[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8054-8074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may send an amendment to the desk. I 
further ask consent that upon reporting of the amendment there be 8 
hours for debate, equally divided between the two leaders, or their 
designees, for the purpose of debating both amendments, with 4 hours 
consumed this evening. I also ask consent that at 1:30 p.m. on 
Wednesday the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Lott 
amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Daschle 
amendment. I finally ask consent that no amendments be in order to 
either amendment prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my pending 
point of order be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3150

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3150.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.     . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE SECOND 
                   AMENDMENT, THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS 
                   LAWS, AND THE JUVENILE CRIME CONFERENCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
     protects the right of each law-abiding United States citizen 
     to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-
     defense or recreation; and
       (2) The Clinton Administration has failed to protect law--
     abiding citizens by inadequately enforcing Federal firearms 
     laws. Between 1992 and 1998, Triggerlock gun prosecutions of 
     defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony 
     dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800, 
     despite the fact that the overall budget of the Department of 
     Justice increased 54 percent during this period; and
       (3) It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school 
     grounds under section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code. 
     The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 8 cases 
     under this provision of law during 1998, even though more 
     than 6,000 students brought firearms to school that year. The 
     Clinton Administration prosecuted only 5 such cases during 
     1997; and
       (4) It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a 
     juvenile under section 922(x) of title 18, United States 
     Code. The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 6 
     cases under this provision of law during 1998 and only 5 
     during 1997; also
       (5) It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a 
     semiautomatic assault weapon under section 922(v) of title 
     18, United States Code. The Clinton Department of Justice 
     prosecuted only 4 cases under this provision of law during 
     1998 and only 4 during 1997; plus
       (6) It is a Federal crime for any person ``who has been 
     adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed 
     to a mental institution'' to possess or purchase a firearm 
     under section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code. Despite 
     this federal law, mental health adjudications are not placed 
     on the national instant criminal background system; also
       (7) It is a Federal crime for any person knowingly to make 
     any false statement in the attempted purchase of a firearm; 
     it is also a Federal crime for convicted felons to possess or 
     purchase a firearm. More than 500,000 convicted felons and 
     other prohibited purchasers have been prevented from buying 
     firearms from licensed dealers since the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act was enacted. When these felons 
     attempted to purchase a firearm, they committed another crime 
     by making a false statement under oath that they were not 
     disqualified from purchasing a firearm; and, of the more than 
     500,000 violations, only approximately 200 of the felons have 
     been referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution; 
     and
       (8) The juvenile crime conference committee is considering 
     a comprehensive approach to juvenile crime including:
       (a) tougher penalties on criminals using guns and illegal 
     gun purchases;
       (b) money for states to get tough on truly violent teen 
     criminals;
       (c) a provision allowing Hollywood to reach agreements to 
     clean up smut and violence on television, in video games, and 
     in music;
       (d) changing federal education mandates to ensure that all 
     students who bring guns to school can be disciplined; and

[[Page 8055]]

       (e) a ban on juveniles who commit felonies from ever 
     legally possessing a gun and from possessing assault weapons, 
     and
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) Any juvenile crime conference report should reflect a 
     comprehensive approach to juvenile crime and enhance the 
     prosecution of firearms offenses, including:
       (a) designating not less than 1 Assistant United States 
     Attorney in each district to prosecute Federal firearms 
     violations and thereby expand Project Exile nationally;
       (b) upgrading the national instant criminal background 
     system by encouraging States to place mental health 
     adjudications on that system and by improving the overall 
     speed and efficiency of that system; and
       (c) and providing incentive grants to States to encourage 
     States to impose mandatory minimum sentences of firearm 
     offenses;
       (2) The right of each law-abiding United States citizen to 
     own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-
     defense or recreation, should not be infringed.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, there will be no 
further votes this evening. The next vote will occur at 1:30 p.m. on 
Wednesday.
  I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in getting this 
agreement.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may ask the majority leader a 
question, the unanimous consent doesn't address this, but I assume the 
4 hours tonight would be equally divided.
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely, Mr. President.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Of course, it already notes it should be equally divided 
tomorrow. I appreciate the clarification.
  Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for his willingness 
to proceed in this manner. This is what we had hoped we could achieve. 
I am delighted now that we have done so. This is far better than to go 
through the parliamentary motions that were being made. I appreciate 
the patience and willingness on the part of everyone to accommodate our 
desire to have this amendment and these votes. We will have them 
tomorrow, as we had hoped. I look forward to the debate tonight as well 
as tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield our 2 hours tonight on the Democratic side to 
Senator Boxer who will manage the time on my behalf.
  (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, while the time will be equally divided 
tonight--2 hours on each side that are required to discuss the pending 
amendments--I want to emphasize again that there is another very 
important issue pending that everybody thought would be the subject of 
debate this afternoon, and that is the language in the appropriations 
bill regarding Kosovo and how we will deal with our allies' involvement 
there, and how we will deal in the future with the funding.
  Some Senators may wish to take some time to speak on that issue. I 
also encourage colleagues that we work toward getting a time agreement 
tomorrow afternoon on the Kosovo issue, have a reasonable time, but 
have a focused, good debate and vote on that issue so we can complete 
the military construction appropriations bill. We are getting far 
afield from getting our work done on the appropriations bills. We would 
then go to the foreign operations appropriations bill. I encourage 
Senators to stay and make speeches tonight on these subjects.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  May I ask the majority leader if he could tell us who is going to be 
handling the time on his side of the aisle?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we don't have anybody designated yet. I will 
either be here to do it myself or we will designate somebody. There are 
a number of Senators who have indicated a desire to be heard on this 
issue--Senator Sessions, Senator Craig, and others. But exactly when 
tonight or tomorrow, we will have to make that determination since we 
just had this agreement entered into.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for getting us 
to a place where we can in fact consider the Daschle amendment, which 
simply says that on Mother's Day an estimated 750,000 mothers, fathers, 
and children united for the Million Mom March on The Mall in 
Washington, and they were joined by tens of thousands of others in 70 
cities across America in a call for a meaningful, commonsense policy.
  Essentially what this amendment says is that the organizers of the 
Million Mom March should be commended for rallying to demand sensible 
gun safety legislation and that Congress should immediately pass a 
conference report which will include the meaningful, sensible gun laws 
that were passed here in the Senate as part of the juvenile justice 
bill.
  I had the privilege and honor of marching with so many American 
families of so many diverse backgrounds and so many Americans of 
different ages all united in a call for a safer America.
  I am very pleased that my leader, Senator Daschle, has placed this 
amendment before the body. I hope all Members will vote for it.
  I see that the Republican side has responded with a litany of attacks 
on President Clinton, which I think is most inappropriate. This should 
be a time when we reach across the aisle and say we want safety for our 
children. I hope maybe they will reconsider.
  Believe me when I tell you that the million moms and their families 
are not Democrats, Republicans, or independents; they are Americans. 
Many were touched by violence in their families and violence in their 
communities.
  At this time, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, if 
he would like to take up to 30 minutes to discuss these amendments. If 
so, I will now yield up to 30 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts 
withhold?
  May I have 1 minute?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her leadership 
and her advocacy on this issue.
  I was so proud to march with her on The Mall with the mothers and the 
fathers and the good men who supported the women. We were proud. Why 
were we proud? Because the people marching believed marching made a 
difference. They thought if they could go out and march with their feet 
instead of people marching with their money into these lobbying events 
that are held here, they could make a difference. I thank the Senator 
for responding to their marching feet.
  I stand with her, along with the people who were there from Maryland. 
I congratulate her because we are making democracy work. If we don't 
march on this floor and pass this amendment, I really say to the voters 
of America, march into the voting booth and get a Congress that will 
respond to marching feet instead of marching to millions of dollars.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Maryland. It was an honor to march 
with her and to stand with her. She brings to the Senate a sense of 
reality for our families, our seniors, and our children. She fights for 
them every day. She is fighting for them tonight.
  With that, I yield up to 30 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Two days ago, to honor Mother's Day, hundreds of 
thousands of mothers from across the United States marched on the 
nation's Capitol, to insist that Congress do more to protect children 
from the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country.
  The Million Mom March has focused the attention of the entire country 
on this critical challenge--and the question now is whether Congress 
will at long last end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun 
control.
  The National Rifle Association is not the Majority Leader of the 
United States Senate. It shouldn't be dictating our agenda. It's 
irresponsible for the Republican Senate leadership to stonewall every 
opportunity to enact responsible gun control legislation.
  For many months, Democrats have continued to ask the Republican 
leadership for immediate action on pending legislation to close the 
loopholes in the nation's gun laws, but every request so far has been 
denied.

[[Page 8056]]

  Gun laws work. Experience is clear that tough gun laws in combination 
with other preventive measures have a direct impact on reducing crime.
  In Massachusetts, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the 
country.
  We have a ban on carrying concealed weapons. A permit is required to 
do so. Local law enforcement has discretion to issue permits, and an 
individual must show a need in order to obtain the permit.
  We have a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun. We have 
increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms.
  We require the sale of child safety locks with all firearms.
  We have an adult responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child 
obtains an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself 
or any other person.
  We have a Gun-Free Schools Law.
  We have a licensing law for purchases of guns.
  We have strict standards for the licensing of gun dealers.
  We have a waiting period for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 
days to obtain a permit.
  We have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales of guns.
  We have a ban on the sale of Saturday Night Specials.
  We have a requirement for reporting of lost or stolen firearms.
  As Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans testified last year in the 
Senate Health Committee, ``Any successful approach to youth violence 
must be balanced and comprehensive. It must include major investments 
in prevention and intervention as well as enforcement. Take away any 
leg and the stool falls.''
  Commissioner Evans also stated that to be effective, efforts must be 
targeted and cooperative. Police officers must be able to work closely 
with churches, schools, and health and mental health providers. After-
school programs are essential to help keep juveniles off the streets, 
out of trouble, and away from guns and drugs. In developing an 
effective approach like this, Boston has become a model for the rest of 
the country.
  There are partnerships between the Boston Public Schools and local 
mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health 
professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in 
order to prevent violence by students. The Boston police work actively 
with parents, schools and other officials, discussing incidents in and 
out of school involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission 
promotes programs by the Boston Police Department.
  The results have been impressive. The success of Boston's 
comprehensive strategy is borne out in these outstanding results:
  From January 1999 through April 2000, no juvenile in Boston was 
killed with a firearm.
  In 1990, 51 Boston young people, ages 24 and under, were murdered by 
a firearm. Last year, there were 10 such murders.
  Reports from emergency rooms about firearm injuries are also down 
dramatically.
  It's no coincidence that the firearm death rate in Massachusetts is 
significantly lower than the national average. We've taken strong and 
effective steps to protect our citizens, our children, and our 
communities.
  When we compare states with tough gun laws to those that have weak 
gun laws, the differences are significant:
  In 1996, across the nation, the number of firearm-related deaths for 
persons 19 years old or younger was 2 deaths per 100,000 persons.
  In states that have the weakest gun laws, the number was 
significantly higher:
  Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people--two and a 
half times higher than the national average.
  Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three times 
higher.
  Idaho had 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three and a half 
times higher.
  Mississippi had 9.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--four and a 
half times higher.
  No other major nation on earth tolerates such shameful gun violence. 
According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control in 1997, the 
rate of firearm deaths among children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times 
higher in the United States than in 25 other industrial countries 
combined.
  Every day we fail to act, the tragic toll of gun violence climbs 
steadily higher. In the year since the killings at Columbine High 
School in Colorado, 4,560 more children have lost their lives to 
gunfire, and countless more have been injured.
  We intend to do all we can to see that the Senate votes on these 
common sense measures as soon as possible.
  Today is a new dawn for gun control. On Sunday, finally, the 
immoveable object we call Congress met the irresistible force of the 
Million Mom March--and the immoveable object moved.
  I believe that at long last, Congress will say no to The National 
Rifle Association, and yes to the hundreds of thousands of mothers from 
across the United States who marched on the nation's Capitol to demand 
an end to the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our 
children, our homes, our schools, and our country.
  The Million Mom March focused the attention of the entire country on 
this critical challenge. It is time--long past time--for Congress to 
end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control.
  We already know what needs to be done to reduce the irresponsible 
proliferation of guns and gun violence in communities across the 
country. This is not rocket science. We should close the gun show 
loophole. We should require child safety locks for guns. We should 
insist on licensing for all handgun owners. We should take guns out of 
schools and let children learn in safe classrooms.
  Enough is enough is enough is enough.
  I am sure those Americans who have been watching the Senate now for 
the last 2 hours wonder whether we are going to be able to take very 
much action on matters which they consider important to their families.
  In this particular instance, the issue is whether we are going to 
pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution--not even an amendment that would 
be the basis for legislative action, but just an expression of the 
Members of this body, as the Senator from California has pointed out, 
effectively commending the participants of the Million Mom March. They 
should be commended for rallying to demand sensible gun safety 
legislation.
  Congress should pass a conference report on violent juvenile offender 
accountability before the Memorial Day recess and include the 
Lautenberg gun show provision which passed in the Senate, and other 
Senate-passed provisions to limit access to firearms by juveniles, 
convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing 
or possessing firearms.
  That took just over 2 hours of the Senate's time primarily because of 
the Republican leadership saying they were not going to permit the 
Democratic leadership to go on record in the Senate this evening just 
for the sense of the Senate commending the Million Mom March, and also 
asking that the Senate do what it already should do--that is, pass the 
violent juvenile offender legislation out of conference where it has 
been for 7 months.
  As a member of the conference committee, we met on two different 
occasions: on the opening occasion, and on the organization. And that 
was it.
  It has taken the Republican leadership 2\1/2\ hours to say that we 
can vote on this tomorrow with their permission. They ought to get used 
to the fact that we are going to continue to press this issue--2 hours 
to get a sense of the Senate to say the mothers, the 750,000 moms who 
marched with their daughters on Sunday--that they are to be commended. 
That is troublesome, evidently, to the other side.
  These moms came from all different parts of the country. Many of them 
had never participated in any political process at all. They came here 
because they wanted the Congress of the United States to debate and 
take action. They had different views about what specifically should be 
out there. But they had

[[Page 8057]]

a common sense and a common purpose that we should take some action. We 
are commending them for doing so. That evidently was unacceptable to 
the Republican leadership.
  That is what we are facing here, for those who are watching this 
program tonight and who saw the march. In the last 2 hours we have been 
unable to get action. It is as clear as can be.
  There has been objection, parliamentary maneuvering, and gymnastics 
using the rules of the Senate to deny an expression that we ought to 
commend the Million Mom March and that we ought to complete what is our 
responsibility to complete; that is, the conference, and pass sensible 
and commonsense gun control. You would have thought we were repealing 
the first amendment of the United States. That is what we are facing 
here. It is so interesting for us to find that out at this time in this 
session--the difficulty and the complexity we are going to have. But we 
are going to continue to pursue it.
  I see my friend and our leader from California, Senator Boxer. I am 
glad to yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I simply want to say to my friend that 
everything he said was true, except one small point. He said it has 
been 2 hours. It has been since 2 o'clock, I say to my friend from 
Massachusetts. They delayed for 5 hours the simple vote to say to moms 
who gave up their Mother's Day and came here: Thank you for what you 
are doing.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  We have a short period of time remaining. As a member of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have responsibilities to 
try to pass education legislation. We had seven votes over a period of 
5 days. That legislation was pulled. We are saying we don't have enough 
time, we don't have enough time to consider this, although we had all 
day Friday where there were no votes and all day Monday where there 
were no votes.
  What we see now is that during the whole course of the afternoon, we 
were denied the opportunity to have just an expression of the Senate.
  As I mentioned, this resolution is a simple, straightforward measure. 
Fact: Over 400 young people have been killed by gun violence since 
1997. Fact: In the year since the Columbine tragedy, the Senate and 
House juvenile justice conference has not taken action to ensure the 
passage of meaningful gun legislation. Fact: Our continued inaction 
poses a threat to public safety.
  The sense of the Senate does only two things. It commends the 
participants of the Million Mom March and calls upon the conference to 
pass the language of the Lautenberg measure on the gun show loophole 
that has passed the Senate, and to take action that is sensible and 
responsible.
  I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to respond to an 
argument and to discuss some of the facts which are so compelling, 
particularly about the children, because we as a country and as a 
society refuse to take action. The latest data released in 1999 shows 
in a single year--and this can't tell the story because for every 
statistic, for every individual there is a name and a face behind 
this--what has been happening: 4,205 children and teens were killed by 
gunfire--1 every 2 hours, nearly 12 a day; 2,562 were murdered by 
gunfire; 1,262 committed suicide using a firearm--more than 3 every 
day; 306 died from accidental shooting; 2,357 were white and 1,687 were 
black; 629 were under 15; 191 were under 10; 84 were under 5 years of 
age; nearly 3 times as many children under 10 died from gunfire as the 
number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. We know 
that the American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die 
from gunfire than children in 25 other industrial countries combined; 
homicide is the third leading cause of death among children 5 to 14; 
61% of the 80,000 children killed by gunfire since 1979 were white; 36% 
were black; children are twice as likely as adults to be victims of 
violent crime, and more likely to be killed by adults than other 
children; white youths are six times more likely to commit suicide than 
black youths although the suicide rate for black youths is up more than 
100 percent since 1980.
  We do not believe this legislation is necessarily going to be the 
only answer. We understand that. We do understand this is a step that 
can be taken now to make a difference about the proliferation of 
weapons and the easy access to weapons.
  Various studies and polls show the number of children who say how 
easy it is for them to acquire weapons in our country today. We want to 
reduce that availability and that accessibility. We understand there 
are legitimate issues with which we have to deal. I want to dispose of 
a few of them. One has been the argument that has been raised that 
there hasn't been a sufficient effort in the area of law enforcement.
  Reading through our Republican sense of the Senate, they talk about 
law enforcement. It is an interesting fact that Republicans have cut 
back on the total number of agents who have been most involved in law 
enforcement--the ATF agents--over the last 15 years.
  Back to the prosecutions and the important point which our Republican 
friends ought to understand because their sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution is basically flawed in what they say about the prosecutions: 
Although the number of Federal prosecutions for lower level offenders--
persons serving sentences of 3 years or less--has dropped, the number 
of high-level offenders--those sentenced to 5 years or more--is up by 
nearly 30 percent. Do we understand that? If we are talking about the 
more serious aspect of gun prosecutions, they are up by 30 percent.
  I hope our Republican friends acknowledge their findings which are 
flawed in their presentation on this issue. At the same time, the total 
number of Federal and State prosecutions is up sharply. About 25 
percent more criminals are sent to prisons for State and Federal 
weapons offenses than in 1992. The number of high-level offenders is up 
nearly 30 percent. The total number of Federal and State prosecutions 
is up 25 percent or more. The total number of prosecutions--local, 
Federal, and State--are up significantly.
  We hear from the National Rifle Association that all that is needed 
is further prosecution under the law, but that is happening at the 
present time. What we need is action over the proliferation of weapons. 
We have tried in recent times on our side, with strong support, to make 
progress regarding the proliferation of weapons.
  Moving along to some of the other challenges that children are 
facing, in November of last year in the Senate, the mental health bill 
was passed unanimously, by Republican and Democrats alike. We are still 
waiting over in the House of Representatives for the Republican 
leadership to call that up.
  What does that bill do? That bill directly addresses the problems of 
violence in children's lives. The first section of the bill provides 
grants to public entities for programs in local communities to help 
children deal with violence. Community partnerships are created among 
law enforcement, education systems, mental health, and substance abuse 
systems. These partnerships provide a comprehensive response to 
violence, and include security, education reform, prevention, and early 
intervention services for mental health and substance abuse problems, 
as well as early childhood and development and social services.
  Recognizing what is happening in many of our urban areas, I know in 
my city of Boston, a third of the children who come to school each day 
come from schools where there is abuse--physical abuse and substance 
abuse. Those children need help. They have problems. Those who are the 
strongest supporters of eliminating the proliferation of weapons 
available to children have been fighting for these kinds of efforts.
  Nonetheless, our Republican leadership is opposed to all of our 
efforts and refuses to take action in those areas. It wasn't that long 
ago, in 1995, when we tried to get the Center for Disease Control to 
have a survey of gun violence

[[Page 8058]]

and our House Republican budget proposed a phaseout of the Center for 
Injury Control because it was just collecting information about 
violence and guns in schools.
  Not only are they opposed to trying to take direct action on the 
proliferation of guns, not only are they opposed, evidently--because 
they are refusing to take up legislation to deal with some of the other 
aspects of guns--but on the other hand, they are absolutely opposed to 
even permitting the Center for Disease Control, the premier 
organization in the world in terms of public health services, from 
having any collection of material on gun violence.
  In 1996, the appropriation was cut by $2.6 million, the appropriation 
of the Center for Disease Control, for injury control. That is the 
exact amount CDC was spending to survey gun violence. Since then, the 
CDC found other ways to continue the survey of gun violence, but 
Republicans have fought us every step along the way. That is what we 
are pointing out.
  We are pointing out a number of things. First of all, if you can do 
something for effective law enforcement as well as prevention programs, 
you can have a dramatic impact on violence in communities. I want to 
show what has happened in my own State of Massachusetts where we have 
passed some of the toughest gun laws. We have a ban on carrying 
concealed weapons. A permit is required to do so. Local law enforcement 
has discretion to issue permits, and an individual must show a need in 
order to obtain the permit.
  We have a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun.
  We have increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms.
  We require the sale of child safety locks with all fire arms.
  We have an adult responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child 
obtains an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself 
or any other person.
  We have gun-free school laws.
  We have a licensing law for the purchase of guns. We have strict 
standards for the licensing of gun dealers. We have a waiting period 
for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 days to obtain a permit. We 
have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales of guns.
  We have a ban on Saturday night specials, and we have a requirement 
for reporting lost or stolen firearms.
  What have been the results? In the city of Boston, we see what the 
difference has been. In 1990, homicides of those 16 and under: 10 a 
year. See how this has gradually been phased out as these measures have 
been passed, down to the year 2000 where, in the first 3 months of the 
year, for youth homicides, we have not had one yet.
  Does that mean something to anybody? Obviously we have had a very 
powerful impact. That is not just because of this legislation which has 
been enormously important, but we have also had a very effective 
program in prevention and intervention as well as enforcement. As 
Commissioner Paul Evans said, you have to have all the legs of the 
stool to be effective. Commissioner Evans also states:
  To be effective, efforts must be targeted and cooperative. Police 
officers must be able to work closely with churches, schools, health 
and mental health providers. Afterschool programs are essential to help 
keep juveniles off the streets and out of trouble, away from guns and 
drugs.
  In developing an effective approach like this, Boston has become a 
model for the rest of the country. On this chart, here is the city of 
Boston: Firearm homicides, 50 a year in 1990, and now we are down, in 
the year 2000, to 3 this particular year. That is because of tough laws 
with effective efforts that include many of the different provisions we 
have talked about here in our SAMSHA program: Working with troubled 
youth; trying to work with children to deal with violence in their 
communities; community partnership among law enforcement, education, 
and mental health and substance abuse systems. Those have been local 
efforts--some supported by the States--that are effective. Prevention 
and tough laws; we are finding out the scores, the hundreds of children 
who are alive today that I dare say probably would not be if we did not 
have an effective effort against the proliferation of weapons as well 
as prevention.
  There are partnerships between the Boston public schools and local 
mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health 
professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in 
order to prevent violence by students. Boston police work actively with 
parents, schools, and other officials discussing incidents in and out 
of schools involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission 
promotes programs by the Boston Police Department and the results have 
been impressive.
  From January 1999 through April of 2000, no juvenile in Boston was 
killed with a firearm. We ought to be able to at least debate this 
issue in the Senate. If there are those who take issue with what we 
have represented tonight about the effectiveness of a strong prevention 
program in terms of proliferation weapons, and also a prevention 
program working with a range of different social services, come out 
here on the floor and let's debate it and call the roll.
  But, oh, no, the Republican leadership says. Oh, no, we are not even 
going to let you, over 5 hours, pass a resolution commending the 
Million Mom March, or that we ought to get the bill out of the 
conference, where we have been for 8 months. Why is it they are so 
nervous about it? Why is it, when we have results that we are prepared 
to defend that can demonstrate we can save lives in this country, but 
that we are denied the opportunity to do so? That is what is 
unacceptable. People are milling around saying: when are we going to 
end this evening? We have places to go. We have places to go--here on 
the floor of the Senate. We have things to do, and that is here in the 
Senate. That is what we are elected for.
  The leader, Senator Daschle, has outlined what we want to be able to 
do.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has another 9 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me point out, when we compare States with tough gun 
laws to those that have weak gun laws--let's take a look at that. We 
are constantly told tough gun laws do not make any difference, they 
really do not make any difference.
  Listen to this. In 1996, across the Nation the number of firearm-
related deaths for persons 19 years old or younger were 2 deaths per 
100,000. That is across the country, 2 deaths per 100,000. In the 
States that have the weakest gun laws, the number was significantly 
higher. Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000, 2.5 times 
higher than the national average. These are, effectively, for children 
under 19 years of age. Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 
100,000, 3 times higher; Idaho, 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000, 
3.5 times higher; Mississippi, 9.2 firearms-related deaths per 100,000, 
4.5 times higher. No other nation on Earth tolerates such shameful gun 
violence.
  Where we have had effective laws and preventive programs we have 
reduction in the violence against children. Where we have weaker laws, 
we see the expanded number of deaths of children in our country. There 
may be other reasons for it, but come out here and defend it. We are 
prepared to debate these issues. But we are unable to do so because of 
these magic words: ``I suggest the absence of a quorum.''
  If you took away the words, ``I suggest the absence of a quorum,'' 
perhaps we could get some action around here. But we cannot and 
therefore we are stymied, at least to date, although we will have some 
opportunities to get some expressions tomorrow, and we are going to try 
to get action on these measures before the end of the session.
  We are prepared to insist that action be taken on these measures. I 
will just conclude by reading some of the comments of children. These 
are the words of Columbine students who witnessed a horrible tragedy 
last year. This is a quote from Valeen Schnurr:

       The nights are always the worst. Inevitably, I find my 
     thoughts drifing into nightmares, terrifying images of the 
     library at

[[Page 8059]]

     Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. The sound of 
     students screaming as explosive and gunshots echo through the 
     school; the burning pain of the bullets penetrating my body; 
     the sound of my voice professing my faith in God; seeing my 
     hands fill with my own blood; and my friend Lauren Townsend 
     lying lifeless beside me as I try to wake her.
       In the mornings when I look in the mirror, the scars I see 
     on my arms and upper body always remind me that it's not just 
     a nightmare, but the memory of a real event that will stay 
     with me for the rest of my life. The scars are a part of me 
     now, but they help me to remember that I've been blessed with 
     a second chance at life.

  From Garrett Looney:

       I've never been ashamed to be an athlete. I started playing 
     football when I was eight, and baseball and basketball too. 
     This spring, I'll run track. Sports have always been part of 
     me. . . .
       I'd been in the library that day, about 11 a.m., making 
     some copies. Then I left with friends for lunch. We were 
     heading back to school and thought there was a bad wreck 
     because a fireman stopped us. We went to Clement Park, next 
     to Columbine, and saw a sea of kids running from the 
     building. We couldn't believe it. It's beyond me how two kids 
     could go that crazy. . . .
       A friend of mine, Corey Depooter was killed. I had one 
     [woodworking] class with him, and we did projects together. 
     It was hard going back to that class. The seniors on the 
     football team took memorial pictures of a columbine flower to 
     the victims' houses, including Mrs. Depooter's. She wanted to 
     know how we were doing and told us stories about Corey. That 
     was tough for me.

  The list goes on, Mr. President. Here is Nicole Nowlen:

       I was only at Columbine for seven weeks be fore (the 
     shooting). My parents are divorced, and I had been living in 
     Sioux Falls, S. Dak., with my mother and younger brother, 
     Adam. When my mom moved to California, I chose to live with 
     my dad in Colorado. . . .
       On April 20, I was sitting alone at a table in the library 
     doing my math homework when this girl ran in and yelled. 
     ``There are guys with guns downstairs:'' I thought it was a 
     senior prank. . . .
       The time seemed to go in slow motion. And then they came 
     in.
       I don't remember much until they got over into our area. I 
     could see John watching where they were walking. I was trying 
     to pick up expressions from his face, and I could hear them 
     walking over to this table full of girls next to us. I 
     remember this gun going off, and one of the gunmen saying, 
     ``Do you believe in God?'' And I remember thinking, ``These 
     people are sick.''

  The stories go on.
  We have had Paducah, KY. We have had Jonesboro, AR. We have had 
Columbine. Those who forget history are fated to repeat it. We have 
failed to take action. America has witnessed these shootings over the 
years. Every single day in cities, in communities, in rural areas, 12 
children die. These are dramatic incidents which catch the heart, as 
they should, and the soul of every American, and it is happening every 
single day.
  We can make a difference. We can reduce these incidents. Perhaps we 
cannot eliminate them all, but we can reduce significantly the total 
number of children who are lost every day. We fail to reduce the number 
if we refuse to take action in this area.
  I hope the Senate will go on record in support of the Daschle sense-
of-the-Senate amendment. I hope this will just be the beginning. I know 
it will be for many of our colleagues, including my two dear friends, 
the Senators from California and Illinois, who have been providing 
leadership for our Nation in this area. We are going to respond to the 
Million Mom March. They asked for action. We committed ourselves to 
taking action.
  I look forward to working with them and others in making every effort 
we possibly can to reduce the proliferation of weapons that should not 
be available to children in this country. We can make a difference. I 
look forward to working with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 30 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his remarks. I know 
he watched with great pride while Kerry, Kennedy, Cuomo, and Kathleen 
Kennedy Townsend spoke at the Million Mom March with hearts full. I 
know the people who came to that march, particularly those who 
witnessed and experienced pain, loss, and suffering have inspired 
people across the country.
  I say to my friend, before I yield time to my friend from Illinois, 
that he is powerful on this issue. He is a powerful spokesperson for 
the children of this Nation. I was so happy he chose to come over here 
tonight. It is late in the evening. I know we will work together, as so 
many of us will on this side of the aisle, and hopefully a couple from 
the other, in making sure those moms who gave up their Mother's Day for 
a cause that is so important will be commended by this Senate. For 
goodness' sake, will be commended. As Hillary Clinton said, they did 
not care about the flowers; they did not care about the fancy dinners 
or breakfast in bed. They gave up their Mother's Day to march for 
something that was very important to them, more important than anything 
else: the safety of their children and the safety of the communities' 
children.
  I say to my friend, thank you for making this point over and over. 
The other side seems to be fearful of these moms. Why don't they vote 
down our resolution if they do not like it? No, they stalled 5 hours 
because they wanted the clock to tick, and they are not even here to 
debate us on this amendment.
  We voted out sensible gun measures. What are they afraid of, I ask my 
friend from Massachusetts? Sensible gun measures passed the Senate--
child safety locks, background checks at gun shows, the banning of the 
superlarge capacity clips, a study to investigate how the gun 
manufacturers are marketing to our children, and changing the age at 
which one can buy an assault weapon from 18 to 21. A few of them 
crossed over, and this Senate voted for those measures.
  Before my friend leaves, I want to ask him this question, and then I 
will yield as much time as he would like to the Senator from Illinois. 
I wonder if my friend can explain to me, because he has been around 
here a long time, of what are they afraid? Why don't they just vote it 
down? Why don't they just say: No, we don't want to commend the moms; 
no, we don't want to bring these commonsense gun laws to the Senate? 
Why are they using every parliamentary trick not to have to vote on 
that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator from California, it defies every 
logical explanation. The alleged explanation is that we do not need 
these additional laws; what we need is the enforcement of existing 
laws; why waste our time on the floor of the Senate in considering 
these measures because if we dealt with these other measures, our 
problems would be resolved.
  That is, of course, a flawed factual representation, as I mentioned, 
in terms of total prosecutions, and it is wrong in terms of fact, not 
only, as I mentioned, in total prosecutions, but it is wrong in terms 
of what can be done in States across this country.
  I thank the Senator from California for raising these questions this 
evening for Americans. The question is, At least, why can't we vote? 
Why can't we vote? Why can't we have accountability? Why aren't they 
proud of their position? Why aren't they proud of their position and 
willing to take a stand on it? That is what this office is about: 
making choices and decisions; exercising some judgment. Why constantly 
try to frustrate the ability of Members to make some difference on 
this? I think that is the inexcusable position which hopefully the 
American public will find unacceptable in the remaining weeks of this 
session and, if not, then during the election.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and yield as much time as he will 
consume to my friend from Illinois. If he is still going in 30 minutes, 
perhaps he would then wrap up in the next 15, and I would conclude this 
side's debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.
  I salute my colleague from the State of Massachusetts. Senator 
Kennedy has been the leader on so many issues throughout his political 
career. You can almost count on it: It is late at night--7:30 p.m. on 
the Senate floor. Very few Senators are still around to debate this 
important issue. But Senator Kennedy, who has become legendary in his 
commitment to issues in the Senate, stayed for this important debate. I 
am honored to share the floor with him. I am honored to share the

[[Page 8060]]

same position on this issue with my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Boxer.
  As Senator Boxer noted earlier, at the Million Mom March in 
Washington, there were several members of Senator Kennedy's family who 
came and spoke about what gun violence has meant to them. America knows 
that story. America knows it so well. America knows of the 
assassination of President John Kennedy, of the assassination of 
Senator Robert Kennedy, and all the tragedies that have befallen that 
family. We know it because they are so prominent in the American 
culture and the American political scene. We know, as well, that people 
with less prominent names, not that well known, have endured gun 
violence on a daily basis.
  At the end of the Million Mom March, in Chicago, a spokesman for one 
of the group's sponsoring it, the Bell Campaign Fund, brought a bell 
near the stage and invited the families to come up and ring it if they 
had lost someone to gun violence in their family.
  At first they were hesitant to come forward; and then more started to 
move forward. Finally, it became a long, long procession of young and 
old, of those who were not well dressed and those who were very well 
dressed, of rich and poor, of black and white and brown, of children 
and of the elderly. They came forward--hesitated--and rang the bell. 
They had lost someone in their family to gun violence.
  As you watched this procession go by, anyone observing it could not 
help but think there but for the grace of God go I; it can happen to 
any family in America.
  A nation of 270 million people, and a nation of over 200 million 
guns, a nation where every day we pick up a newspaper, turn on the 
radio, or turn on the television, to hear of another gun death. The sad 
reality is that we have become inured to it. We have become used to it. 
We think this is what life is like in the world. It is not. It is what 
life is like in America-- in America, where we have failed to pass 
legislation for gun safety, to make the neighborhoods and the schools, 
the towns, and the cities across America safer places to live.
  What calls our attention to this steady stream of information about 
gun violence is the most outrageous situations. For the last several 
years, the most outrageous gun violence has occurred in America's 
schools:
  In February, 1997, in Bethel, AK, a 16-year-old boy took a shotgun 
and a bag of shells to school, killing the principal and a student and 
injuring two others.
  On October 1, 1997, in Pearl, MS, a 16-year-old boy is sentenced to 
life in prison for killing his mother and then going to his high school 
and shooting nine students, two of them fatally.
  On December 1, 1997, in West Paducah, KY, three students are killed, 
five others wounded at the high school; a 14-year-old student pleaded 
guilty--mentally ill--to murder.
  On March 24, 1998, Jonesboro, AR--you will remember this one--four 
girls and a teacher killed and 10 people wounded at a middle school, 
when two boys, aged 11 and 13, fired from a nearby woods. They 
literally brought an arsenal of weapons and ammunition. They triggered 
the fire alarm bell. The kids ran out of the classroom and they opened 
fire.
  America, 1998:
  On April 24 of that year, in Edinboro, PA, a science teacher is 
killed in front of his students at an eighth grade dance. A 15-year-old 
pleaded guilty.
  On May 19, 1998, in Fayetteville, TN, 3 days before graduation, an 
18-year-old honors student opened fire at his high school, killing a 
classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend.
  On May 21, 1998, in Springfield, OR, two teenagers are killed and 
more than 20 hurt when a teenage boy opened fire at his high school, 
after killing his parents.
  On April 20, 1999--the news story of the year in America; you may not 
have heard of the town before, but you know the name now--in Littleton, 
CO, two students at Columbine High School killed 12 of their classmates 
and a teacher and wounded 23 others before killing themselves.
  That was supposed to be the gun tragedy that turned this issue 
around. Congress was supposed to wake up at that point and finally do 
something to protect America from gun violence.
  Of course, we considered legislation on the floor of the Senate, and 
it was a long, painful debate. The bill finally came up before us, and 
on a vote of 49-49--a tie vote--Vice President Gore came to this 
Chamber, cast the tie-breaking vote, and we passed a gun safety bill 
which, under the Constitution, then went to the House of 
Representatives across the Rotunda.
  Was this a radical bill? Was this something so outlandish that we 
could not expect the House of Representatives to consider it? I do not 
think so. Forty-eight of my colleagues and myself believed it was a 
sensible gun control measure.
  What did it say?
  If you buy a gun at a gun show, we want to make sure you can legally 
own it.
  If you have a criminal record, we do not want you to buy it.
  If you are a child, we do not want you to buy it.
  If you have a restraining order because of domestic violence or 
something else, we do not want you to buy it.
  If you have a history of violent mental illness, we do not want you 
to buy a gun.
  We want to check your background and make sure you do not have a 
problem where you should not own a gun.
  Is this a radical idea, keeping guns out of the hands of people who 
are criminals? The Brady law, which we passed in America, has kept guns 
out of the hands of hundreds of thousands of people such as those I 
described. And you think to yourself: Come on now, somebody convicted 
of a murder surely is not going to walk into a Federal gun dealer and 
try to buy a gun. Yes, they do it--time and time again.
  Nobody said they were rocket scientists. They are people who were 
criminals and want to be criminals again. They may not be very bright, 
but they are smart enough to know they need another gun to pull off 
another crime.
  We stop them with the Brady law. But the Brady law does not apply to 
gun shows. Gun shows across America are a loophole; they are exempt. 
You buy what you want at a gun show and nobody checks. Think about 
that. Even the least intelligent criminal will figure that out: Go to a 
gun show and get your gun. Do not go to a dealer. The dealer is going 
to check it out, find out if you have a criminal record.
  So we said, in this gun safety law, let's do a background check at 
gun shows. Let's apply this same law we apply to gun dealers. That is 
not a radical idea. It is common sense.
  Senator Kohl of Wisconsin had an amendment--part of this bill--that 
every handgun in America would be sold with a trigger lock, a child 
safety device.
  It is interesting. We have many sportsmen and hunters in my family. 
They are strong in the belief that this is their right to own a gun; 
and I do not dispute it. But they are also strong in the belief that 
they never want their gun to harm anyone else, any innocent victim. 
They certainly do not want their gun to harm a child. Now they are 
turning around and buying trigger locks. I am glad they are.
  Senator Kohl says, from now on, every handgun sold in America will 
have a trigger lock so that the parent who puts their gun up on the top 
shelf of the closet, thinking their little son or daughter will never 
find it--they may be wrong, but the child may be safe because with the 
trigger lock the child will not be able to fire the gun.
  That is not a radical idea. That is part of gun safety. In fact, if 
there had been trigger locks in Jonesboro, AR, maybe these kids could 
not have taken the guns out in the woods, with an 11-year-old kid 
firing away at teachers and classmates.
  No. I think, quite honestly, we all believe that if you are going to 
exercise any right to own a gun, you should exercise the responsibility 
to store it safely, securely, and away from children.
  That is part of the bill sent to the House, a bill which still 
languishes. Senator Feinstein of California has a

[[Page 8061]]

provision that says you don't need a huge ammo clip with literally 
hundreds of rounds of ammunition for any sport or any hunting. So as 
you cannot manufacture them in America, you should not be able to 
import them from overseas. That doesn't sound radical to me. I don't 
know many people who need a hundred rounds to go out and kill a deer. 
As I have said many times, if you need an assault weapon to kill a 
deer, maybe you ought to stick to fishing. But the fact is, Senator 
Feinstein's amendment was adopted as part of the bill.
  We had an amendment by a Republican, Senator John Ashcroft of 
Missouri, that would limit who could buy semiautomatic assault 
weapons--certainly making sure that those under age of 18 cannot--and 
establishing an age of 21. We had an amendment by Senator Boxer to have 
the FTC and the Attorney General investigate whether gun companies were 
trying to attract young buyers, underage buyers, with their 
advertising.
  That is it. I have just described the entire gun safety bill. Did you 
hear anything that is patently unconstitutional, so radical and 
outlandish that we should not consider it in America? I don't think so. 
In that amendment, we have basic, commonsense efforts to make America 
safer. I am not so naive as to believe that we are going to end gun 
violence by passing this bill, but we think it will help. We certainly 
have an obligation to help. We passed that bill in the Senate, sent it 
over to the House, and the National Rifle Association tore it to 
pieces, passed a weak substitute, sent it to a conference committee 
where it has sat for 8 months, since Columbine High School. We have had 
all sorts of meetings on the floor of the Senate and in the House, all 
sorts of debates and committee meetings, all sorts of press 
conferences, and we have done absolutely nothing to make America safer 
when it comes to gun violence.
  What do we have to show for it? Since Columbine High School, on May 
20, 1999, in Conyers, GA, a 15-old-boy opened fire in a high school 
with a .357 caliber handgun and a rifle wounding six students.
  On November 19, 1999, in Deming, NM, a 13-year-old girl was shot in 
the head at school and died the next day. A 12-year-old boy was 
arrested.
  On December 6, 1999, at Fort Gibson, OK, a 13-year-old student fired 
at least 15 rounds in a middle school wounding four classmates. Asked 
why he did it, he said, ``I don't know.''
  February 29, 2000, is one you won't forget. At Mount Morris Township, 
MI, a 6-year-old boy pulled a .32 caliber Davis Industry semiautomatic 
pistol out of his pocket, pointed it at a classmate, turned the gun on 
Kayla Rolland, a little 6-year-old girl, and fatally shot her in the 
neck.
  That is America since Columbine. America, unfortunately, is very busy 
with gun violence but, sadly, the Congress is not busy with legislation 
to reduce and end gun violence. So today, Senator Daschle came to the 
floor with a suggestion, one which obviously did not set well with the 
Republican majority. Senator Daschle suggested that we pass a 
resolution--and I want to read the language--that it is the sense of 
the Senate that the organizers, sponsors, and participants of the 
Million Mom March should be commended for rallying to demand sensible 
gun safety legislation, and Congress should immediately pass the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1501--the bill I described, the gun 
safety bill--that includes all the provisions that I described, and do 
so as soon as possible.
  With those two suggestions, the Republican majority stopped the 
Senate for 5 straight hours. They would not have this Senate vote to 
commend the organizers and mothers who participated in the Million Mom 
March, and they did not want this Congress to go on the record to pass 
gun safety legislation for 5 hours. They tried every parliamentary 
trick they could to stop this, and then when they found we were 
determined to bring this to a vote, they finally relented at about 3 
o'clock. They said: All right, you can debate it a couple hours tonight 
and a couple hours tomorrow. That is why we are here.
  I salute Senator Boxer of California. As you can tell, many Members 
of the Senate had other things they wanted to do. But she and I and 
Senator Kennedy and so many others believe that after we have seen what 
those mothers went through to put together that march to come out and 
ask us to pass sensible legislation, we owed it to them to be here this 
evening and speak to it.
  Let me talk about two or three issues that will come up in this 
debate. The National Rifle Association spent a substantial sum of money 
last week on television in preparation for the Million Mom March. They 
ran a lot of ads showing a member of their board of directors--a 
woman--who articulated their point of view, as well as their personal 
hero, Mr. Charlton Heston. They said during the course of these ads 
that what we need in America to reduce the killing of 12 or 13 children 
a day is more education. They use something called Eddie Eagle, which 
is like Joe Camel, for the NRA. It is a little symbol they use to try 
to attract children's attention with it. They say if we have more Eddie 
Eagle training in schools, we will have fewer gun deaths.
  Well, this may surprise some, but I don't disagree with the NRA, to 
some extent. If they are suggesting we should teach children that guns 
are dangerous and they ought to stay away from them, I salute that and 
agree with that. In a nation of 200 million guns, we should do that. 
Members of my staff in Chicago and in Washington sit down with 4- and 
5-year-old children and explain to them that guns are dangerous. You 
have to do it in America. Even if there is not a gun in your home, you 
don't know where your child may be playing or whether their classmate 
is going to find a gun. You should tell them that. It is a reality.
  But if the National Rifle Association thinks education of children to 
reduce gun violence means teaching kids to shoot straight, that is 
where I part company with them. I don't think kids should be handling 
firearms. I think firearms should be in the hands of adults who 
understand the danger of a weapon. I go along with the National Rifle 
Association if they want to join us in educating children in school 
about the danger of firearms. That makes sense. Maybe we can find some 
common ground on that.
  The second thing the NRA tells us is we have all the laws we need. 
All the States have laws, some of the cities have laws, and the Federal 
Government has all the laws it needs and, for goodness' sake, just 
enforce the law. This may surprise the NRA, but I don't disagree with 
that either. We should enforce the laws. In fact, we find that when it 
comes to the number of high-level firearm offenders, those sentenced to 
5 or more years, Federal prosecution of those offenders has gone up 41 
percent under this administration. The average sentence for firearm 
offenders in Federal court has increased by more than 2 years in that 
same period of time. Enforcement is taking place. Should there be more? 
Yes, and I will support that, too.
  But let me tell you, there was an interesting vote on the floor. One 
of the Senators who opposed my motion on the floor is here this 
evening. When it came to enforcement, I asked those who are friends of 
the National Rifle Association to put their votes where their rhetoric 
happened to be. I asked them if they would join me in supporting 
President Clinton, who asked for 500 more agents at the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to investigate firearms dealers who were 
violating the law and to make sure that we kept an eye on the people 
who were selling the weapons, and a thousand more prosecutors and 
judges and others across America to prosecute the same gun laws. I 
offered the amendment on the floor, and one of the Senators, who is 
here and is a member of the board of directors--or was--of the NRA, 
amended it and said take out the part on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms, the 500 additional agents, and then we will vote for it.
  So that really calls into question their sincerity when they say they 
want more enforcement. It turns out a very small percentage of firearms 
dealers in America actually sell guns used

[[Page 8062]]

in crimes. Most of them abide by the law. We want to stop the ones who 
violate the law. When I tried to put more agents at work to do that, I 
was stopped by a Republican Senator who says he believes in the second 
amendment but wants enforcement but he would not vote for 500 ATF 
agents for more enforcement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think the Senator makes a very important 
point here. When we call for sensible gun laws, the other side gets up 
and says we can handle it all with enforcement. Do you know what we 
say? Excellent idea--enforcement and sensible gun laws. Let's join 
hands and do it all; that is what we need to protect our people. Yet as 
my friend says, when he attempted to do just that, the other side found 
fault with it.
  I want to ask my friend if he is aware of what the Republican 
Appropriations Committee did on the House side with a number of Capitol 
Police officers? I know my friend is just as distressed. I discussed 
this with him.
  We lost two beautiful Capitol Police officers. What were they doing? 
They were protecting the people in this building. They were protecting 
the Members of the House and the Senate, and they were shot down in the 
prime of their lives. They have magnificent families. We went to a 
funeral. We all cried. Republicans and Democrats cried tears. Now what 
happens? The people who want the enforcement, what have they done on 
the House side?
  Mr. DURBIN. The House Appropriations Committee, barely 2 years after 
two Capitol policemen were killed protecting the Members of Congress 
and visitors in the Capitol Building, has proposed that we cut by 400 
the number of Capitol Police working at the Capitol. It is an 
incredible suggestion. We have doors leading into the office buildings 
and into the Capitol that literally hundreds, if not thousands, of 
people pass through but where there is one security guard. Many believe 
there should be two at these doors that are the busiest.
  Instead of enhancing the Capitol Police so they can do their job and 
be safe in doing it, the House Republican leadership called for cutting 
400 Capitol policemen. That does not sound like good law enforcement 
and vigorous law enforcement. Just the opposite is true. They are 
suggesting, for more enforcement of the law, cutting back on the police 
after we had the terrible tragedy right here in the Capitol not that 
long ago.
  Mrs. BOXER. The old expression is hackneyed now but ``actions speak 
louder than words.'' I think when you stand up on the floor and you 
say, ``More enforcement, more enforcement,'' then you cut 400 police 
officers out of this Capitol Police Force, and you go to Senator 
Durbin's resolution on hiring more agents so we can crack down on the 
gun criminals, it doesn't add up. Something is not adding up here.
  I have to say it is time we just spoke very directly about it. It is 
hard. It is hard to pick a fight, and it is hard to get into an 
argument and debate on the other side of the aisle because we don't 
control this Senate. But we have our rights. Senator Durbin represents 
a very large State. I represent a very large State. People sent us here 
not to just sit back and do nothing but in fact to speak out.
  I thank my friend, and he can continue for as long as he wishes 
tonight.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.
  I also want to tell you that I think this issue is an important 
national issue in this Presidential campaign because I think what you 
hear from two candidates is a clear difference when it comes to dealing 
with sensible gun laws and gun safety.
  Vice President Gore came to the Senate floor casting the deciding 
vote on the gun safety bill, which I mentioned earlier. He has 
supported it publicly. He has spoken in favor of it. I believe it is 
fair to say he has supported the Brady law, he has supported the 
assault weapon ban, and he has supported efforts to have a waiting 
period so people do not in a high state of emotion go out and buy a gun 
and harm themselves or others. That is a matter of record. That is his 
position.
  On the other side, the Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, has a much 
different record. In his State, he signed into law a concealed weapon 
law which allows people to carry guns into churches and synagogues.
  There are people who believe we will be a safer nation if everybody 
carries a gun. I am not one of them. I happen to believe we are not a 
safer nation when the couple is arguing across the restaurant and you 
have to wonder whether or not someone is going to reach into their 
pocket or purse and pull out a gun.
  I don't happen to believe we are a safer nation whenever a policeman 
who pulls a car over is doubly worried and concerned that that speeder 
may have a gun in the glove compartment instead of the registration 
they are apparently going after.
  I don't believe we are a safer nation when people are carrying guns 
to public events, such as high school football games, or are taking 
them into churches. I don't believe that makes America safer.
  Governor Bush signed a law in Texas so people would have a right in 
the State of Texas to carry guns around. That is his image of a safer 
America; it is not mine. I am glad my State of Illinois has not passed 
such a law, and I hope we never do.
  In addition, it appears that one of the problems the Republican Party 
has with our gun safety bill is that we require background checks at 
gun shows. Which State has more gun shows than any other State in the 
Nation? The State of Texas. The provision in the law--the loophole in 
the Brady law--which said you don't do a background check at a gun show 
was put in by a Democratic Texas Congressman. It is an important 
industry, I take it, in the State of Texas to preserve these gun laws. 
It may be the reason Governor Bush will not come out and support the 
gun safety law which passed in the Senate with Vice President Gore's 
tie-breaking vote.
  Finally, the day before the Million Mom March weekend, Governor Bush 
came on television and said: I tell you what we are going to do in 
Texas. We are going to make a lot of trigger locks available. We are 
going to buy a lot of them and give them away.
  I am glad he is doing it. I think it is a nice thing to do. It is 
certainly not a comprehensive attitude toward dealing with gun 
violence. I would like to see more communities and States do that. But 
certainly I would like to see Senator Kohl's amendment which requires a 
trigger lock with every gun as part of a law of the land, so that when 
you buy a handgun, it has a trigger lock and it has a child safety 
device. A once-in-a-lifetime or once-in-a-decade effort by a Governor 
in any State won't make any difference unless it is in a comprehensive 
approach, as Senator Kohl has suggested.
  It is interesting to note that when the Republican leadership is 
asked why they have failed in over 8 months to bring this gun safety 
legislation to the floor, they in the majority and in control of the 
House and Senate say it is the Democrats' fault. That is a little hard 
to understand. In fact, it is impossible to believe.
  I have been appointed to conference committees in the Senate in name 
only where my name will be read by the President and only the 
conference committee of Republicans goes off and meets, adopts a 
conference committee report, signs it, and sends it back to the floor 
without even inviting me to attend a session. The Republican leadership 
majority could do that at any moment in time. To suggest that somehow 
the Democrats are stopping them from bringing a gun safety bill out of 
committee and to the floor just defies common sense. They are in 
control. They have to accept responsibility for their actions.
  Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah, is the chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. He is the head conferee on the Senate side 
for the Republicans on this conference on gun safety. My colleague from 
the State of Illinois, Congressman Henry Hyde, chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee, shares that responsibility with

[[Page 8063]]

him. And the two of them have a majority of votes in this conference 
committee. If they wanted to bring a gun safety bill forward, there is 
nothing the Democrats could do to stop them from doing such. Yet they 
haven't done it. Eight months have passed, and more people have been 
shot and killed.
  Stories come out suggesting to us there is much more to it. Unless 
and until Governor Bush decides this is an important issue in his 
Presidential campaign, unless and until Governor Bush decides he is for 
gun safety, that bill is going to stay in that conference committee. 
That is a simple political fact of life.
  The Republicans on Capitol Hill don't want to embarrass their 
candidate for President by bringing out a bill he opposes. So the bill 
sits in this conference committee. And 750,000 mothers across America 
rallied in 65 different cities saying to Members of Congress, Members 
of the House and the Senate: For goodness' sake, can you put party 
aside for a moment and think about the safety of our children in 
schools? Can you put party aside for a moment and think about the 
safety of our neighborhoods so that we believe kids can stand at the 
bus stop without worrying about a gang banger coming by and spraying 
bullets? Can you put partisanship aside and decide that we can all 
agree we want to have background checks at gun shows, and trigger locks 
on handguns, and these huge ammo clips kept out of the country? Isn't 
it time Congress came together and agreed on those basic simple things? 
The fact of the matter is, we have not, and apparently under this 
leadership we cannot.
  The National Rifle Association is boasting that their membership is 
higher than ever. They love this, they say, because the more attention 
to this issue, the more people sign up for the National Rifle 
Association. More power to them. But I will tell you that if I had to 
put my political future with a group, it would be with the mothers who 
are marching and not with Wayne LaPierre and Charlton Heston. They 
represent the real feelings of families across America who understand 
that gun safety is important and that it includes not just the passage 
of laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids, but it 
also includes enforcement and it also includes education. All of it 
comes together.
  The folks who listen to the NRA and believe them think that you stop 
once you talk about education and enforcement--that there is no reason 
to go beyond it. Yet we know better. We know those kids at Columbine 
High School got their guns from a gun show by a straw purchaser. We 
know it could have been more difficult if we had passed a law in the 
Senate and if it had been signed by President Clinton. We know that 
some of those lives might have been saved. Sadly, that didn't occur.
  Now we are faced with the reality of a legislative session that is 
moving to the spending bills. It appears that the Republican leadership 
is not going to have its own agenda it wants passed but instead will 
move to appropriations bills, and in so doing, give us a chance, at 
least with sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, to continue to remind the 
Members of the Senate and people across America that we have not done 
anything to make this a safer nation when it comes to guns.
  I understand, I think, the feelings of some gun owners. They feel put 
upon, that all this debate somehow involves them. Some of them have 
what I think is a naive, if not a wrong, point of view that they should 
not be inconvenienced in the ownership of their guns.
  Let me suggest that we inconvenience a lot of people for a lot of 
good reasons in America. I was inconvenienced this morning when I went 
through the airport. I had to go through a metal detector. It is an 
inconvenience. I expect, because I want to sit on the plane with peace 
of mind, to know that every effort has been made to keep those who 
would create some terrorist environment off the plane. I am 
inconvenienced when I drive my car by the rules of the road of 
Illinois--thank goodness for the inconveniences--which require brakes 
on my car and require me to stay on the right-hand side of the road and 
abide by the speed limit. It is an inconvenience I accept because I 
want to bring my family home safely.
  I think most gun owners are prepared to accept some inconvenience in 
life if they know it means they can continue to use their guns legally 
and safely. In my home State of Illinois, it is a firearms 
identification card; you have to apply to the Illinois State Police. 
They do a background check on you. They give you a little card. You 
can't buy a gun or ammunition in Illinois without that card with your 
picture on it.
  I don't own a gun, but I applied for one of these cards. I wanted to 
know how tough it was. It wasn't too tough: Fill out a questionnaire, 
give them a little photo, they do a background check, send me my card, 
and I send them a few bucks every year to renew it. That is a device 
that could be used on a national basis. It has been an inconvenience 
for the gun owners of Illinois for 40 years now but not such a serious 
inconvenience that they cannot go out and enjoy sports that involve 
guns.
  We are talking about minor inconveniences with major dividends for 
America. Background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals 
and fugitives and stalkers and kids so we don't have the sad situations 
that I recounted earlier in the schools and other places across 
America, these are things of common sense. These are things which, 
frankly, both parties should agree.
  It is interesting to note that the Republican substitute to our 
amendment commending the Million Mom March spends a full page or so 
blasting the Clinton administration for the inadequate prosecution for 
gun crimes. As I read earlier, the statistics don't back up some of the 
claims they have made. Instead of commending the million moms who stood 
up saying, ``Make America safer,'' the Republicans have replied by 
blasting the first family. That is their idea--go after President 
Clinton; don't stand up for the families across America who came 
together last Sunday.
  Then they say they want a juvenile crime conference committee report 
that has a lot more than guns in it. Quite frankly, there are some 
things they want with which I can agree. It is interesting they don't 
call for the gun safety amendments which were adopted by the Senate. Of 
course, they close by repeating their belief that it is a right of each 
law-abiding citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, 
including self-defense or recreation, and that should not be infringed. 
I don't think it is an infringement to put a basic requirement to try 
to keep guns in the hands of those who will use them safely, rather 
than those who would misuse them.
  I thank my colleague from the State of California for her leadership 
on this particular debate. I was happy to join her this evening. I look 
forward to joining her tomorrow when at least we will have a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution and an opportunity for a vote as to whether or 
not we should finally tell this conference committee to get down to 
business.
  Mrs. BOXER. Before my friend leaves the floor, I want to ask him a 
question.
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. I believe Senator Durbin has the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Senator Durbin has the time and 
did not yield to the Senator, so I recognize the Senator from Illinois. 
I thought he concluded his debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois yields to the 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. This is very brief. I have been touched reading some of 
the comments that have come via the Internet on the Million Mom March 
web site. I simply read two which I think indicate why the Democratic 
proposal commending the Million Mom March is so on target. It speaks 
for so many people across America. I want to get a quick response from 
my colleague to these two very brief statements.
  A woman from Mount Royal, NJ, writes:

       I wholeheartedly support the Million Mom March. I lost my 
     25-year-old son in November of 1999 to a self-inflicted 
     gunshot wound

[[Page 8064]]

     to the head. I firmly believe that he would still be here 
     today if there would not have been a gun available to him. My 
     prayers go out to all those who are marching on Washington.

  And Elizabeth from North Carolina writes:

       Five years ago my sister was murdered by her ex-husband in 
     a courthouse that had no metal detectors. She had warned the 
     court of his threats and they took his guns away. But because 
     of the easy access to guns, he just went out and got another. 
     And he used it to kill her in front of their 6-year-old 
     child.

  She says to the million moms:

       God bless all of you for walking in this march and raising 
     awareness of the horrible problem we have with gun violence 
     on behalf of my sister and her child. I thank you all for 
     caring.

  I say to my friend before he leaves the floor tonight--he has been so 
generous to share his tremendous wisdom--isn't the reason the 
Democratic proposal, which praises the million moms for doing what they 
did, makes sense because people such as these have felt so alone? Is 
that my friend's perspective?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to my friend from California, I understand the 
sentiments expressed. Even in my own family, I have a sister-in-law who 
is interested in politics. We talk about it from time to time. She is 
the mother of 10 children and I think 20-plus grandchildren--I lost 
count. She decided when she heard about this Million Mom March that she 
was going to be here in Washington on The Mall last Sunday. She called 
every woman in the family and said: We are all going down on Metro 
together. They did.
  The same thing happened with other people in my Chicago office. There 
was a feeling of mothers across America that this was a special moment 
and that they were going to take time away from their families, away 
from what was their day, Mother's Day, and come down and be with so 
many others.
  I was in Chicago. I know the Senator from California was here in 
Washington and was touched by what occurred on The Mall gathering.
  That is a sentiment growing in America. My Republican colleagues 
should think twice about criticizing this resolution where we commend 
these mothers who had the courage to come forward because they believe 
so passionately on this issue.
  When it comes to the question raised by the other person who e-mailed 
or contacted your office about the accessibility of guns, they are 
easily acceptable. The District of Columbia has strong, strong, anti-
gun laws in terms of ownership possession. Yet you go right across the 
bridge into Virginia or over the line into Maryland and you can 
purchase guns that end up coming right in to crime scenes here in 
Washington, DC.
  It is naive to believe that State laws are going to control this 
traffic in guns. In fact, when they did a survey in Illinois of guns 
confiscated in crimes and their origin, where they were from--they 
traced them with the gun numbers and such--they found the No. 1 State 
for sending crime guns to the State of Illinois was the home State of 
the majority leader of the Senate, the State of Mississippi. Of all 
places, Mississippi. Why? It is easier to buy guns there. They buy 
them, they throw them in the backs of trucks and trunks of cars and 
take off for Chicago or Boston or wherever it happens to be.
  This steady trafficking, in many cases illegal trafficking of these 
guns, needs to be better policed, and we need to ensure we understand 
that these guns move across borders at will. I would say to the Senator 
from California, the experience of the second lady who contacted you, 
when a person who was not supposed to have a gun had easy access, 
really speaks to the issue of the proliferation of guns in America, and 
their easy access not only to the violent and the criminal but also 
kids.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 39 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I retain my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I want to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am compelled to speak at this point. I am 
really disturbed about the direction the conversation--I will not call 
it a debate--is going. I think the American public needs to know what 
is going on here.
  At the moment, the bill that is on the floor is the military 
construction appropriations bill--not gun control. You might be 
confused, if you have been listening to the debate. We are on the 
military construction appropriations bill. This is the bill that 
provides for the national security and promotes the national defense. 
This is the bill that builds things for the military, to make sure we 
have a strong military. This is the bill that builds the dormitories 
and the housing for our military people so they have the morale to stay 
in the military and do the job of protecting us.
  We are debating the military construction bill. It is the bill that 
takes care of some of the problems on military bases where there has 
been pollution. A lot of it we did not know was pollution at the time 
it happened, but we recognize the need to take care of the environment, 
and this bill takes care of the environment--if we can ever get around 
to it and get it passed. But it sounds as if we are having a gun 
debate.
  This bill, the military construction appropriations bill that we are 
considering, is the bill that handles our basic military construction 
needs. It is not about schools. It is not about gun control. It is 
about taking care of our military in a responsible and timely way. That 
is what is going to be happening with appropriations bill after 
appropriations bill after appropriations bill. We do 13 of them. It 
takes us about a week to do an appropriations bill. It is tough to get 
them done by October 1, when the next appropriation starts. It is very 
important that we be expeditious in the work of the appropriations 
bills.
  We have trouble passing appropriations every year. There is always a 
mini filibuster done on appropriations. My friends across the aisle 
would prefer the President set the appropriations for this country. 
That is not what the Constitution says. The Congress of the United 
States sets the appropriations. We can do it, and we can do it in a 
timely fashion, as long as there is not a filibuster.
  Filibusters come in different forms. One of the filibusters you see 
is this gun control legislation that has been thrust into the military 
construction bill. Another form of it is putting 100 different 
amendments down on an appropriations bill and expecting to be able to 
debate each and every one. Those are all attempts to delay the 
appropriations process and put the process in the hands of the 
President. I want the American public to know that the responsible way, 
the constitutional way, is for this Congress to pass a budget.
  As to the debate we are having tonight, why didn't we just agree to 
have a vote on the sense of the Senate and get on with the business of 
appropriations? This is a very important point. We cannot set new 
precedent for people to be able to delay the appropriations process, 
and that is what we are talking about.
  Last year we passed rule XVI. We made rule XVI valid again. The 
purpose of that process that we went through, a very difficult process, 
was to say you cannot legislate on appropriations bills. You cannot do 
that because we are not going to have every piece of legislation that 
everybody would like to have passed that they cannot get through the 
regular process brought up as a simple amendment to an appropriations 
bill and debated for hours and hours and hours. If we are going to get 
the appropriations process done, it has to be according to the rules. 
We had a rule, rule XVI, that said you could not legislate on an 
appropriations bill. It had been kind of set aside. Last year, we put 
it back into effect so we could expedite the appropriations process.
  OK, there is a way around that. There is not anything that really 
addresses if you offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on an 
appropriations bill. Perhaps that is a way to back-door

[[Page 8065]]

some of these other debates. We are not going to do it. We said you 
cannot legislate on it, we are not going to let you back-door legislate 
on it at the moment. That is what we are talking about here, a sense-
of-the-Senate amendment.
  If I had my way, we would not do sense-of-the-Senate amendments. 
Sense-of-the-Senate amendments are our opinion as reflected in time 
crunches, which means they do not mean anything. They are used a lot 
because if somebody passes a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, you will 
hear them up here frequently saying: I passed that sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment 100 to nothing, and that means the Senate wants it. What they 
did was pass it 100 to nothing to get it out of the way so we could get 
to another issue, perhaps a real issue. The sense of the Senate does 
not get negotiated with the House folks. It is just something we pass 
so we can feel good.
  That is what this sense-of-the-Senate amendment is; it is something 
that will make us feel good. There is violence in this country, and it 
is important to end violence. But we are not talking about whether or 
not we are doing that. We are talking about whether we are going to 
have an appropriations process that can be done responsibly, without 
all kinds of other issues being thrown into the process, willy-nilly, 
to hold up the process so the President can decide, with Congress, how 
the appropriations are going to go. So earlier tonight you saw a lot of 
procedural motions. Those were motions to make sure that the sense of 
the Senate could be voted on, that a new precedent could be set for how 
we are going to do appropriations bills around here. That is why we 
have been so adamant at making sure there are votes. In order to get a 
vote on germaneness, we had to concede 8 hours of debate time. Instead 
of talking about military construction and getting the bill passed, 
completing the amendments to it--instead of that, we agreed we would do 
4 hours of debate on each of two amendments, so we could get to some 
votes.
  You saw what happened earlier--endless quorum calls. Every time there 
was one of those quorum calls, we did not have to go quite as formal. 
The other side likes these filibusters to be a bit more subtle, so 
instead we just have to do a quorum count. We had to actually show on 
the lists up there that the people were here. It was not an actual 
vote. It only took about 7 minutes each time one of those procedural 
quorum calls was called. But it did not just delay 7 minutes; it kept a 
vote from happening. And that is the strategy: Filibuster the 
appropriations, put it in the hands of the President, set a new 
precedent so we have additional opportunities to set it back.
  It is about time Congress went to a biennial budget, a budget that we 
do every other year so we do not get in this time crunch every year; so 
we do not get under the gun and put things into appropriations that 
ought not be there; so we can have the best possible debate every other 
year and get the best possible biennial budget and appropriation that 
we can and, in the in-between year, have a chance to see how the people 
are spending that money and making sure it is according to the way 
Congress appropriated it.
  We have concentrated on guns in the debate tonight. As I have pointed 
out, the bill we are debating is military construction. Everyone that I 
know is sensitive to the violence issue in this country. We need to do 
something about that violence. Since it has been brought up as the 
single solution being gun control, and the Democrats are willing to 
concede that perhaps a little enforcement might help out and are using 
statistics about a 40-percent increase in the amount of Federal 
enforcement that has been done--it is pretty easy if you only have 9 
one year to get 40 percent the next year, especially with the crew we 
have to do the enforcement.
  They ought to be embarrassed about the enforcement. Neither of these 
things are the solution. We have to quit trying to treat the symptoms. 
We have to get to the heart of violence, and the heart of violence is 
that we lack a sense of community. We have lost a sense of community.
  I am from Wyoming, and I get back to Wyoming almost every weekend. I 
travel 300 to 500 miles around the State going to all kinds of towns--
small towns, big cities. In Wyoming, the big cities are 50,000 people. 
One can drive out of that city and see the whole city at one time. It 
is not another town running into another town into another town.
  Some of the communities I visit are listed on the Wyoming highway map 
as having zero population. That really irritates the two people who 
live there, but they are counted in the county population rather than 
the city population. When my wife and I go to those towns, we call 
ahead and talk to those two people and say: Can you invite a few of 
your friends over so we can hear what is on your minds? When we get 
there, there will be 20 to 30 people at that place ready to give their 
opinion because they have seen a lot of stuff on television with which 
they do not agree. They have seen polls in which we believe, and they 
want me to know the right way.
  I challenge any other Senator to beat that percentage of attendance: 
zero population, 30 people. Give it a try. The average town in my State 
is 250 people. They turn out well, too. When I go to a town of 250, I 
usually get to talk with 80 percent of the people who are there. I do 
not even know what size building I would have to have in Los Angeles to 
talk to 80 percent of the people, but we can do that in Wyoming, and we 
do.
  They do not think handling the symptom of guns or enforcement is the 
answer. They are a little distressed at the lack of sense of community. 
They have a strong sense of community. They know their neighbors. They 
talk to their neighbors regularly. They respect their neighbors, and 
they have this community they can see. Wyoming is an example for the 
Nation when it comes to community.
  We are worried about it there, too. Television has made a tremendous 
difference in this country. We are not trying to outlaw television. 
That would cause the biggest uproar this country has ever heard. I can 
tell from some of the satellite TV and cable TV problems we have that 
it is the most important thing in the minds of many people in America.
  What does television do? It turns everybody inward. Part of the time 
I was growing up, we did not have television. Then we got a black and 
white television set. I watched this tremendous progression of 
television. It was a fascinating technology with fascinating new 
capabilities.
  Television has turned us inward. When I was growing up, there were 
not many channels from which to select, but there were different 
programs that different members of the family wanted to see. We had a 
discussion, a debate, a family decision on what we were going to watch. 
There was interaction in the family. That is part of community.
  Today we have the Internet. Not only can the child go to his or her 
own room and watch his or her own television set; they can go to their 
room, and if they do not like what is on television, they can go on the 
Internet. Again, it is turned inward, perhaps a little more outward 
than television because one can get into chatrooms.
  I suggest to parents--and I know a lot are watching what their kids 
do with television and on the Internet--talking to somebody in a 
chatroom is not the same as talking to them in person. It is talking to 
a computer game. It is talking to yourself with some interaction, and 
that is turning us inward.
  My daughter is a teacher. She is an outstanding teacher of seventh 
and ninth grade English in Gillette, WY. She has been a little 
distressed over the last year at some of the things she has seen 
happening even in Wyoming. I know it is nothing compared to what is 
happening in the rest of the Nation. There was a knife incident in her 
school, and she went through the entire enforcement process. It was a 
very disturbing experience and maybe a reason at some point in the near 
future for her to quit teaching. It is a very difficult process.
  I have talked with her about guns, violence, and what we can do about 
it. I

[[Page 8066]]

have received a lot of good suggestions from her and the students. 
Again, we find this inward turning, this lack of community, this lack 
of respect as being one of the big problems.
  I am very proud of my wife. I have to mention her, too. This last 
weekend when I was in Wyoming, I went to the University of Wyoming and 
watched her receive her master's degree. She has been working on that 
for several years, while we have been in Washington, on the Internet 
taking it from the University of Wyoming. It is very difficult, but it 
is a way one can pick up a degree no matter where in the world one is. 
Even when we were traveling, she could go online and make the class 
times she had to make. It was difficult but doable.
  I congratulate her for her efforts. Her master's degree is in adult 
education. She has done some teaching in high school before. One of her 
views is that one of the things we ought to have in schools is a course 
called ``Life's Not Fair and What To Do About It.'' We are so busy in 
this country giving people rights. We have the Bill of Rights, but we 
are giving out a lot of other rights. Unfortunately, I think we have 
given the kids of this country the impression that they have the right 
to everything for themselves, and if they do not get that right, they 
can take it out on others.
  There are a number of different ways they can do that. They can sue. 
If they fall down and hurt themselves, it is not their fault anymore. 
It is somebody else's fault and they have to concentrate on how much 
money they can get from them for themselves. Life is not fair. We have 
kids across this country who are saying life is not fair and I am going 
to hurt somebody because they have hurt me internally. In fact, they 
even kill people over that. Somehow we have to get the message out to 
each and every kid. We have lost a whole generation of kids. There is a 
whole generation of them who have not had the message they are not 
supposed to hurt other people, and they are definitely not supposed to 
kill them. That is a message we are missing.
  I know the first thing a lot of people are going to do is jump up and 
say: But we have all these working mothers now. If they did not have to 
work, they could take better care of their kids. I am not going to let 
them off with that excuse.
  We just had Mother's Day, and that ought to be the most special day 
in the world. We ought to listen to what every mother has in the way of 
instruction--the mothers who marched and the mothers with whom we 
celebrated.
  One of the most important lessons is listen to your mother. My mom is 
in Washington right now. She has had a tremendous influence on my life, 
and she was a working mother. She and my dad had a shoe store, a small 
business. If there are people who think owning a business is the easy 
way of life, they need to do a business plan and take a look at small 
business. The only people who do not get off when they need to or want 
to are the people who own the business. They are the ones locked into a 
schedule. The people who work for them have more flexibility because, 
as a businessowner, you do not want them to quit and not have any help. 
If you have your own business, you work interminable hours because it 
is everything you have. Until one has gone through the agony of 
figuring out how to pay the bills in a small business, one really 
cannot appreciate what a small businessman goes through.
  My mom worked at the shoe store. She did the books for the store and 
had to spend a lot of time at it. So did my dad. But my sister and I, I 
do not think, turned out too bad.
  My sister is really the smart one in the family. She is a CPA. She is 
the business manager for a school district in Sheridan, WY, and does 
just outstanding work. She understands numbers far better than I do. 
She is the more capable one in our family.
  But I am proud of my mother and the way she brought us up. And my 
wife, all of the time our kids were growing up, was a working mother. 
We also had shoe stores. We also had to go through that pain and agony 
of making sure we could meet payrolls all the time and that we could 
get all the work done.
  I am really proud of my kids. Her working did not destroy my kids. In 
fact, it may have aided my kids, as my mother working aided me.
  It is very difficult to work and do all of those things and have 
special time with your kids. I really think that is the key --special 
time. That does not have to be a whole day. In fact, I would challenge 
anybody to spend a whole day of special time, unless they are doing it 
in an entertainment mode, in which case they are looking at something 
else other than their kids.
  I would suggest that you have some family traditions. One of our 
family traditions, both when I was growing up and with my family, was 
to have one meal a day that you had together--not optional; not with 
TV--one meal a day together; one opportunity during that day to ask, 
what did you do, or what are you going to do, to compare notes, to find 
out and, most importantly, to show a little bit of concern for that 
child or that spouse--a time that is uninterrupted, 5 minutes, 10 
minutes--I do not know how long it takes you to eat but enough time to 
compare notes just a little bit.
  If you compare notes, I think it will drag out into a much longer 
time than 5 minutes or 10 minutes.
  Another part of this is a respect for neighbors and teachers. This is 
part of community, too. With community, you have to have some respect 
for yourself, some self-responsibility. You also have to have respect 
for your family. You have to have that willingness to work together 
because everything isn't going to work out in a family just the way you 
would dream of it. Life is not fair in families, either. But families 
show their strength by working together when things are difficult.
  When I was growing up, we respected our neighbors. Our neighbors were 
able to say: Hey, I saw your boy. I didn't like what he was doing. No 
punishment was necessary because I changed immediately because I 
respected that neighbor, too.
  The same thing for teachers in the classroom. One of the things my 
daughter does that I really like is, when she is teaching and she has a 
big assignment that is supposed to be turned in, she calls the parents 
of those students who did not turn in the paper. It is a lot of extra 
effort.
  The first time she did that, she called us, in tears. And she is near 
tears every time she does it. The reason she is near tears is because 
of the number of parents who say: So, what are you going to do about 
it? They put it back on her, as the teacher, when they have the 
complete control--or as much control as anybody has--of making sure 
their child does the work timely. It is part of community.
  I got in trouble a little bit in Wyoming with some education things. 
At one time I checked and found out Wyoming was spending--this has been 
a few years ago--about $5,600 a student per year. I suggested that one 
of the ways we could improve education was if we charged tuition, and 
then gave every kid a $5,600 scholarship to cover the tuition that we 
charged.
  And how did you earn the scholarship? All you had to do to earn the 
scholarship was show up, do your homework, and be good. Those are 
pretty weak criteria for getting $5,600 a year. But those are some 
things that we need in school. We need the kids to show up; we need the 
kids to do their homework; and we need them to behave so they are not 
disrupting other people--pretty easy criteria. But that is part of that 
sense of community, again, that sense of knowing that the people you 
are going to school with have an equal right to learn.
  When I have talked to a lot of the school classes--and we usually do 
that on Fridays when we get to Wyoming--I have found that you want to 
phrase your questions on what needs to be done very carefully. If you 
do not, what you get back from kids is: You are not doing enough for 
us: We need; we need; we need. That is not the solution either.
  In St. Louis, one of the things they did there--this was not done 
professionally at all, as I understand; I read about it in a book on 
communitarianism, which is what I am

[[Page 8067]]

talking about--in the book, they said in St. Louis they sent out a 
questionnaire to the kids in the school and asked: What does our 
community need? What do you need? What does our community need? Which 
happens to be the right way to phrase that question.
  They also had a little spot on the survey of what needed to be done 
where they could list if they were willing to work on it, and how they 
would work on it, and put their name and their address and their phone 
number. They expected a small return of these questionnaires. Instead, 
what they got was over 50 percent back, and over 50 percent of those 
had signatures on them saying they were willing to participate. And the 
city was smart enough to put them to work. They let them use the city 
hall for committee meetings and to go to work on the projects they 
suggested the community needed. There was a huge decrease in vandalism. 
There was a huge increase in caring for their fellow people.
  The same book talks about Cincinnati. There they hired a professional 
to check and see why there was so much violence and so much 
destruction. The conclusion of the report was: A broken window left 
undone leads to a door that is left undone that leads to a kid who 
feels that nobody cares.
  They are not interested in us having a bunch of debates back here in 
a fancy sort of way that sets a whole bunch more laws in place.
  I would like to be able to tell you I have the solution to violence 
and that I have the perfect law that will take care of the violence 
problem in this country. But it isn't going to be done by law. You 
cannot make people behave. You have to have people who want to behave, 
to know that they are supposed to behave.
  Something I also find when I talk to kids is that they believe the 
only publicity out there is the publicity about the bad kids and the 
bad incidents.
  We just had a Congressional Awards Ceremony in Cheyenne, WY. The 
Congressional Awards Program is something that we all ought to 
understand because everybody has the right to that program. The U.S. 
Congress gives out two kinds of awards. They give out the Congressional 
Medal of Honor; that is usually to adults who have done something 
fantastic to help our country and our way of life and democracy. We 
also have the Congressional Awards. Those go to kids, kids who have 
done something for other people, kids who have helped out in their 
community, kids who have set goals and followed them, and the goals 
have to include volunteer work.
  We have quite a few kids sign up for that in Wyoming. In fact, in 
most years Wyoming has more kids who get the gold medal than any other 
State. I did not say on a per capita basis. I want to make sure that 
everybody understands, in Wyoming we have 480,000 people. So sometimes 
on a per capita basis it is pretty easy for us. We show up in all the 
bad statistics because one incident drives us to the top of the charts.
  I want to mention that again. For congressional awards, in Wyoming we 
have more kids who get a gold medal than any other State--flat out 
numbers. About 3 years ago, there were 21 gold medals awarded in the 
United States. Fifteen of the kids receiving that gold medal were from 
Wyoming. We are very proud of the program. But the thing we like the 
most is kids say: We get good publicity for doing that. Good kids get 
good publicity. The more publicity there is that way, the more people 
get in the program. So we always have the largest program.
  I spoke at a Boy Scout Week dinner in Cheyenne. Lots of letters, 
again, said: Thanks for saying good things about what we are doing.
  I have gone on a lot longer than I anticipated going, and I 
particularly apologize for it because we are debating military 
construction. That is the bill we are considering--military 
construction appropriations.
  I have to tell you a little bit about the new dollar, the golden 
dollar, the Wyoming dollar. Yes, to have a new dollar in the United 
States, it has to go through the Banking Committee. When they noticed 
we were running out of the Susan B. Anthony coins, they passed a 
resolution to do a new dollar. And then the battle started.
  The resolution said it would have the image of a real woman, and 
every State has a number of women who are worthy to be on a coin. 
Trying to break the logjam, I nominated Sacajawea. She is a person of 
tremendous interest to the Presiding Officer because Sacajawea was born 
in Idaho. Sacajawea, of course, was kidnapped at a very young age in 
Idaho and taken to North Dakota. It was in North Dakota that she met up 
with Lewis and Clark and went across the United States and helped them 
out by using the skills, talents, and language she had learned as a 
child.
  Without Sacajawea, the Lewis and Clark expedition would have fallen 
far short of its goal. It might not have even made it back to Idaho. 
But she helped with that. I love to go on and add that not only did she 
get to travel the entire West through that process, but even after the 
territory expedition, it is with great pleasure that I can say she 
chose to spend her last years in Wyoming.
  People who have seen the West usually like to stay in Wyoming, if 
they possibly can. But kids in Kelly, WY, helped me promote Sacajawea 
and helped to get her on the coin. One of the schoolteachers wrote a 
song about her. His dad wrote a book about her that we used as the 
evidence for her importance in the United States. Of course, we are 
coming up on the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. So we 
are pleased that through the whole process, Sacajawea made it onto the 
coin, along with her baby. It is a lookback, but a look to the future, 
and it is the first time we put a baby on a coin.
  When we had the golden dollar celebration in Kelly, WY, the local 
bank--well, there is no local bank in Kelly. The nearest town is 
Jackson, and the bank there arranged for an armored car to come to 
Kelly, WY, with some of the dollars. I know it was the first time an 
armored car had been there. But the bank was also so kind as to invite 
some of the kids from the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, 
which is where Sacajawea is buried, and also from the Fort Hall Indian 
Reservation in Idaho. We just had a great day celebrating it.
  One of the things I noted was that part of Indian tradition is a 
thing called ``dream catchers.'' They are circular to represent endless 
time, and they have webs that go through them that would catch dreams 
and visions. It occurred to me that is a bit of what the dollar is; it 
is a dream catcher. It isn't any good just by itself. We call it the 
golden dollar, and it has been pointed out that it doesn't have gold in 
it. It is colored gold, distinctly from the quarter. It has smooth 
edges so you can tell it from the quarter. But it is a dream catcher. 
You have to use it in order to make a difference.
  Kids understand that. They know that helping other people with their 
dreams makes one's own dreams come true. Sometimes that is done through 
dollars. I mention this because, again, we are in the appropriations 
process. That is where we deal with dollars--trillions of dollars. It 
is very important that we spend those dollars as well as possible. And 
we are not going to get the process done if we are diverted onto a 
whole bunch of sense-of-the-Senate amendments, which are used a few 
times by people who say, ``I got that through 100-0,'' or whatever the 
number is. Most of them pass 100-0 because the words on them don't mean 
anything, except a vocal display.
  So I hope we can keep the discussion relevant and make sure we can do 
the business of the United States--the dream catching of the United 
States--and get our appropriations process done.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask if there are other speakers on 
the other side this evening?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe there is one other speaker on the 
Republican side who wishes to speak. We may want to propound the 
necessary

[[Page 8068]]

language to close the Senate down, which would allow the Senator to 
complete her expressions for the evening.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that, but I don't have the particular 
language in front of me at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). It is not available yet. The 
Senator may continue with her remarks.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate that. How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 39 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I don't intend to use the entire time. At 
the appropriate moment, I will be happy to make that unanimous consent 
request.
  I want to say to the Senator from Wyoming I really enjoyed listening 
to him, and much of what he said I agree with. But I have to say that, 
as my friend explained the needs of our communities to be closer and 
the needs of our children to be paid attention to and to be taught 
respect and accountability and love, he is very right.
  But I might say to my friend that every day in this country 12 
children are cut down by gunfire. Most of them come from families who 
love them, come from families who respect them, come from families who 
have taught them the values of love and community and country.
  So I say to my friend from Wyoming, who told some very tender stories 
about how good most of the youth are in this country--and I agree with 
him--a lot of those wonderful young people are being shot in schools 
and in churches. There seems to be no limit today on what can happen. 
So he can speak about the need to be close with our families. He is 
exactly right. Most of us are. But for those who are alienated, who 
don't have that love, why should the rest of the children pay the price 
and fear for their lives?
  In some of our communities, if you ask those children, I say to my 
friend, the sad reality, for whatever reason, is that they are afraid. 
Many of them know someone who has been cut down by gunfire.
  So I say, yes, the world he paints is a world I want for every child 
in America--a loving family, the ability to feel secure, the ability to 
feel responsibility, the ability to feel confidence. But also, I might 
add, if we don't pass sensible gun laws--and my friend doesn't want any 
more sensible gun laws--no matter what type of families our children 
come from, they are not protected.
  I also want to address the point of my friend from Wyoming on why we 
are doing this on the military construction bill. Over on the House 
side, I served on the Armed Services Committee, and I know how 
important that bill is. I want to make it clear to my friends that the 
Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, didn't want to go this route. He asked 
unanimous consent to bring up the gun amendments that passed the Senate 
and are trapped in the conference committee, take them up immediately, 
and resolve them, and pass them in honor of the moms who gave up their 
Mother's Day to come here and express themselves.
  The Republican side said no. They objected. So what choice did he 
have but to offer up an amendment?
  I say to my friend that the Republican leadership waited 5 full hours 
before they allowed us to be heard on the subject of sensible gun laws; 
5 full hours before we could offer our amendment and be heard on our 
amendment which commends the moms for coming out on a day when they 
could have had breakfast in bed, have gotten flowers, and been treated 
to dinner, to say thank you for being selfless as moms are. That is 
what you learn when you are a mom--how to be selfless.
  As my friend pointed out, military construction is funded for 4 more 
months. We are not up against any clock--4 more months. Would it hurt 
us to take a few hours to pay tribute to those moms who worked so hard 
to organize that march of 750,000 strong, and thousands across the 
country adding up to more than a million moms? By the way, plenty of 
dads, too; plenty of grandmas; plenty of grandpas; plenty of daughters 
and sons. Would it hurt us? My God, in the 5 hours the Republicans 
stalled before we could get to this measure, we could have had the 
debate and could have voted on it. Who is wasting time?
  The Democratic leader said let's just take this matter up and vote it 
out. He would have agreed to a very short time limit. But, no, 5 hours 
of delay. So here it is 5 minutes to 9.
  You know what. I am grateful we are taking this up. I am grateful 
even if it is late at night. Even if I have some other things to do, it 
doesn't matter at all. We will take it up tomorrow as well. By the way, 
we will take it up again, and we will take it up again, and we will 
take it up again because too many people are dying in our country. How 
many? Let's take a look.
  We have a war at home. It is a war in our streets. It is a war in our 
schools. In Vietnam, we lost 58,168 of our people. This country came to 
its knees. We wanted to end the war. The vast majority of people 
thought it was a mistake. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents 
marched. And President Nixon ended the war in Vietnam. That is 11 
years.
  Let's look at what happened in the last 11 years in our Nation--
395,441 people have been shot down by gunfire. That is from the 
National Census for Health Statistics.
  We have a war here at home. It is shocking to look at that, isn't it? 
I find it so.
  That is why we are going to come back again and again. It is not easy 
to be here late at night. But I think we are going to have to do that 
because we have to face it.
  Let's look at murder by handguns compared to other countries. A lot 
of people say, well, this is just the way it is in a society that is 
free. I would argue that Japan, Great Britain, and Canada are free 
countries. They are our allies. They are democracies. By the way, in 
Canada, murder by handguns per 1 million population is .12 per 1 
million; .51, 3.64 in Canada. And in the United States, it is 35.05.
  What is wrong? My friend from Wyoming talked about lack of community. 
He is certainly right on that point. But why is it always in this 
debate either/or? Why don't we want to work on that issue of community, 
work on those issues of respect for families, and work on those issues 
that we have to work on--yes, in the media--and also face one fact, 
that the only product in this country that has not one safety 
regulation is guns? Does that make sense to you?
  In 1968, after the tragic assassination of Robert Kennedy--killed, 
shot down in the prime of life, who might have been our next President, 
shot down in the prime of life with an imported handgun--this Congress 
acted to ban Saturday night specials from being imported. As I 
remember, some of my colleagues who are still here on the other side of 
the aisle voted for that. But guess what they didn't vote for. They 
didn't vote to ban Saturday night specials from being made in America. 
So if you try to import a Saturday night special, you can't do it. You 
can't import a handgun. But guess what. They are made all over this 
country, particularly in my own home State. I am proud to tell you that 
recently with a new California Legislature and a new Governor, we have 
banned those Saturday night specials in California.
  We are making progress. We are making progress. I am very proud of 
that.
  After Columbine High School, this Senate gathered, and all said we 
are going to work together. We passed five sensible gun laws. They are 
so modest. They are so sensible. They passed this Senate and closed the 
gun show loophole that allows criminals to go to a gun show and not 
have to have a background check. It would have made a difference in 
Columbine. The woman who got the guns for those kids said so. It would 
ban the importation of high-capacity clips which are used in 
semiautomatic assault weapons. That is the Feinstein amendment. The 
first one is the Lautenberg amendment. Requiring child safety devices 
be sold with every handgun is the Kohl amendment. It requires that the 
FTC and the Attorney General study the extent to which the gun industry 
markets to juveniles. That was my amendment. I will talk more about it. 
It makes it illegal to sell or give a semiautomatic assault

[[Page 8069]]

weapon to anyone under the age of 18. That was written by a Republican 
Member of this Senate, Senator Ashcroft. Those amendments passed. And 
they are languishing in a conference committee that doesn't even meet.
  On April 20, 1999, the Columbine High School shooting stunned 
America. On May 11, a month later, the Senate begins debate on those 
gun measures. On May 20, just a month after Columbine, this Senate 
passed a juvenile justice bill by a vote of 73-25 that included those 
five sensible gun control amendments that I talked about.
  The Senate and House go to conference 3 months after Columbine, and 
guess what. That was July. There is one meeting of the conferees. Here 
we are more than a year after Columbine and we have done zero, nothing, 
nada.
  I am embarrassed to face my constituents. I was embarrassed to face 
these marching moms and look them in the eye. It is not their job to 
pass legislation. Hello. It is our job. It is not their job. It is our 
job. What are we doing? Nothing, zero, zip. I am embarrassed about 
that. I am angry about that.
  I tell you that there are a number of us who are not going to go away 
on this point. We will be back here. That is why I say to the Presiding 
Officer sitting in the Chair today that we chose to move forward on 
this bill. We tried to get a separate resolution. We offered it. The 
Republicans said no. I don't know, I just do not know why the fear is 
in this Chamber about voting this thing up or down. All we said is 
commend the Million Mom March for what they did. It is the American 
way--standing up and being counted.
  Moms attended who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, some who 
don't have any affiliation whatever with politics, many of whom are 
never political. They want Congress to act. We do nothing.
  I hope these moms continue to work on this matter, to connect this 
political process with the facts and the realities of the deaths that 
go on day after day after day after day.
  We had a hearing the day after the Million Mom March and an art 
teacher from Columbine spoke. With a trembling voice she told us what 
it was like to be in that library, to tell the kids: Go under your 
desk. Call 9-1-1.
  She said: I used to be in favor of no gun laws and now I am here 
asking you to act because I don't want anyone else to suffer in this 
way.
  I talked about the five commonsense measures. I think the one that I 
wrote is very important. We learned when we looked at the cigarette 
industry how they marketed to kids. We have to realize how the gun 
industry is marketing to kids. Here is an ad in ``Gun World'': ``Start 
'em Young! There is no time like the present.'' Here is a child, 
definitely under 18. It is a toy gun that looks like a real handgun. 
Now, under the laws today you can't buy a handgun in a licensed dealer 
shop until you are 21 years of age and you can't buy it from anybody, 
including a gun show, until you are 18. Here is a young man: ``Start 
'em Young!"
  Let's take a look at what some of the gun people say about marketing: 
``. . .greatest threat we face is the lack of a future customer base. . 
.''; ``. . .we continue to look for every opportunity to reach young 
people. . .''; ``Building the next generation of customers takes work 
and commitment. But it must be done.''
  Sound familiar.
  Let's hear what the tobacco companies said in the documents we found 
through the lawsuits. We will hear how the tobacco company and the gun 
companies sound alike.
  Tobacco company documents: ``If our company is to survive and 
prosper, over the long-term we must get our share of the youth 
market.'' ``Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular 
customer.''
  This sounds very familiar.
  Here are the gun companies: ``. . .greatest threat we face is the 
lack of a future customer base. . .''; ``. . .we continue to look for 
every opportunity to reach young people. . .''
  Are they trying to reach young people? I argue they are.
  We no longer see Joe Camel. Because of the lawsuits, tobacco 
companies agreed to stop using a cartoon character to lure kids to 
their product. Well, here is Eddie Eagle. If all Eddie Eagle did was to 
promote safety, it would be one thing, but it is absolutely a way to 
get kids interested in guns at a young age. ``Start 'em Young!'' begins 
to take on new meaning.
  Here is a photograph from a gun magazine. This child is 4 years old 
and he is watching an adult load a handgun-- ``Start 'em Young!"
  This is a very pressing issue. That is why we offered this amendment. 
We thank the moms for coming here. We call on our colleagues to free 
that juvenile justice bill and pass these laws.
  My friend from Wyoming, in his opening remarks, said the people in 
his State don't want any laws. Quoting him the best I can, the Senator 
from Wyoming said: You can't make people behave. We don't need a bunch 
of laws.
  Let's take that to its logical conclusion. You can't make people 
behave; you don't need a bunch of laws. OK. Should we have no laws 
against murder because you can't make people behave? Should we have no 
laws against rape because you can't make people behave? Should we have 
no laws on the books that say if you drive a car you have to have a 
license?
  And the NRA takes out an ad and says, by the way, licensing a car 
doesn't save kids from getting hurt. They have to look both ways when 
they cross the street.
  There is another either/or strawman. Of course, you have to look both 
ways when you cross the street. But if the driver didn't have to get a 
license and couldn't see and went up on the sidewalk, you would get 
killed. So what is this either/or? You don't need laws to make people 
behave? You want to repeal the laws for getting a license to drive? You 
want to repeal the laws on registering a car? Yes, you can look both 
ways, but if the guy's brakes don't work, you are hit. So we keep 
setting up these either/ors. It is not about either/or. Look both ways, 
yes. But also make sure that your driver is licensed, the car is 
registered, it is safe, he or she can see, can hear, and can drive.
  With this refrain that laws can't make people behave, if you take it 
to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't have any laws at all. We 
wouldn't have a country that was a country of laws. That is, by the 
way, what makes America the greatest country in the world because we 
are a country of laws, not men; I add, we are a country of laws, not 
men or women.
  We have laws for safe toys; we have laws for safe products. We have 
the safest products in the world. Not because people are wonderful. 
Yes, some are; they would never make an unsafe product; they wouldn't 
do it. But some people aren't wonderful and we have to protect our 
people from those people who would make a shoddy product. Guess what. 
We have the safest products in the world.
  The only product that is not regulated that I know of is a 
domestically produced handgun. If you try to import it, there are 
safety standards. But not if you make it here.
  I would say to my friend, I do not agree with him. If he does not 
think laws make people behave, I don't know exactly what we are doing 
here. We do pass laws every day to protect our people. Laws are the 
bedrock of a civilized society.
  The NRA took out a full-page ad--the same one where they said when 
you license a driver or register a car you do not make our kids any 
safer--so I already think I addressed that. But they also basically 
said: What kind of mother would march? This is a political agenda.
  I wish those NRA members who wrote that ad could have been at the 
Million Mom March. I have been in politics all my life. I have to say, 
these people were authentic American moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, 
aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, daughters. Do you know why they were 
there? They said it: Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Many of them 
had lost children, relatives; they feel the pain; they feel the hurt. 
They are scarred forever. Many of them knew people who were injured, 
who were paralyzed for life.

[[Page 8070]]

Enough is enough. That is why they came. That is why they marched. They 
could have stayed home, had their breakfast in bed once a year for 
Mother's Day, but they chose not to do it. I am proud of them.
  For the National Rifle Association to take out an ad condemning those 
mothers is an insult to the women of this country. By the way, they 
were women from every political party imaginable, every age, every 
ethnic group. It was the most amazing picture. People out there saying: 
Enough is enough.
  They want us to act. So, yes, I think it is worth a couple of days of 
debate in the memory of the almost 400,000 Americans shot dead by 
gunfire in the last 11 years. I think it is worth a couple of days of 
debate to say, in the name of these 395,441 people, that we will take a 
few hours; that we will commend the Million Mom March; that we will 
encourage them to keep on fighting for what they believe in--a safe 
America.
  Many years ago, when I first got into politics, I was involved in 
trying to ensure that my children, who are now old enough to take care 
of me, had a safe future. We were embroiled in that Vietnam war for 
years and years. There was a bumper strip that came out and a lot of 
people put it on their cars. It said: Imagine peace. Because the war 
had gone on so long it was hard to imagine what it would be like, not 
to have this divisive war, where Americans were arguing with one 
another, where generations were having debates until most of the 
country came around and believed it was wrong.
  I think we need to have a new bumper strip that says: Imagine an 
America with no gun violence. Maybe every day we could think about what 
it would be like to put on the television set at night and not hear 
story after story: A child goes to the zoo and shoots a gun and hurts a 
child; a 6-year-old brings a gun to school and shoots a 5-year-old; two 
high school kids go into their high school and kill people randomly. 
Every day 12 children die. Imagine what it would be like to turn on the 
television at night and not have to hear these stories. God, what a 
wonderful thing it would be for our Nation.
  I will say this. If we take the attitude that laws do not mean 
anything, then we are giving up. We could stand up here, as many nights 
as we could, and say how much we need to feel a sense of community and 
how much mothers and fathers have to work with their children and how 
important it is that we respect each other and admire each other and 
love each other and come together as a community--and, my God, we 
should say that.
  But we cannot stop there. Because the mothers who grieve for their 
children every day in America love their children and they gave their 
children values and their children went off to school and they never 
came home. So you can stand here, day after day and say that it is 
about a sense of community, and I will agree with every word that you 
say. But that does not mean we do not have the responsibility to 
protect the good children and the good families. We can do it. Five 
sensible gun laws that we have already passed here, seeing how we 
market to children, making sure we do not import those high-capacity 
clips, making sure that guns are sold with safety locks, making sure 
you cannot buy an assault weapon until you are 18.
  The bottom line is we can do it. The last one, of course, is closing 
the gun show loophole. If you ask the woman who got those guns for 
those kids at Columbine, she says it clearly: If I had to undergo a 
background check at the gun show, this whole thing would not have 
happened.
  So no one can get up here and say laws do not make a difference 
because I do not believe that. These people are telling us to pass 
these laws. We are not all that smart here. None of us is. But if we 
turn our back on the people who have experienced this violence, the 
Sarah Bradys, the Jim Bradys who beg us to pass waiting periods and 
background checks--if we turn our back on those Americans, I do not 
think we deserve to be here, really. Maybe that is what this election 
in November is going to be all about. We are going to see how much 
people really care.
  I know it is late. The Senator from Alabama is here. I know he wants 
to talk. I know he is not going to agree with one thing I said--and 
that is good because that is what this is all about. That is what it is 
all about. That is why I love the Million Mom March, because it is what 
the country is all about: standing up and being counted, standing up 
and giving up Mother's Day to come out there and do what they think is 
right. We have a simple, simple opportunity for people to praise those 
moms.
  I am going to close by reading from Senator Daschle's amendment and 
hope my friends on the other side will join us and will vote for it:

       Since on Mother's Day, May 14, 2000, an estimated 750,000 
     mothers, fathers, and children united for the Million Mom 
     March on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and were 
     joined by tens of thousands of others, in 70 cities across 
     America, in a call for meaningful, common-sense gun policy;
       Since 4,223 young people ages 19 and under were killed by 
     gunfire--one every two hours, nearly 12 young people every 
     day--in the United States in 1977;
       Since American children under the age of 15 are 12 times 
     more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other 
     industrialized countries combined;
       Since gun safety education programs are inadequate to 
     protect children from gun violence;
       Since a majority of the Senate resolved that the House-
     Senate Juvenile Justice Conference should meet, consider and 
     pass by April 20, 2000, a conference report to accompany H.R. 
     1501, the Juvenile Justice Act, and that the conference 
     report should retain the Senate-passed gun safety provisions 
     to limit access to firearms by juveniles, felons, and other 
     prohibited persons;
       Since the one year Anniversary of the Columbine High School 
     tragedy passed on April 20, 2000, without any action by the 
     Juvenile Justice Conference Committee on the reasonable gun 
     safety measures that were passed by the Senate almost one 
     year ago;
       Since continued inaction on this critical threat to public 
     safety undermines confidence in the ability of the Senate to 
     protect our children and raises concerns about the influence 
     of special interests opposed to even the most basic gun 
     safety provisions;
       Since this lack of action on the part of the Juvenile 
     Justice Conference Committee and this Congress to stem the 
     flood of gun violence is irresponsible and further delay is 
     unacceptable; and
       Since protecting our children from gun violence is a top 
     priority for our families, communities, and nation: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Determined, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the organizers, sponsors, and participants of the 
     Million Mom March should be commended for rallying to demand 
     sensible gun safety legislation; and
       (2) Congress should immediately pass a conference report to 
     accompany H.R. 1501, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
     Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, before the Memorial 
     Day Recess, and include the Lautenberg-Kerrey gun show 
     loophole amendment and the other Senate-passed provisions 
     designed to limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted 
     felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing 
     or possessing firearms.

  It is very simple. It is a lot of nice and important words, but the 
bottom line is we commend those mothers for marching.
  We agree with them that we should pass some modest gun laws that will 
stop our children from having access to firearms, that will keep us 
safe from criminals having access to firearms, that will keep us safe 
because we will not allow mentally unbalanced people to have access to 
firearms. That is all we are saying. We are not talking about stopping 
people who are law abiding from having a gun if they want it as long as 
they act responsibly. We are not talking about taking away anybody's 
guns. We are not talking about that at all. We are not talking about 
not being able to hunt. No.
  No matter what the gun lobby says to you, I say this: We are saying 
if you are responsible, fine, but if you are a criminal, you cannot 
have a gun. If you are a child, you cannot have a gun. If you are 
mentally unbalanced, you cannot have a gun.
  If we cannot pass laws that carry out those requests, then there is 
something wrong with us, there is something in this Chamber that is 
stopping us from doing what is right.
  This is going to be a big issue in this Presidential election. It is 
going to be a big issue in the Senate and House races. As a matter of 
fact, we have a

[[Page 8071]]

National Rifle Association first vice president saying:

       With George Bush in the White House, we'll have a President 
     where we work out of their office.

  Imagine a satellite office of the National Rifle Association in the 
White House. Please, we need to protect the people of this country, and 
we need to do it by passing sensible gun laws and standing up in the 
face of powerful lobby groups, whether it is this one or any other one, 
because we should be the ones in the Senate who are free from that kind 
of special interest domination.
  I pray that tomorrow when we meet--we have a few more hours of 
debate--we will adopt the Daschle amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I yield back all my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. She is a most 
eloquent spokeswoman for her point of view, and I do share many of her 
concerns. I do believe this: Too many people are dying and we can do 
something about it.
  I want to share tonight some of my ideas about what we can do about 
it. If we do the things I am talking about tonight, we can literally 
save thousands of lives.
  It is fair and accurate to say that as a direct result of the 
failure--it is shocking, stunning to me--of the Clinton administration 
to enforce existing firearm laws, thousands of people have died who 
otherwise would not have died. I say that as a person who spent 15 
years as a Federal prosecutor working as an assistant U.S. attorney for 
2\1/2\ years and almost 12 years as the U.S. attorney appointed to 
prosecute Federal criminal cases. In this body, we only deal with laws 
that apply to Federal criminal cases, not State cases.
  We can save lives, but ask anybody who is a long-time, good student 
on the subject of crime in America, ``Do you think a law that would 
stop the sale of guns at gun shows is going to stop people from getting 
killed?'' and they will laugh at you. This is not something that is 
going to have a serious impact on crime in America, but it does have 
the capacity to seriously undermine a popular institution of gun shows 
because it delays for so long sales of guns and the gun show activities 
have closed and people are gone. It just does not work well. People 
have objected to that. That is where we are today.
  I am frustrated, as I know the Chair is, because we are now back on 
this issue. The bill before this body is a military construction bill. 
We need to address certain matters of construction for our military 
bases and men and women in the service. We need to focus on that and 
get serious about it.
  The majority leader, Trent Lott, knows what we have to do. We have 13 
appropriations bills to pass. Are we going to every day have some other 
controversial, nongermane, irrelevant amendment brought forward 
disrupting the flow of the Senate and keeping us from doing the job we 
want to do? Is that what is going to happen? That is why he has stood 
firm. No, we are going to stay on military construction; we do not need 
to be on the issue of gun laws today.
  It is a tactic. I know the Senator is most eloquent, but she also 
said basically the truth. She said it was a political issue; the 
Democrats want to use this in the fall. I suggest they are just playing 
politics and not talking about matters that will make our streets safer 
and our schools safer. I will talk about those in a minute. Politics is 
not what we need to be doing now.
  The gun laws we debated in this body some time ago are, in fact, in 
conference. They passed this Senate. We passed a gun show law. 
Virtually everybody here voted for major restrictions on the gun show 
operations. The Lautenberg amendment was contested. Many believed the 
Lautenberg amendment went too far and disrupted a favored institution 
in America--the gun show. We had a vote on it after a great debate, the 
thing the Democrats want to continue, apparently. We had a 50-50 tie. 
The Vice President sat in the Presiding Officer's chair and, with great 
pomp and circumstance, broke the tie in favor of the amendment, walked 
out here, and immediately had a press conference and accused those of 
us who did not agree with his view on the details of this gun show law 
of not caring about children, not caring about crime, being indifferent 
to murder.
  I was offended by that. I remain offended by that because I have 
committed a better part of my professional life to prosecuting 
criminals and caring about crime and victims. I know them personally. I 
personally tried approximately 100 gun cases myself, and under my 
supervision hundreds of gun cases have been prosecuted. I think I know 
something about this. I want to share some thoughts about that today.
  I start off by discussing some basic issues. I am delighted the 
mothers were in town. Most of all, they remind us that children, young 
people, adults, family members, ourselves, are in danger in America 
because of violence and that this Nation needs to use the expertise, 
knowledge, skill, and scientific data to do what we can as a Congress 
to make this country safer. We can do that.
  How can we reduce crime? How can we save children's lives? How can we 
save adult lives? How can we make our communities safer? I have studied 
this for 17 years as a prosecutor. I have read reports and studies of 
the Department of Justice. I have observed personally and tried to see 
what was going on around me, and I want to share some things with you 
about crime in America.
  During the sixties and seventies, as the Chair mentioned so 
eloquently in his remarks, crime in this country more than doubled. It 
tripled, maybe even quadrupled.
  We had double-digit increases--15-, 17-, 18-percent crime increases--
a year in the 1960s and 1970s. It was a direct result, in my opinion, 
of a breakdown of discipline, a breakdown of family, an increase in 
drug use, and a disconnect and a lack of respect for authority in 
America.
  Our leaders in our colleges and universities, they all said it was 
``cool,'' it was ``doing your own thing,'' it was ``seeking 
fulfillment,'' and you should not teach children to just always be 
automatons and just follow orders; that they ought to be allowed to 
express themselves. They said people were not responsible for their own 
acts. They said crime was a product of finances; how much money you had 
would affect whether you were a criminal or not--all kinds of things 
like that.
  People who are listening to me today, who lived during those times, 
know I am not exaggerating. As a result, even though crime was going up 
dramatically, we had no increase really in the number of people in 
jail. We had a belief afoot in the land, by many of our brightest 
people, that jail did not work. They would say that putting people in 
jail just made them meaner, that it was no good, we needed to treat the 
root cause of crime, whatever that was, and we needed to increase 
welfare spending and just give people more money; that we could just 
sort of buy them off. Then they would not riot, rob, steal, rape, and 
kill. I am telling you, that is basically what the deal was in the 
1960s and 1970s.
  The critical point came when Ronald Reagan ran for President, and he 
promised he was going to promote law and order in this country. He made 
a serious commitment; he was going to create a war on drugs. He did 
that. He set about to appoint prosecutors, such as Jeff Sessions, in 
Mobile, AL, and 94 others in the districts around this country. He told 
us to get out there and utilize the skills and abilities and laws we 
had to fight crime.
  This Senate and this Congress passed some extraordinarily effective 
and tough laws that had already passed a number of years earlier under 
President Nixon--a Speedy Trial Act that said cases had to be tried in 
70 days. That is so much shorter than what goes on in most State courts 
today. The Federal Speedy Trial Act of 70 days is a very firm rule, and 
cases are normally tried within 70 days.
  In addition to that, in the 1980s, under President Reagan, they 
passed a

[[Page 8072]]

law that eliminated parole. It said that whatever sentence you got, you 
served it, virtually day for day. It eliminated parole, so a criminal 
who was sentenced would serve the time the judge gave him. We called 
that ``honesty in sentencing.'' We said it was time to quit joking 
about giving someone 30 years and having them serve 6 and be right back 
out on the streets again, robbing and raping and doing other kinds of 
criminal activities. So we had the honesty in sentencing.
  Then we had mandatory sentencing. Sentencing guidelines were set up. 
Minimum mandatory sentences were set forth under President Reagan and 
into President Bush's term. Those sentences were very effective.
  We had an expert group of judges, and others, who analyzed the kinds 
of crimes and helped establish the statutory range of guidelines for 
judges to sentence within. The mandatory minimums said, for example, 
regardless of what else may happen, if you carry a gun during any 
crime, including a drug crime, you have to be sentenced for 5 years, 
without parole, consecutive to the drug crime or the burglary or any 
other crime you may have been sentenced for in Federal court.
  So those are the kinds of things that happened. And the Federal 
courts improved themselves dramatically.
  During those 12 years I served as U.S. attorney, a major factor 
dawned on me. We were making some progress. Crime in America began to 
drop in a number of the years--maybe a majority of the years under 
President Reagan's leadership. But it was not always down. In some 
years it started up, or the crime did not drop enough. I wondered, what 
could we do?
  Many questioned whether these sentencing guidelines were working or 
not. Then it dawned on me why we were not having the impact. It was so 
simple as to be obvious to anybody who gave any thought to it. Federal 
court only tries 2, 3, 1 percent of all the crimes in America; 95, 97, 
98 percent of all crimes tried in America are tried in State courts, 
not Federal. Even though the Federal court had set the example for the 
State courts, it could not itself, in effect, change the climate in 
America.
  Over the past number of years, State court systems have gotten fed 
up. They realized that the revolving-door mentality of just arresting 
people, releasing them on bail, trying them 2 years later, letting them 
plead guilty to 6 months, and having them in a halfway house and then 
back on the streets, selling drugs, conducting crime, was not 
effective; and they passed all kinds of repeat dangerous offender laws.
  You heard the ``three strikes and you're out'' laws passed in many 
States. The third time you are convicted of a felony, you serve life 
without parole. All kinds of laws such as that were passed in virtually 
every State in this country. They got tough and serious about crime in 
America and said: We are not going to take it anymore. We are not going 
to allow people who threaten the lives of our children to be released 
on the streets. And from 1990 to today, the prison population in 
America has doubled--more than doubled.
  Many people complain about it. They say to me: Jeff, we have too many 
people in jail. That is just too many. Oh, this is awful.
  One person told me one time: If we keep this up, everybody is going 
to be in prison. Of course, that is a joke. Everybody does not commit 
crimes. Everybody does not rob, rape, shoot, and kill. No, sir. We have 
gotten serious about it. We focused on the repeat dangerous offender 
and did something about it.
  The Rand Corporation, a number of years ago, did a very important 
study. In this study, they interviewed, in depth, people in prison all 
over, but I believe it was mainly in California. They interviewed lots 
of people in prison, in depth, for hours, about what their life was 
like when they were out involving themselves in crime.
  They found some amazing facts. They found that a significant number, 
although less than a majority of those in prison, were very much 
criminally inclined, that they were committing as many as 300 crimes a 
year. Three hundred crimes a year they were committing. It gave further 
impetus to and further basis for these ``three strikes and you're out'' 
laws and multiple-offender laws.
  You might say: They would not commit 300 crimes a year, Jeff. They 
must not be telling the truth. But listen to me. There are 365 days in 
a year. Some of these criminals go out and knock ladies down, take 
their purses two or three times a night, break into cars, steal cars, 
break into houses, break into stores and office places multiple times 
in one night. Many of them are committing 200, 300 crimes a year; some 
of them more than that.
  So we began to focus on that, and, since about 1990, we have had a 
decline in the crime rate in America every year. This past year, we 
just had the announcement that the murder rate dropped 7 percent in 
America. I was proud to see that.
  They can have all the theories they want, but I tell you, there are 
not that many people in my hometown of Mobile, AL, who are willing to 
come out and shoot you. There are just not that many of them. And if 
you identify them when they go out and start committing crimes, and put 
them in jail, they are not going to be out there to shoot you, your 
family, your children, your loved ones. They are not going to be there.
  I wish there were some way we could do something different. I wish we 
could have a class for prisoners where they could take this class and 
in 6 months we could release them where they would not commit crimes.
  You will hear of people who cite studies and say: Oh, this cures 
people, and they do not ever commit crime again. Look at them closely. 
If that were so, we would already be doing it. Trust me. Nobody would 
oppose that. Nobody would oppose that. But for the most part they do 
not work. They may help some--and I am not against these kinds of 
programs--but, fundamentally, many people who are definitely criminally 
inclined will continue to be so.
  So we made some big progress.
  The city of Miami--many of you will remember the commitment President 
Bush made when he went down there to head the task force in Miami when 
he was Vice President. They were using automatic weapons, machine guns, 
MAC-11s, slaughtering people. Colombian gangs were operating almost at 
will. They said they were going to do something about it. Over a period 
of years, Miami has been relieved of those kinds of violent shootings. 
You almost never hear of a shooting with an automatic weapon in Miami 
anymore. It was brought to a halt.
  By the way, it has been a crime since the days of Al Capone to have a 
machine gun. In the midseventies, when I was an assistant U.S. 
attorney, we prosecuted every one of those cases where people had 
machine guns, fully automatic weapons. So this idea that somehow we 
need to pass laws to keep people from carrying AK-47s--and you hear 
that all the time--it is already against the law to carry those 
weapons. It has been in the law for some number of years.
  Boston, MA, a few years ago, was very concerned about the number of 
murders in their town. They wanted to do something about it. My staff 
members went up and studied their program because we heard such good 
comments about what they had done. They took young people seriously. 
When a young person got in trouble in the juvenile court in Boston, 
they weren't only given probation and sent home. They had a police 
officer and a probation officer--and they changed their hours; they 
worked from 3 o'clock in the afternoon to 10 o'clock at night, and the 
police officer would go out with the probation officer, and if the 
curfew was at 7 o'clock for young Billy, they knocked on Billy's door 
at 7 o'clock or 7:30 to see if he was home at night. If he wasn't home, 
something was done. Almost all of a sudden, they began to realize that 
these people meant business. They really cared about them. If you care 
about these young people, you will make sure they are obeying the rules 
you give them.
  They targeted gang members who were leading gangs and getting 
involved in criminal activities and told

[[Page 8073]]

them: If you keep this up, you are going to serve big time in jail. 
They sent criminals away for long periods. They broke up the gangs and 
they went a year without a single juvenile homicide in Boston.
  I thought it was a good program. That is why, as chairman of the 
juvenile crime subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we put 
that kind of effort into our juvenile crime bill that is now being held 
up in conference. That would have been supported financially by the 
Federal Government, encouraging other cities to do those kinds of 
things that would reduce crime. But let me ask you, do you think we are 
going to save lives in Boston, MA, by passing a law to eliminate gun 
shows in America? It is not going to have anything to do with that 
crime. So we need to do those kinds of things.
  Another city that had an extraordinary success rate was Richmond, and 
I will talk about it in a minute.
  So what do we do? We have a juvenile crime bill that is being held up 
in committee. Let me tell you precisely why it is being held up, the 
way I see it. The Senator from California indicates she sees it a 
different way. Let me tell you the way I see it.
  We had this strong--too strong, in my opinion--gun show amendment. It 
did not have a majority of support in the Senate. The Senate tied 50/
50. The Vice President came in here and broke the tie. Only 50 Members 
of this 100-Member body voted for that amendment. They voted for other 
amendments that would be less strong and less damaging to the gun show 
activities but at the same time tightening up the gun show situation. 
It went to the House of Representatives, a coequal body. For a bill to 
become law, it has to pass the Senate and the House. The House, on a 
bipartisan basis--John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan, and a number of 
other Democrats--voted against it, killed the Lautenberg amendment by a 
substantial vote.
  Now, Members of this body are saying the conference committee is 
supposed to work out a bill and has to put in an amendment that was 
rejected in the House and had a tie vote in the Senate. You don't 
normally do that. Why would we think the votes in those two Houses 
would justify that? Surely not. That is not logical. So they are 
saying, if you don't agree to put in this amendment that was rejected 
already in the House, we are going to block the bill and keep trying to 
offer amendments here every day to see if we can't embarrass you 
Republicans so we can have an election issue in November.
  That is what it is all about. But it is frustrating our ability to do 
our work because we have a military construction bill on the floor. 
That is what we need to deal with, taking care of that, not repeating 
the same old arguments we have had with gun laws.
  Let me tell you what I think ought to be done. In the juvenile crime 
bill, we have, I believe, $80 million for a project CUFF, Criminal Use 
of Firearms by Felons--just a title we came up with--that would provide 
special prosecutors in every U.S. attorney's office in America. It 
would, in effect, step up dramatically the Federal enforcement of 
criminal laws.
  By the way, when I became a Member of this Senate 3 years ago, I 
started looking at the U.S. attorneys' statistics. I knew how to use 
them. I reviewed them every year when I was a U.S. attorney. I pulled 
out the book. I was hearing from friends and people in the Department 
of Justice that this Department had allowed criminal prosecution to 
decline markedly. I looked at the numbers to see if it were true. I was 
shocked to find that, under the Clinton-Gore administration, 
prosecutions of criminal gun cases dropped from 7,000 to around 3,500--
nearly a 40-percent decline in the prosecutions of gun cases.
  I was shocked because every day the President of the United States 
and Vice President Gore were out there saying: All you Senators and 
Congressmen who won't pass more and more restrictions on innocent law-
abiding citizens who want to possess guns are for crime, death, 
slaughter, and shootings. You guys are no good. You are not worthy of 
respect. You are just trash. You care about crime. You defend crime and 
you don't believe in children.
  Those are the kinds of things they were saying. At the same time, 
they had the power and authority to prosecute criminals who were 
actually using guns in criminal activities, and the prosecutions had 
dropped 40 percent. A stunning thing. I didn't ignore it.
  Nearly 3 years ago--within a year of my being in this office--I 
challenged the Attorney General herself, Janet Reno, about these 
numbers. She brushed off the debate. A deputy attorney general came 
before the committee and had private meetings when he was coming around 
to meet Senators. In his testimony, I asked him and demanded that they 
do better with the prosecutions of gun cases. The chief of the criminal 
division came by, as did two criminal division chiefs. I raised it with 
them. I had charts. I wrote an op-ed in 1998, or so, on this very 
subject, expressing my shock at this amazing decline in prosecutions. 
The reason was that was a big deal for us. Under President George Bush, 
we were told to do something about these gun cases. We were Federal 
prosecutors appointed by the President of the United States. All 94 
U.S. attorneys were appointed by the President of the United States as 
part of the executive branch.
  We had a project called Project Triggerlock. We had task forces with 
the sheriffs and the chiefs of police in our area. We met and discussed 
how to use these tough Federal laws for speedy trial actions with 
mandatory minimum sentences and no parole to crack down on violent 
criminals.
  I put together a newsletter. I called it Project Triggerlock News. I 
sent it to all of the chiefs of police and to all of the sheriffs in my 
district. I sent it to the detectives and law enforcement officers who 
I knew were working on these kinds of cases. We showed example after 
example of criminals who were carrying firearms, and whom we tried in 
Federal court with joint investigations and prosecutions, and they 
served a long period of time in jail and were removed from the 
community.
  I couldn't believe an administration that came into office talking 
about guns had abandoned this program. In fact, they had not totally 
abandoned it. Several years ago, the United States attorney in 
Richmond, VA, and the chief assistant who had been involved in these 
cases over the years got together with the chief of police in Richmond 
and determined to prosecute aggressively all Federal gun violations of 
existing law in Richmond, VA. They called their project Project Exile. 
They called it Project Exile because when they convicted them they got 
5 or 10 years without parole. They didn't go to the halfway house in 
Richmond. They were sent off to a Federal prison maybe hundreds of 
miles away. They were gone, out of Richmond, away for long periods of 
time without parole. They did this consistently and aggressively.
  President Clinton's own U.S. attorney, his own appointee, testified 
that they had achieved a 40-percent reduction in murder rate--a 40-
percent reduction. They did one thing that we didn't do. They put ads 
out about it. They put up posters: Carry a gun, mandatory Federal jail 
time. They were out to convince people that they better obey the law, 
and they had better not be misusing guns. They were successful at it. 
They reduced murder rates 40 percent.
  I asked Attorney General Reno if she was going to do something about 
that. Well, we are just going to let each district do what they want 
to, she said.
  Curiously, I had a hearing set. It was really remarkable to me. We 
had a hearing on this matter. It was set for Monday morning. The 
administration did not want us to have this hearing. They kept wanting 
to put it off. I had the U.S. attorney from Richmond, the chief of 
police, and some experienced prosecutors testify about this kind of 
thing. I was amazed to turn on my radio on Saturday. What do you think 
the President's radio address to the Nation was on? It was on Project 
Triggerlock, and Project Exile. He had the U.S. attorney from Richmond 
and the chief of police from Richmond in the White House with him while 
he was doing the address. And he bragged on it, and said how good it 
was.

[[Page 8074]]

  About 6 weeks later, the Attorney General came up. I had heard that 
they had not taken any action on it. They appointed some commission to 
talk about it, and no directives had gone out. I asked her about it. I 
remember asking her how the President sent her directives. Did he send 
them to her by writing or did she have to turn on the radio and listen 
to him? Because his exact words were, ``I am directing the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of Treasury to crack down on these kinds of 
criminals.''
  To my knowledge, they still have not made the kind of progress that 
they should.
  Do you see the hypocrisy here?
  We have a plan in Richmond, VA, that I know as an experienced Federal 
prosecutor will save hundreds of lives and thousands of lives.
  In the time this administration has been in office, I believe I can 
say with confidence that thousands of people are dead today because 
Project Triggerlock was abandoned and this administration allowed crime 
prosecutions to plummet. That is a tragedy, and it is wrong.
  But, at the same time, when they come up to me, and they want to 
register handguns, or they want to close down gun shows, and if I don't 
vote for that, then I don't care about children, I don't care about 
people getting shot and killed in America. It burns me up. I do not 
like that. And why the media has not understood this fully is beyond my 
comprehension.
  They just continue to suggest that the only thing that counts in this 
country is whether or not you vote for further and further restrictions 
that implicate and sometimes really go beyond implicating but, in fact, 
violate the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Somebody will say, 
well, they don't like that. Well, that is our Constitution. Put it up 
in an amendment, big boy, if you want to change it. Let's see them 
bring forward an amendment to eliminate the second amendment. There is 
no consensus for that in this country. It is part of the heritage of 
this country that people maintain firearms.
  We didn't have these kinds of murder rates in the 1930s, the 1940s, 
and the 1950s when a higher percentage of Americans had guns than they 
have today. I don't know of anybody where I grew up who didn't have a 
firearm.
  I say to you first and foremost, how do you reduce crime and murder 
and make our streets safer? Implement President Clinton's own Project 
Exile. Mr. President, direct that it be done. See that the Attorney 
General carries it out. Pass our juvenile crime bill which provides you 
even more money than you really need to carry out that project. I say 
you don't need any more money because we didn't need it when I was U.S. 
attorney. Why can't you prosecute these gun cases? They are not hard to 
prosecute. Really most of them are quite simple, and 80 or 90 percent 
plead guilty. It is a good way to crack down on violence in America.
  There is one more thing that I want to mention. We implemented the 
National Crime Information Center--the NCIC--background check. That is 
a computer-operated system. So if you go down to a gun store and 
attempt to buy a firearm, they can plug in your Social Security number, 
date of birth, whatever, and they can run an NCIC check on your 
criminal history to see if you are a convicted felon. Most of you may 
not know it, but if you are a convicted felon, you can't possess a 
firearm, period. You can't possess a shotgun, a rifle, or a pistol. Any 
convicted felon in America, even if it is a fraud case with no violence 
in it, cannot possess a firearm. We used to prosecute a lot of those 
cases of a ``felon in possession.'' That is what we called them.
  We found that in 13 months of this new NCIC system, 89,000 
individuals were rejected. They could not buy a firearm because they 
had some problem. Many of them were felons.
  I submit to you they have already filled out a form. I used to 
remember the number. I think it was 4477. On that form they filled out 
they had to swear under oath they were not a convicted felon. That is a 
crime. That is a false statement. Also, many of these people turned out 
to be fugitives from other criminal activities.
  The BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms--I have great 
friends in BATF, and they do a good job--is not following up on these 
cases. They have prosecuted less than 1 percent of these 89,000 cases. 
Probably about two-tenths of 1 percent were actually prosecuted.
  There are some serious criminals in that group. When those cases come 
in and are kicked out and people are rejected because of violence, they 
ought to be investigated, and they ought to be prosecuted.
  I think that would be a great way to identify criminals who are out 
to get guns and are up to no good and are out on the street. There are 
straw men who use false identities to buy guns. There are illegal 
sellers of guns. There are gun thieves who sell guns and pass them 
around the neighborhoods. Those kinds of people can be prosecuted, too.
  If you do that, I have no doubt that crime will be reduced. There 
will be less murders in this country and we could save lives by the 
thousands. That is what we need to do. That is where our focus needs to 
be.
  I hope those who came to the moms' march will cause us to focus on 
the real causes of crime and how to really stop it. If we do, we can 
make this country safer, we can save lives, and we can do what we are 
paid to do.
  We need to quit playing politics. We need to get that juvenile crime 
bill up, voted on, and we need some compromise and support from the 
Members of the other side.
  Once we do that, we will begin to save lives in America.

                          ____________________