Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed Faith Hochberg for a seat on the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. I want to thank Senators Hatch and Leahy for moving ahead with this nomination at a time when New Jersey's Federal bench is struggling with heavy caseloads and a shortage of judges. Today's action will help New Jersey's Federal courthouses be more fair and more efficient. Ms. Hochberg has served with distinction as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey since 1994 and she couldn't be more qualified for a Federal judgeship. President Clinton nominated Ms. Hochberg for the District Court on April 22. As the first female U.S. Attorney in New Jersey's history, Ms. Hochberg spearheaded corruption probes that led to the conviction of numerous Newark officials. She also participated in the prosecution of Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, and she unraveled widespread police corruption in several North Jersey communities. Her office also has a record of aggressively pursuing child pornography cases. From 1994 through 1998, Ms. Hochberg's attorneys handled 67 of those cases, which was the second-highest number among U.S. Attorneys offices across the country. Since 1997, Ms. Hochberg has been a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, which advises Attorney General Janet Reno on issues affecting the U.S. Attorney's Office. Ms. Hochberg, in fact, chairs the White Collar Crime Subcommittee and has focused the committee's attention on cyber-crime issues, which of course will be an increasing concern in the next century. This is particularly true in New Jersey, which has a concentration of high-tech industries and serves as a computer nerve center for large New York-based corporations and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Prior to her service as U.S. Attorney, Ms. Hochberg served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for law enforcement as well as Senior Deputy Chief Counsel for the Treasury's Office of Thrift Supervision. She also has experience in the private sector, having worked as a partner in a prominent New Jersey law firm. Ms. Hochberg also has outstanding academic credentials. She graduated magna cum laude in 1975 from Harvard Law School, where she edited the Law Review. In 1972, she graduated summa cum laude from Tufts University. Mr. President, Ms. Hochberg has also been a pioneer in her efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. She and a former New Jersey Attorney General organized a project that alerts law enforcement each time a gun is recovered during a criminal incident. That allows those guns to be traced to their sources. Mr. President, this confirmation could not come at a better time. New Jersey's Federal courthouses are stressed to the limit and delays are becoming more and more common. Again, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for their efforts to confirm Faith Hochberg. I know she will be an outstanding judge.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that on a vote I cast on amendment No. 2483 which I indicated in the affirmative to table, I be permitted to change that vote without affecting the outcome.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the Senator from New York.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1796 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1796 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair for an opportunity to join my voice with others who have talked about our dear friend, John Chafee. This place is sadder these last couple days because of the unexpected passing of Senator John Chafee. His death has left the Senate and the entire country mourning the loss of one of our most admired and respected elected leaders. Senator Chafee belonged to a breed of public servants who have become a vanishing species in American politics. He was always a gentleman, even under attack while defending causes about which he felt deeply. He always stood for moderation and common sense over political extremism. Senator Chafee was a consensus builder. He believed in bipartisan solutions as an alternative to the typically partisan bickering which is now often a feature of congressional debate. I served for 15 years with John Chafee on the Environment and Public Works Committee--some of those years, obviously, before he became chairman, and these recent years when he was chairman of the committee. He and I were allies on many battles for a cleaner environment. Even when our approaches diverged, his commitment and leadership were always to be admired. He worked tirelessly to make our air cleaner, to keep pollutants from being dumped into our oceans, and to preserve those species that were endangered. He had a wonderful patience factor in his being. Senator Chafee and I spent years trying, in good faith but, unfortunately, unable to reach a consensus on a Superfund reform bill. The reason we failed to reach a consensus was not for lack of effort Senator Chafee put in to try to get a Superfund bill out that was satisfactory to both sides and a majority view. Senator Chafee played an important role in most of the major environmental bills that have come before the Senate since 1977. In standing up for the environment, he often had to stand firmly against overwhelming pressure from powerful special interest groups--not to mention, by the way, pressures from members of his own party, and certainly from some pressures on our side as well--to try and form the consensus we so much wanted to have. He was a role model for all of us in public service and for anyone considering a career in government. He voted his conscience on issues as diverse as child care, welfare reform, tobacco, and transportation, even when voting his conscience meant crossing party lines. I was particularly proud to have Senator Chafee agree with me, when he supported my bill to require background checks at gun shows. These were not easy votes to make because most of the Members of his party felt differently about that. But he stood up for what he believed in and voted that way and spoke that way and was honored for his views. His own gun safety initiatives made him a hero to me and to all Americans. This was noteworthy, considering his wartime experiences in the face of deadly combat. In World War II, he fought with the Marine Corps in the invasion of Guadalcanal. In 1951, he reentered the service and commanded a rifle company in Korea. His political career was exemplary, including 6 years in the Rhode Island legislature, 3 terms as the State's Governor, and 3 years as Secretary of the Navy. And his four highly distinguished terms here in the Senate made him one of the most treasured figures in American politics. In his home State, Senator Chafee was known directly as ``the man you can trust.'' No one was more deserving of that trust or worked harder to earn it. His constituents in Rhode Island and all of us here always knew where Senator Chafee stood on an issue. That was true largely because he believed in the Government's ability to help people, to make their lives better. He didn't buy into the notion that Government was the people's enemy. Mr. President, Senator Chafee's death is an incalculable loss to the Senate and the American people. He set an example that all of us here would be proud to emulate. I know I speak for everyone in the Senate when we extend our deepest sympathies to his wife Ginny, whom we have gotten to know over the years, and his entire family. Senator Chafee's unique style and his physical and moral courage are irreplaceable. The country has lost a great public servant. We are all poorer with his demise, and we will all miss him. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I said surgical procedures are never pretty. I did not say abortions and appendectomies are the same thing. Don't distort the Record, if the Senator will oblige me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did the Senator hear me say that I compared an abortion to a surgical procedure? Might I offer a correction to our colleague from Pennsylvania?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will hear them.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Frankly, that is my main mission in being here. So I conclude my questions by asking the Senator if she will continue to fight no matter what is said--anecdotally, hypocritically, falsely in some cases--will she continue to fight this fight for the women of America?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Almost unanimously. So I think the Senator, as she said, knows I have credentials in terms of wanting to protect the children in our society.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator knows I tried to take away guns from spousal and child abusers, and succeeded by attaching an amendment to a budget bill that had to get through, that was signed over the objections of our friends on the other side--

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know we saved 14,000 children, 14,000 families from having to mourn the loss of a little child or youngster in school?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware I have been a protector of children's health by raising the drinking age to 21?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is very kind.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, I thank the Senator because of her courage in standing up against what I consider an onslaught against the lives and well-being of women by those men who would stand here primarily and say: No, Madam, you can't do that because according to my moral standard you are wrong. But the Senator does recall, as I do, when we had votes to protect children from gunfire or protect children from a contaminated environment, the votes were not there from that side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a daughter who is my third daughter. She is a superb athlete. She suffers from asthma. It is a very painful thing to witness. My sister was a board member at a school in Rye, NY, a school board in Rye, NY. She was subject to asthmatic attacks. One night at a school board meeting--she carried a little machine she would plug into the cigarette lighter in the car to help her breathe--she felt an attack coming on and she tried to get to her car and she didn't make it. She collapsed in the parking lot, went into a coma, and 2 days later had died. I have a grandson who has asthma and I have a daughter who has asthma. Does the Senator remember anything that got support from the other side to protect lives by adding to the cleansing of our environment by getting rid of the Superfund sites, the toxic sites around which children play and from which they get sick? Does the Senator recall any help we got to protect those children? No. No. No. What we got was a denial. But, heaven forbid a woman should make a decision to protect her health for the rest of her children, or her health for her family, or to continue to be a mother to her other children. Does the Senator recall any similar passion or zeal on those issues when we went up to vote here?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Has the Senator seen the recent news reports about children, the numbers of children increasingly becoming asthmatic, as a result?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator aware, because we serve on the environment committee together, of the threat to children's health that is resulting from the contamination of our air quality?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can the Senator tell me why it is we refused to identify those buyers of guns at gun shows here? In a vote we had here? We finally eked out a vote, 51-50, that said we should not have it. But our friends on the Republican side in the House dropped it out of the juvenile justice bill, and we do not see it here. Can the Senator possibly give me her description of what might be the logic there, as those on the other side want to take away the right of women to make a decision that affects their health and their well-being and their families' well-being?