[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7627-7628]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          HANDGUNS IN AMERICA

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last week the sense of security that 
Americans had in their own communities, our sense of the strength of 
our culture, our ability to protect our families and our homes, was 
once again shattered.
  The challenge did not come from Kosovo, and it was not from a 
computer problem with the new millennium. It was from the most basic 
form of human violence, striking us where we are most vulnerable, and 
taking the life of a child.
  James Agee once wrote that in every child who is born, no matter what 
circumstances or without regard to their parents, the potentiality of 
the human race is born again. It may be because of the sense we possess 
that our own renewal is in the life of our children that the death of a 
child shakes us so dramatically. Rarely have we seen an America more 
traumatized by individual acts of violence than as a result of the 
murders in Littleton, CO.
  All of us recognize that there is no one answer, no one explanation 
for this tragedy. The answer lies in the strengths of our families, the 
responsibility of parents, the roles of school administrators and 
parents and local police. Almost every critic has a point; virtually 
none has a complete answer.
  The increasing level of violence in the entertainment industry, the 
new use of technologies which have sanitized the very concepts of death 
and murder, the failure of role models, the growing isolation of 
children from parents and siblings and extended families--all critics 
are right; no criticism is complete.
  But in this constellation of problems there is the persistent issue 
of access to guns in American society. Only a few years ago, when a 
similar tragedy rocked the United Kingdom, the British Parliament 
responded in days. A gunman killed 16 students in Dunblane, Scotland. 
The Parliament was outraged. The British people responded. And the 
private ownership of high-caliber handguns was not regulated or 
controlled; it was banned.
  This Congress can rightfully cite a variety of challenges to the 
American people to ensure that Littleton never occurs again, though, 
indeed, we failed to do so after Jonesboro, Paducah, Springfield, and a 
variety of other cities and schools that had similar tragedies.
  Now the question is, Do we visit upon this tragedy the same silence 
as after those other school shootings, or do we have the same courage 
the British Parliament exhibited 3 years ago in dealing with this 
problem?
  The amount of death that this Congress is prepared to witness before 
we deal realistically with the problems of guns in America defies 
comprehension. Last year, 34,000 Americans were victims of gun 
violence. But the year before and the year before that, for a whole 
generation, the carnage has been similar. Every year, 1,500 people die 
from accidental shootings. Every 6 hours, another child in America 
commits suicide with a gun. No gun control can eliminate all of this 
violence. I do not believe any gun control can eliminate a majority of 
this violence. But no one can credibly argue that some reasonable gun 
control cannot stop some of this violence.
  I am heartened that the majority leader has promised the Senate that 
within a matter of weeks there will be a debate on this floor and an 
opportunity to present some reasonable forms of additional gun control. 
At a minimum, this should include the question of parental 
responsibility for children who get access to guns. Where parents have 
knowledge or facilitate that purchase, they must bear some 
responsibility for the likely, in some cases inevitable, consequences 
of minors having those weapons.
  Second, there is the question of whether or not minors should be able 
to purchase certain weapons at all. It is arguable that a minor should 
not be able to purchase a handgun. It is irrefutable, in my judgment, 
that a minor should not be able to purchase a semiautomatic weapon.
  Third, the question of whether, through the new technologies of the 
Internet, it is appropriate that guns be sold or purchased in any form; 
if it is not an invitation to violate and avoid existing State and 
Federal laws; if a person does not have to present themselves in a 
retail establishment with credentials to purchase a weapon. Remote 
sales, in my judgment, should not be allowed.
  Then there is the larger question of the regulation of all weapons 
through the Federal Government--whether, when we live in a society 
where everything from an automobile to a child's teddy bear has 
regulations on their designs and materials to ensure safety, that same 
regulatory scheme should not be used for weapons; whether a weapon is 
designed properly to assure its safety; whether its materials are the 
best possible; whether technology is being used to ensure that the gun 
is used properly.
  One can envision that the Treasury Department or another Federal 
agency would require gun manufacturers to have safety locks so that 
children could not misuse them. Future technology may allow a 
thumbprint to ensure that only the owner of the gun is using the gun. 
More basic technologies might require better materials or that a gun 
does not misfire when it is dropped. Proper regulations might ensure 
how these guns are sold, to ensure that they are sold properly, that 
State gun laws are not being evaded by oversupplying stores on State 
borders with permissive laws so that they are sold into States with 
restrictive laws. Inevitably this must be part of the debate: the 
proper Federal role in ensuring the proper design and distribution and 
sale of these weapons.
  I am grateful, Mr. President, that the majority leader has invited 
the Senate to participate in this debate; proud, if the Senate responds 
to the challenge.
  There were so many prayers throughout this country for the victims of 
the shooting in Littleton, sincere prayers on the floor of the Senate. 
The victims and their families and traumatized Americans need our 
prayers, but they need more than our prayers. They need the courage 
that comes from a people who recognize that change is both possible and 
required to avoid these tragedies from repeating themselves.
  The victims of Littleton will be grateful for our prayers, but they 
will curse our inaction if political intimidation, the fear of change, 
results in the Senate offering nothing but prayers. This Senate has a 
responsibility to respond. We know what needs to get done. The 
President of the United States has challenged us. Americans are waiting 
and watching.
  Every Senator must use these next few weeks to think about how they 
will vote, searching their own consciences on how they will answer 
their constituents, their families, and themselves, if Littleton 
becomes one more town in a litany of forgotten schools, forgotten 
children, and a rising spiral of carnage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

[[Page 7628]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 896 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
the previous order, I be allowed to speak in morning business for up to 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________