Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Daschle amendment. I want to get back to what it says. We heard a lot of excited debate, but here is what the Daschle amendment says. No. 1, we commend the million moms--by the way, I think there were more than a million people across this country--for exercising their rights to gather and to send a very strong message to the Congress; in this case: Save our children, stop the violence; stop the mayhem; stop the school shootings; stop the church shootings; do what we are supposed to do. It was a very clear message. We commend them today. Second, the Daschle amendment says bring back the five sensible gun laws that passed the Senate already, get that conference to meet, get the juvenile justice to meet, and send those laws to the President for his signature. Very, very simple. What does the other side say? I ask with great respect the Members on the other side who are great debaters. I was here last night until quite late, listening and debating. The other side says no laws are needed, a change in behavior is needed. They said: Laws don't change behavior. I will take that to its logical conclusion. If laws don't change behavior, why do we have laws against murder? Why do we have laws against rape? Why do we have laws that regulate products so when our kids pick up a doll, they don't choke on it? We do it to protect our citizens. We are a government of laws, not men. That was stated by our founders. It is a basic foundation of our Nation. I believe personally that guns should not be in the hands of children. Children and guns do not mix. I believe, personally, that anyone who is mentally unbalanced should not have a weapon because they do not know what they are doing. We heard from a woman who said, ``My brother is a manic schizophrenic and he has threatened my family. I do not know what to do because he could go to a gun show, get a gun, and kill my child.'' So I believe mentally unbalanced people should not have guns. I also believe criminals should not have access to weapons. That is what the people on this side of the aisle are trying to do. If you are a responsible adult, yes, you can have that weapon. If you have responsibility and you understand what you are doing, that is one thing. But if you are not responsible, no way; that is it. What is so controversial about that? My friend says, if there is a murder with a weapon, put that person away. Of course, put that person away. Enforcement is up in this Nation. USA Today did an analysis in June 1999. They said gun laws are enforced more vigorously today than 5 years ago by any measure. Prosecutions are more frequent than ever before. The number of inmates in Federal prison on gun offenses is at a record level. Of course, you put people away; you throw the book at them. As far as I am concerned, you can do anything to them. That is how I feel about someone who shoots and kills another person. But that doesn't stop the shooting. That doesn't stop the heartbreak. That doesn't stop the mayhem. We know that. You need to do both. We keep getting a false choice here: Enforcement or no gun law. On our side, we say enforcement and sensible gun laws.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair. It has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Let me repeat that. It has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy and this Republican Congress refuses to do anything as it relates to sensible gun legislation. That is why Leader Daschle offered his amendment. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who died in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. We will read those who died of gunshots. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. The following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire 1 year ago today. These names come from the Conference of Mayors: James Allen, 27, Houston, TX; Ladrid Austin, 21, Chicago, IL; Jeremiah Buchanan, 22, Houston, TX; Karamoh Daramy, 23, Detroit, MI; Rufus Dinuwelle, 50, Charlotte, NC; Maurice Harris, 27, St. Louis, MO; Raul Martinez, 27, Chicago, IL; Marty Owens, 31, Chicago, IL; Andre Parker, 19, Chicago, IL; George Robinson, 39, Houston, TX; Robert Simms, 30, Washington, DC; Jon Vermillion, 32, Houston, TX. Those are some of the names. We will be here every single day until there is action. The other side is going to say: Shame on you for interfering with the Senate's business. I say to them: There can be no more important business than protecting our children, than protecting our citizens. We are losing them at alarming rates, more than any other civilized country. Indeed, all the other civilized countries combined don't have the deaths from gunshots that we have in this country--30,000 of our good people every year. The other side says it is not about laws; it is about community and caring and family. Of course, they are right. But I say to them that those young kids who were cut down before their prime in Columbine came from good families. They prayed to God. They got down on their knees and prayed, and they were shot. To be scolded on the floor of the Senate for defending our children is something that will not stand. I am glad the good Senator put up the chart from the Million Mom March because when I look at that, I think to myself, there is hope. The Senator implies that we have before us an agenda on licensing of guns. We do not have that. That is not in Senator Daschle's amendment. He is calling for the release of the five gun amendments we already voted on, simple, straightforward: trigger locks, no high-capacity clips, a study of the gun manufacturers' techniques as they sell to children, raising the age where a person can buy an assault weapon from 18 to 21. Those are simple and straightforward. Closing the gun show loophole is another. The woman who got the guns for the deranged children who murdered those kids said if she had to go through a background check, she never, never would have, in fact, bought those guns. So please don't chastise us. It was the other side that stalled for 5 solid hours yesterday and didn't let us have our debate. We would have been done with this debate. I have to say, when we look at these numbers, 12 kids a day, 30,000 people a year, it is almost too much to comprehend the pain and suffering that goes along with it. Eight times as many as those people are wounded, sitting in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, some of them vegetables for the rest of their lives. We don't even begin to touch it when we talk about only the deaths. It is the physical pain and agony of those who survive with wounds, and we have seen in Columbine children committing suicide because they can't handle the trauma. What is the answer of the other side? We don't need laws. Why don't they think about licensing?

Mrs. BOXER. You need a license to give a haircut to somebody. Does anyone say that the Government is going to come and take the scissors? Come on. Don't be afraid of this lobby. Stand up and be counted. Join the million moms. They are Democrats; they are Republicans; they are from families; they are grandmas and grandpas. That is who showed up. I had the joy of marching with them. Let's vote for the Daschle amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mrs. BOXER. This is brief.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and yield as much time as he will consume to my friend from Illinois. If he is still going in 30 minutes, perhaps he would then wrap up in the next 15, and I would conclude this side's debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask if there are other speakers on the other side this evening?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for getting us to a place where we can in fact consider the Daschle amendment, which simply says that on Mother's Day an estimated 750,000 mothers, fathers, and children united for the Million Mom March on The Mall in Washington, and they were joined by tens of thousands of others in 70 cities across America in a call for a meaningful, commonsense policy. Essentially what this amendment says is that the organizers of the Million Mom March should be commended for rallying to demand sensible gun safety legislation and that Congress should immediately pass a conference report which will include the meaningful, sensible gun laws that were passed here in the Senate as part of the juvenile justice bill. I had the privilege and honor of marching with so many American families of so many diverse backgrounds and so many Americans of different ages all united in a call for a safer America. I am very pleased that my leader, Senator Daschle, has placed this amendment before the body. I hope all Members will vote for it. I see that the Republican side has responded with a litany of attacks on President Clinton, which I think is most inappropriate. This should be a time when we reach across the aisle and say we want safety for our children. I hope maybe they will reconsider. Believe me when I tell you that the million moms and their families are not Democrats, Republicans, or independents; they are Americans. Many were touched by violence in their families and violence in their communities. At this time, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, if he would like to take up to 30 minutes to discuss these amendments. If so, I will now yield up to 30 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his remarks. I know he watched with great pride while Kerry, Kennedy, Cuomo, and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend spoke at the Million Mom March with hearts full. I know the people who came to that march, particularly those who witnessed and experienced pain, loss, and suffering have inspired people across the country. I say to my friend, before I yield time to my friend from Illinois, that he is powerful on this issue. He is a powerful spokesperson for the children of this Nation. I was so happy he chose to come over here tonight. It is late in the evening. I know we will work together, as so many of us will on this side of the aisle, and hopefully a couple from the other, in making sure those moms who gave up their Mother's Day for a cause that is so important will be commended by this Senate. For goodness' sake, will be commended. As Hillary Clinton said, they did not care about the flowers; they did not care about the fancy dinners or breakfast in bed. They gave up their Mother's Day to march for something that was very important to them, more important than anything else: the safety of their children and the safety of the communities' children. I say to my friend, thank you for making this point over and over. The other side seems to be fearful of these moms. Why don't they vote down our resolution if they do not like it? No, they stalled 5 hours because they wanted the clock to tick, and they are not even here to debate us on this amendment. We voted out sensible gun measures. What are they afraid of, I ask my friend from Massachusetts? Sensible gun measures passed the Senate-- child safety locks, background checks at gun shows, the banning of the superlarge capacity clips, a study to investigate how the gun manufacturers are marketing to our children, and changing the age at which one can buy an assault weapon from 18 to 21. A few of them crossed over, and this Senate voted for those measures. Before my friend leaves, I want to ask him this question, and then I will yield as much time as he would like to the Senator from Illinois. I wonder if my friend can explain to me, because he has been around here a long time, of what are they afraid? Why don't they just vote it down? Why don't they just say: No, we don't want to commend the moms; no, we don't want to bring these commonsense gun laws to the Senate? Why are they using every parliamentary trick not to have to vote on that?

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't intend to use the entire time. At the appropriate moment, I will be happy to make that unanimous consent request. I want to say to the Senator from Wyoming I really enjoyed listening to him, and much of what he said I agree with. But I have to say that, as my friend explained the needs of our communities to be closer and the needs of our children to be paid attention to and to be taught respect and accountability and love, he is very right. But I might say to my friend that every day in this country 12 children are cut down by gunfire. Most of them come from families who love them, come from families who respect them, come from families who have taught them the values of love and community and country. So I say to my friend from Wyoming, who told some very tender stories about how good most of the youth are in this country--and I agree with him--a lot of those wonderful young people are being shot in schools and in churches. There seems to be no limit today on what can happen. So he can speak about the need to be close with our families. He is exactly right. Most of us are. But for those who are alienated, who don't have that love, why should the rest of the children pay the price and fear for their lives? In some of our communities, if you ask those children, I say to my friend, the sad reality, for whatever reason, is that they are afraid. Many of them know someone who has been cut down by gunfire. So I say, yes, the world he paints is a world I want for every child in America--a loving family, the ability to feel secure, the ability to feel responsibility, the ability to feel confidence. But also, I might add, if we don't pass sensible gun laws--and my friend doesn't want any more sensible gun laws--no matter what type of families our children come from, they are not protected. I also want to address the point of my friend from Wyoming on why we are doing this on the military construction bill. Over on the House side, I served on the Armed Services Committee, and I know how important that bill is. I want to make it clear to my friends that the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, didn't want to go this route. He asked unanimous consent to bring up the gun amendments that passed the Senate and are trapped in the conference committee, take them up immediately, and resolve them, and pass them in honor of the moms who gave up their Mother's Day to come here and express themselves. The Republican side said no. They objected. So what choice did he have but to offer up an amendment? I say to my friend that the Republican leadership waited 5 full hours before they allowed us to be heard on the subject of sensible gun laws; 5 full hours before we could offer our amendment and be heard on our amendment which commends the moms for coming out on a day when they could have had breakfast in bed, have gotten flowers, and been treated to dinner, to say thank you for being selfless as moms are. That is what you learn when you are a mom--how to be selfless. As my friend pointed out, military construction is funded for 4 more months. We are not up against any clock--4 more months. Would it hurt us to take a few hours to pay tribute to those moms who worked so hard to organize that march of 750,000 strong, and thousands across the country adding up to more than a million moms? By the way, plenty of dads, too; plenty of grandmas; plenty of grandpas; plenty of daughters and sons. Would it hurt us? My God, in the 5 hours the Republicans stalled before we could get to this measure, we could have had the debate and could have voted on it. Who is wasting time? The Democratic leader said let's just take this matter up and vote it out. He would have agreed to a very short time limit. But, no, 5 hours of delay. So here it is 5 minutes to 9. You know what. I am grateful we are taking this up. I am grateful even if it is late at night. Even if I have some other things to do, it doesn't matter at all. We will take it up tomorrow as well. By the way, we will take it up again, and we will take it up again, and we will take it up again because too many people are dying in our country. How many? Let's take a look. We have a war at home. It is a war in our streets. It is a war in our schools. In Vietnam, we lost 58,168 of our people. This country came to its knees. We wanted to end the war. The vast majority of people thought it was a mistake. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents marched. And President Nixon ended the war in Vietnam. That is 11 years. Let's look at what happened in the last 11 years in our Nation-- 395,441 people have been shot down by gunfire. That is from the National Census for Health Statistics. We have a war here at home. It is shocking to look at that, isn't it? I find it so. That is why we are going to come back again and again. It is not easy to be here late at night. But I think we are going to have to do that because we have to face it. Let's look at murder by handguns compared to other countries. A lot of people say, well, this is just the way it is in a society that is free. I would argue that Japan, Great Britain, and Canada are free countries. They are our allies. They are democracies. By the way, in Canada, murder by handguns per 1 million population is .12 per 1 million; .51, 3.64 in Canada. And in the United States, it is 35.05. What is wrong? My friend from Wyoming talked about lack of community. He is certainly right on that point. But why is it always in this debate either/or? Why don't we want to work on that issue of community, work on those issues of respect for families, and work on those issues that we have to work on--yes, in the media--and also face one fact, that the only product in this country that has not one safety regulation is guns? Does that make sense to you? In 1968, after the tragic assassination of Robert Kennedy--killed, shot down in the prime of life, who might have been our next President, shot down in the prime of life with an imported handgun--this Congress acted to ban Saturday night specials from being imported. As I remember, some of my colleagues who are still here on the other side of the aisle voted for that. But guess what they didn't vote for. They didn't vote to ban Saturday night specials from being made in America. So if you try to import a Saturday night special, you can't do it. You can't import a handgun. But guess what. They are made all over this country, particularly in my own home State. I am proud to tell you that recently with a new California Legislature and a new Governor, we have banned those Saturday night specials in California. We are making progress. We are making progress. I am very proud of that. After Columbine High School, this Senate gathered, and all said we are going to work together. We passed five sensible gun laws. They are so modest. They are so sensible. They passed this Senate and closed the gun show loophole that allows criminals to go to a gun show and not have to have a background check. It would have made a difference in Columbine. The woman who got the guns for those kids said so. It would ban the importation of high-capacity clips which are used in semiautomatic assault weapons. That is the Feinstein amendment. The first one is the Lautenberg amendment. Requiring child safety devices be sold with every handgun is the Kohl amendment. It requires that the FTC and the Attorney General study the extent to which the gun industry markets to juveniles. That was my amendment. I will talk more about it. It makes it illegal to sell or give a semiautomatic assault weapon to anyone under the age of 18. That was written by a Republican Member of this Senate, Senator Ashcroft. Those amendments passed. And they are languishing in a conference committee that doesn't even meet. On April 20, 1999, the Columbine High School shooting stunned America. On May 11, a month later, the Senate begins debate on those gun measures. On May 20, just a month after Columbine, this Senate passed a juvenile justice bill by a vote of 73-25 that included those five sensible gun control amendments that I talked about. The Senate and House go to conference 3 months after Columbine, and guess what. That was July. There is one meeting of the conferees. Here we are more than a year after Columbine and we have done zero, nothing, nada. I am embarrassed to face my constituents. I was embarrassed to face these marching moms and look them in the eye. It is not their job to pass legislation. Hello. It is our job. It is not their job. It is our job. What are we doing? Nothing, zero, zip. I am embarrassed about that. I am angry about that. I tell you that there are a number of us who are not going to go away on this point. We will be back here. That is why I say to the Presiding Officer sitting in the Chair today that we chose to move forward on this bill. We tried to get a separate resolution. We offered it. The Republicans said no. I don't know, I just do not know why the fear is in this Chamber about voting this thing up or down. All we said is commend the Million Mom March for what they did. It is the American way--standing up and being counted. Moms attended who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, some who don't have any affiliation whatever with politics, many of whom are never political. They want Congress to act. We do nothing. I hope these moms continue to work on this matter, to connect this political process with the facts and the realities of the deaths that go on day after day after day after day. We had a hearing the day after the Million Mom March and an art teacher from Columbine spoke. With a trembling voice she told us what it was like to be in that library, to tell the kids: Go under your desk. Call 9-1-1. She said: I used to be in favor of no gun laws and now I am here asking you to act because I don't want anyone else to suffer in this way. I talked about the five commonsense measures. I think the one that I wrote is very important. We learned when we looked at the cigarette industry how they marketed to kids. We have to realize how the gun industry is marketing to kids. Here is an ad in ``Gun World'': ``Start 'em Young! There is no time like the present.'' Here is a child, definitely under 18. It is a toy gun that looks like a real handgun. Now, under the laws today you can't buy a handgun in a licensed dealer shop until you are 21 years of age and you can't buy it from anybody, including a gun show, until you are 18. Here is a young man: ``Start 'em Young!" Let's take a look at what some of the gun people say about marketing: ``. . .greatest threat we face is the lack of a future customer base. . .''; ``. . .we continue to look for every opportunity to reach young people. . .''; ``Building the next generation of customers takes work and commitment. But it must be done.'' Sound familiar. Let's hear what the tobacco companies said in the documents we found through the lawsuits. We will hear how the tobacco company and the gun companies sound alike. Tobacco company documents: ``If our company is to survive and prosper, over the long-term we must get our share of the youth market.'' ``Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer.'' This sounds very familiar. Here are the gun companies: ``. . .greatest threat we face is the lack of a future customer base. . .''; ``. . .we continue to look for every opportunity to reach young people. . .'' Are they trying to reach young people? I argue they are. We no longer see Joe Camel. Because of the lawsuits, tobacco companies agreed to stop using a cartoon character to lure kids to their product. Well, here is Eddie Eagle. If all Eddie Eagle did was to promote safety, it would be one thing, but it is absolutely a way to get kids interested in guns at a young age. ``Start 'em Young!'' begins to take on new meaning. Here is a photograph from a gun magazine. This child is 4 years old and he is watching an adult load a handgun-- ``Start 'em Young!" This is a very pressing issue. That is why we offered this amendment. We thank the moms for coming here. We call on our colleagues to free that juvenile justice bill and pass these laws. My friend from Wyoming, in his opening remarks, said the people in his State don't want any laws. Quoting him the best I can, the Senator from Wyoming said: You can't make people behave. We don't need a bunch of laws. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. You can't make people behave; you don't need a bunch of laws. OK. Should we have no laws against murder because you can't make people behave? Should we have no laws against rape because you can't make people behave? Should we have no laws on the books that say if you drive a car you have to have a license? And the NRA takes out an ad and says, by the way, licensing a car doesn't save kids from getting hurt. They have to look both ways when they cross the street. There is another either/or strawman. Of course, you have to look both ways when you cross the street. But if the driver didn't have to get a license and couldn't see and went up on the sidewalk, you would get killed. So what is this either/or? You don't need laws to make people behave? You want to repeal the laws for getting a license to drive? You want to repeal the laws on registering a car? Yes, you can look both ways, but if the guy's brakes don't work, you are hit. So we keep setting up these either/ors. It is not about either/or. Look both ways, yes. But also make sure that your driver is licensed, the car is registered, it is safe, he or she can see, can hear, and can drive. With this refrain that laws can't make people behave, if you take it to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't have any laws at all. We wouldn't have a country that was a country of laws. That is, by the way, what makes America the greatest country in the world because we are a country of laws, not men; I add, we are a country of laws, not men or women. We have laws for safe toys; we have laws for safe products. We have the safest products in the world. Not because people are wonderful. Yes, some are; they would never make an unsafe product; they wouldn't do it. But some people aren't wonderful and we have to protect our people from those people who would make a shoddy product. Guess what. We have the safest products in the world. The only product that is not regulated that I know of is a domestically produced handgun. If you try to import it, there are safety standards. But not if you make it here. I would say to my friend, I do not agree with him. If he does not think laws make people behave, I don't know exactly what we are doing here. We do pass laws every day to protect our people. Laws are the bedrock of a civilized society. The NRA took out a full-page ad--the same one where they said when you license a driver or register a car you do not make our kids any safer--so I already think I addressed that. But they also basically said: What kind of mother would march? This is a political agenda. I wish those NRA members who wrote that ad could have been at the Million Mom March. I have been in politics all my life. I have to say, these people were authentic American moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, daughters. Do you know why they were there? They said it: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Many of them had lost children, relatives; they feel the pain; they feel the hurt. They are scarred forever. Many of them knew people who were injured, who were paralyzed for life. Enough is enough. That is why they came. That is why they marched. They could have stayed home, had their breakfast in bed once a year for Mother's Day, but they chose not to do it. I am proud of them. For the National Rifle Association to take out an ad condemning those mothers is an insult to the women of this country. By the way, they were women from every political party imaginable, every age, every ethnic group. It was the most amazing picture. People out there saying: Enough is enough. They want us to act. So, yes, I think it is worth a couple of days of debate in the memory of the almost 400,000 Americans shot dead by gunfire in the last 11 years. I think it is worth a couple of days of debate to say, in the name of these 395,441 people, that we will take a few hours; that we will commend the Million Mom March; that we will encourage them to keep on fighting for what they believe in--a safe America. Many years ago, when I first got into politics, I was involved in trying to ensure that my children, who are now old enough to take care of me, had a safe future. We were embroiled in that Vietnam war for years and years. There was a bumper strip that came out and a lot of people put it on their cars. It said: Imagine peace. Because the war had gone on so long it was hard to imagine what it would be like, not to have this divisive war, where Americans were arguing with one another, where generations were having debates until most of the country came around and believed it was wrong. I think we need to have a new bumper strip that says: Imagine an America with no gun violence. Maybe every day we could think about what it would be like to put on the television set at night and not hear story after story: A child goes to the zoo and shoots a gun and hurts a child; a 6-year-old brings a gun to school and shoots a 5-year-old; two high school kids go into their high school and kill people randomly. Every day 12 children die. Imagine what it would be like to turn on the television at night and not have to hear these stories. God, what a wonderful thing it would be for our Nation. I will say this. If we take the attitude that laws do not mean anything, then we are giving up. We could stand up here, as many nights as we could, and say how much we need to feel a sense of community and how much mothers and fathers have to work with their children and how important it is that we respect each other and admire each other and love each other and come together as a community--and, my God, we should say that. But we cannot stop there. Because the mothers who grieve for their children every day in America love their children and they gave their children values and their children went off to school and they never came home. So you can stand here, day after day and say that it is about a sense of community, and I will agree with every word that you say. But that does not mean we do not have the responsibility to protect the good children and the good families. We can do it. Five sensible gun laws that we have already passed here, seeing how we market to children, making sure we do not import those high-capacity clips, making sure that guns are sold with safety locks, making sure you cannot buy an assault weapon until you are 18. The bottom line is we can do it. The last one, of course, is closing the gun show loophole. If you ask the woman who got those guns for those kids at Columbine, she says it clearly: If I had to undergo a background check at the gun show, this whole thing would not have happened. So no one can get up here and say laws do not make a difference because I do not believe that. These people are telling us to pass these laws. We are not all that smart here. None of us is. But if we turn our back on the people who have experienced this violence, the Sarah Bradys, the Jim Bradys who beg us to pass waiting periods and background checks--if we turn our back on those Americans, I do not think we deserve to be here, really. Maybe that is what this election in November is going to be all about. We are going to see how much people really care. I know it is late. The Senator from Alabama is here. I know he wants to talk. I know he is not going to agree with one thing I said--and that is good because that is what this is all about. That is what it is all about. That is why I love the Million Mom March, because it is what the country is all about: standing up and being counted, standing up and giving up Mother's Day to come out there and do what they think is right. We have a simple, simple opportunity for people to praise those moms. I am going to close by reading from Senator Daschle's amendment and hope my friends on the other side will join us and will vote for it: Since on Mother's Day, May 14, 2000, an estimated 750,000 mothers, fathers, and children united for the Million Mom March on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and were joined by tens of thousands of others, in 70 cities across America, in a call for meaningful, common-sense gun policy; Since 4,223 young people ages 19 and under were killed by gunfire--one every two hours, nearly 12 young people every day--in the United States in 1977; Since American children under the age of 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined; Since gun safety education programs are inadequate to protect children from gun violence; Since a majority of the Senate resolved that the House- Senate Juvenile Justice Conference should meet, consider and pass by April 20, 2000, a conference report to accompany H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice Act, and that the conference report should retain the Senate-passed gun safety provisions to limit access to firearms by juveniles, felons, and other prohibited persons; Since the one year Anniversary of the Columbine High School tragedy passed on April 20, 2000, without any action by the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee on the reasonable gun safety measures that were passed by the Senate almost one year ago; Since continued inaction on this critical threat to public safety undermines confidence in the ability of the Senate to protect our children and raises concerns about the influence of special interests opposed to even the most basic gun safety provisions; Since this lack of action on the part of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee and this Congress to stem the flood of gun violence is irresponsible and further delay is unacceptable; and Since protecting our children from gun violence is a top priority for our families, communities, and nation: Now, therefore, be it Determined, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the organizers, sponsors, and participants of the Million Mom March should be commended for rallying to demand sensible gun safety legislation; and (2) Congress should immediately pass a conference report to accompany H.R. 1501, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, before the Memorial Day Recess, and include the Lautenberg-Kerrey gun show loophole amendment and the other Senate-passed provisions designed to limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is very simple. It is a lot of nice and important words, but the bottom line is we commend those mothers for marching. We agree with them that we should pass some modest gun laws that will stop our children from having access to firearms, that will keep us safe from criminals having access to firearms, that will keep us safe because we will not allow mentally unbalanced people to have access to firearms. That is all we are saying. We are not talking about stopping people who are law abiding from having a gun if they want it as long as they act responsibly. We are not talking about taking away anybody's guns. We are not talking about that at all. We are not talking about not being able to hunt. No. No matter what the gun lobby says to you, I say this: We are saying if you are responsible, fine, but if you are a criminal, you cannot have a gun. If you are a child, you cannot have a gun. If you are mentally unbalanced, you cannot have a gun. If we cannot pass laws that carry out those requests, then there is something wrong with us, there is something in this Chamber that is stopping us from doing what is right. This is going to be a big issue in this Presidential election. It is going to be a big issue in the Senate and House races. As a matter of fact, we have a National Rifle Association first vice president saying: With George Bush in the White House, we'll have a President where we work out of their office. Imagine a satellite office of the National Rifle Association in the White House. Please, we need to protect the people of this country, and we need to do it by passing sensible gun laws and standing up in the face of powerful lobby groups, whether it is this one or any other one, because we should be the ones in the Senate who are free from that kind of special interest domination. I pray that tomorrow when we meet--we have a few more hours of debate--we will adopt the Daschle amendment. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I yield back all my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that. How much time remains on my side?

Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that, but I don't have the particular language in front of me at this time.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Maryland. It was an honor to march with her and to stand with her. She brings to the Senate a sense of reality for our families, our seniors, and our children. She fights for them every day. She is fighting for them tonight. With that, I yield up to 30 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Mrs. BOXER. I retain my time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. May I ask the majority leader if he could tell us who is going to be handling the time on his side of the aisle?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think the Senator makes a very important point here. When we call for sensible gun laws, the other side gets up and says we can handle it all with enforcement. Do you know what we say? Excellent idea--enforcement and sensible gun laws. Let's join hands and do it all; that is what we need to protect our people. Yet as my friend says, when he attempted to do just that, the other side found fault with it. I want to ask my friend if he is aware of what the Republican Appropriations Committee did on the House side with a number of Capitol Police officers? I know my friend is just as distressed. I discussed this with him. We lost two beautiful Capitol Police officers. What were they doing? They were protecting the people in this building. They were protecting the Members of the House and the Senate, and they were shot down in the prime of their lives. They have magnificent families. We went to a funeral. We all cried. Republicans and Democrats cried tears. Now what happens? The people who want the enforcement, what have they done on the House side?

Mrs. BOXER. The old expression is hackneyed now but ``actions speak louder than words.'' I think when you stand up on the floor and you say, ``More enforcement, more enforcement,'' then you cut 400 police officers out of this Capitol Police Force, and you go to Senator Durbin's resolution on hiring more agents so we can crack down on the gun criminals, it doesn't add up. Something is not adding up here. I have to say it is time we just spoke very directly about it. It is hard. It is hard to pick a fight, and it is hard to get into an argument and debate on the other side of the aisle because we don't control this Senate. But we have our rights. Senator Durbin represents a very large State. I represent a very large State. People sent us here not to just sit back and do nothing but in fact to speak out. I thank my friend, and he can continue for as long as he wishes tonight.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I simply want to say to my friend that everything he said was true, except one small point. He said it has been 2 hours. It has been since 2 o'clock, I say to my friend from Massachusetts. They delayed for 5 hours the simple vote to say to moms who gave up their Mother's Day and came here: Thank you for what you are doing.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I had a tremendous honor this weekend to march in the Million Mom March, along with about 750,000 citizens of this great country. They were moms; they were dads; they were grandmas and grandpas; and children in strollers. We really all had in our hearts one wish for Mother's Day--to turn around the gun violence that is plaguing our Nation. It was quite a march. It was quite an event because the emotion was high. The spirits were high. Perhaps the most touching part of it, for me and for many others, was the presence of so many moms and dads whose families have been touched by gun violence, whose children have been killed by gun violence, cut down by gun violence, maimed by gun violence. The victims were there with a message: That they want to make sure other families never have feelings of pain and loss and anguish which will last all their lives. I am embarrassed to say to my constituents that this Congress has done nothing--nothing at all--to reduce gun violence in our country. After Columbine, we passed five sensible gun measures--very modest, good, sensible gun measures--such as making sure every handgun is sold with a safety lock, and others that are very sensible: closing the gun show loophole so that a mentally imbalanced person or a criminal cannot walk into a gun show and simply be handed a gun--hand the cash over and get the gun with no background check. We know the background checks work, but they don't apply to gun shows. So Senator Lautenberg offered a very important amendment and it was added to the juvenile justice bill to close that gun show loophole. Vice President Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote. We know that will keep guns out of the criminals' hands. But what has happened in this Senate? Nothing. The power of the gun lobby can be felt in this Chamber--the power of the money of the gun lobby, the power of the threat of the gun lobby, and the gun lobby rules in this Senate, the gun lobby rules in the House of Representatives, and the gun lobby says if one of the candidates is elected President--namely, George Bush-- they will run an office out of the White House. Mr. President, enough is enough. Let's look at the deaths from gun violence in our country. There were 58,168 deaths in Vietnam over 11 years. They were tragic deaths. People were cut down in the prime of their lives. In 11 years, there were 58,168 deaths. Let's look at the last 11 years in America--the war on our streets, the war in our schools and, yes, even the war in our churches and Jewish community centers, where gunmen come in and cut people down in the prime of their lives; and they cut children down. There were 395,441 gun deaths in the 11-year period. Now, we stopped the war in Vietnam--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, people of every race, color, and creed. We stopped that war. We can stop this war. But I will tell you, it isn't going to be easy. The gun lobby is not going to make it easy. We have to have courage. There are those of us in this Senate who are going to be on this floor from now on, in the name of the million moms who marched with the dads, the grandmas, the grandpas, and the children. We are going to be here. We are going to be here day after day. We are going to force this Senate to look this issue in the eye, to look families in the eye, to bring out the five sensible gun control measures that are in the juvenile justice bill. What excuse is there since Columbine High School, where 13 people were killed? Thirteen kids are killed every day. Thank you, Mr. President. We will be back on this issue.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank our assistant floor leader, Senator Durbin, for arranging this time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, earlier today, I introduced in the Senate a bill that passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, May 11-- the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000. I introduced the bill and asked that it be put on the Senate calendar for one simple reason. I believe that the fastest way to pass legislation to protect our national lands legacy is to take up where the House left off last week. I know that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been trying for many months to get a lands legacy bill, and I commend the efforts of Senator Bingaman, Senator Landrieu and others. But I am also aware of the great differences of opinion on the Committee. I personally support the Bingaman bill, which is similar to legislation I introduced last year, the Resources 2000 Act. Some Senators support the Landrieu bill. Others oppose both approaches. Thus, it may not be possible to get a strong bill out of the Energy Committee this year. And, Mr. President, we are running out of time. There are probable fewer than 60 working days left in the 106th Congress. So that is why I have asked that the House bill be placed on the Senate calendar, so that at any time the Majority Leader can take it up and place it before the Senate. The House bill isn't perfect. I would like to see further changes. But it would be a good start for the Senate. We must not let this session of Congress end without passing this critical legislation to protect our natural heritage.