are among the best in the history of the league. While this championship was very much the team's victory, a special acknowledgment belongs to Peter Ferraro, who, as the Providence Bruins' leading scorer in the playoffs with nine goals, won the Most Valuable Player honor for the 1999 series. The Providence Bruins' determination and great Championship victory exemplify the dedication of the entire team, and their efforts have been appreciated by the people of Rhode Island, who have flocked to their games throughout the season. All of Rhode Island takes justifiable pride in the Providence Bruins' victory, and we wish them continued success as they strive to repeat as winners of the Calder Cup next year.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join a bipartisan chorus of Senators who have requested we take up action on Senate bill S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act. As my colleagues know, this legislation would remove a significant barrier that individuals with disabilities face when they are trying to return to the workforce. The significant barrier is continued access to health care if they leave SSDI or SSI programs. Currently, individuals with disabilities who are eligible for Social Security disability insurance, SSDI, or supplemental security income, SSI, face the dilemma of losing their Medicare and Medicaid health benefits simply because they return to work. This is regrettable. According to surveys, about three-quarters of individuals with disabilities in the United States who enroll in SSI or SSDI want to work. Sadly, less than one-half of 1 percent are actually able to make the transition because--this is a major reason--they are afraid once they lose their health care they will be unable to support themselves. Whatever they earn by working they lose by forfeiting their health care. We can correct this situation by simply extending eligibility to Medicare and Medicaid for these individuals. We can provide them a helping hand to move from unemployment to contributing to our economy and to our society. With the Americans With Disabilities Act, we passed legislation to combat discrimination and remove physical barriers from the workplace. Now we have a chance to lift a health care roadblock which is stopping many people from moving from a place of unemployment to one in which they are fully participating in our economy. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are more than 40,000 individuals with disabilities who are eligible for SSI or SSDI. These individuals could benefit immediately from this work incentives bill. Across the country, there are about 9.5 million people who are similarly situated who could benefit from this legislation. In addition to the simple argument about fairness and giving everyone the chance to fully use their talents to benefit not only themselves but their community, there is another compelling reason. We are all familiar with the solvency crisis with respect to Social Security but what is less familiar is that with respect to our disability insurance fund--which is part of Social Security--there is also a crisis. Indeed, while the old age and survivors portion of Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until the year 2036, the disability insurance portion becomes insolvent 16 years earlier, in 2020. If we help disabled workers return to the workforce, we will, in effect, also be reducing the cash payments out of this disability insurance fund which will give it longer solvency, which will be a way to address a problem that is lurking just over the horizon in the year 2020. For economic reasons, as well as our commitment to the basic ideal of allowing Americans to use all of their talents, this legislation makes a great deal of sense. Now, we have seen this legislation proposed under the able leadership of Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy. This Work Incentives Improvement Act was nearly adopted at the end of last Congress because of their effort. I was a very proud cosponsor of that version. This year, Senators Roth and Moynihan have also stepped up to take major leadership roles. Indeed, we have more than 70 cosponsors. This is a piece of legislation that is bipartisan, with strong support in both caucuses. Because of this support, because of the efforts of the leadership of Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, this bill passed the Finance Committee on March 4, 1999, but we have been waiting for several months to bring it to the floor, to get it passed, and to give disabled Americans a chance at better employment. In March, we were able to take another bill with bipartisan support, the Ed-Flex bill, and work through the problems. The reason we were able to do that was we decided to act, we decided not to let legislation be bottled up, but to move it to this floor, and from this floor to the President for his signature. We have today with respect to this disability legislation twice the inherent support in terms of numbers of Senators, and it also has grassroots support with more than 100 groups endorsing this bill. This support runs the gamut from advocacy groups for disabled Americans all the way to the insurance industry. With this type of support, both within this Chamber and across the country, we should be able to move this just as we moved the Ed-Flex legislation a few months ago. Also, I was pleased to note that in a May 28 edition of the Washington Post, the majority leader indicated he was satisfied with the status of this bill and ready to move to the floor. It is my hope we can adopt this legislation, that we can bring it here, that we can debate it, and we can move it forward. If we do so, we will be providing an opportunity for disabled Americans all across this country to use their talents for their own benefit and to contribute to the communities and to this Nation. That, I think, is the essence of why we are here--for wise legislative policies that allow Americans to use their talents to benefit themselves and this country. I hope we adopt this very quickly. That means, of course, we schedule this legislation; that we will, in fact, bring to the floor the Work Incentives Improvement Act for a vote. If we do so, we will be doing the work we were sent here to do by our constituents. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here today to join my colleagues, Senator Torricelli and Senator Boxer and others, who are pointing out that America has recently been both shocked and, we hope, awakened to the danger of gun violence throughout our land and particularly the gun violence that envelops our children. A few weeks ago, last month, we in this Senate began to recognize that the people of the United States want reasonable gun control policies. They want these policies to protect themselves and particularly to protect their children. During consideration of the juvenile justice bill, we made some progress by passing a ban on the juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and a ban on the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips. We saw Republicans join all Democrats in voting to require that child safety devices be sold with all handguns. Finally, with a historic, tie-breaking vote by the Vice President, we passed the Lautenberg amendment to firmly close the gun show and pawnshop loophole by requiring background checks on all sales and allowing law enforcement up to 72 hours to conduct these background checks, as currently permitted by the Brady law. These are the kinds of measures that Democrats in Congress have been advocating for years. It is unfortunate that it took the Littleton tragedy to bring our colleagues in the majority around to our way of thinking. We welcome even these small steps in the right direction. But these are, indeed, small steps, and we need to do much more. We should reinstate the Brady waiting period, which expired last November, to provide a cooling off period before the purchase of a handgun. My colleague from New Jersey said it so well: Too often crimes with handguns are crimes of rage and passion. A cooling off period might insulate the acquisition of the gun from the crime of passion or rage. Even if we do perfect the instant check, this waiting period will still play a very valuable role in ensuring that handguns are not the source of violence and death in our society. We should also pass a child access prevention law to hold adults responsible if they allow a child to gain access to a firearm and that child uses the firearm to harm another. These are the types of protections that are, indeed, necessary. In addition, we should completely close the Internet gun sales loophole, something the Senate failed to do last month when we were considering the juvenile justice bill. We all know the increasing power of the Internet to sell goods and services. Whatever is happening now in the distribution of firearms through the Internet is merely a glimpse and a foreshadowing of what will happen in the months and years ahead. We should act now, promptly, so we can establish sensible rules with respect to the Internet sale of firearms. I also believe that we should apply to guns the same consumer product regulations which we apply to virtually every other product in this country. Again, the Senator from New Jersey was very eloquent when he described the paradox, the unexplainable paradox, the situation in which we regulate toy guns but we cannot by law, in any way, shape or form, regulate real guns. If toy guns, teddy bears, lawn mowers, and hair dryers are all subject to regulation to ensure they include features to minimize the dangers to children, why not firearms? I have introduced legislation to allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate firearms to protect children and adults against unreasonable risk of injury. I know my friend and colleague from New Jersey has introduced a bill to allow the Treasury Department to regulate firearms. Whichever agency ultimately has oversight, the important thing is that guns should no longer be the only consumer product exempt from even the most basic safety regulations. Finally, I believe that gun dealers should be held responsible if they violate Federal law by selling a firearm to a minor, a convicted felon, or others prohibited from buying firearms. Currently, there are over 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States. While most of these dealers are responsible small business people, recent tracing of crime guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has found substantial evidence that some dealers are selling guns to juveniles and convicted felons. This direct diversion of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place both through off-the-book sales by corrupt dealers and through so- called straw purchases, when an ineligible buyer has a friend or relative buy a firearm for him or her. Indeed, just this week, my colleague, Senator Schumer, from New York released a study of Federal firearms data that reveals a stunning number of crime guns being sold by a very, very small proportion of the Nation's gun dealers. According to data supplied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, just 1 percent of this country's gun dealers sold nearly half of the guns used in crime last year. The statistics suggest we must move aggressively against these dealers who are flouting the laws and who are disregarding public safety. To remedy this situation, I have introduced S. 1101, the Gun Dealer Responsibility Act, which would provide a statutory cause of action for victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale of a gun directly contributes to the victim's injury. I believe this legislation will make unscrupulous gun dealers think twice about to whom they will sell a weapon, particularly if they intend to sell it to minors, convicted felons or any other ineligible buyer, either directly or through straw purchases. Anyone who honestly considers the tragic events in Littleton 1 month ago and the 13 children who die from gun violence each day in this country must concede that our young people have far too easy and unlimited access to guns. It is a shameful commentary that in this country today, in 1999, for too many children it is easier to get a gun than it is to get counseling. We have to work on both fronts--improving our schools and access to mental health services and counseling and support--but we also have to close the loopholes which make it easy for youngsters to get guns. Last year, 6,000 American students were expelled from elementary or high school for bringing a gun into the school building. That, too, is an indication that we have to work to ensure that children do not have access to firearms. We must do more than just keeping the guns away, but that is something we have to do right now in a comprehensive and coherent way. The measures I have suggested and the measures that my colleague from New Jersey suggested are sensible parts of a comprehensive strategy to do what every American wants done: to keep weapons out of the hands of young children who may use them to harm themselves or harm others. I hope that having been awakened by the tragedy in Littleton, we are ready to move progressively and aggressively to remedy this situation in the Senate. I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievement of St. Philomena School of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, which was recently honored as a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School. It is a highly regarded distinction to be named a Blue Ribbon School. Through an intensive selection process beginning at the state level and continuing through a federal Review Panel of 100 top educators, 266 of the very best public and private schools in the nation were identified as deserving this special recognition. These schools are particularly effective in meeting local, state, and national goals. However, this honor signifies not just who is best, but what works in educating today's children. Now, more than ever, it is important that we make every effort to reach out to students, that we truly engage and challenge them, and that we make their education come alive. That is what St. Philomena School is doing. St. Philomena is a kindergarten through eighth grade school that emphasizes student achievement. Since opening in 1953, much has changed for St. Philomena. For a brief time, it offered a comprehensive education from elementary through high school. But since the late 1960s, St. Philomena has focused exclusively on elementary education, and its students have benefitted from this wise decision. While the school has grown in size--adding four new buildings to its facilities, its administration and faculty have taken a personalized approach to each student's education. Mr. President, St. Philomena is dedicated to the highest standards. It is a school committed to a process of continuous improvement not only for students but for teachers as well. Indeed, St. Philomena's teachers hone their skills as educators by continuously pursuing educational opportunities of their own. Mr. President, the Blue Ribbon School initiative shows us the very best we can do for students and the techniques that can be replicated in other schools to help all students succeed. I am proud to say that in Rhode Island we can look to a school like St. Philomena. Under the leadership of its principal, Sister Ann Marie Walsh, its capable faculty, and its involved parents, St. Philomena School will continue to be a shining example for years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1059, the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill. As a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to thank Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their leadership on this legislation and, also, the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have been very helpful. The staff of the committee has also given us able support and assistance throughout this process. This bill represents a significant increase in funding for national defense, $288.8 billion. This is an $8.3 billion increase over the request of the Administration. I must admit that although I recognize the need for increasing defense spending, this is a substantial increase that puts tremendous pressure on other priorities of the nation. Nevertheless, I think at this time in our history it is important to reinvest in our military forces to give them the support they need to do the very critical job they perform every day to defend the United States. I am also pleased that, given this increase, the committee has very wisely allocated dollars to needs of the services that are paramount. We have been able, for example, to increase research and development by $1.5 billion. In an increasingly technological world, we have to continue to invest in research and development if our military forces are going to have the technology, equipment and the sophisticated new weapons systems that they need to be effective forces in the world. In addition, we have added about a billion dollars to the operation and maintenance accounts. These are critical accounts because equipment needs to be maintained and our troops need to be trained. All of these operations are integral parts of an effective fighting force, and we have made that commitment. In addition, we have tried with those extra dollars to fund, as best we can, the Service Chiefs' unfunded requirements. Those items they have identified--the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Air Force, CNO of the Navy--are critical systems they think are vital to the performance of their service's mission. In addition, we have also looked at and dealt with a very critical problem, and that is recruitment and retention of the military forces. We are finding ourselves each month, in many services, falling behind our goals for enrolling new enlistees to the military services and retaining the valuable members of the military services coming up for reenlistment. This bill, which incorporates many provisions of S. 4, increases pay by 4.8 percent and significantly changes the retirement provisions that were adopted in the 1980s to more favorably represent a retirement system for our military. It also will incorporate the provisions of Senator Cleland's bill with respect to Montgomery G.I. bill benefits, making them more flexible for military personnel so they can be used for a spouse or child. This is a very important development, not only because of the substance, but also in the fact that it represents that type of innovative thinking about dealing with the problem of recruitment and retention, not simply by doing the obvious, but something that is innovative and, in the long term, helpful. I commend the Senator from Georgia for his great leadership on this issue. What we are also recognizing here is that among the quality of life issues that affect the military is the issue of health care. I am pleased to note that we have attempted to deal with a nagging problem with the military, and that is the difficulty of obtaining assistance regarding the TriCare system--that is the HMO, if you will, that military families and personnel use. We have heard numerous complaints about TriCare. Indeed, they are many of the same complaints we hear about civilian HMOs from constituents back home. It is interesting to note that this legislation incorporates an ombudsman program for TriCare. There will be an 800 number where a military person can call with a complaint, with a question, or with a concern, and we will have an individual at that number who will help the person negotiate and navigate through the intricate system of managed care. This is such an interesting program, and, indeed, we are working on this in the context of civilian health care. Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation to create an ombudsman program for all managed care in the United States. Our program would authorize States to set up ombudsman programs to assist our constituents in dealing with problems just as real and just as complicated as problems facing military personnel in the TriCare system. I hope that our unanimous support of this provision today in this legislation will be a beacon of hope as we consider managed care reform on this floor in the days ahead so that we can, in fact, adopt an ombudsman provision for our civilian programs as well as our military TriCare program. I am also pleased to note that we have actively supported the nonproliferation provisions in this legislation. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program is absolutely essential to our national security. We authorize $475 million, an increase of $35 million. The crucial area of concern obviously is the stockpile of nuclear weapons in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. We want to make sure that they safeguard that system. We want to also make sure that we can work with them to dismantle those systems which will lead both to their security and our security and the security of the world. I am somewhat regretful, however, that the Senate chose to table Senator Kerrey's amendment which would strike the requirement that the United States maintain strategic force levels consistent with START I until START II provisions come into effect. We all agree that the United States needs to maintain a robust deterrent force, although I argue that this can be best accomplished at the START II level. Mandating that the United States maintain a START I level is another example of how we sometimes over-manage and hobble the Department of Defense. I think we can, and should have, adopted the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey. It would have been a valuable contribution to this overall legislation. We also are fortunate that we have in fact pushed ahead on another provision which touches on our nuclear security and a strategic posture, and that is the approval of the decision of the Department of Defense to reduce our Trident submarine force from 18 ships to 14 ships. That is a step in the right direction towards the START II level. I am also pleased that this bill will authorize funding to begin design activity regarding the conversion of those four Trident ballistic nuclear submarines to conventional submarines which are more in line with the current situation in the world. In fact, when I have talked to commander in chiefs throughout the world, they say they are continually asked to use those submarines for conventional missions. This will give us four more very high quality platforms to use in conventional situations. I think that is an improvement, both in our strategic posture in terms of nuclear forces and also in terms of our conventional posture. I am, however, also disappointed with respect to another issue. And that is the failure to adopt a base closing amendment as proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Levin. We are maintaining a cold war infrastructure in the post-cold-war world. We reduced our forces but we can't reduce our real estate. It is not effective. Until we give our Secretary of Defense and our military chiefs the flexibility in the base closing process to identify and to close excess military installations, we will be spending money that we don't have. And we will be taking that money from readiness, from modernization, and from our forces in the field. They do not deserve that reduction in resources, but in fact deserve the shift of those resources from real estate that is excess to the real needs of our fighting forces. The real needs are taking care of their families, being ready for the mission, and having equipment to do the mission. And every dollar that we continue to invest in resources and installations that we don't need is one dollar less that we don't have for the real needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who are out in harm's way standing up and protecting this great country. I hope we can pass a base closing amendment. I am encouraged that we have more support this year than last year. I hope that we can do so, because it is the one way we cannot only eliminate excess space but also do it in a way that is not political. I know there have been many charges on this floor about politicization. As I hear these charges and these arguments against base closings, I fear that we are the ones that are the issue, that we are the ones that are letting politics get in the way of national security policy. The longer we do that, the more detrimental will be our impact upon the true interests of the country and the needs of our military forces. Again, let me say in conclusion that this effort, led by Senator Warner and Senator Levin, by the ranking Members, and the Chairpersons of the subcommittees and assisting agencies, results, I think, in excellent legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor. I note the absence of quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as a preliminary matter, I ask unanimous consent that Herb Cupo, a fellow in Senator Robb's office, and that Sheila Jazayeri and Erin Barry of Senator Johnson's staff be granted floor privileges during the debate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievement of Tiogue School of Coventry, Rhode Island, which was recently honored as a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School. This is the second time in 3 years that a school from Coventry has earned this honor. It is a highly regarded distinction to be named a Blue Ribbon School. Through an intensive selection process beginning at the state level and continuing through a federal Review Panel of 100 top educators, 266 of the very best public and private schools in the Nation were identified as deserving of this special recognition. These schools are particularly effective in meeting local, state, and national goals. However, this honor signifies not just who is best, but what works in educating today's children. Now, more than ever, it is important that we make every effort to reach out to students, that we truly engage and challenge them, and that we make their education come alive. That is what Tiogue School is doing. Tiogue is a kindergarten through sixth grade school, which proudly says that it is a school ``where everybody is somebody'' and where children come first. These are more than just catch-phrases for Tiogue, which seeks to reach out to every student in the community and engages teachers, parents, and business and community leaders in the important job of education. Teams of teachers work to develop appropriate but rigorous standards for all students. The results are impressive. Tiogue students have exceeded the norms on state assessments in each of the past five years. But Tiogue's teachers also work to develop a curriculum that extends far beyond what the assessments measure. Each year, the school focuses on a particular issue, subject, or theme. As a preface to the Summer Olympics, students studied world cultures with a focus on the diverse background of the student population. During another year, students studied the arts and worked to develop their skills as artists, writers, musicians, and dancers. This year, Tiogue is taking their education to another level with an exploration of outer space. Mr. President, Tiogue School is dedicated to the highest standards. It is a school committed to a process of continuous improvement with a focus on high student achievement. Most importantly, Tiogue recognizes the value of the larger community and seeks its support and involvement. This school and community are making a huge difference in the lives of its students. Mr. President, the Blue Ribbon School initiative shows us the very best we can do for students and the techniques that can be replicated in other schools to help all students succeed. I am proud to say that in Rhode Island we can look to a school like Tiogue School. Under the leadership of its principal, Denise Richtarik, its capable faculty, and its involved parents, Tiogue School will continue to be a shining example for years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arizona yield 10 minutes?

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment that would authorize a single round of base closures during the year 2001. I commend both the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan for presenting this amendment to the Senate today. I am well aware that we all recognize this is a very sensitive issue, because it potentially impacts the constituents of each and every one of the Members of the Senator. My home State of Rhode Island is no exception to this. We are the proud home to a significant presence of the U.S. Navy, both at the Naval War College and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport. We have a tradition of Naval service in Rhode Island. As in every other State, we are sensitive to the potential vulnerabilities of another round of base closures. But I, for one, recognize the imperative nature of doing this, for many of the reasons that were so well outlined by the Senator from Arizona. We have already in the past in Rhode Island--and I suspect in other places around the country--suffered from cutbacks. In fact, before the base closing process was established back in the early 1970s, one of our major bases, Quonset Point Air Station, was closed and, indeed, we lost effectively all of the surface ships that used to regularly be stationed in Newport. The result was traumatic to my home State. Rhode Island is the smallest State in the country. Every family in Rhode Island either had some connection to Quonset Point Air Station or knew someone who worked there. Whole families had to leave the State. Many moved down to Wilmington, NC, where there was another naval aviation center. It caused great trauma and it set our economy back tremendously. In fact, we are still trying to reestablish and regenerate that site. But despite all of that--despite the real costs to individuals, the real costs to families--we have to do this in order to maintain a national defense that will truly be efficient and effective. It is difficult to talk about this issue and to tell constituents that there might be another round of base closings, but it is absolutely necessary. We are maintaining a cold war military structure in terms of bases. Yet, we know we need to reform and to reorganize. We will face new threats in the century beyond with a cold war military structure. As the Senator from Arizona said, we organized so much of our military to support a huge landforce that was designed to counterattack a threat from the former Soviet Union. That has mercifully evaporated with the demise of the Soviet Union. The new threats to our national security are different. Yet, we still have the same cold war base infrastructure which we must reform, and the only practical way to do that is to organize another round of base closings. It is a difficult decision, but it is a decision that we must make. The numbers speak for themselves. This is almost a mathematical equation in terms of what we must do. We are maintaining approximately 23 percent extra capacity in the Department of Defense in terms of our bases. If you look at our force structure, the troops in the field, the men and women who are actually the war-fighters who defend the Nation every day, we have reduced those numbers by 36 percent since 1989. Yet, we have only been able to reduce our infrastructure by 21 percent. There is an imbalance. We have a smaller force structure. Yet we still have much of the old real estate that we accumulated from World War II all the way through the cold war. We already embarked on limited base reductions in previous base closing rounds. We have saved approximately $3.9 billion to date. It is estimated that the base closing process that has already taken place will yield $25 billion by the year 2003. Those are the significant savings. Yet, we hear lots of folks disputing the savings. I think everyone in America recognizes that when you close unnecessary bases, you save money. That is what corporate America has been doing now for the last 10 years. That is, in fact, one of the reasons why American productivity and American corporate profits are soaring and Wall Street is reflecting those results. It is because American businesses have the flexibility to close unwanted facilities, many times painfully so, to small communities. But in the military establishment, we have denied our managers--the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his colleagues--that same type of flexibility. We have done it in a way which has retarded our ability to save billions of dollars which we need for other priorities in the Department of Defense. Another charge was raised in this discussion about why base closings shouldn't be pursued at this moment. It said that there is no effective audit of these savings. In many respects, what we have saved, if you will, are costs that would have been incurred. They are foregone. They won't be incurred. It is difficult to audit some things you won't spend money on, but those savings are equally real. We have a situation where we know we have saved money in previous base closing rounds--billions of dollars. And we know through estimates that we will save in this round additional money if we authorize an additional round of base closings. This is an estimate that has been agreed to by both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. They estimated there is excess capacity, that we can save money by another round of base closings. There is another argument that has been raised to try to defeat the notion of a new round of base closings: That the environmental cleanup costs associated with closing bases eats up all the savings. The reality, legally, is that the Department of Defense is responsible for these cleanup costs regardless of whether they keep the bases open or they close them. The only difference is an accounting difference. When you close a base, there is much more of an accelerated cleanup so the property can be turned over to civilian authority. In terms of the dollar responsibility, the contingent liabilities out there for cleanup of military bases remain the same, regardless of whether we have a base closing round or we just simply let these excess bases continue to operate. That, too, is not a reason to defeat the notion of a base closing round today. As the Senator from Arizona pointed out, this is the top priority of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Secretaries, the uniformed heads of our military services. They all know that they need additional dollars for higher priority items than some of these bases. Last September, the Service Chiefs came to the Senate Armed Services Committee and said they needed more resources to do the job. We were quite forthcoming. In fact, we authorized $8.3 billion over the President's budget request. Yet, when they say they equally need the closing of excess bases, we ignore their plea--equally fervent, equally important, equally necessary for the success of the Department of Defense, yet we ignore this plea. Some of this has been a result of claims that the last base closing round was politicized. This proposal is that the process be conducted in the year 2001, which is beyond the term of this administration. I think the argument of politicization is false because whatever confidence or lack of confidence you have in this current administration, this proposal, this amendment, would carry it beyond this administration into the next administration.

Mr. REED. If I can retain my time.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. REED. Briefly, because I know my colleagues are eager to continue in colloquy, but in response to the chairman, most of what I think was the initiative, if you will, involved in the last base closing, came after the particular bases were identified for closing by the Commission. It was not a question where political decisions were made to close bases. I think, rather, political decisions were made to try to avoid and go around the work of the Commission. So the Commission process is, I think we would all agree, as unpolitical as you can get. The research in the bowels of the Pentagon is, I think, similarly nonpolitical. If it is not, then we have more worries than a base closing commission, if we have GS-14s doing political deeds for anyone rather than looking rationally and logically at the needs of the service and the infrastructure to support those needs. If the administration was guilty of politicization, then shame on them. But we are running the risk of, ourselves, politicizing this process. We are running the risk of rejecting the logic. The overwhelming conclusion I think any rational person could draw is that we have to start closing bases. The base closing mechanism is the best way to do that, and we are in a situation where, if we resist this, if we cannot find a formulation, we are going to politicize it worse than anything that is purported to have been done by the administration. I strongly support the measure offered by the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Michigan. We have an opportunity to align our force structure and our base structure to give resources to the Department of Defense, to support the really pressing needs of our troops, to retain them, to train them, to provide them a quality of life they deserve. When you go out to visit troops--I know everyone here on this floor today does that frequently--what those young troops are worried about is: Do they have the best training, best equipment, and are their families well taken care of? They do not worry about whether we have a base in Oregon or a base in Texas or a base in Rhode Island. They worry about their training, their readiness for the mission, their weapons, and whether their families are taken care of. If we listen to them, we will support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Torricelli that would ensure that children enrolled in federal health care programs receive screening and appropriate follow-up care for lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999'' is an effort to eliminate a disease that continues to wreak irreversible damage upon our nation's children. Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers affected. This problem is particularly severe among African American children who are at five times higher risk than white children and low-income children are at eight times higher risk than children from well-to-do families. Minorities and low-income children are disproportionately affected by lead poisoning because they frequently live in older housing which contains cracked or chipped lead paint, where children primarily contract lead poisoning by ingesting paint chips or lead dust. If undetected, lead poisoning can cause brain and nervous system damage, behavior and learning problems and possibly death. Research shows that children with elevated blood-lead levels are seven times more likely to drop out of high school and six times more likely to have reading disabilities. It costs an average of $10,000 more a year to educate a lead-poisoned child. We will continue to pay for our failure to eradicate this preventable tragedy through costs to our education and health care system, and losses in lifetime earnings, unless we act now to protect our children. As I mentioned, this disease is entirely preventable, making its prevalence among children all the more frustrating. We do have solutions--parents who are aware, housing that is safe, and effective screening and treatment for children who are at risk--to name a few. Unfortunately, our current system is not adequately protecting our children. In January 1999, the General Accounting Office reported that children in federally funded health care programs such as Medicaid, Women Infant and Child (WIC) and the Health Centers program, are five times more likely to have elevated blood lead levels. The report also found that despite longstanding federal requirements, two-thirds of the children in these programs--more than 400,000--have never been screen and, consequently, remain untreated. Early detection of lead poisoning is critical to ensure that a child is removed from the source of exposure and to determine whether other children, such as siblings or friends, have also been exposed. Screening is also important to determine whether a child's lead poisoning is so severe as to require medical management to mitigate the long-term health and developmental effects of lead. Mr. President, our comprehensive legislation is designed to make sure no child falls through the cracks, by establishing clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment and by holding accountable those who are responsible for carrying out the requirements. The legislation supports improved management information systems to provide state- and community-level information about the extent to which children have elevated blood lead levels. It also expands and coordinates lead screening and treatment activities through other federal programs serving at-risk children such as WIC, Early Head Start, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant programs. Finally, the bill ties incentives for screening to additional federal funding for cleaning up lead-contaminated houses. Mr. President, we propose this legislation in an effort to rid children of the detrimental effects of lead poisoning. Every child has a right to screening and follow-up care. This bill will significantly increase the number of poisoned children who are screened and treated and help communities, parents, and physicians to take advantage of every opportunity that they have to detect and treat lead poisoning before its irreversible effects set in. I ask by unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Torricelli that would ensure that children enrolled in federal health care programs receive screening and appropriate follow-up care for lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999'' is an effort to eliminate a disease that continues to wreak irreversible damage upon our nation's children. Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers affected. This problem is particularly severe among African American children who are at five times higher risk than white children and low-income children are at eight times higher risk than children from well-to-do families. Minorities and low-income children are disproportionately affected by lead poisoning because they frequently live in older housing which contains cracked or chipped lead paint, where children primarily contract lead poisoning by ingesting paint chips or lead dust. If undetected, lead poisoning can cause brain and nervous system damage, behavior and learning problems and possibly death. Research shows that children with elevated blood-lead levels are seven times more likely to drop out of high school and six times more likely to have reading disabilities. It costs an average of $10,000 more a year to educate a lead-poisoned child. We will continue to pay for our failure to eradicate this preventable tragedy through costs to our education and health care system, and losses in lifetime earnings, unless we act now to protect our children. As I mentioned, this disease is entirely preventable, making its prevalence among children all the more frustrating. We do have solutions--parents who are aware, housing that is safe, and effective screening and treatment for children who are at risk--to name a few. Unfortunately, our current system is not adequately protecting our children. In January 1999, the General Accounting Office reported that children in federally funded health care programs such as Medicaid, Women Infant and Child (WIC) and the Health Centers program, are five times more likely to have elevated blood lead levels. The report also found that despite longstanding federal requirements, two-thirds of the children in these programs--more than 400,000--have never been screen and, consequently, remain untreated. Early detection of lead poisoning is critical to ensure that a child is removed from the source of exposure and to determine whether other children, such as siblings or friends, have also been exposed. Screening is also important to determine whether a child's lead poisoning is so severe as to require medical management to mitigate the long-term health and developmental effects of lead. Mr. President, our comprehensive legislation is designed to make sure no child falls through the cracks, by establishing clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment and by holding accountable those who are responsible for carrying out the requirements. The legislation supports improved management information systems to provide state- and community-level information about the extent to which children have elevated blood lead levels. It also expands and coordinates lead screening and treatment activities through other federal programs serving at-risk children such as WIC, Early Head Start, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant programs. Finally, the bill ties incentives for screening to additional federal funding for cleaning up lead-contaminated houses. Mr. President, we propose this legislation in an effort to rid children of the detrimental effects of lead poisoning. Every child has a right to screening and follow-up care. This bill will significantly increase the number of poisoned children who are screened and treated and help communities, parents, and physicians to take advantage of every opportunity that they have to detect and treat lead poisoning before its irreversible effects set in. I ask by unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help turn the tide of gun violence by requiring greater responsibility from those in the business of selling weapons. Currently, there are over 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States. While most of these dealers are responsible small business people, recent tracing of crime-related guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has found substantial evidence that some dealers are selling guns to minors, convicted felons, and others who are prohibited by federal law from purchasing firearms. This direct diversion of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place both through off-the-book sales by corrupt dealers and through so-called straw purchases, when an ineligible buyer has a friend or relative buy a firearm for him. While federal law already prohibits a person from transferring a firearm when a person knows that the gun will be used to commit a crime, it is very difficult for victims of gun violence to seek legal redress from gun dealers who sell guns to those prohibited from buying firearms. There is very little case law and no federal law giving victims of gun violence the right to sue gun dealers who make illegal gun sales. To remedy this situation, my legislation, the Gun Dealer Responsibility Act, would provide a statutory cause of action for victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale of a gun directly contributes to the victim's injury. I believe this legislation will make unscrupulous gun dealers think twice about selling weapons to minors, convicted felons, or any other ineligible buyer, either directly or through straw purchases. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of the Lautenberg amendment. It would close a number of serious loopholes that were created by the Hatch-Craig amendment. As the Hatch-Craig amendment stands today, any number of places where people could buy large quantities of guns would not be deemed gun shows, would not be subject to these types of regulations. The Lautenberg amendment closes that loophole. The Lautenberg amendment would allow for 72 hours in certain circumstances for background checks. That is absolutely necessary. As the Senator from New York said, on a Saturday, when many of these gun shows take place, there is no possible way of doing a 24-hour background check. It would also allow the individual who is a weapons dealer to be subject to liability if they are not following the law. That is very critical. All of these provisions together are in the Lautenberg amendment. That is an amendment the American people support overwhelmingly, because they want a structure of laws that actually protects their children and does not simply provide some slick cover for the gun lobby. They want their children protected. They want us to do it in a sensible way. They want us to pass laws which are not cynical exercises in self-preservation but will actually protect the children of America. The Lautenberg amendment will do this. I strongly support it. Gun control is absolutely essential to the process of protecting children, but so many of these incidents we have seen--as just this morning--show that we also need to take preventative action to ensure that children, with or without access to firearms, do not feel self-destructive and destructive of others. That is part of this overall legislation. In fact, we could do much more. Today we are here to make a clear choice between laws that work to protect children and an exercise in simply protecting the gun lobby. I support the Lautenberg amendment. I thank the Senator.