Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a comment. When Senator Byrd makes a statement, talks about a rule, talks about the process, I think it is kind of like the investment banker's advertising slogan that ``when they talk, everybody listens.'' When Senator Byrd speaks here, everybody listens, and much of the country at the same time, because of the experience and knowledge that he brings to this body and the concern that he has for being forthright with our constituents. I would just like to say this to the Senator. There was a degree of diligence--excessive haste, I agree. I will say one thing. I think that we appropriately learned a lesson about the process of stacking votes. I even suggested to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia that perhaps another Byrd rule could be put into place. I don't have the courage to offer it in my own name. But another Byrd rule might say that no more than 5 amendments, or 4 or 5 votes, or something like that, could be stacked at any time so that we would not get ourselves into this mad dash not to deceive and not to obscure, but rather to accommodate this very complicated process. As the Senator from West Virginia knows, the Senator from New Mexico and I spent roughly 2 months, almost every day, reviewing and negotiating the points in the budget agreement. We tried--I speak for myself, and I am sure the same situation occurred on the Republican side of the aisle--to keep our members on the committee informed because, as the distinguished former chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows, it is very hard to conduct an honest negotiation and debate when there are 20 people in the room. So what we tried to do is consolidate a consensus view and do it that way. So we met with the committee members and then we met with the members of the Democratic Caucus, because there were questions that arose. So I have to say this to the distinguished Senator. In my 15 years here, I honestly don't think that there has been a tighter review of matters related to the budget resolution than I have seen, because I have been on the Budget Committee almost all of the time that I have been here. We kept learning each year. I found the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, good to work with. We had lots of different views, but the one thing that we didn't differ on is that the other person had a right to respect, a right to offer their opinion, and we did it that way. It got tedious at times, especially when one could not listen to one's self. On the other hand, we did gain, seriously, a lot of knowledge during that period. I would say this. As I look around the room, we have experts in specific areas. If you want to talk about health, you know you would be talking quickly to the Senator from Massachusetts, and others on different matters of concern. And these matters were reviewed, not perhaps as thoroughly as we would have liked because we were committed to a time constraint overall. But, last night, I was here with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee until past 10 o'clock-- about 10:30--and we were hung up on a single amendment, reviewing it and trying to get into a position that we felt would satisfy our respective constituencies in the Senate, and back home, and across the country, as well. So the effort was put in. I think there is a mistake in the process, or a fault in the process, that needs to be corrected. I thank the Senator for raising the issue because, in these last hours, I have heard complaints from other Members of the Senate, as well, about this being too quick, too rushed. But we had a commitment. This is an unusual budget, a budget committed to a goal of zero deficit in 5 years. A lot was packed into it. The negotiations included members of the administration. It has been a very complicated, very tedious process, but no one, in my view shirked their responsibility. I hope that, from this point forward, we will remember another Byrd lesson. I remember many of them. Despite my white hair, I feel like I am going to ``professor'' Byrd's class when I do attend appropriations meetings or other meetings. I would say this, ``professor": I don't know what kind of a report card I have gotten, but I hope that it is better than a failing one and that you will say, OK, go forward and learn from this and next time I want to see a better performance. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May we have order, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 447, 464, 470, 477, and No. 503, As Modified, Withdrawn

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will be brief. I sense that everybody would like to hear a long speech, but I am going to disappoint them. I just want to say, Mr. President, that I, too, enjoyed my work with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. We managed to resolve all of our problems without too much dispute, without any confrontation. There wasn't a moment that we walked out on anything. This reconciliation bill is consistent with that. We did, as it was appropriately noted, rush through some things. But that does not at all, in my view, suggest that we rushed through and didn't have the appropriate knowledge or review of the items that we were processing. I thought it was a job very well done. I must say, if we didn't have some time constraint on this, Heaven knows how long we would all be here. We would see summer come and go and we would still be debating. Again, I enjoyed the process and my first time at bat with the Budget Committee in the position that I have. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I hope that Senator Domenici will, as my ranking member in the not-too-distant future, also enjoy it. I promise to be cooperative. I want to thank the staff of the Policy Committee, but particularly my senior staff here--Bruce King, Sander Lurie, Nell Mays, Marty Morris, Amy Abraham, John Cahill, Jodi Grant, Matt Greenwald, Phil Karsting, Sue Nelson, Jon Rosenwasser, Jim Klumpner, and Mitch Warren-- who did a terrific job, as I know Bill Hoagland and his team did. I won't go through the names, but I will say that I have gotten to know them and respect them and admire the work they have done. I thank everybody for their cooperation, particularly my colleagues on this side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prohibit firearm sales to, and possession by, individuals who are obviously intoxicated. Mr. President, a casual observer might think that this legislation is not necessary. Most Americans probably think that it is already illegal to sell a gun to a visibly intoxicated person. At the very least, the average citizen likely believes that it is only common sense that a gun dealer would never sell a gun to a drunk customer. Unfortunately, neither assumption is correct. Some gun dealers do sell guns and ammunition to visibly intoxicated persons. My bill will deter these sales, and punishes those who persist in making such dangerous sales. Federal and state laws currently prohibit the sale of alcohol to obviously drunk individuals, to protect both the intoxicated individual and others. Likewise, it is against the law for intoxicated persons to operate a motor vehicle. Unbelievably, it is not against Federal law to sell a firearm to a visibly intoxicated individual, or for an intoxicated person to possess a firearm. Worse still, Mr. President, some firearms dealers simply ignore common sense and sell guns and ammunition to any customers if they are clearly intoxicated. The absence of a legal prohibition on such sales allows these gun dealers to escape liability for the absolutely tragic, and foreseeable, consequences of such outrageous conduct. For instance, Deborah Kitchen, a mother of five children, is now a quadriplegic after being shot by her ex-boyfriend with a rifle he had purchased from a Florida K mart. This man was so drunk when he purchased the rifle that the store clerk had to fill out the Federal firearm purchase form on his behalf. By his own admission, the ex- boyfriend had consumed a fifth of whisky and a case of beer the day he shot Ms. Kitchen. Nevertheless, the store sold him a .22 caliber bolt action rifle and a box of bullets. He then used these to paralyze Ms. Kitchen from the neck down. Ms. Kitchen sued the K mart for it's outrageous conduct. A jury found the store liable of common law negligence, and returned a verdict in the amount of $12 million. A Florida appeals court overturned the jury's verdict, citing the lack of statutory prohibition on the sale of firearms to intoxicated persons. Or, Mr. President, consider the case of Anthony Buczkowski, who suffered severe injury after being shot by a drunken ammunition purchaser. William McKay stumbled into a Michigan K mart store after a day-long drinking spree. Although obviously drunk and an admitted ``mess'', he was still sold a box of shotgun shells. He later used this ammunition to shoot Mr. Buczkowski. Although the trial court entered a judgment against K mart for the damages suffered by Mr. Buczkowski, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, citing a lack of legal prohibition for such sales. Unfortunately, common sense and a sense of civic obligation have not been sufficient enough to deter these sales. Perhaps the threat of criminal and civil liability will do the job. Mr. President, it is my fervent hope that this legislation, if enacted, will end any future sales of guns and ammunition to intoxicated persons. Mr. President, I do not claim that most licensed gun dealers do or would sell guns or ammunition to intoxicated individuals. But the fact is that these sales do occur--and when they happen, the consequences can be devastating. Mr. President, our country now understands that alcohol and automobiles are a deadly mix. Common sense, and heartbreaking experience, tells us that alcohol and guns also do not mix. It is time that our laws reflect this common sense notion. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prohibit firearm sales to, and possession by, individuals who are obviously intoxicated. Mr. President, a casual observer might think that this legislation is not necessary. Most Americans probably think that it is already illegal to sell a gun to a visibly intoxicated person. At the very least, the average citizen likely believes that it is only common sense that a gun dealer would never sell a gun to a drunk customer. Unfortunately, neither assumption is correct. Some gun dealers do sell guns and ammunition to visibly intoxicated persons. My bill will deter these sales, and punishes those who persist in making such dangerous sales. Federal and state laws currently prohibit the sale of alcohol to obviously drunk individuals, to protect both the intoxicated individual and others. Likewise, it is against the law for intoxicated persons to operate a motor vehicle. Unbelievably, it is not against Federal law to sell a firearm to a visibly intoxicated individual, or for an intoxicated person to possess a firearm. Worse still, Mr. President, some firearms dealers simply ignore common sense and sell guns and ammunition to any customers if they are clearly intoxicated. The absence of a legal prohibition on such sales allows these gun dealers to escape liability for the absolutely tragic, and foreseeable, consequences of such outrageous conduct. For instance, Deborah Kitchen, a mother of five children, is now a quadriplegic after being shot by her ex-boyfriend with a rifle he had purchased from a Florida K mart. This man was so drunk when he purchased the rifle that the store clerk had to fill out the Federal firearm purchase form on his behalf. By his own admission, the ex- boyfriend had consumed a fifth of whisky and a case of beer the day he shot Ms. Kitchen. Nevertheless, the store sold him a .22 caliber bolt action rifle and a box of bullets. He then used these to paralyze Ms. Kitchen from the neck down. Ms. Kitchen sued the K mart for it's outrageous conduct. A jury found the store liable of common law negligence, and returned a verdict in the amount of $12 million. A Florida appeals court overturned the jury's verdict, citing the lack of statutory prohibition on the sale of firearms to intoxicated persons. Or, Mr. President, consider the case of Anthony Buczkowski, who suffered severe injury after being shot by a drunken ammunition purchaser. William McKay stumbled into a Michigan K mart store after a day-long drinking spree. Although obviously drunk and an admitted ``mess'', he was still sold a box of shotgun shells. He later used this ammunition to shoot Mr. Buczkowski. Although the trial court entered a judgment against K mart for the damages suffered by Mr. Buczkowski, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, citing a lack of legal prohibition for such sales. Unfortunately, common sense and a sense of civic obligation have not been sufficient enough to deter these sales. Perhaps the threat of criminal and civil liability will do the job. Mr. President, it is my fervent hope that this legislation, if enacted, will end any future sales of guns and ammunition to intoxicated persons. Mr. President, I do not claim that most licensed gun dealers do or would sell guns or ammunition to intoxicated individuals. But the fact is that these sales do occur--and when they happen, the consequences can be devastating. Mr. President, our country now understands that alcohol and automobiles are a deadly mix. Common sense, and heartbreaking experience, tells us that alcohol and guns also do not mix. It is time that our laws reflect this common sense notion. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an individual who truly personifies courage and compassion. When the dark night of Nazi occupation descended across most of Europe, and the spark of humanity was crushed beneath Gestapo jack boots, Dr. Jan Karski knew that he couldn't just curse the darkness. Dr. Karski was a wartime courier for the Polish underground, and he is often credited as being the first person to alert the Allies about the existence of the death camps and the extermination of the Jews. Karski's secret work began in 1939. He was riding in a cattle car, with other Polish soldiers, heading for forced labor in Germany, when he jumped from the window and joined the underground movement. Between the winter of 1939 and the early summer of 1940, Karski was sent by the underground back and forth from Warsaw to France on successful missions as a courier. However, in 1940 he was arrested by the Nazis in Slovakia and brutally tortured. Eventually, he was rescued by the Polish underground and continued to fight for freedom. Karski clandestinely surveyed conditions in the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto and even volunteered to be smuggled into the Belzic death camp to gather evidence of the Nazi's extermination policies. In 1943, he was sent by the Polish government-in-exile to inform American officials about the situation in his native country, among the prominent individuals he met with was President Roosevelt. In fact, shortly after meeting with Karski, Roosevelt ordered the creation of the American Refugee Board, an organization whose main task was to protect Jewish escapees and place them in the United States. After the war, when Poland traded Nazi totalitarianism for Soviet totalitarianism, Karski moved to the United States. He earned his Ph.D. in Georgetown and has been teaching at the university since 1952. Among other honors, Karski has received the highest Polish military decoration, a special citation by the United Nations, and was declared a ``Righteous Gentile Among Nations'' by the state of Israel. Mr. President, the great humanitarian Albert Schweitzer once noted, ``A great person helps others, but a good person touches the lives of others.'' If that's true, then Dr. Karski proves that good and great can exist in the same individual. He continually demonstrated that one person can make a difference, and at a time when many were content to curse the darkness, he kept the candles of hope and humanity burning. Undoubtedly, he is an example for our times and a hero for the ages.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I want to congratulate Karin Elkis, who is being honored on June 30, 1997 as the Sid Levy Memorial Volunteer of the Year by the Jewish Community Center of South Jersey. This annual award is presented to the volunteer who best captures the JCC's commitment to community service and self-giving. Karin is in charge of the Lautenberg Senate office in South Jersey and it is of no surprise to me that she is receiving this honor. Karin gets more done in one hour than most people accomplish in a single day. She is energetic, caring, selfless, and always thinking about others. She brings the same commitment and concern to her volunteer activities that she brings to her work to serve the people of New Jersey. Despite a more than full time job, three young children, and other family responsibilities, Karin has found time to make a major contribution to the JCC by chairing its Festival of Arts, Books and Culture this year. Further, she's served as a liaison to the Early Childhood Department, a member of the Budget Committee, chaired the Camp Committee and been a member of the Executive Committee. If I listed all of her activities at the JCC over the past few years, this statement would be longer than a James Michener novel. Through her work, Karin has touched the lives of many. She is truly an extraordinary person, with many talents, enormous energy and drive, and a compassionate heart. I am proud to have Karin on my staff and to include her as a friend. She makes an enormous contribution to the South Jersey community, through her work as a Senate employee and her work as a volunteer. Mr. President, I again congratulate Karin on this well deserved recognition. I know that she will continue to serve the people of New Jersey in many ways for years to come and that our pride in her accomplishments will continue to be justified.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. When the time expires on the bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As a point of clarification for everybody, by what time do the amendments have to be sent to the desk?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. About 9, because the time for the vote does not come off, it just adds to it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And thereafter we put in line the Reed amendment to be reexamined, and we will take a look at the timeframe. If we could plan the next two, that would probably consume the remainder of the time. What would the Senator from New Mexico expect would come up after that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would ask, if the Senator from Oklahoma will excuse me just a moment, so that we have a little longer sequence planned, that is, after the Senator from Oklahoma, after the vote on the budget waiver, I assume that the chairman intends to go to the Senator from Texas?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In how much time do you think you could deal with that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the bill to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Fine. The Senator from California can have 1 minute.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes off the bill to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understand.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, late last night, the Senate passed a resolution by a unanimous consent agreement establishing July 2d of this year and the next as National Literacy Day. As the proud author of this measure, I want to acknowledge its passage and thank the 53 Senators who joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, the ability to read is something most of us often take for granted. For most of us, it is difficult to imagine not being able to read a menu, street sign, magazine, or phone book. But for many of our citizens, these seemingly simple activities are impossible. This is so because they are illiterate. I am pleased that this resolution will be able to draw attention to the pressing issue of illiteracy. I thank my colleagues who have joined me in cosponsoring this important measure. All of us should be more aware of the problem of illiteracy. A recent study found that over 44 million adults cannot read. An additional 35 million read below the level needed to function successfully in society. These numbers alone are alarming and warrant our special attention. But even more disturbing are the personal hardships people must face each day due to their inability to read. The embarrassment parents face when they cannot read to their children. The discouragement able workers feel when they cannot fill out a basic job application. The disappointment we all endure as the ranks of the illiterate grow annually by over 2 million adults. Mr. President, the 18th century writer, Joseph Addison, once wrote ``Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.'' I couldn't agree more. Reading enriches our lives in countless ways. But there are far too many of our citizens who cannot read the instructions on a doctor's prescription bottle, let alone share the experience of reading one of Addison's great poems. This needs to change. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to thank the many citizens across the country who dedicate their lives to beating back the forces of illiteracy. I want to express my gratitude to the teachers, volunteers, parents, and others who donate their time and talent to help those who cannot read. In my own State of New Jersey, I want to give special recognition to Caryl Mackin-Wagner, executive director of Focus on Literacy, Inc., for her leadership on this issue. My thanks to all involved. Mr. President, we must focus our attention on the problem of illiteracy. All of us should make sure we do our part to ensure that citizens who need help know where services are available. We need to recognize the detrimental effects illiteracy has on our society. Most important, more of us need to enlist in the battle to close the book on illiteracy. Mr. President, for these reasons, I am very pleased that we passed this resolution establishing July 2, 1997, and July 2, 1998, as National Literacy Day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as needed to respond with my opposition to the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire and rise in support of the provision in the reconciliation package that was developed by Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan and other members of the Finance Committee. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill establishes a new program known as Medicare Choice, which will give Medicare beneficiaries more options for the type of health care that they will receive in the program. Seniors will be able to choose from HMO's, PPO's, and medical savings accounts, among several other options. The committee's proposal is intended to increase Choice for seniors. At the same time, it is meant to avoid the risk that the Medicare Program would move toward a two-tiered or multitiered system in which some seniors, especially the healthier and wealthier, enjoy benefits not available to the others. Under the committee-reported bill, providers of different services are paid a set amount. They then can compete for the consumers based on the quality and types of benefits they provide. If, for example, one HMO can operate more efficiently, it can plow the resulting savings into providing services that other less-efficient HMO's could not. This type of system is intended to ensure that seniors get the best quality care for each Federal dollar that gets spent. I think that makes sense. The Finance Committee also wanted to avoid a situation in which providers limit their benefit package to attract those who are healthy and who therefore could take advantage of a cheaper plan that offers fewer benefits. This could ultimately lead to a Medicare system that segregates the healthy from the ill and that forces sicker people to pay more to get the health care they need. Mr. President, I am going to stick with the Finance Committee's proposal on this. Let's give seniors more choice but let's make sure that the choices offer the type of quality health care they need and deserve. When I think of plans that may offer premiums--maybe they offer theater tickets or baseball games or what have you--to seduce or induce people to go their way, I think that is a terrible idea. It can provide a large provider with a monopoly of opportunities. ``Spend your money now, you will get it back.'' You will have these people locked into your service, so spend it up front. It is a calculated marketing cost. Frankly, I hate to see our senior citizens get caught up in a scheme like that. Mr. President, I hope we will be able to muster the support that is required here for the Finance Committee. Once again, this is now a new proposal. It alters the bill as originally developed. I do not think we ought to be doing it at this time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is, I understand--I ask the Chair--an hour's worth of debate evenly divided for the discussion of the waiver of the point of order.