Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The vote was for it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But the amendment died in committee. The amendment died because the NRA wanted to kill that amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We negotiated very hard as they tried to strip it bare but finally resolved it because it was too embarrassing in the public to vote against it, to say to the public: No; you still deserve a gun even though you beat the heck out of your wife. What are we talking about here?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will yield for a question on your time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. This is theater; this isn't government. How much time do I have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I guess I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest and felt like the famous philosopher from New Jersey, Yogi Berra, who said, ``This is deja vu all over again,'' because the Senator from Idaho and I have sharply disagreed on what constitutes freedom. I think there is a freedom that overrides all the others--the freedom to live, the freedom to send your children to school and not worry about whether or not they are going to get shot and permanently injured or worse yet, killed. The Senator from Idaho points out the fact that there is only a small percentage--he corrected that; he is an honest man. He corrected the percentage he ascribed to gun show purchases away from licensed dealers. A small percentage he said. What are we talking about? What percentage did it take to kill 13 kids in Littleton, CO? It could have been done with 1 percent or less. Four weapons, all of which had a history of gun show traveling. Four weapons killed those children. Ask those families whether they want tighter control or whether they are worried about the menace that the Senator from Idaho presented. The menace, he says, is a bigger bureaucracy. How about the menace of losing your child? Where does that stand in the list of things? No, it is important that the Federal Government doesn't intervene; we ought to get rid of the Federal Government. Maybe we do not need any laws. He said only a small percentage are violators. Yes, we have in our country over 100 million cars on the road, but we have laws against drunk driving; we have laws against reckless driving; we have laws against speeding. Why? Because even though a car is a nice convenience, it can be a lethal weapon if it is mishandled. What is wrong with saying we ought to take some time, we ought to make records? I do not understand this sham attempt to obscure reality. He said we don't want to interfere; we will let private citizens--let a private citizen go to an FBI file and say: Listen, I want to look up this guy, and tell me what you will. A private citizen going to the FBI to find out what kind of history this person has, whether they have mental disease or mental illness or whether or not they have ever been in jail, in private records? But, no, we can't trivialize the gun show business. We are not trivializing it. We say if you want to buy a gun at a gun show, then let a licensed Federal dealer offer a check. The Senator from Idaho and I had a disagreement a few years ago about whether or not spousal abusers ought to be deprived of their right to own a gun. Beat up your wife as many times as you want, but you still should have your gun. We won that one. It took a heck of a fight to win it, and they are still trying to upset it, but the court upheld our right to say no to a spousal abuser, you don't have a right to own a gun if you are going to abuse your family. Mr. President, 150,000 times a year a woman has a gun put to her head with the threat: I am going to kill you. And the children are watching. What kind of trauma is that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I ask a question, please? How is the time derived? Is the time now under the control of the Senator from Idaho?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I look forward to the discussion that will ensue, because we are going to decide, with serious debate, whether or not we are going to close this gun show loophole which, as demonstrated in this chart, shatters the image of the Brady bill that has been responsible for obstructing gun purchases 250,000 times in the years it has been in business. Some of my colleagues are well aware of criminals who have used gun shows to purchase guns to kill, maim and destroy the lives of others. I am going to talk about specific examples. Most of my colleagues also know that there are thousands of gun shows across the country each year. Last year, over 4,400 gun shows were advertised in the Gun Show Calendar, a trade publication. Ordinarily, these shows are held in public arenas, civic centers, et cetera. The gun seller rents a table--it could be a card table or any kind of a table--from a gun show promoter to display material for a fee ranging from $5 to $50. The number of tables at shows vary from as few as 50 to as many as 2,000. Fortunately, most of the people who participate in gun shows are law- abiding citizens. Many families look forward to a Saturday or a Sunday spent at a gun show. But these families are not aware that they may be in the presence of dangerous criminals who use gun shows as cash-and- carry convenience stores. I mentioned before there are many criminals who use gun shows as a place to shore up their weaponry to commit mayhem. In 1993, Gian Ferri, a mentally disturbed man with a grudge against lawyers, used a TEC-DC9 to kill eight people and wound six others in a San Francisco law office. He walked in there and started shooting. He bought the gun at a gun show. In 1987, Robert Mire escaped from a Florida prison and got his weapons at a gun show to launch a lengthy robbery spree. Mire then took his own life when confronted by law enforcement at a Tampa gun show in 1991. Perhaps the most notorious criminals associated with gun shows are Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. They used gun shows to raise money for the Oklahoma City bombing episode that took place in 1995. In fact, a recent study by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice reveals that thousands of firearms from gun shows wind up in the hands of criminals. This may be just the tip of the iceberg. Because many vendors are not required to keep records of their sales, there is no way to precisely know how many firearms from gun shows wind up in the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable and children. The threat that gun shows pose for our children became clear with the terrible tragedy in Littleton, CO. Although all of the facts are not in yet, it appears that a female associate of the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, purchased some of the guns that were used in the attack at a gun show. Regrettably, it has become clear to our youth that gun shows provide easy access to weapons. How did we get to this point? The problem is a loophole in Federal gun laws. The Brady law requires that federally licensed gun dealers complete a background check and keep certain records when they sell a firearm, whether at a gun store or at a gun show. But many individuals can sell firearms without a license, and they are not required to conduct a background check. Since between 25 and 50 percent of the gun sellers at gun shows are not licensed, tens of thousands of firearms are sold at these events with no background checks or recordkeeping. You can just walk into a gun show, put down your cash, and walk away with a shotgun, a semiautomatic handgun, or any other deadly weapon you can get your hands on. Of course, you can also sell a deadly weapon. If you have stolen a gun or are involved in a gun trafficking scheme, gun shows provide an easy opportunity to distribute firearms. While the gun show loophole helps criminals further their deadly schemes, it also places federally licensed firearms dealers--people who bought a license through the Federal Government and have been checked out--at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the gun shows, because these guys can just sell it from their table, they can sell it from the back of their car, and they can sell as many as they want. They do not care who they sell it to, and they do not even have to ask the person's first name. Just give me the cash. I don't know if they use credit cards. Give me the cash and here are the guns you want. When federally licensed firearms dealers participate in a gun show, they have to comply with a background check and recordkeeping requirements of the Brady law. It is so simple but so appropriate. But an unlicensed seller at the next table can make unlimited sales to any person who comes up with the cash without any requirements. The ease of these sales drains significant business from the law- abiding gun store owners and other licensees and penalizes them for following the law. So there are a good many reasons to close the gun show loophole, and there is no excuse not to. We have to act, and act now, to help make our communities safer. The amendment I am proposing would take several simple steps to prevent illegal activity at gun shows. First, I point out that this amendment is very clearly designed for gun shows, the places where these unlicensed dealers sell to anybody they want. Gun shows are defined as an event where two or more people are selling 50 or more firearms. So this amendment does not cover someone who is selling their favorite gun to a friend or a club member or a neighbor. The key provision would require that all gun sales go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. So if the person who is unlicensed wants to sell a gun to somebody over here, he then has to include a federally licensed firearms dealer in the process. The federally licensed firearms dealer then would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser. This ensures that the prohibited purchasers--criminals, the insane, and children--cannot buy guns. This will not burden the vast majority of collectors or hunters or sportsmen who want to buy firearms. Of course, a gun sale may take a few more minutes, but why not? This minor inconvenience is a small cost to pay. And if you do not believe that, ask the 61 percent of the American people who think that the accessibility of firearms had a large measure of responsibility in the killings that took place at Columbine High School. This minor inconvenience is a small cost to pay when weighed against the need to keep guns out of the wrong hands. My amendment would also take other steps to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigate gun crimes and to help law enforcement prosecute criminals. Taken together, these provisions will prevent criminals from abusing gun shows to buy deadly weapons. For many Americans, as we note, these commonsense steps seem so obvious. They are probably wondering why we have not addressed this problem sooner. Frankly, I do, too. Well, I don't wonder, because there is an influence around here and around the House of Representatives that always intervenes when we try to get commonsense legislation in place. We are not taking away guns from people who have a legitimate right to buy them. But we are saying that gun violence is an unacceptable condition in our country. In the last 20 years, over 70,000 children have lost their lives-- 70,000 families stricken with grief--because of the availability of a gun, obviously, we think, in the hands of the wrong person. I do not want to point any fingers or try to assess blame, but this is not the time for partisan politics. This is not the time for organizations, such as the NRA, that stand in the way of any sensible, commonsense legislation every time we bring it up--87 percent of the people in a poll just conducted said they want the gun show loophole closed. Why do we have to fight to make it happen? Everybody--every one in this Chamber--ought to stand up and salute it and say, yes, we want to save the lives of our kids who are going to school. Do they have the right to bear arms? That is a question, but we know people have a right to bear children. And we think they have a right to see these children live safely and that when they go to school, they do not have to worry as much about whether they are going to be injured or perhaps even killed than whether they do their homework. Our country has seen too much violence. Every year in this country over 4,000 children lose their lives to guns. Every day, 13 kids, on average, are gunned down by a gun, either in their own hand or someone else's. Too many parents have seen their children injured or killed. Too many families have been torn apart by grief and anguish as a result of the absence in their lives of a child they brought to this world. So, please, let us work together to pass this measure. I plead with my colleagues: Step up to the plate and be people of honor, people of concern. Let's try to prevent future tragedies. Let's make it harder for young people and criminals to gain access to guns. I think we are reaching a consensus on this issue. We are going to find out in a few minutes. There is a broad range of bipartisan support for closing the gun show loophole. Also, there is a broad spectrum of organizations that support this amendment. They know that it is going to help fight crime. Law enforcement officials support it. In addition to the Federal agencies that enforce gun laws, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Police Foundation, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have written letters of support. I ask unanimous consent that copies of those letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 30 seconds.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Utah. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have. I understand there is a 2\1/2\-minute presentation before each of the votes; is that true?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, without objecting, this is simply to send up the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that will close the gun show loophole which allows criminals, mentally deranged, and children easy access to firearms. First, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I assume, Mr. President, that is equally divided.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have also received support, surprisingly--and I say, hooray--from some in the gun industry. The American Shooting Sports Council, which represents the interests of gun manufacturers, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have both endorsed my legislation. They say, ``Support the amendment that is proposed closing the gun show loophole.'' The National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers, the trade association for gun dealers, has endorsed this legislation. I would like to read part of their letter: While it is uncommon for our organization to endorse legislation that would place any new regulations upon the sale of guns, we view the case of gun shows as an exception. As your legislation creates no new requirements or regulations that don't already exist for law-abiding gun owners, we find it a reasonable and necessary change to existing laws and fully endorse the gun shows accountability act. It is a letter that they sent to me. There are prominent Republican politicians--this isn't exclusively a Democratic matter--who support closing the gun show loophole, for instance, Texas Governor George W. Bush, a prominent name in national politics, as well as the Governor of one of the largest States in this country. Congressman Henry Hyde, a distinguished, respectable Congressman--he has always been a supporter of gun ownership--supports eliminating the gun show loophole. The amendment is also supported by Jim and Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Incorporated, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which represents a number of health, religious and civil rights organizations. When Sarah Brady, George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, gun manufacturers and gun dealers get behind closing a loophole, I think everybody here ought to listen, and we ought to close it. We ought to close that loophole, because what happens in that loophole is children fall through it, and lives, way too early, are permanently maimed as a result. All you have to do is remember a picture of the boy jumping out of the window at Columbine High and see what has happened to him. He is damaged, severely damaged. It looks as if those damages are going to last all of his life, impairing his speech, his ability to walk, and so forth. Americans are tired of it. They are tired of losing those lives to gun violence. Again, I do not understand why the opposition is trying to say, no, let's leave the loophole there. Let's make sure that we don't inhibit those purchases of guns by anybody who just wants to buy them. I do not understand it. I am sure the American people, whether they are here or watching television and seeing what is going on, don't want to have that loophole continue to exist. Every year we lose 34,000 Americans to gunfire. It is the number of deaths that we would expect to see in a war. In Vietnam, a terrible, terrible period in American history, we lost 58,000 people in the 11 years of that war. Here we see more than half of that number lost every year. When will the public's rage finally reach into this place and say we have had enough? Instead, there is a war going on in our communities. We have to stop this senseless slaughter. Every day, 13 young lives end prematurely. The hopes and the dreams of 13 children, their families, their friends are destroyed. I urge my colleagues to take this step with all of us holding together in the battle against gun violence. Let those who want to oppose this legislation think about what they would say to a neighbor or a friend or someone in their community who lost a child: Well, he had the right to bear arms, or guns don't kill, people kill. They always blame it on the criminal. But for a lot of people, the first time they commit a crime is when they pull the trigger on that weapon. I hope we are going to pass this amendment, make it harder for criminals and children to get guns. We might not stop all the shootings, but we may stop some. I hope that the American people will notice everybody who votes for and against this amendment or what they try to do to water it down, to leave a glaring loophole sitting there. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the Senator from New York 5 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that time not in a quorum call is divided equally. If we want to stand here silently so that their rebuttal time is reserved for the Senator from Idaho, we are not going to do that; we will wile it away.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my amendment is pretty simple. It does nothing more than close a loophole--that exists at gun shows--from the Brady law. The loophole allows criminals, children, and other prohibited persons to purchase guns at gun shows without a background check, without giving them a name, without giving them an address. Just take it away. Pay your money and take your gun. Some people may be surprised to hear you can walk into a show, put your money on the table, walk away with a shotgun, semiautomatic, handgun or any other deadly weapon that you want to get your hands on. It is an unacceptable condition. We have to insist that all gun purchases at gun shows go through the background checks that a gun store has to have or that any federally licensed gun dealer will have to have. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this amendment. They can buy a gun to the limits already established. All they have to do is consent to an instant background check which takes only minutes. This won't inconvenience. It will save lives and reduce injuries. This isn't a time for partisan politics. Our country has seen too much gun violence. If we reflect a little bit, see what happened in Colorado. Understand that at Columbine High School those guns traveled their way through gun shows to get into the hands they did. Too many parents have seen their children killed. Too many families have been torn with grief as they understand what has happened to a child-- unbelievably, in a school. Let us work together. I plead with my colleagues, let us pass this measure. Who does it hurt? It doesn't hurt anybody and it may save someone. Let's make it harder for young people and criminals to gain access to guns. I think we are reaching a consensus on this issue. There is a broad range of bipartisan support for closing the gun show loophole. An extraordinary alliance supports closing the gun loophole, including gun dealers, law enforcement, Republicans, Democrats, the Bradys. I hope we can come together, pass this amendment, and show the American people that Democrats and Republicans alike, the gun industry, law enforcement and handgun control, can put partisan politics aside and pass this commonsense legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.