Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah, there is no intent to offer anything that hasn't been discussed or anything that is a radical change that further limits the activities of legitimate transactions at a gun show. This amendment which I send up now has been joined in its origination by Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska. He has signed on as a cosponsor. His input has been truly valuable in crafting a workable proposal. He comes from a largely rural State where guns are a significant part of the State's culture. I really appreciate his strong support of my amendment. This amendment is offered in a bipartisan fashion to finally close the gun show loophole. I think it is time for us to come to an agreement on the gun show debate. It is very much in the minds of the public. There was a poll just done, an ABC-Washington Post poll, which said, in response to the question, Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows? the support level was 89 percent. So it does not leave a lot of room for doubt. Last week the Senate did cast two votes on different gun show proposals. My amendment was defeated by a slim majority of 51 votes. Obviously, we had Republican support. There were several absences, primarily from the Democratic side, people were called away, some for emergencies and illness. And after our amendment was defeated, a couple of days later, the Hatch-Craig amendment was offered, and it passed by only one vote, with five Senators not voting; there were a total of 95 votes cast. The result was 48-47. So we are obviously in the same ballpark when it comes to thinking about what ought to happen. People are very wary and upset by the fact that guns can be purchased without any identification of the buyer. I call it ``buyers anonymous.'' The public is in obvious distress about the way things have been done in the past. We are not going to interrupt the process whereby people who are not felons and are of sound mind can buy a gun. We are not looking to interrupt the process of the interested purchaser in buying a gun. But we know that, just as with other transactions--vehicles, for instance-- there is a recognition of who is buying a vehicle. The same thing ought to be true when we talk about guns. So that is what brings us to the position we are in. I asked several Senators who were leaning to my position to make any suggestions as to how we could improve the amendment that I originally offered. This new version that we have sent to the desk reflects the suggestions of both Republicans and Democrats. First, the definition of ``gun show'' is modified. I have actually taken language from the Hatch-Craig amendment and included it. I point that out because I want to try to effect a consensus, and that is why we have included this language from the Hatch-Craig amendment in this revised version. Now, my new language clarifies that we are only talking about events where firearms are exhibited and offered for sale. We are not talking about transactions between individuals or neighbors. The second change that we have made would clarify what qualifies as a firearm sale or transaction. When drafting my original amendment, in order to prevent people from circumventing the background check by completing a sale outside the gun show that actually began in the show, but is completed, for instance, in the parking lot, we wanted to close that loophole. So while the original amendment defined ``firearms transaction'' fairly broadly to cover any transaction that started in a gun show but was completed outside, we wanted to define that a little more openly so some disagreement that occurred would perhaps have a chance to note the changes that were made and would encourage them to join in with us and pass this legislation. Some of my colleagues have suggested the original language was too broad, so I have narrowed it to ensure that legitimate gun sellers are not subject to penalties. Additionally, during the course of the debate, some of my opponents have suggested that my amendment would lead to a national registry of gun owners. My amendment had nothing remotely resembling a national registry. It simply required gun sales to go through an existing national instant criminal background check system. The problem is that some who oppose any kind of gun owner identification as a new purchaser have always opposed the criminal background check system. They argue that it is the first step toward a national registry of firearm owners. They raise the specter of a national registry because they want to scare people away from reasonable, commonsense gun proposals. Well, we are going to make certain that doesn't happen, because I believe there is no basis for that argument. I have made a modification to try to deal with that issue once and for all. My amendment would change the Brady law to prevent the Federal Government from keeping any records on qualified purchasers--in other words, law-abiding citizens who are allowed to buy a gun--for more than 90 days. After 90 days, they have to scrap it if it has no value. The person is not discredited in any way, has no criminal record, has no problem with violence, has not been noted for violent behavior, has not had any serious mental disorder, and we are satisfied to have those records expunged after 90 days because there is no value to them, for one thing, and, secondly, it seems to suggest that what we want to have is, again, a registry on everybody. That is not the case. Mr. President, law-abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. After 90 days, they can be absolutely sure that there will be no Government record of their gun transactions whatsoever. Finally, Senator Kerrey, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, and I worked to streamline the requirements for gun show promoters. My revised amendment eliminates all unnecessary paperwork and bureaucratic redtape that was purportedly contained in the original Lautenberg amendment. The reason I say ``purportedly,'' is because that is the way some of our colleagues on the other side interpret it. Well, I want to make sure that the record is clear and, thus, we were truly circumspect in the way we asked for this data to be presented and for this amendment to be offered. I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have helped me work on these issues. This is a compromise from my original position, but my mission is to accomplish the goal, and the goal very simply is to satisfy the American people. It is not just curiosity; it is fear; it is concern; it is their belief that anybody who buys a gun ought not to be anonymous in that purchase, especially when we know that so many of those transactions have occurred at gun shows. So that is the purpose of this change. We need this amendment to close the gun show loopholes once and for all. Now, although the Hatch-Craig amendment may have generated a well- intentioned effort to address the gun show loophole, it did create additional problems. If we leave the language in this bill as it presently is with the Hatch-Craig amendment, our gun laws are actually going to be weaker. I know that is not the intention of the authors, nor is it the desire of the American people.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did I hear an objection from the Senator from Vermont?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Surely. I first paid extensive compliments to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Vermont. I particularly pay a note of respect to our colleague from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the manager on the Republican side, for this juvenile justice bill. I know how anxious he is to effect a compromise that permits us to move ahead with legislation which is constructive. I have never known him to obstruct for the sake of obstruction. I appreciate his interest in moving this bill, as we all would like to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and send a compromise gun show amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what I want to do is to see if we can present a compromise position that takes care of some of the problems which still exist after we passed the Craig-Hatch amendment, which differs from my original language to an extent that I think makes it more palatable to our friends on the other side. I would be happy to discuss those as I go through my presentation on the amendment. It is obvious that we want to do what we can. While the Senator from Utah was occupied, I did say that I have never known him to obstruct for the purpose of obstruction but, rather, to effect change. I think it is fair to say there is a significant amount of interest on the Republican side in the changes we have made to try to limit the definition of gun shows, to try to make certain we have not increased the bureaucratic or the regulatory requirements such that substantially more paperwork is involved. We are not attempting to keep files open on people for whom there is no discredited information, changes of that nature. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Utah and other Members of the Senate will look at what we have and give us a chance to have a review of it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank, again, the Senators from Utah and Vermont.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a strong feeling that we can pass this. It would take many minds to change to make that happen. My colleagues on the Republican side--I want to say I have had lots of private conversations with them--also want to see the loophole closed. While the Hatch-Craig amendment passed, it was the intent of those who supported it, and I am sure it closed the loophole. However, it is technically still open to loopholes through which lots of problems could emerge. As a consequence, I am hopeful that we will get strong support on this amendment. The American public strongly support it--89 percent, I point out. That is an enormous number. What I am hoping is that finally the voices of the parents, those who are concerned who have seen violence in their schools, who have seen violence in their streets, are heard. If we can, without harm to those who want to observe a legitimate request, continue to do that, I am hopeful that we are going to be able to alert some of those who oppose it to the fact that we have taken great pains to satisfy their needs in the revised Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Let's close the gun show loophole once and for all. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah, we have several colleagues who want to speak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I didn't hear the question.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In good fellowship, I know.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say to our fairly new colleague from New York that he could not have picked an issue upon which he could get more solid agreement. One does not have to be a Democrat or an easterner or have any special connection to respect and to so greatly appreciate the contributions made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He had this capacity--I know, since we served together on the Environment Committee--not unlike, in many ways, the senior Senator from West Virginia, and that was to bring their respective knowledge to a discussion or debate or to a hearing, that--I speak for myself--would make me sit up and take notice. I felt transported from this white- haired, wizened old face to a college student again and remembered how much I enjoyed some of the classes I attended where we had a professor, an instructor who conveyed the message in an interesting form, not just the statistics or the parameters of the particular discussion. So it is with Pat Moynihan. Any of us who have spent any time with Pat have always been amazed at the abundance of knowledge he has, whether we were talking about the New York State canal system or whether we were talking about the highway system or the developments in the Indian Ocean or you name the subject. No matter how impromptu or how unexpected the discussion, Pat Moynihan always has the capacity to discuss the subject intelligently and deeply. Any tribute that we give to this man is not fair compensation for that which he has given this country and has given this body. His abundance of gifts to us are so profound that many years from now they will still be talking about those of greatness who graced this Chamber and Pat Moynihan will be one of those without a doubt. I am pleased to call him my friend. I hope since we live in such close proximity, our representation of New York and New Jersey, that there will be tributes and testimonies to his contribution. He is a self-effacing fellow. He does not like to hear a bunch of compliments, but we are not going to let him get away with that now. I commend my colleague, the junior Senator from New York, for his wisdom and his thought in bringing this to us.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say to our fairly new colleague from New York that he could not have picked an issue upon which he could get more solid agreement. One does not have to be a Democrat or an easterner or have any special connection to respect and to so greatly appreciate the contributions made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He had this capacity--I know, since we served together on the Environment Committee--not unlike, in many ways, the senior Senator from West Virginia, and that was to bring their respective knowledge to a discussion or debate or to a hearing, that--I speak for myself--would make me sit up and take notice. I felt transported from this white- haired, wizened old face to a college student again and remembered how much I enjoyed some of the classes I attended where we had a professor, an instructor who conveyed the message in an interesting form, not just the statistics or the parameters of the particular discussion. So it is with Pat Moynihan. Any of us who have spent any time with Pat have always been amazed at the abundance of knowledge he has, whether we were talking about the New York State canal system or whether we were talking about the highway system or the developments in the Indian Ocean or you name the subject. No matter how impromptu or how unexpected the discussion, Pat Moynihan always has the capacity to discuss the subject intelligently and deeply. Any tribute that we give to this man is not fair compensation for that which he has given this country and has given this body. His abundance of gifts to us are so profound that many years from now they will still be talking about those of greatness who graced this Chamber and Pat Moynihan will be one of those without a doubt. I am pleased to call him my friend. I hope since we live in such close proximity, our representation of New York and New Jersey, that there will be tributes and testimonies to his contribution. He is a self-effacing fellow. He does not like to hear a bunch of compliments, but we are not going to let him get away with that now. I commend my colleague, the junior Senator from New York, for his wisdom and his thought in bringing this to us.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Russell Berrie and Dr. Robert A. Scott, two of New Jersey's leaders in business and education, on the occasion of their third annual ``Making A Difference Awards'' program. Mr. President, Russ and Robert have made tremendous philanthropic and humanitarian contributions to my state of New Jersey. In 1997, they joined together through the Russell Berrie Foundation to create the ``Making A Difference Awards,'' which honor unsung heroes of New Jersey for acts of unusual heroism, extraordinary community service or lifetime achievement. Much like the award recipients, Russ Berrie has devoted a lifetime to helping others. Thirty-six years ago, he founded RUSS Berrie and Company, Incorporated, which develops and distributes more than 6,000 gift products to retailers worldwide. Its diverse range of products include stuffed animals, baby gifts, picture frames, candles, figurines, and home decor gifts. Russ' company, headquartered in Oakland, NJ, grosses annual sales of $270 million and has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 1984. Recently, Fortune Magazine named Russ one of its ``Forty Most Generous Americans,'' and Russ has been recognized by many organizations for his strong commitment to education, health care and interreligious affairs. Russ' Foundation promotes his values, passions, and ideas through investment in innovative ideas and by supporting individuals who make a meaningful difference in the lives of others. Robert also has made a positive impact on the world around him. He currently is the president of Ramapo College, New Jersey's leading liberal arts school, serving over 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students from over 20 states and 50 nations. Thanks to Robert, the college has named its soon-to-open center for performing and visual arts after Russ and his wife, Angelica. What an honor! Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor my good friends Russ and Robert for their work in honoring the unsung heroes of New Jersey. We are indebted to them for their service. I am happy to join them in honoring this year's three winners of the ``Making A Difference Award''--Beverly Turner, of Irvington, who lives with muscular dystrophy, for devoting her time caring to children with special needs. James C. Joiner, founder of the Rescuing Inner Sity Kids (RISK), for dedicating his time, skill, and spirit to working with inner-city children to instill in them the desire to better themselves and the people around them. Finally, Frederick ``Freddie'' Hoffman, of River Edge, for dedicating the last ten years of his life to raising money for the Leukemia Foundation. I also would like to recognize the 14 finalists: Douglas A. Berrian, Mr. and Mrs. William Clutter, Sister June Favata, Kathleen Garcia, Adam and Blair Hornstine, Sylvia Jackson, Jeff Macaulay, Jim McCloskey, Eddie Mulrow, Thomas O'Leary, Barry Lee Petty, Michael Ricciardone, Richard J. Ward, and Dr. and Mrs. Robert Zufall. Mr. President, I congratulate all of the honorees for unselfishly giving of themselves. They have proven to their family, to their friends, and to their communities that this honor is well- deserved.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend, Joe Taub, in celebration of his 70th birthday on May 19th. Joe is a tremendously hard worker and a world-class philanthropist, and I'm proud to say he's been my friend for almost 50 years. Joe came from humble beginnings in Paterson, NJ to join me in founding Automatic Data Processing in 1949. Today, the company employs over 30,000 people in the U.S. and Europe. Even after leaving ADP in 1971, Joe continued to lead an active business life, starting his own company and becoming owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team. Along the way, Joe donated his time to several charities and with his wife, Arlene, established the Taub-Gorelick Laboratory at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to aid breast cancer victims. Joe has always worked to improve the world around him. To help keep inner city kids off the streets, he financed several scholarships and started the Taub-Doby Basketball League. And he contributed to the redevelopment of Paterson by giving the city a museum documenting its history. Mr. President, Joe isn't remarkable just for his business achievements and philanthropy. He's also been a loving, devoted husband for 45 years and has done a wonderful job as a father and grandfather. I would like to extend my heartfelt best wishes to a long-time friend and former business partner in honor of his 70th birthday. Joe, on behalf of myself and all those whose lives you have touched, we wish you the best.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope we will defeat this and have a chance to reconsider this proposition.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what was the unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose the Hatch-Craig loophole amendment. I am calling it that deliberately. Unfortunately, this amendment goes exactly in the wrong direction. Instead of closing the gun show loophole, it creates several new loopholes that will help criminals get even more guns. We look here on this chart at a licensed dealer: Background check? Voluntarily. Special license: They don't even have to ask whether or not there is any evidence that this individual shouldn't have any permit for a gun. The first choice was my amendment to really close the gun show loopholes, and that is what the public wants. We see it all the time. We heard it all over TV, and last night on a show called ``Extra,'' they showed how penetrable the rules are in a gun show where a 15-year- old and 17-year-old were able to buy guns under the table. I hope they will respond here today to the American people, 87 percent of whom said close the gun show loopholes. I hope we will do that and have the courage to stand up to the NRA.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Utah for his consummate interest in issues that matter, even though at times we differ. He did request a courtesy that I would like to have yielded to, except for the fact that we have allowed some on that side to be protected while not enabling this Senator to be able to obtain the same protection. I am bound, at 3:30, for Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. I plan to visit with our people in Aviano, Italy, and Brussels headquarters and be back here Monday night. This is not intended to be a world endurance record. That is not why I am doing this. I am doing it because I have had a deep interest in what takes place there and am shocked by the horror of the deeds that the Serbian Government is perpetrating on these people. I have had a chance to meet some of the refugees at Fort Dix. I was there last week with the First Lady to greet the first of the refugees who arrived in America. I did serve in World War II--not in this area, but I was in Europe during the war. The horrors we are witnessing are too much for a civilized world to bear. I salute the leadership of the President, the courage and the commitment of our troops who are there for long hours each and every day working to the best of their ability, which ability is very good. There have been mistakes made, and that happens in a wartime environment. Mistakes are made because we are trying to make sure our casualties are few. That is where I am going, and I will not be here then on Monday to bring up this amendment. I would have offered the amendment without debate. The fact of the matter is that everyone is pretty much aware of what my amendment is. It helps to further close the loopholes, which I know the Senator from Utah wanted to do. I do not think the amendment we voted on this morning does it. It does not close the loopholes. That is my judgment, and I am prepared to defend that judgment. I want to correct it. I want to see all the loopholes closed, and so do the vast majority of Americans. Eighty-seven percent, as a matter of fact, in a national poll said they want the loopholes at the gun shows closed. I take a second seat to no one in wanting to get a juvenile justice bill in place. I want to see if we can help our young people avoid the violence that seems to permeate our society. But the fact of the matter is that each of us in this parliamentary structure that we operate under is entitled to offer amendments. I had hoped I would have been able to, as they say in the vernacular here, lay it down, put it at the desk and have it saved for debate at a later time. The Senator from Utah tried very hard to be cooperative, as he always does with me--we have a good relationship, and I respect that enormously--to say: All right, we can have some time. We will arrange not a lot of time on Tuesday for a discussion and a vote. The inability to offer that amendment is decidedly a disadvantage, though it will be offered by one of my colleagues. I had hoped, since I authored it in the first place, to send it up. That may be a red flag to some over there, but the fact of the matter is that I know the Senator from Utah does not disagree with me in principle; in approach perhaps, in principle certainly not. I ask once again if it is possible just to send it up. It does need unanimous consent. I will not force any objections. I take the liberty of asking the distinguished manager whether it is possible just to send it up and lay it down.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while we were on the motion to proceed, taking a cue from earlier speeches--the distinguished Senator from Colorado spoke at some length earlier. I would just like to take a few minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.