Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. What is our status, Mr. President? I am going to ask for a vote on germaneness, if the interpretation stands. I thought we had an accommodation with the majority leader --I was trying to be helpful--to give us a chance to finish the debate on the subjects as I described, and to make way for the vote to take place in an expeditious fashion but guaranteeing me by unanimous consent now to be able to get the floor after the vote on the trade bill has taken place. If that is the case, I will yield the floor so we can get on to the business. I would like that representation to be made now and clearly understood.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as the majority leader knows very well, there is some dispute on this issue. And I have the floor. I have tried to conduct myself as the rules provide. What I am asking the majority leader now is, if I propound a unanimous consent request, I be recognized after the vote on the trade bill and that I be permitted to speak at that time, to regain the floor. I think it is a reasonable request based on the debate that is going on now. Otherwise, we are going to have more delays than we would like to see. I want to get the African trade bill out of the way.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a couple of requests. I would try to do it in 40 minutes, and work on even compressing that, I say to the leader--but 40 minutes maximum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We can release the floor, if the leader will give me consent, and we can move on to the business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We want to accommodate. I tell the leader that. Perhaps we can move it along by saying that after the opening statements by the managers--they introduce their managers' amendment--I then be able to regain the floor for the 40 minutes about which we are talking. I think that will allow us to move things along at a good pace.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is regular order. Mr. President, I have the right to establish the connection between the trade industry, and that is how I started my remarks. The fact is that one of the purposes of getting this trade matter into law is to make sure the countries we deal with that are having severe economic problems, where we see starving populations, where we see human rights ignored, corruption rampant--that is the mission of what we are doing this day. Frankly, I am not doing it exclusively so we can do more business. We would like to do more business. The fact is that trade has another significant implication. It is a foreign policy implication. How do we deal with it? When we look through the television cameras today, we see people with malnutrition, disease, starving. We are hoping we can do something to try to alleviate those conditions. Why is it out of order? I ask the Parliamentarian, why is it out of order to talk about the subjects that relate at home to the same things we are trying to do to help overseas? I don't understand it. I must say that I have to pose that to the Parliamentarian. We are never so strict that you can't talk about matters that relate indirectly. Or are we going to measure it word by word what is being said here? I think it is an invasion, I must say, of the Senator's right to speak on an issue. I am not finished with remarks on the trade commentary. I intend to close with the trade commentary.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New York, everybody's good friend here, wishes to ask a question of the majority leader. I would like Senator Moynihan to ask him to respond with the assurance that I get the floor, if we abandon the debate now.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That I be able to recapture--we are asking the majority leader. He speaks very clearly. I have the assurance that I will be recognized immediately after to finish the comments that I was making.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to continue discussing the issue we were talking about earlier. In my earlier remarks, while talking about trade, we talked about the value of trade with the sub- Saharan nations, whose economic subjugation created all kinds of problems. We talked about the economic strangulation that presents so many problems and creates violence and corruption and lawlessness in some of these countries. We are hoping that this trade can suppress those differences and that violence. I was making the point that we in this country have a problem of our own regarding gun violence, which is very detrimental to the harmonious functioning within our society. We have these huge differences between those who think that ``guns unlimited'' ought to be the rule. I had the opportunity to hear a brilliant author, Gary Wills, talk about why it is that people distrust Government. One of the issues he brings up--and I am paraphrasing some here--is that when people see that violence pervades our society, we have to have some sense of a regulation. He pointed out that if we didn't have regulations on our highways, highway safety programs, our system would be rendered useless because people would be afraid to go out on the highways because of the mayhem it would create. I think it is a fairly simple thing to understand that if you were able to drive as fast as you wanted on either side of the road, we would be killing and maiming one another. I don't understand why it is that we can't have some sensible gun violence control in this country, some regulation. Why is this one part of our society so exempt from any kind of sensible regulation that says a person who wants to buy a gun ought to be qualified physically and emotionally to do so, and that if they want to buy a gun they ought not have any history of violent behavior? I wrote legislation regarding spousal abuse. I said anybody convicted of a misdemeanor for spousal abuse ought not to be able to own a gun. I had terrific resistance in this place. I could not get it through, really. Finally, we got it through as a piece of legislation on a budget. What has happened in 3\1/2\ years? Well, 33,000 people who are not qualified by virtue of violence against a spouse or their children-- domestic abusers--have been prevented from getting guns, where maybe they pointed a gun at somebody and said, ``If you don't listen to me, I will blow your brains out.'' I think it was a positive measure. The Brady bill was fought tooth and nail before it was passed. The Brady bill gave Government time to check out these individuals who are applying for guns or gun ownership at such a prolific rate that we ought to have some measure of control. Well, after a long debate and a lot of suffering, had Jim Brady, who was shot while an attempt was made on the life of President Reagan, not wheeled himself around the Capitol, it never would have passed. What was the effect of the Brady bill--the thing the gun lobby was so afraid of that would ``impair freedom"? Baloney, as we say. Well, 500,000 people were prevented from getting guns, thank the Lord. What would have happened? Those 500,000 people who were not qualified either by virtue of personal characteristics, background, a tendency toward violence, or trouble, could have gotten guns. Thank goodness they were not able to get guns. We wonder whether or not, with a Million Moms March imminent on Mother's Day, anybody thinks mothers are clamoring to leave their homes and march in protest because they have nothing better to do on Mother's Day. That is the most revered holiday, next to Christmas, that we have in our society. It is when people flock to see moms. I know my children want to see their mother. My grandchildren want to see their mother. A lot of them in my family will be out there marching because they are sick and tired of worrying about whether or not their children, when they go to school to learn, to sing, to play, to make friends, are going to get shot, are going to get assaulted, are going to get killed or wounded in such a way that they never recover. That doesn't only mean those who were hit with a bullet. It means friends who saw their classmates at Columbine lying down and trying to crawl out windows to get away from the madness, in fear for their lives. What was the impact of that throughout the school? Did the wounding stop with those hit with a bullet? Or do those wounds go on forever? Some lost friends who were 16 and 17 years old--kids in the prime of life. Those wounds will last forever. So it is not only those who are involved in the fracas; it is everybody--all of us across the country. Look at the physical cost: metal detectors, guards, cameras, rigid processes for transportation. It costs a fortune. Frankly, I think we should just put a lid on this proliferation of guns and stop the unlicensed gun dealers from selling guns and not asking any questions of the buyer--``buyers anonymous''--at gun shows across the country. If you want to buy guns, just put your money down, brother, and you can have all the guns you want and walk away. You could be one of the 10 most wanted criminals in the United States on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list. Even if they recognize you, they have no obligation in the States that don't have control because the Federal Government doesn't have it all; they are under no obligation to say, hey, we know you are sought after. We know you are a criminal. There are no rules. We ought to stop that and we ought to make a pledge to the mothers who are going to be out there on Sunday that we are going to do something about it, instead of sitting on our hands over a year since Columbine. It is almost a year now since we passed the gun show loophole closure in this body and sent it over to the House as part of a conference. That is what we do here. The House and the Senate confer and they try to agree on a bill. They don't want to act on it. The action is no action. That inaction is the rule because they don't want to bring up the gun issue. It is too sensitive. It might be too offensive to the NRA. It might be too offensive to the gun lobby. We are saying, no, we have to do something about it. The least thing we are going to do today is offer a resolution and, we hope, get it passed. We ask those on the other side who won't join us to stand up in front of the American public and say: I don't think you are entitled to send your child to a safe school; you have to run the risk. After all, guns are more important than my kids or my grandchildren. I can tell you that the so-called ``freedom to own a gun and maim people,'' and the Constitution says you are allowed to shoot at anybody you want to, is not a matter--in the wildest imagination--of the second amendment. Mr. President we have a limit of time. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want to give as much time as my colleague from New York needs, not more than 7 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from New York. Mr. President, we are in morning business, I believe. Is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to make a unanimous consent request. In fairness, I want to see a Republican on the floor before we make that request about time. So if the staff would arrange to have someone come to the floor, I would appreciate it because I want to continue talking about this resolution we have already sent up to the desk. We are looking for very simple, commonsense changes. I can't imagine anybody saying we should not prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons. It is hard to oppose that. Does anyone seriously believe juveniles need assault weapons? Additionally, we should require child safety locks to be sold with handguns. It is a simple step we can take to try to protect kids who get a hold of guns. We know that the 6-year- old who used a gun to murder another 6-year-old would not have been able to do so, A, if the gun had been properly protected from reach by a child; or, B, if the gun had had a safety lock, the child wouldn't have been able to operate it. We also ought to study--I know the Senator from California wants to talk about this--the marketing of guns to juveniles. She spoke about it a few moments ago. I heard her talk about it. It was so clear and so precise that it is hard to argue against it. Why shouldn't we examine what it is we are doing to convince little kids that their mark of maturity is going to be to own a gun? I don't understand why. When it comes to guns, we are talking about deadly weapons. We are not talking about play toys that might turn over or something such as that. This is automatically associated with killing, with death, with injury--a gun in the wrong hands. No, we are not saying that every gun owner is out for murder. We are not saying every gun owner is out to hurt people, but there are enough people that it makes an enormous difference whether or not guns are out there in the hands of the wrong people. We ought to make sure they are not being sold as toys. These are all commonsense measures. They passed this Senate as part of a juvenile justice bill just about a year ago next week. It was sent over to the House. We got our conference committee together. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California for her ever persistent fight to protect children and protect the families in this country. We are going to continue, no matter what turn of events we see. We want the public to be heard. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a resolution that simply commends the participants of the Million Mom March this weekend for rallying for their communities to demand sensible gun safety legislation. It calls on Congress to complete action on the juvenile justice bill before the Memorial Day recess. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 305, which was introduced by me, that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, and ladies and gentlemen who can hear me, what an irony it is. What an irony it is. The Senator from Colorado objects to simple gun safety legislation. What an irony it is that this place is empty, but the voice of negativism creeps through. I want all the million moms across the country to hear this. They are saying: No, no to sensible gun safety legislation. They are saying: No, Mom, your kids are going to go to school and it is too bad, it is too bad if some little maniac, or some confused child has a gun in his or her hand. Too bad, too bad, unless it is their kid, God forbid. What are we witnessing here? Foolishness. The public ought to know it. They ought to stand up and shout: We are not going to take it anymore. A million mothers marching across this country--I hope they are made furious by this objection. Object to a resolution? A resolution, for my friends who do not know, is not a law. It is simply a thought. It is the way we think we ought to do things. We are far from legislation. We just think we ought to protect children. We think we ought to make it tougher for people to have guns randomly. We think we ought to make it tougher for young children to learn that guns are a step toward manhood. They ought to learn. They ought to learn. Remember the image--the kids at Columbine, the bleeding boy reaching out the window for help: Somebody, help me before I get killed. Or the little children at the school in Califor nia--little kids, like my grandchildren, like your grandchild, being led by policemen so they could get away from a gunman. Or the youngsters saying a prayer in Waco, TX, heads bent in prayer, and some idiot comes by and starts shooting. Or that 6-year-old child killing another 6-year-old child. So we cannot enact a law that says you have to put your gun away if you have one, so a child can't get ahold of it? Or make it childproof? The Republicans say: No. We have 51-50 vote when the Vice President cast a tie vote and it went to the House. The House didn't want to cooperate, the Republican majority there said: No, no, let's bury this thing. Bury it. What a terrible term. What a terrible term. Because we are talking about funerals and burials, instead of laughter, instead of love, instead of friendship. It is a black day, a bad day for America. I hope the million moms, when they get together, will talk about this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It was a resolution to welcome them.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor, not in exhaustion, not in fatigue, but ours to fight another day. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I have 1 minute?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his always courteous response to a request. It was disheartening to see we could not get a resolution adopted-- not law, a thought, an idea, what we would like to do, that says we welcome the committed women who are involved in the march who are going to gather in places across this country to protest the threat of violence to their children. I thank our leader, and my colleague from California, for being such active supporters of this protest against violence. I am sorry we did not have a chance to get a vote on it. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his friendly remarks as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Rev. James A. Scott on the occasion of his retirement as Pastor of the Bethany Baptist Church in Newark, NJ. For more than three decades, Rev. James A. Scott has devoted his life to building a new legacy for the Bethany Baptist Church congregation and the Newark community. Since its founding in 1871, Bethany Baptist has evolved into an international network. The church's more than 2,000 members represent 22 different countries, including many in the Caribbean and Africa. Under Reverend Scott's leadership, Bethany Baptist helped establish a daughter church in Johannesburg, South Africa, and renovated a church in Cuba. The church also provides scholarship funds for students to attend the Moscow Baptist Seminary, and it educates primary students in Kenya. Reverend Scott is not just building bridges to the international community, he is also playing a major role in the rebirth of Newark and surrounding areas. In the Roseville Avenue neighborhood, for example, Reverend Scott's church helped build 100 affordable homes. His church also helped build a community outreach building in Newark as well as the Newark-Bethany Christian Academy Day School. These facilities have created a sense of stability and rootedness in their respective neighborhoods. Low-income families now have new housing options and new reasons to feel proud of where they live. Reverend Scott's commitment to Newark is unsurpassed. I hope that Bethany Baptist Church will be inspired by his example to achieve even higher goals. I salute Reverend Scott on his retirement and wish him well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tobacco Smuggling Eradication Act. When Congress last debated tobacco legislation, Big Tobacco raised the specter of rampant smuggling to defeat the legislation. Of course, the public only found out recently that Big Tobacco itself is a major player in the smuggling game. A tobacco company executive recently pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in a case involving nearly $700 million worth of cigarettes on the Canadian black market. Although the company denies knowledge of the scheme, they clearly profited from it. The best way to address smuggling concerns is to prevent any large- scale smuggling problem from arising in the first place. The Tobacco Smuggling Eradication Act contains several common-sense provisions to combat smuggling of tobacco products, and associated tax evasion. The bill will require unique serial numbers on all tobacco product packages manufactured or imported into the United States, and will require all packages bound for export to be marked for export. Under current law, export-bound products that re-enter the U.S. too often avoid tax assessment, and are sold at discount, in competition with products on which taxes have been paid. Likewise, re-imported products under current law often evade counting for purposes of the multi-state settlement, and thus cheat Americans twice--once in avoidance of tax, and again in avoidance of MSA assessment. The bill would require retailers to maintain tobacco-related records, which may consist simply of ordinary business records. This provision would ensure that invoices for tax-paid tobacco products match sales, and that the retailer is not an outlet for product on which tax has not been paid. The bill also would require wholesalers to keep records on the chain of custody of tobacco products. This requirement already exists for manufacturers, exporters, and importers. This requirement needs to be strengthened in order to ensure that product marked for export is not diverted back into the domestic market without appropriate taxes having been collected. In addition, the bill would amend the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which assists states in enforcing and collecting their excise taxes, by lowering the threshold of jurisdiction to 30,000 cigarettes (from 60,000) and expanding it to cover other tobacco products. Federal law should ensure that states have the necessary tools to stop interstate bootleggers who routinely move tons of tobacco products from low-tax states to higher-tax states. Mr. President, this is important legislation which would crack down on bootleggers and black marketeers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.