Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a maximum of 15 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask whether the floor is in any kind of a parliamentary situation at this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, none of us can possibly ignore what took place yesterday in Michigan. Another child killed by gunfire. Everywhere across the country we see children killing children. And then we see members of the immediate family their faces contorted by sadness. Anyone who has a child or grandchild has to be dismayed and upset by these tragedies. I am fortunate enough to have seven grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 6. Nothing is more joyful than to see their smiling faces--to see them learning about life, reading, playing, and singing. And when I think of my grandchildren, and the other children across this country, I ask myself what it will take to stop the gun violence. When will this Congress say we have enough killing? What does it take to change some minds, to say that guns do kill? I am so tired of that foolish saying: ``guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' Of course, people kill people, but we would see much less deadly violence if we passed common sense gun safety measures. It is getting close to the 1-year anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine. I will never forget the picture of the child hanging out of the window at that school, looking for help, trying to get away from the terror. I thought that terrible violence--12 children killed and many more seriously injured--would force this Congress to act. And yet there has been much more gun violence since Columbine. Shootings in Georgia; in Ft. Worth, Texas, at a prayer meeting. Those young people were gathered to worship and along comes someone with a gun and kills them. And then a gunman in California attacks children at a day care. After that terrible assault, the gunman goes on to kill a postal worker because he is Filipino and not white. When will the National Rifle Association and its friends step up to the issue, not always appealing to the extremists, and say there is a sensible way to approach this problem and reduce the proliferation of guns? They should join with us and help close the gun show loophole that allows guns to be sold without a criminal background check. A person could be one the 10 most wanted criminals in this country and say to one of the dealers: I have $500; give me a couple of guns. The dealer could sell them, and he would not be breaking the law. It is an outrage. Of course, some who oppose gun safety legislation talk about the Second Amendment. But there is nothing in the Constitution that says citizens can buy a gun without identifying themselves. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, buy a gun, carry it anyplace you want. No, no; there are overriding considerations that say we have to protect our citizens. We put people in uniform to protect our citizens. Sometimes it is a military uniform, sometimes it is a police uniform. We do it to protect our citizens. Why don't we reduce the possibility that a gun might be introduced into a situation? In 1996, Congress did pass my domestic violence gun ban. There was a huge fight on the floor of this Senate and the House. In cooperation with President Clinton, on the budget bill, we said anybody who has committed a misdemeanor of spousal abuse or abusing a child, that person should not have a gun. We fought like the devil. People said we have no right to take guns away from people who haven't done something serious. But domestic violence is serious. And guns make domestic violence incidents even more dangerous. The trigger does not have to be pulled to traumatize a spouse or a child. Let a man put a gun to a woman's head and say: I will blow your brains out in front of your children. That is a wound that does not go away in a hurry. Doctors cannot see that wound on the skin, but it does not go away. Mr. President, since that law went into effect, 33,000 purchases have been prevented. 33,000 of those wife abusers, spousal abusers, could not get a gun. I feel good about it. And I still cannot understand those people who opposed it and who continue to oppose gun safety measures. They seem to want guns for everyone, wherever they want, at any age, it doesn't matter, hide them, conceal them, do what you want. That is irresponsible. And we should not have people hiding behind empty slogans like ``guns don't kill people''. Or trying to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment. No one has a right to hurt another. That is not in the Constitution. Just a few minutes ago we learned that there was another shooting near Pittsburgh. We don't have all the details, but someone shot four people in a McDonald's and then went to a Burger King and shot someone else. So the gun violence continues, week by week, day by day, hour by hour. Yesterday it was a six-year-old in Michigan killing another child. And we ask ourselves what can be done. Do you put a 6-year-old in jail? Do you lock him up in a cell? Or do you say to a parent or a friend: It is your responsibility? If you own a car, you have no right to give it to somebody who doesn't know how to drive and tell them to have a good time. That can be criminally prosecuted if a person has an accident. Why is a gun different? Why shouldn't all guns be protected from access by unacceptable users, children, deranged people, et cetera? We ought to do it. We keep avoiding it with silly excuses in this place. I hope people across America understand we ought to stop this now. We can require gun manufacturers to manufacture guns that don't work except in the hands of an authorized user. Thirteen children a day die from gunshots; over 4,500 kids a year. We can pass a bill that Senator Durbin from Illinois has authored, the Child Access Prevention Act. It imposes criminal penalties on gun owners who allow children access to their guns. And we ought to take stronger measures to prevent easy access to guns. Closing the gun show loophole which allows criminals to purchase firearms without a background check will help. Let me give a graphic example why we cannot afford to wait any longer to do this. Every year, several gun shows are held in Portland, OR at the Expo Center. The Expo Center is managed by a commission established by the local government, the Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission, called Metro for short. Metro officials were concerned about possible criminal activity at gun shows, so they looked at police records and put together a report. Here is what they found: Investigative reports from the Portland Police Bureau demonstrate a continuing pattern of frequent significant criminal activity associated with the Rose City gun shows at the Expo Center. And the report gives examples of that criminal activity. Here is an example: Three subjects were observed in the gun show wearing gang attire. The three subjects were looking for dealers who do not do background checks. One of the subjects attempted to purchase a Glock pistol without any paperwork. The subjects bought 4 high capacity magazines and exited the show. Officers contacted the subjects and found one subject all in red to be 12 years old. The second subject all in blue had a warrant for his arrest. The last subject was found to be an ex-felon. The two adults were arrested and transported to NE precinct. At the NE precinct officers found marijuana packaged for sale and $1,150 in the last subject's shoe. He was charged with delivery of a controlled substance. So we have gang members--drug dealers--using a gun show as a convenience store for guns. These gang members were looking for gun sellers who were not required to do criminal background checks. And this testimony is similar to what we heard from Robyn Anderson when she testified before the Colorado legislature. She is the young woman who went with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to the Tanner Gun Show in Adams County, Colorado. She testified that Harris and Klebold went from table to table at the gun show, looking for gun sellers who were not required to complete a background check. With her help, Harris and Klebold bought two shotguns and a rifle without a criminal background check. And everybody knows what happened after that. They used those guns to murder fellow students and a teacher at Columbine High School. How much more do we need to know before we do the sensible thing and close this loophole? Gang members and teenagers bent on committing murder know they can go to a gun show and get a firearm if they want, without a background check. Is there anyone around here who actually thinks that is all right? Good friends on the other side, good friends on both sides will sometimes defend gun ownership blindly. But we should all agree that you should not be able to buy a gun without identifying yourself and having a criminal background check. The gun lobby says we do not need a new law, all we need to do is enforce the current law. But that completely misses the point. There is a loophole in the law, so when you try to enforce it, criminals simply slip through the loophole. This hole in our gun laws is leaking human lives and we ought to plug it before someone else is killed with a pistol or shotgun purchased at a gun show without a background check. People ought to identify themselves when they buy a gun. Why not? Some of our colleagues who argue against closing this loophole are the same people who go on and on about the need to get tough on crime. But when it comes to this gaping loophole in our gun laws, they are strangely quiet. All of us know why. Those tough-on-crime Members do not hear the huge majority of the people. Ninety percent of the people in this country, according to a recent poll, are calling for us to close this loophole. They do not hear the cries, see the tears of those who have lost a child, a friend, a relative. But what do they hear? They hear the NRA making deposits to their campaign accounts. They hear the NRA saying: Do nothing and we will keep these campaign contributions coming. I have been fighting this battle for a long time, almost a year now on this specific issue. Back on May 20, 9 months ago, the Senate passed my amendment to close the gun show loophole. It passed 51-50, with a huge struggle. But the Congress has yet to finish the job because the NRA has been putting its money to work making sure my amendment stays bottled up in a conference committee. Let's do the right thing and set this legislation free. Let's not allow extremists in the gun lobby to prevail over the families across this country who want to stop the gun violence. April 20 will mark 1 year since the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School. On that day, people across this country will ask, What has Congress done? What have you done to stop gun violence in this country? What have you done to protect my child, my grandchild, my brother, my sister, my parents from this mad gun violence? It is not too late to give the public the answer they want, the answer they deserve. It is not too late to show them that common sense can prevail in this distinguished place.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labeling Act. I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chafee. Mr. President, the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labeling Act has two common-sense objectives. First, the bill will require tobacco manufacturers to disclose the ingredients of their products to the public--including toxic and cancer-causing ingredients. Second, our bill will replace the small health warnings on the side of a cigarette pack with larger warnings on the front and back that are simple and direct: ``Cigarettes Cause Cancer.'' ``Cigarettes are Addictive.'' ``Smoking Can Kill You.'' Of the hundreds of products for sale in America that go into the human body, tobacco products are the only ones--the only ones--for which manufacturers do not have to disclose ingredients. Even Coca- Cola, with a proud tradition of keeping its formula secret, has to list Coke's ingredients on every can. Mr. President, manufacturers of every food product and every over- the- counter drug disclose their contents. Cigarette manufacturers do not. Yet, of any consumable product for sale in the United States, cigarettes are by far the most deadly. One in three smokers will die from a smoking-related disease. That is more than 400,000 Americans every year. We should disclose information on cigarette ingredients to the public and provide realistic warnings about the health risks cigarettes cause. Mr. President, how much do smokers really know about the chemicals they are inhaling with every puff of cigarette smoke? When a smoker lights a cigarette, the burning ingredients create other chemicals. Some of these are carcinogenic. A Surgeon General's report in 1989 reported that cigarettes contain 43 carcinogens. Forty-three. The public has a right to know. Do most smokers realize that one of these chemicals is arsenic? Yes, arsenic. I do not think most smokers know that. Our bill will disclose that, as well as the other chemical carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Mr. President, with all these known dangers about smoking, we should not hide the health warning labels in small type on the side of a cigarette pack. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia and Thailand, put large labels on the front of each pack. The United States should provide equal protection to consumers. The warnings should be stark, clear, and easily seen. When cigarettes get in the hands of children, and with 3,000 children becoming regular smokers every day, we have a duty to give them the facts: ``Cigarettes Cause Cancer.'' ``Smoking is Addictive.'' ``Smoking Can Kill You.'' That is a lot more graphic and descriptive than the small print that appears today. Large and forthright warnings are more likely to be seen, read, understood, and recalled. More children--and adults--will get the message, and put down the pack rather than lighting up. In a recent study of Canadian cigarette pack messages--similar to those required by this legislation--half of all smokers who were smoking less, or trying to quit, cited cigarette pack messages as contributing to their decisions. Larger, bolder warnings can make a difference. Mr. President, the 106th Congress should enact this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill, and I want to thank my cosponsors, Senators Lugar, Durbin and Chafee for joining me in this effort. In the coming weeks, I expect that this bill will attract more cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I introduce the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labeling Act. I am joined by my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Durbin, and Senator Chafee. Mr. President, the Smoker's Right to Know and Truth in Tobacco Labeling Act has two common-sense objectives. First, the bill will require tobacco manufacturers to disclose the ingredients of their products to the public--including toxic and cancer-causing ingredients. Second, our bill will replace the small health warnings on the side of a cigarette pack with larger warnings on the front and back that are simple and direct: ``Cigarettes Cause Cancer.'' ``Cigarettes are Addictive.'' ``Smoking Can Kill You.'' Of the hundreds of products for sale in America that go into the human body, tobacco products are the only ones--the only ones--for which manufacturers do not have to disclose ingredients. Even Coca- Cola, with a proud tradition of keeping its formula secret, has to list Coke's ingredients on every can. Mr. President, manufacturers of every food product and every over- the- counter drug disclose their contents. Cigarette manufacturers do not. Yet, of any consumable product for sale in the United States, cigarettes are by far the most deadly. One in three smokers will die from a smoking-related disease. That is more than 400,000 Americans every year. We should disclose information on cigarette ingredients to the public and provide realistic warnings about the health risks cigarettes cause. Mr. President, how much do smokers really know about the chemicals they are inhaling with every puff of cigarette smoke? When a smoker lights a cigarette, the burning ingredients create other chemicals. Some of these are carcinogenic. A Surgeon General's report in 1989 reported that cigarettes contain 43 carcinogens. Forty-three. The public has a right to know. Do most smokers realize that one of these chemicals is arsenic? Yes, arsenic. I do not think most smokers know that. Our bill will disclose that, as well as the other chemical carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Mr. President, with all these known dangers about smoking, we should not hide the health warning labels in small type on the side of a cigarette pack. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia and Thailand, put large labels on the front of each pack. The United States should provide equal protection to consumers. The warnings should be stark, clear, and easily seen. When cigarettes get in the hands of children, and with 3,000 children becoming regular smokers every day, we have a duty to give them the facts: ``Cigarettes Cause Cancer.'' ``Smoking is Addictive.'' ``Smoking Can Kill You.'' That is a lot more graphic and descriptive than the small print that appears today. Large and forthright warnings are more likely to be seen, read, understood, and recalled. More children--and adults--will get the message, and put down the pack rather than lighting up. In a recent study of Canadian cigarette pack messages--similar to those required by this legislation--half of all smokers who were smoking less, or trying to quit, cited cigarette pack messages as contributing to their decisions. Larger, bolder warnings can make a difference. Mr. President, the 106th Congress should enact this legislation. This is a bipartisan bill, and I want to thank my cosponsors, Senators Lugar, Durbin and Chafee for joining me in this effort. In the coming weeks, I expect that this bill will attract more cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, in introducing the College Fire Prevention Act. On Wednesday, January 19, 2000, a fire raged through a dormitory at Seton Hall University, claiming the lives of three students and injuring 58 others, including at least 54 students, two police officers and two firefighters. The dormitory, Boland Hall, was built in 1952, and although it was equipped with smoke detectors, it was not required to be equipped with a fire sprinkler system. Nothing is as painful as a senseless accident that takes the lives of young people. And unfortunately, the Seton Hall community is not alone in its grief. In fact, in the last decade, 18 young people lost their lives in dormitory fires. We must do all we can to prevent future tragedies. Students have a fundamental right to pursue an education in a safe, secure environment. Parents have a right to know that their children are protected from harm while on school property. That is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation to provide Federal matching grants for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in student housing. This bill authorizes the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the U.S. Fire Administration, to award grants to equip dormitories, sorority, and fraternity houses with fire sprinkler systems. I thank Senator Edwards for sponsoring this important legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that student housing is as safe as possible.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a good day for New Jersey. I am so pleased the Senate has confirmed the appointment of an outstanding citizen of our State, Joel Pisano, for a seat on the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. He is a competent, thorough, well- thought-of individual. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for their help in moving Mr. Pisano's nomination through the Judiciary Committee and their support of his nomination. I recommended him in June of 1999. I am grateful to hear he was confirmed by a vote of 95 to 2. Joel Pisano has outstanding credentials. He is going to be an excellent addition to our district court. The backlog of cases is very high. It takes a long time for people to bring their cases and have them adjudged. Joel Pisano will be an excellent addition to our bench and help move that caseload fairly and rapidly. He has served as a magistrate judge since 1991. He is already performing many of the duties of a district court judge, including jury and nonjury trials. He has managed pretrial proceedings in about 600 civil cases, so he is used to controlling the large caseload of a Federal court. He has also dealt with a wide variety of different cases--patent and trademark cases, environmental cleanup disputes, antitrust and securities litigation, employment discrimination cases, and civil RICO matters. I did a lot of personal research, as I have on all of the recommendations I have made to the Federal bench, and I was so pleased to hear of the unanimous approval of Mr. Pisano as a candidate for the Federal bench. He has a reputation for competence, energy, and commitment that perfectly fits the profile of an excellent candidate to sit on the Federal district court bench. He has consistently impressed everyone who appears before him and who works with him in his capacity for fairness and his thorough understanding of the law. I heard not one critical note from the people I spoke to--lawyers, judges, those who make up much of the legal community in the State of New Jersey. Prior to his appointment as a magistrate, Mr. Pisano was a partner in a distinguished law firm. In the 13 years he spent representing clients, he developed an expertise in a wide variety of areas, in both civil and criminal matters. Mr. Pisano appeared in court almost every day and tried 150 cases to conclusion. He also managed the litigation section of his firm, which I think was an early indication of the supervisory skills that have served him so well as a magistrate. Magistrate Pisano's depth of experience and organizational skills are exactly what we need at a time when staggering caseloads are making it more and more difficult for our Federal judges to spend as much time with each case as they would wish. He will tackle his new responsibilities with energy to spare. I am pleased the Senate confirmed him. I am honored that I brought him to the attention of the Senate. I believe he will serve as one of our most outstanding judges in the district court. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida and yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 6 minutes without the Senator from Florida losing any of his time. I thank him for his willingness to allow this.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on April 20, we are going to mark a 1- year anniversary of the terrible tragedy that occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado. That was the day when two teenagers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, walked into the school and sprayed the library and cafeteria with gunfire, killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding many others. A few who were aware of what took place that day will never forget that horrible scene of a young man jumping out a window, people running, weeping, the whole place in disarray, students lying on the ground wounded, some fatally. You would have thought by now, 9 months after that massacre, that Congress would have been able to get together to pass commonsense gun safety measures. Some of my colleagues will say there is not much we can do about it. No, we cannot go back and undo that tragedy, but we sure can do something that maybe will prevent something similar from happening in the future. It is preposterous to say we can't do anything better. We can do a lot about it. Reasonable gun safety legislation can make a difference. For proof, I ask that we take a look at testimony of the young woman, Robyn Anderson, before the Judiciary Committee of the Colorado House of Representatives. In case the name isn't familiar, Robyn Anderson is the young woman who went with Harris and Klebold to the Tanner gun show in Adams County, CO. It was in late 1998. She wanted to help them buy guns. Harris and Klebold were too young to buy guns because they had an 18- year age limit, but Robyn Anderson was 18. She bought three guns at that gun show, two shotguns, and a rifle, and immediately handed them over to Harris and Klebold. Four months later, Harris and Klebold used all three of those guns in their murderous rampage. This is what Ms. Anderson said during her testimony: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gone to the Tanner gun show on Saturday and they took me back with them on Sunday. . . . While we were walking around, Eric and Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private--and not licensed-- because there would be no paperwork or background check. That was her statement to the committee in the Colorado House. As all can see, they had one mission: to avoid a background check. I am the author of a piece of legislation we tried to get through the Senate that said we ought to have everybody available for a background check. We know those unlicensed dealers who were able to sell at these gun shows--and there are over 4,000 gun shows a year--unless a State law says no, can sell guns to anybody who has the money. They can put them in the back of their car. They can carry them on their shoulder. Even someone who is listed on the 10 Most Wanted--criminals--could qualify to buy a gun from one of these dealers. Tragically, these three young people found three gun dealers, and they bought their deadly weapons. This is what she had to say about gun sales at gun shows: It was too easy. I wish it had been more difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had faced a background check. Robyn Anderson said that in front of the Colorado legislature. This shows clearly that background checks for gun sales can make a difference. They can keep guns out of the wrong hands. When the National Rifle Association says that our gun laws are sufficient, it is wrong. They are simply out of line. There is a glaring loophole--the gun show loophole--which Congress must close. There is no more time for delay. The American people are requesting action, demanding it, if you look at surveys. I hope my colleagues will complete action on the juvenile justice bill because it did contain a prohibition on gun sales that are done at gun shows without a background check. Now, that was knocked out of the House bill as it came over to the Senate for conference. But the fact is that it was in the Senate bill, and we ought to include it in any bill that finally passes. Let's do it before we mark the anniversary of that terrible day at Columbine High School, showing that we are serious and that we care about what happened. In the nine months since April 20, we have seen more terrible shootings and bloodshed. In May of last year, a teenager in Conyers, GA, shot and injured six of his classmates. In July, a gunman in Ohio shot three teenage girls and the teacher of a Bible study group. In August, a white supremacist stormed into a Jewish community center near Los Angeles and shot two children and a senior citizen. Later that day, before this culprit was apprehended, he shot and killed a postal worker. In September, more gun violence--a gunman in Fort Worth, TX, walked into a Baptist church and killed seven young people who were there for a prayer meeting before shooting himself. In November, the worst mass shooting in Hawaii's history--a Xerox employee killed seven coworkers. Yet another school shooting in December--a seventh grader in Fort Gibson, OK, takes his father's gun to school and wounds four classmates. That is what we see. It doesn't matter what the heritage is of the individuals; race or religion doesn't matter. Everybody is subject to this kind of violence if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are just the shootings that got the most attention. Month after month, the death toll from gun violence continues to mount. From Colorado to Georgia, from Ohio to California, from Texas to Hawaii, families across this country continue to mourn. What do we do here in Congress about it? Nothing. It is a disgrace. Of course, the Senate did pass several reasonable measures as part of the Juvenile Justice bill, including the amendment I mentioned before, which would prevent criminals from being able to buy guns at gun shows. Technically, this legislation is stuck in a conference committee. For those who are not part of the structure here, the conference committee is where legislation is finally resolved when the House committee and the Senate committee, with similar jurisdiction, meet together and argue out the differences, if any, in a bill. But it would be more accurate to say that it is being held hostage by the extremists at the NRA and the politicians who march lockstep to their commands. We have to free this legislation, and we dare not let the gun lobby prevail over the vast majority and the will of the American people who simply want to make their families a little safer. I urge my colleagues to join with me in pushing the congressional leadership to finish work on the juvenile justice bill. We want to do it before there is another episode of gun violence, another loss of life that could be avoided. We have to do more to stop the gun violence, the epidemic that lies within our country. I hope we will be able to do it soon. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think I heard the Senator from Alaska say 10 minutes for each of us who were going to speak in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that up to 15 minutes be allocated to me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey seeks recognition.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his recognition. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment being offered by my friends and colleagues, Senators Levin and Durbin. It would prevent gun manufacturers from using the bankruptcy system to evade responsibility for the damage caused by their deadly products. It is time for this Congress to catch up with the American people. The public is demanding an end to the epidemic of gun violence that has turned parts of this country into shooting galleries. Criminals are amassing arsenals of deadly weapons and using them to gun down whole groups of people, from Hawaii to Seattle, from Texas to Kentucky, yet Congress has failed to see the lesson in these tragedies. As a result, the American people in cities across the country are turning to the legal system, desperate for help. Thirty cities and counties are suing gun manufacturers for death and injuries caused by firearms. Individual families are suing to hold gunmakers accountable for the loss or harm brought to loved ones. These lawsuits are already making significant headway against the formidable power of the gun industry. In the case of Hamilton v. Accutek, a jury in Brooklyn, NY, found several gun manufacturers responsible for the damage caused by that product. In Georgia, a judge allowed a suit filed by Atlanta against the gun industry to move forward. In California, a Federal judge barred gun manufacturers from using bankruptcy as a shield when their products caused death or injury. It was not long ago that gunmakers would laugh when you suggested they take some responsibility for the devastation firearms have caused. But the tears of our citizens have finally wiped away the smile now that 30 cities and counties across the country are taking them to court. Today, gun manufacturers are talking about making safer firearms and working to keep guns away from criminals, things they never would have considered discussing just a year ago. They are making these changes because gun victims are holding them accountable in court. Families, friends, and neighbors of gun victims are using the legal system to seek some measure of solace. Congress ought not to get in the way. The Levin-Durbin amendment sends a clear message that the gun industry must face up to its responsibilities, that it will not find an easy escape in the bankruptcy court when families bring valid lawsuits. And this Congress has to do more to stop gun violence. It is disgraceful that the Congress has not passed reasonable gun safety measures, including my amendment that requires criminal background checks at gun shows. It is especially troublesome when one stops to consider that the Nation's largest gun manufacturer, Sturm, Ruger and Co., has expressed concern about the sale of its guns at gun shows. The gunmakers themselves are seeing the light, but Congress is still fumbling for the switch. Most Americans assumed the horrific shootings in Columbine would be enough. Most Americans thought the vision of two high school students systematically killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 23 others would finally spur this Congress to action. April 20 will mark one year since that terrible tragedy at Columbine, and it would be outrageous for Congress to let that day pass without having passed a single piece of gun safety legislation. The Senate did pass sensible gun safety measures as a part of the juvenile justice bill, including the amendment I offered that would prevent criminals from getting guns at gun shows, but we simply need to finalize a good, tough bill and send it to the President. While this legislation is technically stuck in conference, I am afraid it is being held hostage by the extremists at the National Rifle Association, and we should not allow that to continue. I am going to continue to speak on the Senate floor. I will take whatever other steps are necessary to engage Congress in that action. When the Congress wants to act quickly, it does. We often push legislation through the process in a matter of days, but not legislation aimed at reducing gun violence. Those measures run into one delay after another, even though the vast majority of the American people are pleading for action. Failing to act by that horrible anniversary date, April 20, will be a travesty. How will we be able to answer the families who ask what we have done to stop the killing? I urge my colleagues to join me and others in bringing this nationwide epidemic under control. The forces on the other side are powerful, but we have to help keep our families and communities safe and make the gun industry accountable. Support the Levin-Durbin amendment, and then we ought to complete the work on the gun safety measures in the juvenile justice bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 244, which I introduced earlier today with Senator Torricelli.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, tragedy struck in New Jersey last week. It was obviously of enough significant interest that it was portrayed across the country. Three students who were 18 years old lost their lives in a dormitory fire, and several others were seriously injured. We are still waiting, with hope and prayer, to hear that they are going to be able to recover. This is virtually in my neighborhood back home. I know Seton Hall University well. I know the president and the archbishop of the diocese; we are very good friends. Everybody wanted to reach out and do something. The first of the three funerals was held today. It is a sad day. It raises a question about what we should expect in a dormitory. Hindsight won't do us much good in this instance. The building they were in was built a long time ago. The tragic fire took place last Wednesday. The fire started inside a six-story residence hall. It took the lives of 3 students and injured 62 others, including at least 58 students, 2 police officers, and 2 firefighters. Mr. President, we don't have to tell anybody that nothing is as painful as a senseless accident--which perhaps we can avoid seeing in the future--that takes the lives of young people. Anyone who is a parent or relative of an 18-year-old would be seriously grieved by what happened. I know I speak for all of us in the Senate in extending our sympathies to the families of the three students who died in the fire. They are Frank Caltabilota of West Long Branch, NJ; John Giunta of Vineland, NJ; and Aaron Karol of Green Brook, NJ, whose funeral was the first one this morning. We also extend our support and prayers to the families of the students and the others who were injured. We are tremendously grateful to the firefighters and the other people who worked so hard to prevent the loss of more lives. It is still too early to know what caused this fire, but we must make sure, once the cause is known, that Federal, State, and local jurisdictions take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this from happening again. Students have a fundamental right to pursue an education in a safe, secure environment. Parents have a right to know their children are protected from harm while on school property. Seton Hall University is holding a memorial service tomorrow for the victims of the fire. The enormity of this tragedy, however, extends far beyond the confines of Seton Hall University's campus. At the very least, the investigation of this catastrophe should sharpen our focus on fire prevention at campuses across the country and should mark this fire, Lord willing, as the last one of its kind. I have introduced this resolution, which should pass the Senate today, expressing the sympathy of the entire Senate to the families of the victims and the Seton Hall community. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before I start my principal subject, I will take a couple minutes to commend the Democratic leader for his earlier comments. We are all ready to go to work, and tomorrow we start with the Budget Committee. We are to hear from Chairman Greenspan from the Federal Reserve, and we are going to be talking about where we go from here in terms of the economy. Based on what I hear in the various Presidential campaigns, it looks as though we are going to be discussing paying down the debt to some degree. The question is, to what degree? Where is it that we ought to be focusing the use of the significant balances, the surpluses we are going to see? I hope, consistent with Senator Daschle's comments, we will not be looking at tax cuts as a principal direction. To paraphrase Will Rogers, I never met anyone who didn't want to pay less taxes. But the fact is, our economy is moving at the pace it is for very specific reasons--encouraging investment, curbing our spending, and in many cases curbing it where it hurts but is necessary to get through this transitory period where we went from a debit balance to a credit balance. Looking at our surpluses and wondering about the debates, I contemplate where we are going to be spending these surpluses. I think the way to continue this prosperity, the way to make sure that America goes into this new century with as much energy as it can have, is to be looking at paying down the debt, paying it down as fully as we can, taking care of the essential programs that we know are needed by our constituents across the country. The last thing I think people want to see is random tax cuts that benefit the wealthy to an unusually high degree, while those struggling to make a living are concerned about interest costs for mortgages, their schooling, and various other things that are an important part of basic life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Michael J. Naples. ``Napes,'' as he is affectionately called by all who know him, is retiring after 29 years of teaching at Ocean City High School in New Jersey. He has earned great respect from students and peers alike. Each year the students Mr. Naples' taught and the athletes he coached attest to his dedication to excellence. Although his first commitment was to education, his enthusiasm for cross-country and track leave an enduring legacy at Ocean City High School. Mr. Naples' cross-country record over the last 21 years is 209 victories and 28 losses. His track record is 133 wins and only 8 losses. During his tenure as a track coach, Mr. Naples led the Raiders to two state titles and coached 9 individual state champions. His greatest moment as a coach came during the 1989 cross-country season, when he inspired his girls' team to capture the first state title for an Ocean City High School team in 24 years! Mr. President, it is often difficult to say goodbye to a teacher who has touched the lives of so many people. This is a teacher whose former students are continually coming back to thank him for inspiring them, educating them and, most importantly, caring about them. My deepest respects go to this inductee of the New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Association Hall of Fame. He has left a lasting legacy of high academic standards and excellence in sports.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, overcrowding on our highways and in our skies is almost at the crisis point. We're spending billions of dollars each year in wasted gas and wasted time because there are fewer and fewer ways to get somewhere quickly and comfortably. We're not going to solve that problem by simply building new roads or airports. People don't want airports in their backyards, and there just isn't enough space in many parts of the country for new roads. Besides, new airports and new roads cost billions. And they become obsolete almost as quickly as we build them. Instead of wasting money on ineffective short-term solutions, we should be investing in a transportation plan that promises lasting benefits far into the next century. High-speed rail is the future of transportation in this country. Train travel is comfortable, reliable, and it's getting faster all the time. The rail lines are already there. All we need to do is bring them up to 21st-century standards. The legislation I'm introducing today would make a serious investment in the future of high-speed rail. And an investment in high-speed rail is an investment in less crowded highways and airports, cleaner air, and a new level of productivity for millions of Americans whose jobs and lifestyles depend on efficient transportation. Mr. President, I'm willing to bet that every Member of this Senate has at least one recent memory of a plane flight that went horribly wrong. Missed connections. Hours spent inside an overheated plane stuck on the tarmac. Lost baggage. I know I've had plenty of experiences like that. And even when everything goes according to plan, air travel is uncomfortable at best. You almost have to know yoga just to cram yourself into one of those tiny seats. Commuting by car isn't any better. Parts of Interstate 95 regularly turn into parking lots during week-day rush hours. And all this congestion can lead to truly life-threatening situations. Traffic accidents. Higher pollution levels. Explosions of road rage that actually lead people to pull guns on each other on the highway. Land and financial resources are scarce and we need to make better use of what we already have. Our rail lines are there, ready to help solve the overcrowding problems that are making our other transportation options less and less appealing. But for the most part, U.S. transportation policy has ignored the potential of high-speed rail and our rail system has fallen far below the standards set in nearly every other developed nation on the planet. My legislation seeks to change that by authorizing Amtrak to sell $10 billion in high-speed rail bonds over ten years to develop high-speed corridors across the nation. This leveraging of private sector investment will allow Amtrak to complete the Northeast Corridor high- speed project and provide the funding needed to bring faster, better service to federally designated high-speed corridors in other regions. These corridors cover states in the Northeast, the Southeast, the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, and the Pacific Coast. Our aim is to take what we've learned in the Northeast and provide it to the rest of the nation. The Federal Government would subsidize these bonds by providing tax credits to bondholders in lieu of interest payments. And state matching funds would help to secure repayment of the bond principal. Mr. President, the money we don't spend on high-speed rail today we will have to spend tomorrow--on things like highway construction and pollution controls. Investing in high speed rail is not only good transportation policy, it is good land use policy. Constructing an airport or highway outside of city limits promotes sprawl, robs cities of valuable revenue, and increases the pressure for even more road construction. Rail travel, on the other hand, is downtown-to-downtown, not suburb-to- suburb. Rail transportation encourages efficient, ``smart growth'' land use patterns, preserves downtown economies, protects open space, and improves air quality. Furthermore, passenger rail stations serve as focal points for commercial development, promoting downtown redevelopment and generating increased retail business and tax revenue. Making efficient and cost- effective use of existing infrastructures is an increasingly important goal and one which this legislation will help achieve. Mr. President, high-speed rail is already proving itself. In 1999, Amtrak's Metroliner train between Washington and New York set its third consecutive ridership record with over two million passengers, and Amtrak reported the highest total revenues in the corporation's 28-year history. The reason is simple--people are becoming less and less satisfied with traveling by plane. And more and more frustrated with gridlock on our highways. You can see why. The summer of 1999 was the most delay-plagued season in history for airlines. And these delays are expensive. In 1998, air traffic control delays cost the airlines and passengers a combined $4.5 billion. Unfortunately, this problem is only going to get worse. The number of people flying is increasing significantly. In 1998 there were 643 million airplane boardings in the U.S., up 25 percent from just five years ago. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that boardings will increase to 917 million by 2008. Our current aviation system can't handle this demand. We need a quality passenger rail system to relieve some of this pressure. Passenger rail can make a difference, particularly between cities located on high-speed corridors. I went back and looked at the list of the 31 airports expected to experience more than 20,000 passenger hours of flight delays in 2007. The vast majority of these airports--more than three out of four--are located on a high-speed rail corridor. If the funding envisioned in this legislation were made available to develop these corridors, we could take much of the burden of short flights off our aviation system. That would allow airlines to concentrate their limited slots and resources on longer-distance flights. Traffic congestion costs commuters even more--an estimated $74 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. These commuters, even the ones who continue to drive, will be well served by an investment in high-speed rail corridors. Amtrak takes 18,000 cars a day off the roads between Philadelphia and New York. Without Amtrak, these congested roads would be in far worse shape. Commuters in other parts of the country should be able to benefit from high-quality, fast rail service that takes cars off the road and helps to improve the performance of our overall transportation system. This bill does not just benefit those who ride trains. Everyone who drives a car on congested highways or suffers from delays while using our overburdened aviation system will benefit from the rail investment called for in this legislation. I can tell you, as a former businessman who helped run a very profitable company, that high-speed rail is a smart investment. And it's an investment that deserves support from Congress.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I will try to save some time for my friend from Iowa. Mr. President, I raise my voice in opposition to this amendment because I think it is a wrong-headed distraction from the real issue that parents all over this country care about--the epidemic of gun violence in our society at large and especially in our schools. This amendment would allow Federal education funding to be shifted from special education, computer technology, bilingual education, and other key programs to provide vouchers to students who are victims of school violence. In a way, I have to tell you that I think this amendment has a cruel twist to it because we all want to be of help wherever we can be to those who are victimized by violence. But look at the way the program is designed. Vouchers to schools? It doesn't, in my view, really make a lot of sense when in fact, if we could keep guns away from our schools, we would not have to be thinking about vouchers but, rather, about how we educate our children. We could bring the teachers into the schoolrooms, as the President would like to have us do--100,000 teachers. Perhaps the workloads of many would be able to be confined to a serious review of the educational requirements. This amendment is disturbing on many levels--so many that I am not sure where we begin. Is this the answer to school violence--ignore the causes, do nothing to remedy the issue, but ship certain kids out of public schools? Does the Republican majority really believe schools should cut special education and computer funding in public schools to fund voucher programs? We are approaching the 21st century. Everyone knows that whatever the 20th century brought by way of technology, computers, et cetera, is likely to be dwarfed in the earliest years of the 21st century. It all starts with a computer base. Why we would want to take funds away from those programs is really hard to understand. It is not what America's parents want. They want answers. We had one of the answers on the floor of this Senate. It passed this body. They want to see a juvenile justice bill passed, but the majority has buried this legislation in conference and declared it dead for the year. It is hardly a way to respond to the anguished calls we hear all over this country. It includes, yes, stricter punishments for those who would violate the rules of behavior in our society. But it also closed a gun show loophole that took the anonymous buyer out of the equation. It reduced the possibility that anyone who is on the 10 Most Wanted List of the FBI could walk into a gun show and buy a gun. As outrageous as that sounds, that is the truth. I don't know when the Congress is going to catch up with the American people. The American people are so far ahead of Congress that it is embarrassing. Poll after poll after poll pleads with the Senate and pleads with the House to take away the availability of guns. At least, if you are not going to take it away, make sure that those who buy guns are qualified; that they know what to do; that they are mature; that they are not likely to use them for a violent ending. The public is demanding an end to the gun violence. It has reached epidemic proportions. The events of last week prove no one is safe from maniacs who amass arsenals of deadly weapons and use them to gun down whole groups of people--people from Hawaii to Seattle, from Colorado to Texas to Kentucky. Just think about it. Schoolchildren, high school children at Columbine--everyone remembers that and will never forget the picture of that child hanging out the window pleading for help before he fell to the ground. Then the next one is office workers running away from a gunman in Atlanta, GA; the next, a picture of youngsters gathering together to pray while being assaulted by a gunman and running for their lives. We have to do something to stop this insanity. We have to do something about a system that makes it easier for someone to buy a gun than to get a driver's license. We are about at the end of this legislative session. One thing is clear--we have given in to the extremists, to the gun lobby, the NRA that opposed even the most commonsense proposal to stop gun violence. If I were their adviser, or counselor, I would say: Listen, guys and women. Let's give in on this one. It doesn't hurt us a darned bit, and it makes us look as if we are in touch with the American people. But no; the extremists went out, and they have their hand in this place. They have their hand in the House, and they turned our programs away from public opinion and public demand. Most Americans assumed that the horrific shootings in Columbine would be enough--the ultimate outrage. Most Americans thought that the vision of 2 high school students systematically killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 23 others would finally spur Congress to action, would finally say ``that is enough,'' ``that is enough.'' After that terrible incident, 89 percent in one poll and 91 percent in another poll asked for the elimination of the gun show loophole. But it was ignored here. The public ought to look at why it was ignored. The reason I think it was ignored is that campaign contributions overwhelmed the good judgment and the demand of the American people-- campaign contributions. Get elected; that is what counts. There is more to it than that. It was 7 months ago when that happened. Congress hasn't acted even while the body count rises. Just last week, nine more people were shot and killed in rampages by two gunmen. One of these gunmen owned 17 handguns. In May of this year, the Senate--with Vice President Gore's help-- passed my gun show loophole amendment as part of the juvenile justice bill. The gun show loophole amendment said that where gun shows, where so many guns are bought, traded, and sold, had a place for nonlicensed gun dealers, non-Federally-licensed gun dealers, anyone--it didn't matter who you were--could walk up to one of those gun dealers and say, ``Give me 20 guns, and here is the money.'' There would be no questions asked: What is your name? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? Have you been in jail? Have you been a drug addict? Have you been an alcoholic? Have you been known to have bursts of temper, outrage, beaten your wife, your children? Not one question. It is outrageous--not one question. We tried to close that loophole. It was a commonsense measure that would have stopped lawbreakers, underage children, and the mentally unstable from walking into a gun show and walking out with a small arsenal. We passed it 51 to 50. But as soon as the Senate passed my amendment, the NRA sounded its alarm and its allies went to work to defeat the proposal in the House. The gun lobby spent millions on radio and TV ads, but, of course, those ads didn't mention the gun massacres that followed Columbine. They didn't mention that. In the first week of July, a violent racist went on a shooting rampage in Illinois and Indiana killing two people and injuring nine. Or that a few weeks later, a deranged day trader in Atlanta shot 9 people to death in an office and wounded 13. Or that in August, a man with a .44-caliber Glock gun killed three coworkers in Alabama. No State is safe. There is no group of people that is safe--no ethnic group, religious group, or otherwise. Five days after that, a white supremacist killed a Filipino postal worker and shot four young people at a Jewish day-care center. Who will forget that scene--these little kids, like my grandchildren, being led by policemen out of the schoolhouse, where they went to learn and have fun, running away from a killer? Last month, a well-armed maniac walked into the Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, TX, and killed seven young people who were at a prayer gathering. Day by day, the death toll mounts. Our family, children, friends, and neighbors are being gunned down in our schools, in our houses of worship, where we work and live. More than 34,000 people are killed by guns every year, more than lost during the Korean war. Additionally, we wind up treating 134,000 gunshot wounds, and the cost to the country is over $2 billion; taxpayers pay almost half of that. While the NRA may be on the Republican side, law enforcement is on our side. I worked with law enforcement drafting my gun show amendment, and I received numerous letters from law enforcement organizations supporting that amendment and other gun safety measures the Senate passed. I ask unanimous consent copies of those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may recall that former President George Bush resigned from the NRA because the organization referred to law enforcement people as ``jack-booted thugs.'' What a twist to refer to our law enforcement people courageously out there risking their own lives to protect others and referring to them as ``jack-booted thugs.'' I saluted President Bush for that one. We ought to be skeptical when the NRA says it supports law enforcement. We ought to be skeptical when they use the second amendment to promote extremist views. What does the second amendment say? A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It doesn't say one ought to be able to buy it without a license. It doesn't say if someone is crazy, they ought to be able to buy a gun. It doesn't say if one is 12 years old, they ought to be able to buy a gun. It doesn't say one ought to be able to buy as many guns as they want. No matter how broadly one interprets that, there is nothing that says one shouldn't have to have a license to buy a gun. The interpretation of the amendment has been broadened and the courts don't hold or support that. That is the kind of gobbledygook that accompanies that. It is like saying guns don't kill; people kill. Who pulls the trigger? Animals. I guess maybe in some ways they are. We never hear the NRA talk about the first 13 words in that amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . They only cite the last 14 words when they argue that the amendment creates an unlimited right for individuals to bear arms. Nonsense. The NRA knows the history of the second amendment doesn't support the organization's radical views. When the Constitution was being debated, each State had its own militia. Most adult males were required to enlist and to supply their own equipment, including their own guns. The second amendment was written in response to concerns that excessive Federal power might lead to the Federal Government passing laws to disarm those State militias. The United States has changed a great deal since then. We no longer have State militias where citizens are required to provide their own arms. Thank goodness we have a National Guard--a State-organized military force--that is more limited and depends on government-issued weapons. They are there to respond to protecting the public. If my colleagues are interested in reading more about reality and the myths surrounding the second amendment, I urge them to read some recent scholarly articles written by independent historians whose research has not been funded by the NRA. These include articles by Saul Cornell, a history professor at Ohio State University; an editorial by Garry Wills, a Pulitzer Prize-winning history professor at Northwestern University; and an article by historian Mike Bellesiles of Emory University. I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The courts have interpreted the second amendment in a straightforward and commonsense way. In the United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled the amendment guarantees the right to be armed only in service to a well-regulated militia. In other words, no one has an automatic right to own a firearm. The NRA is simply wrong. If they were right, anyone could carry a gun any time they wanted to. People could carry machine guns anywhere they wanted to--to work, restaurants, on airplanes. That is exactly why former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon, and a gun owner himself, called the NRA's distortion of the second amendment a fraud on the American public. That is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will put aside the false rhetoric of the extremist NRA and listen to other American people, people of every religion, race, color, creed, and profession coming together to try to stop gun violence, people joining together because the right to bear and raise children safely must come before the right to bear arms. People are joining together because there is no need for 200 million firearms in a civilized society. The people are joining together to say if citizens want a gun, they ought to prove they can use it safely. Vouchers are not the answer; a voucher to go to different schools won't solve the problem. Ignoring the problem is not an answer. Instead of wasting our time today on this meaningless amendment, the Senate ought to be working to pass a gun safety bill to close dangerous loopholes. I hope the constituents back home will watch how their Senators vote on matters to control gun violence and compare it to what kind of vote we get on the school voucher issue. On this issue, we will prevail because there is no force stronger than the people united to protect their children. There aren't enough gun lobby dollars to protect politicians who stand in the way. Lord help us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how is the time apportioned?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing concern about the language that would interfere with enforcement actions against several power companies. Here we have an excellent example of why we should not be addressing complex, controversial matters in last-minute amendments to spending bills. The proponents of the language assert that they have no interest in interfering with the EPA-DOJ enforcement actions. In fact, the language they have been circulating would wreak havoc on the enforcement actions. The proponents assert that they are interested merely in allowing routine maintenance to occur, but in fact their language makes no mention of routine maintenance. The proponents assert that their language would have no impact on the environment, but in fact their language would allow increases in actual emissions. They also raise the specter of drastic effects to the power industry, which we have not seen in other industries that faced similar enforcement actions. At the very least, we should all agree that this issue is sufficiently complicated and controversial, and its impacts on public health profound enough, that it deserves to be worked out in the authorizing process. It is for problems like this that we have authorizing committees, such as the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I sit, and before which I am sure the proponents would find a sympathetic audience. It is in the daylight of the authorizing process, where we can hear from expert witnesses, where we can have public markups, and where we take the time to untangle and properly resolve these types of issues, that we should address this issue.