[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 22 (Thursday, February 26, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1612-S1671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to consideration of S. 1805, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1805) to prohibit civil liability actions from 
     being brought or continuing against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition 
     for damages resulting from the misuse of their product by 
     others.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now on S. 1805. Last night, Senator 
Reed and I worked into the evening with our colleagues and leadership 
on both sides to craft a unanimous consent that now governs us through 
late next Tuesday. It establishes a variety of amendments that will be 
voted on over the course of today. Some will be offered and set aside 
to be voted on on Tuesday. On Tuesday, other key amendments will be 
voted on and then final passage.
  I am sure there are some Members on both sides who might have 
amendments that were not listed to be considered for votes today and/or 
Tuesday. What I would ask them to do is come to the Chamber and talk to 
Senator Reed and myself to see if we might work those out certainly. We 
are happy to take a look at them. There may be an opportunity late 
Tuesday and possibly Friday to offer additional amendments. The 
unanimous consent request does not preclude any Member from doing that.
  I said very early on yesterday that we wanted an open, robust debate 
on this issue. Clearly, 75 Members of this Senate, in a very bipartisan 
way, said let's get on with it, with the cloture vote yesterday. We 
spent the day then fashioning an agreement that brings us to where we 
are this morning. I believe it is possible Senator Daschle will be in 
the Chamber in a few moments to offer a perfecting amendment, then 
Senator Boxer will have an amendment on gunlocks.

  I believe the agreement that is in front of us gives us something 
that oftentimes is very hard to achieve in the Senate, and that is a 
procedure and a final passage locked into an agreement. While Senator 
Reed and I worked late into the evening, as I mentioned, to allow that 
to happen, and all sides gave a little in it, what I think we have in 
front of us is just that, an agreement that allows a variety of 
Senators, who have been prominent in this debate on both sides of the 
issue, to offer their amendments and to have a vote.
  The timelines are very limited. We are not going to filibuster in any 
of this. It is clear that when there are
20-, 30- and 60-minute time limits to be shared equally, it does shape 
and limit the debate in a way that many of us would like to see.
  Certainly on Tuesday, key votes are going to be the McCain-Reed gun 
show loophole and Senator Feinstein's gun ban, or assault weapon ban as 
it is argued. Those clearly will be the dominant issues on one side. 
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, conceal/carry will be another one 
voted on on that day, and possibly debate. I will debate that along 
with Senator Campbell today. It is on the list to accomplish today. 
Possibly we will also have another amendment to be voted on on Tuesday 
which deals with Washington, DC, and some of the gun laws that free and 
law-abiding citizens have to cope with in this city.
  That is the character of what we have been able to put together. 
Senator Reed, the manager on the other side, is now in the Chamber. I 
yield the floor for any comments he would wish to make. Timewise, we 
hope Senator Daschle can make it to the Chamber to offer his amendment, 
but if he cannot, at this moment I see no reason Senator Boxer could 
not proceed with her amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has indicated we 
worked late last evening to craft a unanimous consent that will allow 
several important amendments to be debated today, and continuing on 
through Tuesday. It represents a recognition that there are serious 
issues to discuss. Now we are at the stage of not only discussing those 
issues but also taking amendments up and voting on them. I know Senator 
Daschle will be here in a moment.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield to the Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. We have explained to the majority that we would, in fact, 
ask consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to offer her amendment. 
Senator Daschle is occupied at the present time. If necessary, I could 
offer it on his behalf, but I think it would be better if he offered it 
himself. So we ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to 
go forward with her amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 2620

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:


[[Page S1613]]


       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2620.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
 require the provision of a child safety device in connection with the 
transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child safety 
                                devices)

       On page 11, after line 19, add the following:

     SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT OF CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY DEVICES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Child 
     Safety Device Act of 2004''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(36) The term `locking device' means a device or locking 
     mechanism that is approved by a licensed firearms 
     manufacturer for use on the handgun with which the device or 
     locking mechanism is sold, delivered, or transferred and 
     that--
       ``(A) if installed on a firearm and secured by means of a 
     key or a mechanically, electronically, or electromechanically 
     operated combination lock, is designed to prevent the firearm 
     from being discharged without first deactivating or removing 
     the device by means of a key or mechanically, electronically, 
     or electromechanically operated combination lock;
       ``(B) if incorporated into the design of a firearm, is 
     designed to prevent discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm; or
       ``(C) is a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other 
     device that is designed to store a firearm and that is 
     designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a 
     combination, or other similar means.''.
       (c) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) In general.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(z) Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or 
     transfer any handgun to any person other than a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, unless 
     the transferee is provided with a locking device for that 
     handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, 
     the United States, a department or agency of the United 
     States, a State, or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, of a firearm;
       ``(B) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     of a firearm for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(C) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under State law of a firearm 
     for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty).''.
       (2) Effective date.--Section 922(z) of title 18, United 
     States Code, as added by this subsection, shall take effect 
     on the date which is 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensee, the Attorney General shall, after 
     notice and opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter;
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty of not more 
     than $15,000; or
       ``(iii) impose the penalties described in clauses (i) and 
     (ii).
       ``(B) Review.--An action by the Attorney General under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 
     923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Attorney 
     General.''.
       (e) Amendment to Consumer Product Safety Act.--The Consumer 
     Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 39. CHILD HANDGUN SAFETY DEVICES.

       ``(a) Establishment of Standard.--
       ``(1) Rulemaking required.--
       ``(A) Initiation of rulemaking.--Notwithstanding section 
     3(a)(1)(E), the Commission shall initiate a rulemaking 
     proceeding under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Child Safety Device Act of 2004 to establish a consumer 
     product safety standard for locking devices. The Commission 
     may extend this 90-day period for good cause.
       ``(B) Final rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Commission shall promulgate a final consumer product 
     safety standard under this paragraph not later than 12 months 
     after the date on which the Commission initiated the 
     rulemaking proceeding under subparagraph (A). The Commission 
     may extend this 12-month period for good cause.
       ``(C) Effective date.--The consumer product safety standard 
     promulgated under this paragraph shall take effect on the 
     date which is 6 months after the date on which the final 
     standard is promulgated.
       ``(D) Standard requirements.--The standard promulgated 
     under this paragraph shall require locking devices that--
       ``(i) are sufficiently difficult for children to de-
     activate or remove; and
       ``(ii) prevent the discharge of the handgun unless the 
     locking device has been de-activated or removed.
       ``(2) Inapplicable provisions.--
       ``(A) Provisions of this act.--Sections 7, 9, and 30(d) 
     shall not apply to the rulemaking proceeding described under 
     paragraph (1). Section 11 shall not apply to any consumer 
     product safety standard promulgated under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Chapter 5 of title 5.--Chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, except for section 553 of that title, shall not 
     apply to this section.
       ``(C) Chapter 6 of title 5.--Chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code, shall not apply to this section.
       ``(b) Enforcement.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2)(A), 
     the consumer product safety standard promulgated by the 
     Commission pursuant to subsection (a) shall be enforced under 
     this Act as if it were a consumer product safety standard 
     described under section 7(a).
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Child.--The term `child' means an individual who has 
     not attained the age of 13 years.
       ``(2) Locking device.--The term `locking device' has the 
     meaning given that term in clauses (i) and (iii) of section 
     921(a)(36) of title 18, United States Code.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1 of the Consumer 
     Product Safety Act is amended by adding at the end of the 
     table of contents the following:

``Sec. 39. Child handgun safety devices.''.

       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Consumer Product Safety Commission $2,000,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 2005 through 2007 to carry out the 
     provisions of section 39 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 
     as added by subsection (e).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Any amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain available until 
     expended.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle who worked late into the night to put forward a list of 
amendments this body would consider. I am very proud my amendment made 
the list. It is an amendment this Senate has supported before. It is an 
amendment that will protect our children from violence, and what could 
be more important to us as we gather here every day than to protect our 
children?
  My measure would do two things. First, it would require that every 
handgun sold in this country come with a child safety device. The 
amendment is very broad on what that could be, so it really isn't a 
micromanaging type of amendment. This device could be a lock using a 
key or a combination, a device that locks electronically, it could be a 
lockbox, or technology that is built into the gun itself. Many of the 
folks working on this type of technology are very enthusiastic about 
it.
  There is no question in my mind, there is no question in the minds of 
the police in my State who just had a press conference on this issue, 
if we were to agree to this and it were to become the law of the land, 
the number of children involved in accidental shootings would go way 
down. So that is the first thing we do. We require some type of a lock 
when you buy a handgun.
  Second, my amendment would make sure child safety devices are 
effective and that they are not shoddy or of poor quality. One of the 
worst things we could do is pass a bill that requires these devices and 
then the device doesn't work. That would be a terrible thing for our 
families. So the bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
to establish standards for the design of these locks and these boxes 
and a standard for their performance. We want to make sure, when 
parents use a child safety device, that they are confident it will work 
as intended.
  In 1999 the Senate passed an amendment by a vote of 78 to 20 to 
require that all handguns in this country be sold with a child safety 
device. The majority of our colleagues very strongly

[[Page S1614]]

supported this in quite a bipartisan way. I believe we should again 
agree that we need to protect our children from accidental gun 
shootings.
  My home State of California recently enacted an excellent child 
safety device bill. It requires that all licensed dealers and 
manufacturers equip the guns they sell with State-certified child 
safety devices. This is a very important bill for my State and I am 
proud of my State for doing it. But it is clear that the States along 
California's border do not have this requirement. Not one of those 
States has child safety device laws. That means even if California--and 
we do--has a good law, anyone can purchase a gun without a safety lock 
from a border State and return to California with it. Therefore, the 
progress we hope to make in California will be set back because we 
don't have a uniform and standard law.
  The other important feature of our bill that impacts Californians is 
that while there is a State-certified standard for gunlocks in my 
State, those standards have not been set by the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, and everyone agrees that the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission is the premier organization in the country that sets the 
gold standard. Again, I think it is very important that we have this 
type of standard because, as many colleagues point out, the 
manufacturers of these devices deserve some guidance. California may 
have one set of standards, we could have another set of standards in 
New York, or in the Midwest, and we are going to have a potpourri of 
standards floating around rather than what I call the gold standard of 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

  The other important point for my people of California--again, they 
have the safety lock law--is that the amendment allows for a Federal 
cause of action for violations of this child safety requirement. So if 
in fact there is a serious problem with a child safety lock, and the 
State for some reason doesn't get its act together, doesn't put the 
case together, and so on, there will be a Federal cause of action. It 
is kind of a double protection for the children.
  I would like to talk about the need for this amendment for a moment. 
I have a chart that shows the statistics. In the United States of 
America, in our great country, the greatest country in the world, a 
child or a youth is killed by an accidental shooting every 48 hours--
every 48 hours. Where do these statistics come from? The FBI. For every 
child killed by a gun, four are wounded. Where does that come from? The 
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, December--I am assuming 
that is 2000--volume 55, No. 12.
  What does this mean, when you multiply it out? Thousands of children 
are injured or killed by guns every year in this country. According to 
the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is 
nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other 
industrialized countries combined.
  Let me repeat that. The rate of firearm deaths of children under the 
age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other 
industrialized nations combined.
  Colleagues stand up and say: Guns don't kill people; people kill 
people. If you want to, say: Guns don't kill children; children kill 
children. Yes, children kill children because they pick up a gun and 
they fire it at a friend. They fire it at a brother. They don't 
understand the consequences of this. More than 22 million children live 
in homes with guns. I want you to envision this--22 million children 
live in homes with guns. More than 3.3 million of those children live 
in homes where the guns are always or sometimes kept loaded and 
unlocked.
  Too many children are playing with real guns found in their parents' 
bedroom or a friend's home, and too many children are killed in this 
country because they are doing what children do: They are exploring; 
they are being curious. I don't know how many times I have heard 
stories with tearful parents saying: I kept that gun away from my 
child. It was far away from my child. It was in the highest, darkest 
corner of the deepest, tallest closet in my house. I never thought my 
baby could climb up and find that gun.
  Well, they do. They do. Children are smart. They are tenacious. They 
are energetic. One study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 
80 percent of first and second graders knew where their parents kept 
that gun. Seventy-five to eighty percent of first and second graders 
knew where their parents kept that gun.
  In this country, we do so much to protect our children. We worry 
about them, as we should; it is our responsibility. We make sure that 
in a car they are put in a child seat facing in the right direction so 
they don't have a tendency to get hurt in an accident. We have airbags 
to protect them. We protect them from shoddy toys, such as Play-Doh 
that they could eat and could hurt them. We set standards. We set 
standards for Teddy bears, for toys. We care about our children.
  I wrote the afterschool law we have here with Senator Ensign. We love 
our children, every one of us--our own children, our children's 
children. We are here to protect the children. That is part of our job.
  So let me reiterate, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 
75 percent to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the 
parents kept that gun. So even if that gun is in a closet, at the top 
of a closet, under towels or blankets, kids are tenacious and they find 
the guns. But if they found a lockbox and they couldn't open it, they 
would be protected. If they grab that gun and it had a child safety 
device on it and they tried to shoot, it wouldn't go off. If the gun 
had technology built in it so that only when the parents held it it 
would fire, they would be protected.

  It seems to me in this day and age when we are losing a child or a 
youth to an accidental shooting every 48 hours, we ought to be 
absolutely united in doing something about it.
  I want to show you the face of a beautiful young man, Kenzo, a 
Californian, 15 years old, with his mom. His friend, Michael, while 
playing with a gun, shot Kenzo Bix, and he is gone forever. If that gun 
had had a child safety device on it, it wouldn't have happened.
  I will give you some other stories.
  Just this January in Indio, CA, a 17-year-old boy named Jason Weed 
died after his 14-year-old brother accidentally shot him in the head. 
The other boy was showing him the gun in the home when it accidentally 
went off, lodging a bullet in the small boy's head. If that gun had had 
a safety device, and if the amendment we already passed here--the Kohl-
Hatch-Boxer amendment that passed here the last time--had been adopted 
in the other body, if it had been signed into law, Kenzo would be 
alive; and this child I just talked about, Jason Weed, would be alive.
  Then there is a story from Florida. There are so many stories, and we 
just picked a few.
  A 3-year-old, Colton Hinke, and his 2-year old sister Kaile were 
playing in her parents' bedroom when Colton found an unlocked, loaded 
handgun in the drawer. A neighbor heard the shot and rushed to the 
scene and found Kaile on her back, her face pale, her lips blue, and a 
small hole in her chest. She was in shock, and she was rushed to the 
hospital, but it was too late.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was told I had 30 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe under the order 30 
minutes were equally divided. The Senator's 15 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask for one additional minute from each side so I 
can conclude?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so very much.
  There is another incident where a 1-year-old girl was critically 
injured by her 3-year-old brother. This little girl survived.
  I could go on, but I don't have the time at this point.
  Let's pass this measure. I know Senators DeWine and Kohl have an 
amendment to change my bill in a very small way. I don't have a problem 
with that. I will be supporting that. I just know the overriding 
concern of mine, and I really do think most people in this body who 
voted for this the last time, is let us protect our kids. Let us do it 
in a smart way. It is the right thing to do for the families of 
America.

[[Page S1615]]

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have someone who will speak in opposition 
to the Boxer amendment. There is a second-degree amendment on its way. 
It is not yet ready. It is coming; sometimes I don't know from where. I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside. In 
keeping with the unanimous consent agreement that was entered last 
night, at some subsequent time there will be the opportunity to offer 
the amendment Senators Kohl and DeWine are going to offer as a second-
degree amendment to Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we expect a second-degree amendment to be 
here to modify and perfect the Boxer amendment.
  I want to speak about the Boxer amendment because I in no way 
discredit--I guess the best way to say it--fail to recognize the same 
kind of concerns Senator Boxer has expressed. She is correct. The 
Senate has expressed its will on this issue in the past. But let me 
bring you up to date about what the gun industry is doing now. Clearly, 
the gun industry is responding very quickly to new technologies and 
what is available to make sure firearms are safe, if you will, from the 
curiosity of a child and a child who might misuse it. Tragically 
enough, when children find a firearm, there is great curiosity.
  There are organizations out there that have worked awfully hard to 
educate firearms owners and parents about the reality of a gun placed 
in a home in an unsafe environment, or not locked behind a door, or in 
a situation where a child can't gain access to it. That is simply 
critical in the responsible ownership and handling of a gun.
  Ninety percent of new guns in the United States are already sold with 
a safe storage device. The Senator from California is right, the 
devices vary, but so do guns and so do the conformation and structure 
of guns. It will be very difficult to suggest that one size fits all.
  The industry, with its engineers and its technology and its 
computers, is devising trigger locks and safety devices that fit the 
particular firearm. This is done through a voluntary program with the 
firearms industry. Tremendous numbers of gunshops today--responsible, 
federally registered gunshops--are providing free of charge a trigger 
lock or a safety device as the weapon is sold. Many States and locales, 
such as Texas, have distributed safety devices free of charge, either 
in cooperation with the firearms industry or on their own initiative.
  Trigger locks are mechanical devices. Like all mechanical devices 
they can fail if they are not well designed, and if their owners are 
not instructed on how to use them properly. The Consumer Product Safety 
Commission recently tested 32 types of gunlocks and found 30 could be 
opened without a key. That is why, clearly, uniformity is necessary. 
The Senator spoke to that uniformity. But quality gun manufacturers in 
this country are already providing safety devices which are critical 
and necessary.
  What I am trying to suggest is these devices are not a panacea that 
reduces all accidents. Clearly, if we can get most handguns in America 
in safe and responsible hands and in homes with safety devices or 
locked in a safe or locked in a device where a child cannot gain 
access, that is going to reduce the kinds of tragic accidents that 
occur when a small child in a curious way finds the gun that may not 
have been placed in a safe place by a parent.
  Gunlocks are designed to address what I believe is a narrow range of 
threats. At the same time, when a child's life is lost, how tragic it 
is, and all of us understand that. Of course, then it makes tremendous 
news and the world wonders why this is happening. The reason it happens 
is because in many instances there was a parent who was less than 
responsible, who really didn't lock that gun up.
  At the same time, let's also recognize the phenomenal complication 
involved. Sometimes guns are placed in locations in homes for security 
and for safety, and easy access is critically important if that gun is 
to be used for the purpose of personal and property safety depending on 
the area in which a family lives or an individual lives.
  At the same time, that does not deny the responsibility that is 
important. Gunlocks address that narrow range of threats. Clearly, they 
will deter the casual curiosity of a small child far more readily than 
it will deter what I say is the committed thief or the person bent on 
murder and mayhem. Some suggest a gunlock means a thief in the house 
will not steal the gun. Wrong. That simply is not the case. It simply 
means the thief will take the gun, take it out, knock the gunlock off, 
have it cut off, take it away so they can have access to a stolen 
firearm. That is the reality of thieves stealing guns.
  This narrow range we are talking about and that we want to make sure 
stays is to deter that casual curiosity of the small child. The 
firearms industry is already trying to develop standards to improve 
these devices. The industry has sought the creation of an industry 
standard for gun safety locks through the American National Standards 
Institute. The ANSI review process is well underway. In other words, 
because the gun industry is a responsible industry, they are well out 
in front of us already on legislation. No, there aren't absolute 
mandatory requirements across the Nation. But recognizing the reality 
and the tragedy that occurs on occasion, we want to make sure, and the 
industry certainly wants to make sure, that they are well out in front 
of it.
  In a few moments we will have a second-degree perfecting amendment to 
deal with this issue. I will reserve the remainder of my time until 
that amendment is here.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Under the terms of the order, Senator Kohl has 15 minutes 
when he offers his second-degree amendment. We have been advised he 
will not use that entire amount of time, so at this time I ask consent 
that Senator Boxer be allowed to use 4 minutes of the time under the 
control of Senators Kohl and DeWine. 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I take this time to respond to the point made that the 
gun manufacturers are taking care of the child safety locks and that we 
do not need to have this law.
  The experts in this whole field have turned out to be the National 
SAFE KIDS Campaign. This is a bipartisan organization that has one 
mission only and that is to protect our children. When they saw these 
statistics that are still occurring today, they said enough is enough. 
A child or youth is killed by a firearm every 3 hours. This has not 
changed.
  In 1997, the gun manufacturers said they would work on this 
themselves, that they did not need a law. Research assessing the 
compliance with this agreement found most manufacturers were not 
providing locks and those that did offered low-quality devices where 
the locks just fell off and did not work.
  The SAFE KIDS Campaign is urging us to include a provision to issue 
safe standards for gunlocks. This is very important.
  My colleague says this is taken care of. It is not taken care of. We 
still have children dying. We still have our constituents calling with 
the tragic cases. I read some of the cases, but not all of them, case 
after case, kids finding out where there is a gun, grabbing it and 
trying to act out a fantasy, not understanding this is a lethal weapon 
that can kill or maim a brother, a neighbor, a friend.
  We did not tell the makers of aspirin, we know you are good 
manufacturers. They are good manufacturers. We do not tell them, please 
make a childproof cap. They have to make a childproof cap. There are 
good manufacturers out there. I applaud them. But if you look at our 
bill and the way it works, we are not mandating a particular one-size-
fits-all solution. We are very careful to

[[Page S1616]]

say we know there are many different handguns--this only applies to 
handguns; in my State we have one that applies to rifles and long guns, 
but this is just a handgun--we say you can have in your array of 
products a box that locks. You can have the technology built in the 
gun. You can have a combination lock.
  I appreciate my friend does not like to put regulations on gun 
manufacturers and dealers. I understand that. And I understand he 
believes they are the best of the best of the best. But the problem is, 
our kids are dying in the home. They are smart. They find out where the 
guns are. I cannot understand why this is not something we would all 
support. The last time it came to the Senate, we had a huge vote. I am 
hoping we will have a similar vote.
  Look to the people. We are in charge of a lot of issues. The National 
SAFE KIDS Campaign is about one issue, the safety of kids. They are 
bipartisan. They are begging us to make this the law of the land. The 
Senate did it once before. The Senate should do it again.
  Children living in the South have an unintentional shooting death 
rate that is 7 times that of children living in the Northeast. That is 
a fact the National SAFE KIDS Campaign has shown. All we need to do is 
see the rate our kids are dying and compare it to 25 other countries to 
see our kids are at a great disadvantage. We can do something today. I 
hope we will.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Boxer 
amendment be set aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2621

  Mr. DASCHLE. And then I ask consent that I be recognized to offer an 
amendment, and I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2621.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To clarify the definition of qualified civil liability 
                    action, and for other purposes)

       On page 7, line 19, strike ``including'' and all that 
     follows through page 8, line 19, and insert ``including, but 
     not limited to--

       ``(I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller 
     knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make 
     appropriate entry in, any record which such person is 
     required to keep pursuant to State or Federal law, or aided, 
     abetted or conspired with any person in making any false or 
     fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact 
     material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition 
     of a qualified product; or
       ``(II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, 
     abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or 
     otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing or having 
     reasonable cause to believe that the actual buyer of the 
     qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving 
     a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of 
     section 922 of title 18, United States Code;''.

       On page 9, lines 1 and 2, strike ``or in a manner that is 
     reasonably foreseeable'' and insert ``, or when used in a 
     manner that is reasonably foreseeable, except that such 
     reasonably foreseeable use shall not include any criminal or 
     unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory 
     offenses.''.
       On page 9, strike lines 12 through 21, and insert the 
     following:
       (C) Rule of construction.--The exceptions enumerated under 
     clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A) are intended to 
     be construed to not be in conflict, and no provision of this 
     Act shall be construed to create a Federal private cause of 
     action or remedy.
       On page 10, strike lines 13 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       (C) a person engaged in the business of selling ammunition 
     (as defined under section 921(a)(17)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code) in interstate or foreign commerce at the 
     wholesale or retail level, who is in compliance with all 
     applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
       On page 11, line 7, strike the semicolon and insert ``; 
     and''.

       On page 11, strike lines 8 through 15, and insert the 
     following:
       (B) 2 or more members of which are manufacturers or sellers 
     of a qualified product, and that is involved in promoting the 
     business interests of its members, including organizing, 
     advising, or representing its members with respect to their 
     business, legislative, or legal activities in relation to the 
     manufacture, importation, or sale of a qualified product.
       On page 11, strike lines 16 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (9) Unlawful misuse.--The term ``unlawful misuse'' means 
     conduct that violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation as 
     it relates to the use of a qualified product.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I acknowledge, again, as I did yesterday, the 
partnership that I have had especially with Senator Craig, Senator 
Baucus, and others in the Senate. I express my gratitude to Senator 
Craig and my appreciation for his efforts at accommodating many of the 
concerns we have had as we address this bill.
  I intend to support this bill, in part because of the acknowledgement 
of the need to address some of these concerns, as we do with this 
amendment.
  The amendment we are offering right now strikes a balance between the 
need for the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers 
and dealers. That balance is critical. We recognize the vast majority 
of gun owners and manufacturers and sellers are honest and decent 
people who obey the law and ought to be recognized for their honesty 
and the contributions they make to our economy.
  The firearm industry is an important source of jobs, not only in 
those States where those jobs actually are dedicated to the manufacture 
of firearms but to all other States where not only the manufacture but 
the sale and distribution of those products are so much a part of our 
economic base.
  But we should not invalidate the legitimate claims from being heard 
in court when those claims have a basis in fact--cases involving kids, 
cases involving defective products, cases involving gun dealers or 
manufacturers who broke the law.
  So our concern was, as originally drafted, the legislation adversely 
impacted many of these cases. That is why I went to Senator Craig and 
Senator Baucus and others and expressed the hope that we could address 
some of these issues and concerns in a way that would accommodate a 
solution. And that is what I believe this amendment does.
  We have worked in a bipartisan manner. I would hope this legislation 
could certainly be supported in a bipartisan manner. It goes a long way 
to balancing what are the rights of victims as well as the needs of the 
gun industry.
  Our amendment makes several key changes in the legislation that was 
originally offered. It ensures the cases in which Federal or State laws 
have been broken can move forward. There was some lack of clarity with 
regard to that particular need. It restores the basic product liability 
standards so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, 
the victim's loved ones can still hold accountable those responsible. 
It includes a provision to remove immunity from dealers who sell to 
straw purchasers; that is, purchasers who have no interest in buying 
the gun for themselves but passing on the gun, selling the gun to 
somebody who should not have it. Finally, it ensures that only trade 
associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling 
firearms would be covered.
  I think all of these changes--and many more; there are eight specific 
changes--do a great deal to enhance the bill, to make it a better, 
stronger bill and, at the same time, address the concerns that many of 
us have had. It strives to preserve the long-term vitality of an 
important American industry, one that is very important to people in 
the West and Midwest, in particular, but all over the country. It 
protects the rights and safety of the American public.
  So I am very appreciative of the effort that has gone into this 
amendment. This took a lot of time, a lot of negotiation. Obviously, 
the subtleties in some of the language has more than a subtle impact 
ultimately on how legislation is interpreted and how laws are 
ultimately enforced. We think this amendment takes us a long way in 
addressing the needs of both our manufacturers as well as those who are 
concerned for safety on the streets and in our neighborhoods today.
  Madam President, I might just take a moment, if I could, prior to 
relinquishing the floor, to talk about another matter. I appreciate the 
accommodation of my colleagues in so doing.

[[Page S1617]]

      America's Unfulfilled Treaty Obligations to Native Americans

  Madam President, all week long, tribal leaders from Indian nations 
throughout America have been in Washington for the winter conference of 
the National Congress of American Indians.
  They include leaders from the Great Sioux Nation of South Dakota, and 
many others. Democratic Senators just met with many of these leaders; 
and some are in the gallery now, listening to these words. I am honored 
by their presence.
  South Dakotans are very proud of our State's tribal heritage. Some of 
the greatest leaders South Dakota has ever produced were Native 
Americans. They include Crazy Horse, the legendary warrior-leader; a 
man of extraordinary nobility, the great Lakota spiritual leader, 
Sitting Bull.
  Sitting Bull helped lead his people in defense of their lands. When 
it became clear that defeat was inevitable, he helped lead his people's 
efforts to secure a fair and just peace.
  In negotiating the treaty under which the Lakota ceded their lands, 
Sitting Bull asked representatives of this Government: ``Let us put our 
minds together and see what life we can make for our children.''
  More than a century later, the tribal leaders who have come to 
Washington this week are asking us to do the same thing: ``Let us put 
our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.''
  Last July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report that 
has already become a landmark. It is entitled ``A Quiet Crisis.'' It 
documents the harsh realities of life in Indian country today. I ask 
unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DASCHLE. We cannot undo the damage caused by more than a century 
of neglect and broken promises in 1 year or even one decade. But we 
must make honoring our trust obligations under those treaties we signed 
a real priority now. And we must take steps this year to address two of 
the most urgent obligations of Native Americans.
  The first of these obligations is the need to find a just and fair 
settlement of the Indian trust dispute. Partly because so many American 
Indians live on remote reservations, not many Americans understand what 
the Indian trust fund dispute is about. It stretches back to the 1880s, 
when the U.S. Government broke up large tracts of Indian land into 
small parcels, which it then allotted to individual Indians and tribes.
  The Government, acting as a ``trustee,'' took control of the Indian 
lands and established individual accounts for the land owners. The 
Government was supposed to manage the lands for account holders. It 
would negotiate sales or leases of land, and any revenues generated 
from oil drilling, mining, grazing, timber harvesting--or any other use 
of the land--was to be distributed to the account holders and their 
heirs. But that is not what happened.
  The Indian trust fund has been so badly mismanaged for so long by 
administrations of both political parties that today no one knows how 
much money the trust fund should contain. Estimates of how much is owed 
to individual account holders range from a low of $10 billion to more 
than $100 billion.
  The people who are being hurt by this mismanagement are some of the 
poorest people in America. Many live in houses that are little more 
than shacks, with no heat, no electricity, and no phones. Many of them 
are elderly. They have been waiting their whole lives for money that 
belongs to them--money that our Government is holding and refuses to 
account for.
  Ten years ago, Congress passed legislation requiring the Department 
of the Interior to make a full and accurate historical accounting of 
all trust assets and obligations. Seven years ago, a banker named 
Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, sued the 
Department to force it to comply with our order.
  Last fall, a Federal judge finally agreed. It seemed that was going 
to be the beginning of the end of the trust fund dispute, and it was 
now finally within reach.
  Then, shockingly, the administration and leadership in Congress on 
the other side, behind closed doors, added language to the 2004 
Interior appropriations conference report ordering the Interior 
Department actually to ignore and defy the judge's ruling. Clearly 
unconstitutional, it violates the separation of powers and due process 
protections.
  It has become increasingly clear that this administration's interest 
is in limiting the Government's financial exposure rather than seeking 
a just settlement of the trust dispute. Despite its obligations to 
consult with the tribes, the Interior Department is now trying to push 
through its own plan to reorganize the Indian trust.
  Tribal leaders have not been consulted. Deep skepticism and 
opposition in Indian country continues to exist.
  Earlier this month, the administration sent Congress its budget for 
next year. It now makes deep cuts in every program affecting Indians, 
except one. There is a 50-percent increase for the Department's trust 
reorganization plan.
  The BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, divides America into 13 
regions. Yesterday, congressional and tribal leaders held a ``summit'' 
on trust reform. At that summit, the tribal representatives to BIA in 
all 13 regions pleaded with Congress to slow the Department's 
unilateral reorganization of the trust.
  No trust reorganization plan can succeed without the involvement, 
support, and leadership of the tribes. It is time for Congress to take 
a more active role in trust reform. Three things are essential.
  First, we need a new round of comprehensive public hearings. This 
week, Senator Ben Nigthorse Campbell announced that the Indian Affairs 
Committee would hold hearings. I thank him.
  Second, congressional meddling in the Cobell litigation must end. The 
``midnight rider'' putting court orders on hold must not be extended; 
courts must be allowed to do their job. Last year Senators McCain, 
Johnson, Inouye and I introduced a bill, the American Indian Trust Fund 
Management Reform Act Amendments, requiring the Interior Department to 
conduct an historical accounting for all trust assets.
  Third and finally, the Federal Government should start budgeting for 
an eventual solution. Money in those accounts belongs to Indians, and 
the Government cannot continue to hold it. Last year, In introduced the 
Indian Payment Trust Equity Act. It would create a $10 billion fund to 
begin making payments to trust holders who have received an objective 
accounting of their trust assets.
  Somehow, the Federal Government must put its money where its mouth is 
and begin making trust holders whole. The complexity of the challenge 
cannot be used as an excuse to continue denying account holders what is 
rightfully theirs.
  Another injustice that must end is the chronic underfunding of the 
Indian Health Service. The report last summer by the Civil Rights 
Commission, and another by the Centers for Disease Control, show that 
Native Americans live sicker and die younger than other Americans as a 
result of inadequate health care. The Indian Health Service budget 
accounts for one-half of 1 percent of 1 percent of the Department of 
Health and Human Services budget. The health system with the sickest 
people and the greatest needs get the smallest increases.
  Last week, I held health care ``town hall meetings'' on Pine Ridge 
and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. We expected 200; we got 700. 
I heard horrific, heartbreaking stories. People talked about losing 
parents, children, and spouses because health care wasn't available. 
Some people had waited months to see an IHS doctor. Finally, they 
couldn't take the pain any longer. They went to a non-IHS hospital, and 
they ended up with hospital bill they couldn't pay, so they lost their 
good credit rating as well as their good name.
  It is unacceptable that the Federal Government spends twice as much 
on health care for Federal prisoners as it does for Indian children and 
families.
  It is immoral that sick people are turned away every day from IHS 
hospitals and clinics in this country unless

[[Page S1618]]

they are in immediate danger of losing life or limb.
  ``Life or limb'' is not a figure of speech. It is an actual standard 
for care, and it is a national disgrace.
  Last March, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution to 
provide $2.9 billion in order to fully fund one part of the IHS budget. 
Unfortunately, every Republican Senator voted against it. They offered 
an amendment with $292 million, one-tenth of the amount we proposed. It 
was inadequate, but we accepted it, only to find when we went to 
conference, the Republicans killed their own amendment in conference. 
We tried repeatedly last year to increase funding by $2.9 billion, and 
we will do so again this year.
  More than a century ago, our Government signed treaties with the 
Indian nations promising to provide them and their descendants three 
things forever: health care, education, and housing. The Federal 
Government must now keep its promise and provide these benefits which 
the Indian people have already paid for in full with their lands.
  Tribal leaders are in Washington this week asking once again that we 
live up to our ideals.
  Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our 
children.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                           Executive Summary

       The federal government has a long-established special 
     relationship with Native Americans characterized by their 
     status as governmentally independent entities, dependent on 
     the United States for support and protection. In exchange for 
     land and in compensation for forced removal from their 
     original homelands, the government promised through laws, 
     treaties, and pledges to support and protect Native 
     Americans. However, funding for programs associated with 
     those promises has fallen short, and Native peoples continue 
     to suffer the consequences of a discriminatory history. 
     Federal efforts to raise Native American living conditions to 
     the standards of others have long been in motion, but Native 
     Americans still suffer higher rates of poverty, poor 
     educational achievement, substandard housing, and higher 
     rates of disease and illness. Native Americans continue to 
     rank at or near the bottom of nearly every social, health, 
     and economic indicator.
       Small in numbers and relatively poor, Native Americans 
     often have had a difficult time ensuring fair and equal 
     treatment on their own. Unfortunately, relying on the 
     goodwill of the nation to honor its obligation to Native 
     Americans clearly has not resulted in desired outcomes. Its 
     small size and geographic apartness from the rest of American 
     society induces some to designate the Native American 
     population the ``invisible minority.'' To many, the 
     government's promises to Native Americans go largely 
     unfulfilled. Thus, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
     through this report, gives voice to a quiet crisis.
       Over the last 10 years, federal funding for Native American 
     programs has increased significantly. However, this has not 
     been nearly enough to compensate for a decline in spending 
     power, which had been evident for decades before that, nor to 
     overcome a long and sad history of neglect and 
     discrimination. Thus, there persists a large deficit in 
     funding Native American programs that needs to be paid to 
     eliminate the backlog of unmet Native American needs, an 
     essential predicate to raising their standards of living to 
     that of other Americans. Native Americans living on tribal 
     lands do not have access to the same services and programs 
     available to other Americans, even though the government has 
     a binding trust obligation to provide them.
       In preparing this report, the Commission reviewed the 
     budgets of the six federal agencies with the largest 
     expenditures on Native American programs and conducted an 
     extensive literature review.


                       department of the interior

       The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), within DOI, bears the 
     primary responsibility for providing the 562 federally 
     recognized Native American tribes with federal services. The 
     Congressional Research Service found that between 1975 and 
     2000, funding for BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee 
     declined by $6 million yearly when adjusted for inflation.
       BIA's mismanagement of Individual Indian Money trust 
     accounts has denied Native Americans financial resources that 
     could be applied toward basic needs that BIA programs fail to 
     provide. Insufficient program funding resulted in $7.4 
     billion in unmet needs among Native Americans in 2000. Of 
     this amount, a shortfall in tribal priority allocations 
     (TPA), which provides such basic services as child welfare 
     and adult vocational training, alone totaled $2.8 billion 
     that year. Over the last few decades, Congress has minimally 
     increased TPA funding. Unmet needs are also evident in school 
     construction. In December 2002, the deferred maintenance 
     backlog of BIA schools was estimated at $507 million and 
     increasing at an annual rate of $56.5 million due to 
     inflation and natural aging and deterioration of school 
     buildings. BIA and its programs play a pivotal role in the 
     lives of Native Americans, but mismanagement and lack of 
     funding have undercut the agency's ability to improve 
     living conditions in Native communities.


                Department of Health and Human Services

       Native Americans have a lower life expectancy than any 
     other racial/ethnic group and higher rates of many diseases, 
     including diabetes, tuberculosis, and alcoholism. Yet, health 
     facilities are frequently inaccessible and medically 
     obsolete, and preventive care and specialty services are not 
     readily available. Most Native Americans do not have private 
     health insurance and thus rely exclusively on the Indian 
     Health Service (IHS) for health care. The federal government 
     spends less per capita on Native American health care than on 
     any other group for which it has this responsibility, 
     including Medicaid recipients, prisoners, veterans, and 
     military personnel. Annually, IHS spends 60 percent less on 
     its beneficiaries than the average per person health care 
     expenditure nationwide.
       The IHS, although the largest source of federal spending 
     for Native Americans, constitutes only 0.5 percent of the 
     entire HHS budget. Moreover, it makes up a smaller proportion 
     of HHS' discretionary budget today than five years ago. By 
     most accounts, IHS has done well to work within its resource 
     limitations. However, the agency currently operates with an 
     estimated 59 percent of the amount necessary to stem the 
     crisis. If funded sufficiently, IHS could provide more money 
     to needs such as contract care, urban health programs, health 
     facility construction and renovation, and sanitation 
     services.


              Department of Housing and Urban Development

       The availability of safe, sanitary housing in Indian 
     Country is significantly less than the need. Over-crowding 
     and its effects are a persistent problem. Furthermore, 
     existing housing structures are substandard: approximately 40 
     percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate, 
     and one in five reservation homes lacks complete plumbing. 
     Native Americans also have less access to home-ownership 
     resources, due to limited access to credit, land ownership 
     restrictions, geographic isolation, and harsh environmental 
     conditions that make construction difficult and expensive.
       While HUD has made efforts to improve housing, lack of 
     funding has hindered progress. Funding for Native American 
     programs at HUD increased only slightly over the years (8.8 
     percent), significantly less than the agency as a whole (62 
     percent). After controlling for inflation, HUD's Native 
     American programs actually lost spending power. The tribal 
     housing loan guarantee program lost nearly 70 percent of its 
     purchasing power over the last four years, and the Native 
     American Housing Block Grant has lost funding for three years 
     in a row. Given the unique housing challenges Native 
     Americans face, greater and immediate federal financial 
     support is needed.
       Housing needs on reservations and tribal lands cannot be 
     met with the same interventions that HUD uses to meet rental 
     housing or homeownership goals in the suburbs or inner 
     cities. Innovation and a more comprehensive approach are 
     needed, and the government's trust responsibility to provide 
     housing to Native Americans must be fully factored into these 
     efforts.


                         Department of Justice

       All three components of law enforcement--policing, justice, 
     and corrections--are substandard in Indian Country compared 
     with the rest of the nation. Native Americans are twice as 
     likely as any other racial/ethnic group to be the victims of 
     crime. Yet, per capita spending on law enforcement in 
     Native American communities is roughly 60 percent of the 
     national average. Correctional facilities in Indian 
     Country are also more overcrowded than even the most 
     crowded state and federal prisons. In addition, Native 
     Americans have long held that tribal court systems have 
     not been funded sufficiently or consistently, and hence, 
     are not equal to other court systems.
       Law enforcement professionals concede that the dire 
     situation in Indian Country is understated. While DOJ should 
     be commended for its stated intention to meet its obligations 
     to Native Americans, promising projects have suffered from 
     inconsistent or discontinued funding. Native American law 
     enforcement funding increased almost 85 percent between 1998 
     and 2003, but the amount allocated was so small to begin with 
     that its proportion to the department's total budget hardly 
     changed. Native American programs make up roughly 1 percent 
     of the agency's total budget. A downward trend in funding has 
     begun that, if continued, will severely compromise public 
     safety in Native communities.
       Additionally, many Native Americans have lost faith in the 
     justice system, in part due to perceived bias. Many attribute 
     disproportionately high incarceration rates to unfair 
     treatment by the criminal justice system, including racial 
     profiling, disparities in prosecution, and lack of access to 
     legal representation. Solving these problems is vital to 
     restoring public safety and justice in Indian Country.


                        department of education

       As a group, Native American students are not afforded 
     educational opportunities equal to other American students. 
     They routinely face deteriorating school facilities, 
     underpaid teachers, weak curricula, discriminatory treatment, 
     outdated learning tools, and

[[Page S1619]]

     cultural isolation. As a result, achievement gaps persist 
     with Native American students scoring lower than any other 
     racial/ethnic group in basic levels of reading, math, and 
     history. Native American students are also more likely to 
     drop out. The lack of educational opportunities in Native 
     communities extends to postsecondary and vocational programs. 
     Special Programs for Indian Adults has not been funded since 
     1995, and vocational rehabilitation programs are too poorly 
     funded to meet the abundant need. Although 14 applications 
     for such programs were submitted in 2001, only five tribal 
     organizations received funding. Tribal colleges and 
     universities receive 60 percent less federal funding per 
     student than other public community colleges.
       The federal government has sole responsibility for 
     providing education to these students--an obligation it is 
     failing to meet. Funding for DOEd's Office of Indian 
     Education (OIE) has remained a relatively small portion of 
     the department's total discretionary budget (ranging from 0.2 
     to 0.3 percent) between 1998 and 2003. OIE funding has 
     undergone several reductions over the last few decades and, 
     in may years, its budget has failed to account for inflation. 
     At no time during the period under review in this report have 
     all OIE subprograms been funded.


                       department of agriculture

       The USDA is largely responsible for rural development and 
     farm and business supplements in rural communities. Native 
     Americans rely on such programs to foster conditions that 
     encourage and sustain economic investments. However, 
     insufficient funding has limited the success of development 
     programs and perpetuated unstable economies. Poor economic 
     conditions have resulted in food shortages and hunger. Native 
     Americans are more than twice as likely as the general 
     population to face hunger and food insecurity at any given 
     time. The inaccessibility of food and economic development 
     programs compromises their usefulness. By its failure to 
     make programs accessible to Native Americans, the federal 
     government has denied them the opportunity to receive 
     benefits routinely available to other citizens.
       USDA's set-aside for the Rural Community Advancement 
     Program fluctuated between 2000 and 2003. The 2004 budget 
     proposes to reduce funding by more than 18.2 percent from 
     2003. The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
     (FDPIR) lost funding when accounting for inflation (2.8 
     percent) between 1999 and 2003, reducing available food 
     resources. FDPIR alone is not meeting the food assistance 
     needs of Native Americans since many participants are also 
     enrolled in other food assistance programs. The continuously 
     high rates of hunger and poverty in Native communities are 
     the strongest evidence that existing funds are not enough.


                               conclusion

       In short, the Commission finds evidence of a crisis in the 
     persistence and growth of unmet needs. The conditions in 
     Indian Country could be greatly relieved if the federal 
     government honored its commitment to funding, paid greater 
     attention to building basic infrastructure in Indian Country, 
     and promoted self-determination among tribes.
       The Commission further finds that the federal government 
     fails to keep accurate and comprehensive records of its 
     expenditures on Native American programs. There is no uniform 
     reporting requirement for Native American program fundings, 
     and because agencies self-report their expenditures, 
     available information varies across agencies, rendering 
     monitoring of federal spending difficult.
       While some agencies are more proficient at managing funds 
     and addressing the needs of Native Americans than others, the 
     government's failure is systemic. The Commission identified 
     several areas of jurisdictional overlap, inadequate 
     collaboration, and a lack of articulation among agencies. The 
     result is inefficiency, service delay, and wasted resources. 
     Fragmented funding and lack of coordination not only 
     complicate the application and distribution processes, but 
     also dilute the benefit potential of the funds.
       In this study, the Commission has provided new information 
     and analyses in the hope of stimulating resolve and action to 
     address unmet needs in Indian Country. Converting data and 
     analyses into effective government action plans requires 
     commitment and determination to honor the promises of laws 
     and treaties. Toward that end, the Commission offers 11 
     recommendations, which if fully implemented will yield (1) a 
     thorough and precise calculation of unmet needs in Indian 
     Country; (2) increased efficiency and effectiveness in the 
     delivery of services through goal setting, strategic 
     planning, implementation, coordination, and measurement of 
     outcomes; (3) perennial adequate funding; and (4) advancement 
     of Indian nations toward the goal of independence and self-
     goverance.
       Failure to act will signify that this country's agreements 
     with Native people, and other legal rights to which they are 
     entitled, are little more than empty promises. Focused 
     federal attention and resolve to remedy the quiet crises 
     occurring in Indian Country, embodied in these 
     recommendations and the results that flow from them, would 
     signal a decisive moment in this nation's history. That 
     moment would constitute America's rededication to live up to 
     its trust responsibility for its Native people. Only through 
     sustained systemic commitment and action will this federal 
     responsibility be realized.


                             Recommendations

        1. The Native American crisis should be addressed with the 
     urgency it demands. The administration should establish a 
     bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level 
     of accountability in the government, with representatives 
     including elected officials, members of Congress, officials 
     from each Federal agency that funds programs in Indian 
     Country, tribes, and Native American advocacy organizations. 
     The action group should be charged with analyzing the current 
     system, developing solutions, and implementing positive 
     change.
        2. All agencies that distribute funds for Native American 
     programs should be required to regularly assess unmet needs, 
     including gaps in service delivery, for both urban and rural 
     Native individuals. Agencies should establish benchmarks for 
     the elevation of Native American living conditions to those 
     of other Americans. Agencies should document Native American 
     participation in programs and catalog initiatives.
        3. Agencies should replicate IHS' Federal Disparity Index 
     assessment for tracking disparities in services and needs. 
     Tribal organizations and Native American advocacy groups 
     should be consulted when agencies develop measures. The 
     results of such examinations should be used to prepare budget 
     estimates, prioritize spending, and assess the status of 
     programs. Congress should require and review unmet needs 
     analyses annually as a component of each agency's budget 
     justification.
        4. All Federal agencies that administer Native American 
     programs should be required to set aside money for 
     infrastructure building that will benefit all. Such a fund 
     should be jointly managed by the BIA, representatives from 
     each contributing agency, and a coalition of tribal leaders. 
     The contributing agencies should develop memoranda of 
     understanding and other formal coordination mechanisms that 
     outline precisely how the money will be spent.
        5. Federal agencies should avoid implementing across-the-
     board budget cuts when the effect on already underfunded 
     Native American programs is so severe. Agencies must prepare 
     budgets that account for the proportionality of Native 
     American funding.
        6. Native American programs should be situated within the 
     Federal agencies that have the requisite expertise, but 
     agencies should continually improve processes for 
     redistributing funds to other agencies or tribal governments. 
     Funds for a common purpose should be consolidated within a 
     single agency so there is less overlap and clearer 
     accountability.
        7. To the extent possible, programs for Native Americans 
     should be managed and controlled by Native Americans. 
     Distribution of funds to tribes should be closely monitored 
     by the source agencies to ensure that funds are used as 
     directed in a manner developed in consultation with Native 
     Americans and tribal governments.
        8. Federal appropriations must compensate for costs that 
     are unique to tribes, such as those required to build 
     necessary infrastructure, those associated with geographic 
     remoteness, and those required for training and technical 
     assistance. The unique needs of non-reservation and urban 
     Native Americans must also be assessed, and adequate funding 
     must be provided for programs to serve these individuals.
        9. Congress should request an analysis of spending 
     patterns of every Federal agency that supports Native 
     American programs, either by the U.S. General Accounting 
     Office or the Congressional Research Service. In addition, an 
     independent external contractor should audit fund management 
     of all Federal agencies distributing Native American 
     appropriations.
        10. Each agency should have one central office responsible 
     for oversight and management of Indian funds, and which 
     prepares budgets and analyses that can be compared and 
     aggregated across agencies.
        11. The Office of Management and Budget should develop 
     governmentwide, uniform standards for tracking and reporting 
     spending on Native American programs. Agencies should be 
     required to include justifications for each Native American 
     project in annual budget requests, as well as justifications 
     for the discontinuation of such programs. They should also be 
     required to maintain comprehensive spending logs for Indian 
     programs, including actual grant disbursements, numbers of 
     beneficiaries, and unfunded programs.

  [Disturbance in the galleries.]
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval or disapproval are not 
in order.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we are on the Daschle amendment which I 
support. The minority leader has expressed the value of that amendment 
to the underlying bill, S. 1805. I will be very brief about it. We can 
have a vote on it and immediately move back to the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to.
  Mr. REID. I am wondering if there is a need for a recorded vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not see that need.

[[Page S1620]]

  Mr. REID. I think we can do this by voice because it is my 
understanding that the Kohl second degree is also going to be done by 
voice vote, so that would eliminate the need for two votes. We could go 
directly to the Boxer amendment, as amended.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, when Senator Daschle and I began to visit 
about the issue of liability to gun manufacturers and responsible 
licensed gun dealers, we wanted to make sure it was as narrow as I 
expressed yesterday that it would be. Senator Daschle came up with some 
ideas that would strike the ``knowing and willing'' in the preceding 
sentences, potentially increasing the likelihood that this exception in 
the general immunity afforded under the law would be applicable in any 
given case.
  That is what we did. They are two very distinct provisions. I 
discussed them last night. I will not go into them today for the 
record. But we handed that work over to the Congressional Research 
Service. What they have said is this: Applying these changes to the 
scenarios at issue--and those relate both to manufacturers and gun 
sales--it appears the amendment could have the effect of making it more 
likely that this exception to immunity would be applicable in certain 
facts, as established.
  In other words, we truly have clarified the immunity provision. It is 
every bit as narrow as we said it was, that all current Federal laws 
pertaining to the mismanagement, mishandling, the criminal actions that 
are in violation of a Federal firearm license or that are in violation 
of a manufacturers responsibility are adhered to.
  I believe the amendment is a good one. It perfects and improves S. 
1805. I encourage its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2621.
  The amendment (No. 2621) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the terms of the order that is now 
before the Senate, Senator DeWine and Senator Kohl were to offer an 
amendment. Senator DeWine is not offering the amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be allowed to offer a second-degree 
amendment to the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not object to that request, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.


                Amendment No. 2622 to Amendment No. 2620

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise as an original sponsor of the child 
safety lock amendment. I thank the Senator from California for offering 
this important measure today. The Child Safety Lock Act significantly 
reduces the incidence of gun-related tragedies in our country among the 
most vulnerable elements of our population; namely, our children.
  I have a second-degree amendment I wish to offer now. I send the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2622 to amendment No. 2620.

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

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
  require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the 
                         transfer of a handgun)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

                      TITLE II--CHILD SAFETY LOCKS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 
     2004''.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers;
       (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun; and
       (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to 
     law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including 
     hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or 
     recreational shooting.

     SEC. 203. FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed 
     manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or 
     transfer any handgun to any person other than any person 
     licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is 
     provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as 
     defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
       ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession 
     by, the United States, a department or agency of the United 
     States, a State, or a department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off 
     duty);
       ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a 
     curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the 
     transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the 
     delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
     storage or safety device for the handgun.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a 
     handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device 
     with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a 
     qualified civil liability action.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--A qualified civil liability 
     action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
       ``(C) Defined term.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `qualified civil liability action'--
       ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a 
     person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting 
     from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a 
     third party, if--

       ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did 
     not have the permission or authorization of the person having 
     lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access 
     to it; and
       ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so 
     authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a 
     secure gun storage or safety device; and

       ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the 
     person having lawful possession and control of the handgun 
     for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating To Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the 
     license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was 
     used to conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 
     923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or

[[Page S1621]]

       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments made by this title shall not be admissible as 
     evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or 
     other entity, except with respect to an action relating to 
     section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by 
     this section.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

     SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, as I understand it, there is no need for 
debate on this amendment. The Senator from California has told me she 
has no objection to our modifications. So if it is not objectionable to 
the managers of the bill, I will speak briefly, and then I will yield 
back our time. I will not call for a rollcall vote, and I hope the 
Senate will accept these modifications by voice vote.
  This amendment will make the Boxer amendment virtually identical to 
the bipartisan child safety lock amendment that passed with 78 votes in 
1999. Protecting our children from accidental shooting is a concern 
that crosses party lines, and I am proud that today we get a chance to 
express that concern again in an overwhelming and bipartisan way.
  Every year, children and teenagers are involved in more than 10,000 
accidental shootings. Close to 800 of those shootings result in a 
senseless death. And those 800 deadly accidents do not account for the 
thousands of additional gun-related deaths of America's youth each year 
that result from suicide or intentional shootings. Every 6 hours, a 
young person between the ages of 10 and 19 commits suicide with an 
available firearm. In all, nearly 3,000 children and young people die 
every year from gun-related injuries.
  To many of us, this recitation of numbers and statistics is terribly 
grim. But for the families, the pain associated with those avoidable 
deaths is unbearable. What is equally tragic is that so many of these 
deaths could have been prevented. The use of a child safety lock would 
have, at the very least, stopped hundreds of accidents each and every 
year.
  This legislation is simple, straightforward, and effective. It 
mandates that a child safety lock device or a trigger lock be sold with 
every handgun. Most locks resemble a padlock that locks around the gun 
trigger and immobilizes it, preventing it from being fired. These and 
other locks can be purchased in virtually every gun store for less than 
$10. They are already used by tens of thousands of responsible gun 
owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, and they surely 
have saved many lives.
  Support for this commonsense approach to gun safety is widespread. In 
1999, the same child safety lock provision passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming vote of 78 to 20. It was an amendment during the juvenile 
justice debate. This proposal is as popular with the rest of the 
country and the law enforcement community as it was with the 106th 
Senate. Polls have shown that 73 percent of the American public, 
including 6 of 10 gun owners, favors the mandatory sale of child safety 
locks with guns. In a survey of nearly 500 of Wisconsin's police chiefs 
and sheriffs, 90 percent agree that child safety locks should be sold 
with every gun.
  This legislation has the support of the current administration as 
well. During his campaign in 2000, President Bush indicated that if 
Congress passes a bill making the sale of child safety locks mandatory 
with every gun sale, he would sign it into law. Attorney General 
Ashcroft affirmed the administration support of the mandatory sale of 
child safety locks during his confirmation hearings before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  The bill is not a panacea. It will not prevent every single avoidable 
firearm-related accident, but the fact is all parents want to protect 
their children. This legislation will ensure that people purchase child 
safety locks when they buy guns. Those who buy locks are more likely to 
use them. That much we know is certain. Those who use the locks will be 
protected from liability if those guns are misused.
  The Child Safety Lock Act is a modest proposal. Though imposing a 
minimal cost on consumers, it will prevent the deaths of many innocent 
children every year. The Senate spoke overwhelmingly in favor of this 
proposal in 1999.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support and vote for the 
amendment before us today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am glad the Senator from Wisconsin has 
stepped forward to offer a second-degree amendment. It clarifies the 
nature of damages in civil immunity language. It defines the inoperable 
in the immunity language. It reduces the penalty violation but sets a 
good one--a $2,500 civil fine. Revocation may be a bit harsh, but there 
is a small clarification in the Rules of Evidence. It takes effect 180 
days after enactment.
  Of course, as I mentioned earlier in the debate--and I will discuss 
this later after this amendment is accepted--nearly all manufacturers 
today comply with this very point as guns leave the factory. So the 
industry is moving rapidly toward compliance.
  With that, I think we are prepared to vote on the second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2622 to amendment No. 2620.
  The amendment (No. 2622) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate? Is 
it the Boxer amendment, as amended by the Kohl amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Boxer amendment, as amended.
  Mr. REID. What time is remaining on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I will take some of those minutes to 
speak to the Boxer amendment, as amended. I do oppose this amendment 
and here are some very simple facts why.
  I have already talked about the industry itself moving rapidly in a 
voluntary way toward compliance. Clearly, the bill has been improved by 
the Senator from Wisconsin, but let me suggest this to all of us 
because I think we understand it in rather simple terms. The home is a 
private place and for the first time the long arm of Government will 
reach into the private place and suggest to the average American how 
they will store an object in that private place.
  I am not arguing about the care, the emotion, the concern, and the 
reality, not that at all. I understand that. But I do not believe that 
Government ought to be telling the average citizen how they store 
objects within their home.
  We are hearing about the tragedies of children losing their life by 
the misuse of a firearm. I think the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned 
suicides. My guess is, trigger locks do nothing to suicides. The great 
tragedy of a suicide is that a teenager thinks it out, and if they 
think it out they are probably going to find the key to the trigger 
lock or they will know where it is as a teenager and that will not stop 
that tragedy. That is an emotional situation that none of us quite 
understand sometimes why teenagers resort to that kind of action and 
violence.
  I will talk about the home environment and what is going on in the 
home environment. Since 1930, accidental deaths by firearms in the home 
have declined 62 percent. Firearms are now involved in only 1.5 percent 
of accidental fatalities nationwide within the home. Here is the 
tragedy: Deaths caused to children by motor vehicle accidents is 47 
percent; a child falling down in the home, deaths 15 percent; 
poisoning, 10 percent; drowning, 4 percent; fire, 8 percent; 
suffocation on small objects going down the throat of a small child, 3 
percent. More children suffocate by an object lodging in their throat 
than by finding an improperly stored handgun. Now, those are the facts, 
as we know them. Those facts

[[Page S1622]]

come from the National Safety Council, the National Center for Health 
Statistics.

  Again, I do not dispute the emotion or the concern or the care that 
the Senator from California has on this issue, but I do dispute the 
right of the Federal Government to enter the home and tell the average 
citizen they have to comply with mandatory storage laws that exist with 
penalties. I believe that is unnecessary in a free society.
  I believe safety and responsibility is always necessary, and the 
industry is rapidly moving in that direction. Ninety percent are in 
compliance with the fundamental principles of the law itself.
  This is the thing that concerns me most: Most States already provide 
penalties for reckless endangerment under which an adult found grossly 
negligent in the storage of a firearm under certain circumstances can 
be prosecuted for a felony offense. Universal mandatory storage 
requirements are counterproductive. That is going at the individual, 
instead of allowing the long arm of the law to come into the home. 
Clearly, that is the way it ought to be.
  We know that no one-size-fits-all requirement can possibly meet the 
needs of all gun owners, and that is what is being suggested. We have 
already seen the industry involve science and technology to try to deal 
with this issue, and they are trying to develop those kinds of 
standards that work.
  I have already mentioned that the National Safety Council tested 32 
types of gunlocks and found that 30 of them could be opened without a 
key. While the industry is rushing to get there, what we are needing, 
and the industry is now doing it, is standardization.
  In any emergency, and now we are talking about oftentimes why a gun 
is in a home, a trigger lock can handicap a person who needs a gun for 
protection. While the industry is trying to make them applicable so 
they can be accessed within seconds or minutes in case the burglar is 
breaking into the home, the reality is that if the gun is locked away 
in a safe it is ineffective as a use for personal protection in an 
unsafe environment. Those are the kinds of concerns I think all of us 
have as we talk about these kinds of issues and as we tick away at the 
right of the private gun owner to manage what I believe is a 
constitutional right in this country.
  I will give a little bit of history and then I will close. In 1936, 
British police began adding the following requirements for firearms 
certificates: Firearms and ammunition to which this certificate relates 
must at all times, when not in actual use, be stored in safe and secure 
places. That was 1936. What has transpired in British law until today 
is that if one wants to own a gun and they get a certificate to own a 
gun, the British police come into their home and ask where they are 
going to store it. They look at where it is going to be stored and if 
the gun owner does not have a lockbox or if they do not have a safe, 
they do not own a gun.
  Will that ever happen in this country? I would hope not. I hope 
Americans would rebel about the reality of the police entering their 
home to tell them what to do as it relates to storing an object in the 
home, especially an object that we believe is a constitutional right. 
That is the issue at hand.

  Again, I am not going to argue with the reason or the logic that the 
Senator from California has expressed. States are moving now, and I 
think in some ways responsibly, to encourage, educate, and train. The 
industry is moving in that direction. To establish a Federal 
requirement that says this is the way one is going to do it in their 
home--I believe in a fundamental right of privacy--this is a breach of 
that right and an entry into the home with the long arm of Federal law. 
I do not think we ought to go there.
  I hope Senators will join with me in opposing this amendment as 
amended by the Kohl amendment. I am prepared to yield back the 
remainder of my time in relation to a vote on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, on this amendment all time has been used. 
I ask the good offices of my friend from Idaho to allow the Senator 
from California 1 minute to respond to the statements of the Senator 
from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I accept that if I have an additional 1 minute to close 
after the Senator from California.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the request be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Following that, I would like a moment for a quorum call.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, that is fine. I would indicate that 
following however long the quorum takes, we would vote on the Boxer 
amendment as amended by Kohl. Then I would alert everyone that we would 
then have a period of time for up to 1 hour, that Senator Campbell--at 
least the way I understand the order now before the Senate--would have 
up to an hour on his amendment. Senator Kennedy would follow with an 
hour on his amendment. Then two 2 hours would, of course, have gone by. 
Senator Frist has the opportunity to offer an amendment. We do not know 
if he will at the time.
  My point being on those two amendments, the Campbell and Kennedy 
amendments, there will be no votes until Tuesday. But that is a 
significant amount of time. Following that, Cantwell has 60 minutes. So 
this afternoon we should have a lot of debate with no votes in the 
immediate future. I would simply ask that those Senators be ready to go 
as soon as the vote is completed on this matter.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for that. I yield the floor to the 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate my friend yielding.
  I think this argument has now been joined. The argument Senator Craig 
makes against this amendment, to me, is just off point. This bill is 
not a mandatory storage law. This has nothing to do with a mandatory 
storage law. The fact is we have passed this before, 78 to 20. We are 
not saying you have to have storage. We are saying that when you go to 
buy a handgun, it has some type of device on it. We don't mandate what 
that device is. We say it could be one of five or six different things. 
There will be standards set. It is not one-size-fits-all. It is not a 
mandatory storage law.
  I agree with my friend, if the gun manufacturers do this on their 
own, that is great. But as we have learned from the SAFE KIDS Campaign, 
not all of them are doing it. Some of them are and some of our kids are 
exposed.
  I have two quick further points to make.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional minute and give my friend 2 
additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me make this point. When my friend compares an 
accidental shooting with a gun resulting in a death to a suicide, I 
would say that is quite different, because in the tragedy of suicide, 
although my friend is quite right, we do try on some of our bridges to 
build barriers, but if there is an intent, although we do our best, we 
often fail. But a 3-year-old or 5-year-old child picking up a gun 
really doesn't know someone is going to die. So it is up to us to make 
sure we do our best. That is all; we do our best.
  My last point. There are standards for aspirin caps, cribs, Play-Doh, 
Teddy bears, pajamas. There ought to be a standard for a safety lock on 
a gun. I don't think we do violence to freedom in any way.
  I wish my friend were with me on this, but if not, I hope we can 
repeat the vote we had last time; 78 to 20 sounds really good. I hope 
we can do that again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. I don't question the 
sincerity of the Senator from California. I recognize what she is 
attempting to do.
  The industry is rushing. It is at near 90 percent compliance today. 
We want firearms to be as safe as possible in this country.
  Let me close with this. Firearms are involved in 1.5 percent of the 
accidents within a home that involve a child; motor vehicles and 
children: 47 percent of the deaths of young children are caused by 
motor vehicles; falling, 15 percent; poisoning, 10 percent; drowning, 4 
percent; fire, 3 percent; objects ingested and lodged in the throat in 
which they suffocate, 3 percent.

[[Page S1623]]

  As tragic as all of this is, it is a very small number. We are now 
working aggressively to resolve that. The industry has developed 
standards. I don't believe these penalties are necessary. I don't 
believe this approach of uniformity and Federal mandate is necessary. I 
ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated it, and 
the minority is happy to go forward with a vote at this time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2620, as amended. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The senior journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McConnell. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham (SC)
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Miller
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The amendment (No. 2620), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have the Campbell concealed-carry bill. 
We are minutes away from being ready to offer that so I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Idaho, did he say the 
Campbell-Leahy concealed-carry bill is the next in line?
  Mr. CRAIG. I believe that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I will stay here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the managers of the bill, if there are a 
few minutes before you get to this, I would like to take a few minutes 
and speak on the underlying bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes. I see no reason why the Senator could not speak. How 
long does the Senator intend to speak?
  Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from Massachusetts. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am trying to find out how we are going 
to proceed. I have seen the agreement. I am just trying to understand 
the order. We have the concealed weapons amendment and then the cop 
killer bullets. I thought we had a time limit on those. I am trying to 
find out.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the order now before the Senate indicates 
the next amendment is the Campbell-Leahy amendment. That is 60 minutes. 
The time, of course, is in the usual form. Following that is the 
Kennedy cop killer bullets amendment. Following that is the Cantwell 
amendment and maybe somebody else in between. That is where we are. I 
do not see Senator Campbell on the floor.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we will have an hour. It will be an hour 
equally divided. I will have 30 minutes. I would be glad to yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from Connecticut so he can make his comments, 
and we can move the process along. If it is agreeable with the 
managers, that is certainly agreeable with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I would ask that Senator Dodd be allowed 10 minutes from 
Senator Kennedy's time on the amendment that will soon be offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I will yield for purposes of having the amendment proposed.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, let me go first.
  Mr. DODD. Are you going to take 30 minutes? I would like to be able 
to be heard.
  Mr. HATCH. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 2623

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senators Campbell, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Sessions, and Craig, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant Journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. 
     Campbell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Craig, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2623.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified 
current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting 
                  the carrying of concealed handguns)

       On page 11, after line 19, add the following:

     SEC. 5. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Steve 
     Young Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004''.
       (b) Exemption of Qualified Law Enforcement Officers From 
     State Laws Prohibiting the Carrying of Concealed Firearms.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law 
       enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying 
     the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a 
     concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law 
     enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental 
     agency who--
       ``(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or 
     the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, 
     and has statutory powers of arrest;
       ``(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
       ``(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the 
     agency;
       ``(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency 
     which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of 
     a firearm; and
       ``(5) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is the 
     photographic identification issued by the governmental agency 
     for which the individual is, or was, employed as a law 
     enforcement officer.
       ``(e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term 
     `firearm' does not include--

[[Page S1624]]

       ``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title 
     26);
       ``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and
       ``(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 
     921).''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 926A the following:

``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement 
              officers.''.

       (c) Exemption of Qualified Retired Law Enforcement Officers 
     From State Laws Prohibiting the Carrying of Concealed 
     Firearms.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 926B, as added by 
     subsection (b), the following:

     ``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 
       retired law enforcement officers

       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any 
     State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who 
     is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is 
     carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may 
     carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or 
     limit the laws of any State that--
       ``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or 
     restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their 
     property; or
       ``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on 
     any State or local government property, installation, 
     building, base, or park.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired 
     law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
       ``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public 
     agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons 
     of mental instability;
       ``(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to 
     engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
     investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any 
     person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of 
     arrest;
       ``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as 
     a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or 
     more; or
       ``(B) retired from service with such agency, after 
     completing any applicable probationary period of such 
     service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined 
     by such agency;
       ``(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
     retirement plan of the agency;
       ``(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at 
     the expense of the individual, the State's standards for 
     training and qualification for active law enforcement 
     officers to carry firearms; and
       ``(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
     firearm.
       ``(d) The identification required by this subsection is 
     photographic identification issued by the agency for which 
     the individual was employed as a law enforcement officer.
       ``(e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term 
     `firearm' does not include--
       ``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title 
     26);
       ``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and
       ``(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921).''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 926B the following:

``926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law 
              enforcement officers.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's see if my colleague from Connecticut 
can agree to this. I intend to take a few minutes to define the bill. I 
have promised Senator DeWine, I think he only has about 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. If I may proceed and then finish in a few minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I will say my statement in a very few minutes. Then I ask 
unanimous consent that we go to the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut and then----
  Mr. DODD. I think I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada had the floor and 
relinquished the floor. Now the Senator from Utah has the floor. There 
was a unanimous consent request that was agreed to when the Senator 
from Connecticut was yielded 10 minutes from Senator Kennedy's time, 
but then the Senator from Utah sent up an amendment and reclaimed the 
floor. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be short. I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut be recognized pursuant to 
Senator Kennedy's granting of time and immediately thereafter the 
Senator from Ohio be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Today I rise and join Senators Campbell, Leahy, Reid, and 
others I have named on this bill to offer it as an amendment to S. 
1805, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, which was 
favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee with strong 
bipartisan support last session.
  This amendment, which permits qualified current and retired law 
enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction, 
will help protect the American public, our Nation's officers, and their 
families. I would note this bill has the overwhelming support of the 
Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement associations which 
have vigorously worked in support of this measure.
  This amendment allows qualified law enforcement officers and retired 
officers to carry, with appropriate identification, a concealed firearm 
that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce 
regardless of State or local laws.
  Importantly, this legislation does not supersede any State law that 
permits private persons to prohibit or restrict possession of firearms 
on any State or local government properties, installations, buildings, 
bases, or parks. Additionally, this amendment clearly defines what is 
meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired 
or former law enforcement officer'' to ensure those individuals 
permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals.
  This amendment will not only provide law enforcement officers with 
the legal means to protect themselves and their families when they 
travel interstate, it will also enhance the security of the American 
public, which is long overdue.
  By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement 
officers to carry firearms, even if off duty, more trained law 
enforcement officers will be on the street to enforce the law and to 
respond to any crises that may arise.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment because 
passage of this important legislation will provide that extra layer of 
protection to current and retired law enforcement officers, their 
families, and the public that we so desperately need.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the cosponsors on this bill, which 
includes Senator Reid. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reid be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, 
Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, for being very gracious in providing 
me a few minutes to address the underlying bill. I know we are going to 
debate the amendment on concealed weapons, but I wish to share with my 
colleagues my views on this legislation.
  I cannot see any amendment that can be offered to this legislation 
that is going to convince this Senator that the underlying bill 
deserves support. I am stunned, in many ways, that we are even 
suggesting this legislation. I can only imagine what the reaction would 
be if I were to come to the Chamber and offer a similar amendment that 
would exclude any other industry in the country from the exposure of 
potential liability for wrongdoing.
  In my State, I represent more gun manufacturers than any other Member 
of this body. I also represent probably more insurance companies and 
more pharmaceutical companies in the State of Connecticut than almost 
any other State in the country. As strongly as I support the people who 
work in these businesses and respect what they do, the idea that we 
would take an entire industry and remove it from the potential of 
liability is rather breathtaking to me in this day and age.
  I am a great advocate of tort reform, as many of my colleagues know. 
I authored the securities litigation reform bill and wrote the uniform 
standards litigation bill. I am now working on class action reform. But 
the idea that we would take an entire industry and give it immunity 
from wrongdoing, I think, is rather stunning to this Member.

[[Page S1625]]

  I wish to share with my colleagues some general thoughts. I know 
there are amendments going to be offered on assault weapons and a 
variety of other proposals, but I want to put my colleagues on notice. 
I do not think we can offer any amendment to this bill that will 
outweigh the harm done by the underlying proposal and the precedent we 
are setting in this body. We are taking an industry and saying: No 
matter what you do, no matter how much harm you may cause, you never 
have to worry about being held liable and accountable for your actions. 
In this day and age, that this body would so overwhelmingly endorse an 
idea such as this is breathtaking.

  I wish to take a few minutes to say why it is so outrageous. I want 
to add, with all the matters we should be addressing with the limited 
time in this session, with the thousands of people losing their jobs 
today, we have nothing to say about outsourcing. When we have 44 
million Americans without health insurance, we have nothing to say 
about those issues. We are drowning in budget deficits and trade 
deficits. We have the worst job deficit since the Great Depression. 
Poverty is increasing, and this Chamber has nothing to say on those 
issues except we are now going to take one group of manufacturers and 
say: Don't worry about anything, you don't have to ever be held 
accountable for your wrongdoing.
  This legislation, in my view, is bad policy for a number of reasons. 
First, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on reducing the 
rate of gun violence in our Nation. In fact, this bill ignores the 
devastating toll firearm violence continues to have on the country.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there 
were nearly 29,000 deaths in the United States from firearms in the 
year 2001 alone--29,000 deaths. That is, of course, 10 times the number 
of lives that were tragically lost on September 11 at the World Trade 
Center, here in Washington, and in Pennsylvania. In fact, one year of 
gun violence in America nearly equals the number of Americans who died 
in the Korean war and almost half the Americans lost in the entire 
Vietnam conflict.
  The numbers are staggering. These numbers exceed by a huge margin the 
number of firearm-related deaths on a per-capita basis in countries 
such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France.
  Among those individuals most affected by gun violence are children. 
It is not just an incident such as the Columbine High School massacre 
in 1999 or inner-city neighborhood shootings that should make us 
realize that children are among the most vulnerable to gun violence. 
Children are also killed or injured by firearms because their parents 
did not store their guns properly, and the kids used them for 
horseplay.
  It is no coincidence then that firearms are the second leading death 
among young Americans ages 19 and under. Approximately 2,700 children 
under the age of 19 are killed each year as a result of gun violence or 
improper use of guns.
  The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is already 
12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized 
nations combined. Let me repeat that. The firearm death rates of 
children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States 
than in 25 other industrialized nations combined.
  We are about to exclude an entire industry from even being brought to 
the bar to question whether or not they might be liable. One study 
noted the firearm injury epidemic among children is nearly 10 times 
larger than the polio epidemic in the first half of the 20th century.
  The human cost of gun-related deaths and injuries is tragic in 
itself, but the economic loss is also significant. According to a study 
published in 2000, the average costs of treating gunshot wounds were 
$22,000 for each unintentional shooting and $18,400 for each gun 
assault injuries. These costs would undoubtedly be much higher today.
  Total societal cost of firearms is estimated to be between $100 
billion and $126 billion per year. Who pays these expenses? By and 
large the American taxpayers do.
  My colleagues speak against unfunded mandates, and yet this bill, if 
enacted, burdens the Nation's cities and counties with billions and 
billions of dollars in medical care, emergency services, police 
protections, courts, prisons, and school security. It is shameful that 
while tens of thousands of people are dying each year due to firearms, 
and while the American taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to 
cope with the effect of gun violence, the United States Senate is doing 
absolutely nothing to make our streets and homes safer. In fact, we are 
doing quite the opposite by our actions today.
  Second, the legislation will give this industry special legal 
protections that no other industry in the United States has. Neither 
cigarette companies nor asbestos companies nor polluters have such 
sweeping immunity as we are about to give this industry. In fact, gun 
manufacturers and sellers are already exempt from Federal Consumer 
Product Safety Commission regulation, despite the fact firearms are 
among the most dangerous and deadly products in society. We have more 
regulations on toy guns than we do on the ones that fire real bullets.

  Imagine that, a toy gun that you buy from Mattel, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission issues literally pages of regulations on what 
must be included in the production of that toy gun. There is not a 
single word in the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the 
production of a gun that may kill 29,000 people each year in this 
country. The National Rifle Association made sure of this exemption 30 
years ago, just as highly addictive tobacco products are not subject to 
regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.
  I have supported tort reform in specific areas where I believe it is 
appropriate. My colleagues know that. At the same time, I recognize 
that litigation has been a powerful tool in holding parties accountable 
for their negligence and providing them with incentive to improve the 
safety of their products.
  It has been employed on behalf of other potentially dangerous 
products, such as cars, lawnmowers, household products, and medicines, 
to protect the health of the American people. The fact that guns are 
already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission is reason enough, in my view, why we cannot afford to 
grant the firearm industry legal immunity.
  If this legislation is enacted, and I know it will be given the 
number of cosponsors and how this bill is sweeping through the 
Congress, would it remove any incentive under current products 
liability law for gun manufacturers to make their firearms safer? 
Studies have shown that the technology is both readily available and 
very inexpensive to install in order to help avoid future gun-related 
tragedies.
  For example, a load indicator could be included to tell the user that 
the gun is still loaded. That is never going to happen now, I promise. 
A magazine disconnect safety could be installed by the manufacturers to 
prevent guns from firing if the magazine is removed. Even child 
proofing the gun with safety locks can be done relatively easily. 
However this bill is enacted into law, gun manufacturers will lose a 
huge incentive to include such reasonable safety devices in their 
products.
  I know I am going to hear shortly, well, we just adopted a gun safety 
lock amendment. We did that a few years ago as well. What happened to 
it? It got dumped. That is what happened. Do not have any illusion 
about these amendments being adopted. My colleagues have been around 
long enough to know what is going to happen. When this bill leaves the 
Senate and goes down the hall to the other Chamber all of these nice 
provisions that are included will be dropped, just as they have been in 
the past.
  Third, this legislation would close the courthouse door on our 
Nation's mayors, gun victims, and law enforcement officers who are 
seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for their negligent 
conduct. Just last week, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and 
over 80 other prominent law enforcement leaders from 26 States sent a 
letter to the Senate opposing the legislation.
  The chiefs warned that passage of the immunity legislation would 
result in more illegal gun running and deter efforts to develop child-
resistant guns. In the words of Chief Bratton:


[[Page S1626]]


       The passage of this bill would deliver a devastating blow 
     to justice. The NRA and Congress need to understand that 
     special interest groups cannot come before public safety. Gun 
     stores and manufacturers must be held to the same standards 
     of safety as any other industry. And if they fail to act 
     responsibly, they must pay the price.

  Evidence has been uncovered which reveals that the gun industry has 
been engaged in irresponsible behavior for many years. Senator Reed and 
others have already mentioned one such industry actor: Bull's Eye 
Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA. This gun store claims that it ``lost'' 
the gun used by the Washington, DC snipers John Muhammed and Lee Boyd 
Malvo as well as more than 200 other guns. Many of these firearms were 
later traced to other crimes.
  In fact, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had no record of the gun ever 
being sold and did not report it until after the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms recovered the weapon and traced it back to the 
store.
  Even after the rifle was linked to the sniper shootings and the 
newspapers reported on the disappearance of the guns from Bull's Eye, 
the rifle's manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, declared that it still 
considered Bull's Eye a ``good customer'' and was happy to keep selling 
to the shop. The judge in this case has since ruled twice that the suit 
brought by the families of the DC-area sniper victims against both 
Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply should proceed to 
trial, and a preliminary appeal of these rulings has been rejected.
  Nevertheless, this case as well as other important pending and future 
lawsuits against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers would be 
banned under the Senate bill, according to the opinion of two of the 
Nation's most prominent attorneys, David Boies and Lloyd Cutler.
  There are many other instances of the gun industry not taking steps 
to prevent guns from reaching the illegal market. According to Federal 
data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all 
guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  Undercover sting operations in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana have 
found that such dealers routinely permit gun sales to ``straw 
purchasers,'' that is, individuals with clean records who buy guns for 
criminals, juveniles, or other individuals barred by law from 
purchasing them. Again, if the Senate bill is enacted, police officers 
shot by a gun bought by a straw purchaser would no longer get his day 
in court.
  Gun shows are also an important source of guns for criminals. I am 
pleased to join my colleagues Senators McCain and Reed in co-sponsoring 
legislation to close the gun show loophole in the Brady Act. Studies 
have shown that unlicensed dealers often sell large quantities of guns 
at these shows without having to run criminal background checks or 
keeping records.
  Many of my colleagues might recall that a gun show was the source of 
the firearm purchased Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they went on 
their murderous rampage at Columbine High School. But again, the Senate 
bill will not hold such negligent gun sellers responsible for the 
injuries and deaths their firearms cause.
  Supporters of this legislation contend that there is a gun litigation 
crisis in America, and that many of the cases being brought against the 
gun industry are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 
fact, there are no massive backlogs of claims against gun dealers and 
manufacturers burdening the court system, as with the asbestos 
litigation. Only 33 municipalities and one State, New York, have filed 
suits against gun makers. Not one of these cases has been dismissed as 
being frivolous.
  In fact, 18 cities and counties have won favorable rulings on the 
legal merits of their cases. These courts have recognized that such 
cases are based upon well-established legal principles as negligence, 
product liability, and public nuisance. Important information on the 
gun industry's wrongful actions, which has long been cloaked in secrecy 
for many years, is being revealed during the discovery process. These 
cases, however, will be precluded, and the information gleaned from 
them will be lost, if the gun industry is granted the immunity it 
seeks.
  This legislation is the wrong way for the Senate to proceed on gun 
violence. Rather than giving special immunity to those manufacturers 
and dealers who wrongfully make and sell guns to criminals, the Senate 
should be working to protect our police officers and the people they 
protect.
  Rather than placing more guns on the streets, the Senate should be 
considering more responsible guns legislation, such as making the ban 
on assault weapons permanent and closing the gun show loophole. I am 
hopeful that the Senate will have a full and comprehensive debate on 
these important issues in the coming days.
  Rather than encouraging reasonable and safe gun use, the Senate is 
destroying any incentive for gun manufacturers to improve the safety of 
their deadly wares.
  The Senate wisely defeated a cloture motion on the motion to proceed 
to the medical malpractice bill. It should now tell the gun industry 
that they need to be held accountable for their deeds as is the case 
for every other industry in America so I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation.
  I have great respect for my colleagues, but there is no amendment 
that is going to be adopted in this Chamber that is going to make this 
ugly legislation any better. I do not care how much lipstick is put on 
this one, this is an unattractive bill by any measure, and I am going 
to vote against it no matter what. What we are doing is outrageous. As 
the Senator who represents more of these manufacturers than any other 
Member in this body, I can say this is flat out wrong and we ought to 
be ashamed of ourselves for taking an entire industry and not holding 
it potentially liable for the harm that it causes to people across this 
country. Thirty thousand people die every year, almost 3,000 kids, and 
we are about to say to the manufacturer of the products that kill them 
to take a walk and that you never have to show up again in court. That 
is incredible to me that we are about to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I turn the time over to the Senator 
from Ohio, let me only say to the Senator from Connecticut, go back and 
read section 4 of the bill.
  He is a very eloquent Senator, but at the same time this is a very 
narrow provision. It says if that manufacturer in a State or if a 
licensed gun dealer violates the law, they are in trouble. You bet we 
make it to the courthouse. We make it in front of the judge and the 
judge hears the arguments.
  Let me also refer to one of the Senator's concerned constituents, the 
president of Local 376 of the UAW, who has lost over 600 jobs in the 
Savage Arms Factory because they have had to spend millions of dollars 
defending themselves on frivolous lawsuits. So that is a problem.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield. To a question, I will respond.
  Mr. DODD. The Senator raised my name. I did not talk about the 
Senator from Idaho. The Senator used my name. May I respond?
  Mr. CRAIG. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have the floor. I would be happy to provide the letter 
to the Senator. I referred to the Senator as an eloquent spokesman and 
I ask the Senator to read section 4 of the bill.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio who is a cosponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be happy to yield another minute to the Senator 
from Connecticut so he may respond.
  Mr. CRAIG. I have the floor and I have already yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill cannot yield the floor 
to another Senator. The Senator has the right----
  Mr. CRAIG. I allocated him time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can allocate time. Other Senators 
have the right to compete for recognition, but the Senator cannot 
automatically give him the right for recognition.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Connecticut from my time. I do not want

[[Page S1627]]

him to feel I have impugned his good name in any sense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield and he can compete for 
recognition.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to say 
something about losing jobs. I have lost 45,000 manufacturing jobs in 
my State over the last few months. It has nothing to do with this. It 
has to do with the fact that this administration has decided that 
manufacturing jobs are producing hamburgers at McDonald's, and believe 
that outsourcing is a great thing for the country. That is where my 
jobs are going, not because of litigation.
  There have been 33 lawsuits by counties or communities and one by a 
State brought against the gun manufacturers. None of them have ever 
gone anywhere. What are we doing? Tell me there is some great problem 
out here in litigation with my companies losing lawsuits all across the 
country.
  We are a nation of 280 million people. Thirty-three lawsuits by 
counties, one by a State. The manufacturers never lost one. Why are we 
changing the law? Why, when 30,000 people die every year, 3,000 kids, 
why are we changing the law? There is no justification in fact or in 
law to be doing this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I can now yield 
a block of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there a unanimous 
consent agreement on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the Senator's question, the time is 
allocated to both sides. Senator Kennedy is controlling the time for 
the minority and Senator Craig is controlling the time for the 
majority. There are 18 minutes 59 seconds remaining under the control 
of Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, ask the indulgence of my colleague from 
Ohio, who I guess has the floor now, would he yield me 30 seconds?
  Mr. DeWINE. Certainly.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my 
friend from Connecticut. This is about the raw exercise of political 
power. I do not know how many times in my 31 years I have ever heard a 
Senator stand up on the floor when he represents the greatest number of 
constituents affected by a bill, who are major players in his State, 
and say he disagrees with their position. We are missing an awful lot 
of that.
  I acknowledge that this man has some political courage. We all would 
do a lot better if there were a lot more of it to go around.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho and my 
colleague from Colorado for agreeing to change the name of this 
amendment from the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to the Steve 
Young Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
  This name has particular meaning to me. I believe the renaming of 
this provision is a fitting tribute to a man who dedicated his life to 
keeping our community safe and free from crime.
  Steve Young was a dear friend of mine from the State of Ohio. He was 
also a well-known and well-respected figure in the law enforcement 
community. Steve was elected by his peers to serve as the national 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police and held this post until his 
death from cancer on January 9, 2003. Steve was just 49 years of age at 
his death.
  Steve grew up in Upper Sandusky, OH, and was a graduate of Upper 
Sandusky High School. He joined the Marion City Police Department in 
1976 and spent his entire law enforcement career as an active-duty 
officer there. It was in Marion that Steve first became a member of the 
FOP, joining FOP lodge No. 24. He later went on to serve as president 
of this lodge in the year 2000. He received the prestigious lifetime 
honor of president emeritus.
  Leadership in the law enforcement community came naturally to Steve, 
as his hard work and dedication earned him the respect and admiration 
of his peers. Steve went on to become active in the Ohio State lodge of 
the FOP and served first as vice president and then as president, 
representing Ohio's 24,000 law enforcement officers. Through the Ohio 
State lodge, Steve helped to create the Ohio Labor Council. This 
council created a model for improved labor-management negotiation in 
police forces, a model that has now been adopted in at least 14 other 
States.
  Steve's leadership in the Ohio law enforcement community and really 
his expertise in labor issues earned him a national reputation.
  In 2001, after serving for 4 years as national vice president, Steve 
was unanimously elected to serve as the national president of the FOP. 
In this capacity, Steve represented over 300,000 law enforcement 
officers and worked to protect their interests, the interests of our 
Nation's finest. This was a job I know Steve loved and one he did with 
great dignity and pride.
  While Steve Young had an incredibly successful career with multiple 
accomplishments, I would also like to take a few moments to discuss my 
personal connection with Steve. I had the privilege of knowing not just 
Steve Young the police officer but also Steve Young the man. Steve was, 
as I said, a dear friend of mine for many years. He was someone in whom 
I had a great deal of trust, and was fortunate to be able to call on 
him as a trusted adviser. I can't tell Members of the Senate and you, 
Mr. President, how often I would call him for advice, whether it was 
when I was Lieutenant Governor of Ohio or later when I was a Senator.
  I had the opportunity to work with Steve for many, many years. I 
relied heavily on his advice and his counsel. I consulted with him 
regularly on criminal justice matters, and his keen insights have 
helped shape nearly every piece of crime legislation with which I have 
been involved.
  Steve made a lasting impression on law enforcement, both in Ohio and 
across our Nation. From pension plans to crime fighting technology, 
Steve's foresight and his vision have helped bring law enforcement into 
this century.
  One of the last times I saw Steve he was in Washington for a 
Judiciary Committee hearing. I am fortunate that I had a chance to 
spend a few moments with him that day. It is that meeting that reminded 
me of Steve's humility. He was a humble man. He had no airs about him. 
He was quiet and self-effacing. He didn't put on a show or try to 
impress people with his position or his power within the national FOP.
  But you know, at the same time, his affable nature did not hide the 
fact that Steve Young was also a very strong man: brave, courageous, 
fearless, and tough as nails. After all, he was a policeman, and 
exactly the kind of policeman I would have wanted by my side when I was 
a county prosecutor many years ago, the kind of policeman I would have 
wanted helping me if I were a victim of crime, the kind of policeman I 
would have wanted protecting my children or grandchildren or any member 
of my family. That was Steve Young--a model for all law enforcement.
  He was a humble, dedicated man who devoted his career to working for 
the good of his fellow officers, for the good of Ohio, for the good of 
this Nation. Steve's commitment to our communities was evident in 
everything he did. Criminals were caught because of him and crimes were 
prevented. He was a protector. He was a leader. He was a good and 
decent, hard-working man for whom I have the greatest respect and 
admiration.
  It is fitting that this amendment now is named after Steve Young.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Who yields 
time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Leahy is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the managing Senator.
  I listened to what the distinguished Senator from Ohio said about 
Steve Young. I thought it was eloquent, well put, and I wish to join in 
those comments. I consider myself very fortunate to have known Steve. I 
thought how important it was that we change the

[[Page S1628]]

short title of this amendment to ``The Steve Young Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act.'' I remember even talking with Steve a number of 
times after he was ill and could no longer travel. Through all of that 
time, he, in typical fashion, spoke about others and not about himself.
  I began my public career in law enforcement. To this day, the only 
thing in my personal Senate office that has my name on it is the plaque 
the police gave me when I left that career in law enforcement to become 
a Senator. It is a plaque on the door to my office with my name and 
above it is the badge I carried as a law enforcement official.
  One thing I knew during my time in law enforcement, the law 
enforcement officers are never off duty. They are dedicated public 
servants, trained to uphold the law and keep the peace. To enable law 
enforcement officers nationwide to be prepared to answer a call to duty 
no matter where, when, or in what form it comes, I am proud to join 
Senators Campbell, Hatch, and Harry Reid to offer the Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act, S. 253, as it was reported out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful 
Commerce in Arms Act. People understand our amendment would permit off-
duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm provided 
they have demonstrated their ability, provided they follow some very 
strict requirements, and be prepared to assist in dangerous situations.
  This passed the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 18 to 1. It had 68 
cosponsors, both Republicans and Democrats, and was strongly supported 
by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the Law Enforcement 
Alliance of America.
  I worked with LT Steve Young on this. It was one of the things he and 
I talked about before he died. He was dedicated to it. He knew the 
importance of having law enforcement officers across the Nation armed 
and prepared, whenever and wherever a risk to our public safety arose. 
The current national president, MAJ Chuck Canterbury, worked with me 
and others to make this legislation law.
  We know where community policing and the outstanding work of so many 
law enforcement officers have helped a great deal in our crime control 
efforts. But during the last few years, the downward trend in violent 
crime ended and violent crime rates have turned upward.
  We also know that more than 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers 
are currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded 
police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,000 law enforcement 
officers killed in the line of duty--17,000. In the last decade, over 
1,700 officers died in the line of duty--170 every year.
  I think of a very sad funeral I went to in Vermont last summer. The 
trooper's family was left behind--young children, his widow. Roughly 5 
percent of officers who die are killed when taking law enforcement 
action in an off-duty capacity, and more than 62,000 law enforcement 
officers are assaulted annually.
  Convicted criminals often have long and exacting memories. I still 
have people come up to me and tell me they remember that I put them in 
prison. This happens to a lot of law enforcement officials. That law 
enforcement officer, the one who arrested the person who went to 
prison, is a target in uniform and out, active, retired, off-duty or 
on-duty.
  So what we tried to do by bringing together Republicans and 
Democrats, Liberals, moderates, conservatives, is to put together an 
amendment designed to establish national measures of uniformity and 
consistency to permit trained and certified--and I underline that 
certified--on- and off-duty law enforcement officers to carry concealed 
firearms in situations so they may respond to crimes immediately across 
State and other jurisdictional lines as well as to protect themselves 
and their families from vindictive criminals.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho for yielding time. I 
think this is an important matter. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I ask how much time our side has 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes. Senator Kennedy has 18 minutes 
59 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak at this 
time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I saw the Senator from Alabama. I 
had planned to be here as well, but I would be glad to follow the 
Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for that consideration. If he doesn't 
mind, I would defer our allocation of 10 minutes of time to the Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Craig and Senator 
Kennedy for the opportunity to speak. I am pleased to hear the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, speak in favor of 
this amendment. It does indeed have 67 cosponsors. It is designed to 
allow qualified law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon 
while they are off duty.
  Back at my home in Alabama, when I drive into the neighborhood, I 
know that a police officer lives at the corner. It gives me some 
comfort and my wife comfort. We have discussed it. When we pass that 
police car parked there, I know if something happened in that 
neighborhood and somebody needed help, he would respond. I also hope 
when he is traveling around off duty that he would be allowed to carry 
his weapon. We pay him to do it when he is on active duty. We pay him 
to carry that weapon and to be ready to respond.
  It is one of the greatest bargains Americans have for safety and 
security--that law officers would voluntarily, on their own time, be 
willing to carry a gun and oftentimes step forward at their own risk to 
help those in danger.
  I think it is a very good piece of legislation.
  If officers who have been trained for 30 years in carrying weapons 
retire, we ought to be glad they are willing to carry them as they 
travel. We should be glad that active-duty police officers who have 
weapons are able to carry them as long as they have proper 
identification and the proper training. It would certainly be a 
tremendous cost-free-effort project to improve safety throughout 
America.
  Qualified law enforcement officers are the only ones who can carry a 
firearm. They are defined as an employee of a government agency who is 
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, 
and investigation or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person 
for any violation of law. They have statutory powers. The officer must 
be authorized to carry a firearm and meet the standards established by 
the agency which requires the employee to regularly qualify in the use 
of a firearm. A qualified law officer is defined as an individual who 
has retired in good standing. A qualified retired law enforcement 
officer is one who has retired in good standing from service in a 
government agency for an aggregate of 5 years or more. The officer must 
have fit the above definition while active, must have a nonforfeitable 
right to the benefits under a retirement plan during the most recent 
12-month period, and have met at his or her own expense the State 
standard for training and qualification to carry a firearm. Both active 
and retired law officers will be required to carry photographic 
identification by the agency for which they were or are employed as a 
law officer before they can qualify under this effort.
  Why do police officers need it? First of all, they are often at risk 
themselves.
  People forget that there is a war on crime and that many of the 
criminals are seriously deadly individuals who hold grudges against 
those who have arrested them. As a former prosecutor for well over 15 
years, I have many close friends who are police officers and 
prosecutors. I know everyone has in the back of their minds the 
possibility that some dangerous criminal they apprehended, arrested, or 
prosecuted could utilize force against them.
  This, first and foremost, provides the officers with a sense of 
comfort and

[[Page S1629]]

personal security. But more than that, it is a free, available asset to 
America to protect citizens.
  We have terrorists out there. If we had a terrorist attack in a 
shopping mall, or on the streets, or in some building, or an attack 
going on in our community, wouldn't we be pleased that a law officer 
with a gun was there who would plug this guy if need be to save 
innocent lives? Wouldn't that be good for America? I think so.
  It is a frustrating thing, however, for law officers as they move 
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This country has a host of different 
gun laws. Gun dealers, gun possessors, and gun manufacturers are 
subject to the most intense Federal, State, and local regulations. An 
officer who goes about his duties and goes from one town to the next 
could find himself going through Boston, MA, and end up in a slammer 
for doing nothing but being prepared to defend a Boston citizen from a 
mugging or assault or a terrorist attack; or coming to Washington, DC; 
they could end up in jail. They have some of the toughest laws here--
maybe even tougher than Boston. They could end up in jail for doing 
nothing but being prepared to defend people in this community who may 
be under attack.

  I think this makes good sense. I think it makes good sense for 
Federal legal action because you can't do it piecemeal. Every community 
has a different rule and a different law. Under the interstate commerce 
clause, I think we have a constitutional right and power to enact this 
legislation.
  The question is: Is it good policy? Is it something we should do? I 
think it is good policy, especially in light of all the proliferating 
rules around this country, all the requirements in every county in 
Alabama, or Massachusetts, every city regulation in Philadelphia where 
they sue gun dealers--the mayor sues gun dealers, and they get the 
attorneys general in these States to gang up on them and sue them. They 
are doing nothing but manufacturing a firearm consistent with what the 
Federal and State laws are in America. But because somebody used it 
illegally, they want to sue them and put them out of business because 
they do not like guns. They are not able to do it completely; they are 
not able to pass legislation in their States or in the Federal 
Government to deal with this problem. So they want to use the power of 
lawsuits to do it.
  That is why I support the underlying bill. I think it is good public 
policy because all it does is make clear what existing law is, has 
been, and should continue to be--that a manufacturer of a legal product 
who manufacturers it according to the laws and the distributors of that 
product who distribute it according to the complex laws all over this 
country should not be responsible if there is an intervening criminal 
act by a person who gets his hand on that weapon.
  What are lawsuits for? Lawsuits historically have been when something 
fails to perform--if a weapon blows up, knocks out your eye, shoots off 
at an angle and hits something it is not supposed to, you should be 
able to sue the manufacturer. But if the gun is legal, if it is 
prepared according to the law and sold, and if some criminal gets it 
and commits a crime with it, why should the manufacturer be responsible 
for that? It goes against all of our understanding of what appropriate 
rule of liability in America is.
  We are losing those distinctions. We want to politicize the law. We 
have Members who, because they cannot win a political vote, want to 
have some lawsuit--some favorable jurisdiction, whether it is in 
Philadelphia, or Boston, and they find a judge who is hostile to gun 
ownership end up getting the case. They say there are only 30 lawsuits 
of this kind, but if you keep filing these lawsuits, pretty soon you 
may find 12 people who agree with you, or a judge who agrees with you. 
The next thing you know, you have a big verdict.
  The question is: Is it justified? Should a company have to defend 
itself from this kind of a political attack? If they are irresponsible, 
yes. If they violated the law, yes. They should be sued. If the gun is 
defective, yes. They should be sued.
  But again, I think there is no more strongly felt issue among law 
enforcement officers in America than their willingness to carry a gun 
and the risk they undertake in doing it because they may even forget 
they are crossing the State line into another city and end up being 
prosecuted for being prepared to defend the citizens of that 
community. They do not like that. It is troubling to them. Many talk to 
me about it personally.

  I am glad we have overwhelming support in this body to pass this 
amendment. I thank the Senator from Idaho for it. I support it and I 
believe we will pass it.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to notify me when 15 minutes are up.
  I hope we are not going to hear in the Senate more about States 
rights and the importance of local communities making local judgments; 
they are in touch with the local people; they know best what is in the 
interests of the protection of a local community; or that a State knows 
more than a Federal Government about how to protect its citizens.
  Those arguments are out the window with the proposed amendment to the 
underlying legislation. The amendment we are talking about gives 
active-duty and retired police officers the right to carry any firearm 
on duty or off duty, notwithstanding any State or local gun safety 
laws, even if the officers' own department rules prohibit the carrying 
of such concealed firearms.
  I know this is hoping too much, that our friends on the other side of 
the aisle will restrain themselves from making the argument we always 
hear in the Senate from the other side, pointing over here that the 
Federal Government always knows best.
  There is a lot of knowledge at the local and State level. Let's 
respect that. That is thrown right out the window with this amendment. 
This amendment is overriding gun safety laws that are decided by the 
people in local communities, overriding State laws, overriding them 
pointblank no matter what the State has said. We are talking about 
concealable weapons that will be able to be carried by police officers 
or retired officers, as well.
  It is opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
the Police Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  Let me explain why. This amendment is a serious step in the wrong 
direction. It will undermine the safety of our communities and the 
safety of police officers by broadly overriding the State and local gun 
safety laws. It will also nullify the ability of police departments to 
enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 
firearms. Because of the substantial danger the amendment poses to 
police officers and communities, it is vigorously opposed by the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
  There is no precedent for what the supporters of this amendment 
intend to accomplish. Congress has never passed a law giving current 
and former State and local employees the right to carry weapons in 
violation of controlling State and local laws. Congress has never 
passed a law interfering with the ability of State and local police 
chiefs to regulate their own officers carrying of firearms. Do we 
understand what this does? Congress has never passed a law interfering 
with the ability of the States or local police chiefs to regulate their 
own police officers carrying firearms. This amendment does. This 
overrides it.
  Today, each State has the authority to decide what kind of concealed-
carry law, if any, best fits the needs of the community. Each State 
makes its own judgment about whether private citizens should be allowed 
to carry concealed weapons or whether on-duty or off-duty or retired 
police officers should be included or exempted in any prohibition. 
There is no evidence that States or local governments have failed to 
consider the interests and needs of law enforcement officers. No case 
has been made.

  Consider, for example, the New Jersey law. In 1995, retired police 
chief John Deventer was shot and killed while heroically trying to stop 
a robbery. This incident prompted New Jersey to enact a law allowing 
retired officers to carry handguns under a number

[[Page S1630]]

of different conditions. In drafting this law, the New Jersey 
Legislature made a deliberate effort to balance the safety of police 
officers with the safety of the public at large by including a number 
of important safeguards that are not contained in this amendment.
  For example, New Jersey law is limited to handguns. This amendment is 
not. As long as the police officer is qualified to carry one type of 
gun, he can carry any type of gun, any type of concealable weapon. New 
Jersey law is limited to handguns. This amendment is not. New Jersey 
law has a maximum age of 70. This amendment does not. Under New Jersey 
law, retired police officers must file renewal applications yearly. 
There is no application process here. Under New Jersey, retirees must 
list all their guns. No such record is required under this amendment. 
New Jersey gives police departments discretion to deny permits to 
retirees. No such discretion is provided under this amendment.
  By enacting this amendment, Congress will be gutting all of the 
safeguards contained in the New Jersey statute as well as the judgment 
of other States that have considered this issue.
  The sponsors of this amendment have presented no evidence that States 
and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide these important 
issues for themselves. They have offered no explanation why Congress is 
better suited than States, cities, and towns to decide how best to 
protect police officers, schoolchildren, churchgoers, and other members 
of their communities.
  Congress should bolster, not undermine, the efforts of States and 
local communities to protect their citizens from gun violence. In many 
States, cities, and towns, special places--churches, schools, bars, 
government offices, hospitals--are singled out as deserving special 
protection from the threat of gun violence.
  Michigan is a State that prohibits concealed firearms in schools, 
sports arenas, bars, churches, and hospitals. Georgia law allows active 
and retired police officers to carry firearms in publicly owned 
buildings but not in churches, sports arenas, or places where alcohol 
is sold. Kentucky prohibits carrying concealed weapons in bars and 
schools. South Carolina prohibits concealed firearms in churches and 
hospitals.
  This amendment will override most such safe harbor laws at the State 
level. It will override laws that categorically prohibit guns in 
churches and in other houses of worship since only laws that permit 
private entities to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms on their 
property will remain in force. In most States, churches are not 
currently required to post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.
  This amendment will also override laws that prohibit concealed 
weapons in places where alcohol is served. This amendment will override 
State laws and local laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons in 
places where alcohol is served.
  Surely it is responsible for a State to prohibit people from bringing 
guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when liquor 
and firearms are together. It is no wonder that in the House of 
Representatives, Chairman Sensenbrenner has described this legislation 
as an affront to State sovereignty on the Constitution.
  At the local level, this amendment overrides all gun safety laws 
without exception. In the 1990s, Boston, New York, and other cities 
made great strides in fighting against crime precisely because they 
were able to pass laws that address the factors that led to violence, 
including the prevalence of firearms in inner cities. As Congressman 
Henry Hyde has said, the best decisions on fighting crime are made at 
the local level.
  We saw extraordinary progress in my own State of Massachusetts. We 
went for 18 months without a homicide. We have strict gun laws in 
Massachusetts. We have very strict gun laws in the city of Boston. This 
legislation will override it. Not all of the progress was made just 
because of the laws, but it was a combination of a variety of different 
events a few years ago. Tragically, we have seen an increase in 
homicide with the deterioration of the economy in the recent months and 
years.
  By overriding all local gun safety laws, this amendment will 
undermine the ability of cities to fight crime. It will 
indiscriminately abrogate safe harbor laws in Boston, New York City, 
Cincinnati, Columbus, Chicago, Kansas City, and many other towns.

  Congress has no business overriding the judgment of States and local 
governments in deciding where concealed weapons should be prohibited. 
Supporters have argued this amendment is needed because of the complex 
patchwork of Federal, State, and local concealed-carry laws which 
prevents officers from protecting themselves and their families from 
vindictive criminals. They have distributed lists of officers or prison 
guards who were killed while off duty or in retirement. The stories of 
these slain men and women are tragic, and their killers deserve to be 
severely punished. But none--none--of these incidents involved officers 
who were killed outside their home State. They do not demonstrate a 
need for a Federal override of State and local gun safety laws.
  To the contrary, as New Jersey's response to the tragic shooting of 
Chief Deventer shows, States and local governments are best equipped to 
implement policies, regulations, and laws that protect the safety of 
their own law enforcement officers, and also protect the public at 
large.
  The supporters have also argued by authorizing officers to carry guns 
across State lines, in violation of whatever State and local gun safety 
laws would otherwise apply, they will be able to effectively respond to 
crimes and terrorist attacks. They apparently envisage a nationwide 
unregulated police force, consisting of retired officers and off-duty 
officers who are armed while on vacation or traveling outside their 
home jurisdictions.
  Allowing off-duty or retired officers with concealed weapons to go 
into other jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for 
police officers and civilians. As the executive director of the IACP 
has explained:

       One of the reasons that this legislation is especially 
     troubling to our nation's law enforcement executives is that 
     it could in fact threaten the safety of police officers by 
     creating tragic situations where officers from other 
     jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local officers. 
     Police departments throughout the nation train their officers 
     to respond as a team to dangerous situations. This teamwork 
     requires months of training to develop and provides the 
     officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will 
     respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an 
     armed, unknown officer, who has received different training 
     and is operating under different assumptions, can turn an 
     already dangerous situation deadly.

  This amendment neither promotes consistent training policies among 
different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions under which 
officers may use their firearms. The idea that more crimes will be 
prevented when more concealed weapons are carried by untrained and 
unregulated out-of-State off-duty and retired officers is pure fiction.
  It is important to note that in giving off-duty and retired police 
officers broad authority to nullify State and local gun safety laws, 
the amendment is not limited to the carrying of officers' authorized 
weapons. In most police departments, officers may seek authorization to 
carry a range of weapons. If an officer wants to carry a weapon other 
than his service weapon--typically, a 9 millimeter semiautomatic 
pistol--he must prove he is qualified before the department will 
authorize him to carry it. To become qualified, the officer must 
demonstrate he can handle that weapon safely.
  Rather than limiting its provisions to authorized weapons, this 
amendment provides as long as an officer at some point received 
authorization to carry a particular kind of firearm, such as his 
service weapon, he can carry, concealed, any other kind of firearm 
while off duty or retired, even if he never received authorization from 
his own police department to carry that other weapon.
  In the 107th Congress, I introduced an amendment in committee 
providing an off-duty or retired officer could carry a concealed 
firearm only if he had been authorized to carry that firearm by the 
agency he works for, or if he had been so authorized at the time of his 
retirement. That amendment was rejected by an evenly divided vote, 9 to 
9. Thus, the legislation now before us will give off-

[[Page S1631]]

duty and retired officers carte blanche to carry concealed shotguns, 
sniper rifles, or other weapons their own police departments have not 
authorized them to carry. Its failure to limit this privilege to 
authorized police weapons--or even to handguns, as New Jersey law 
provides--will further undermine the safety of American communities.
  Serious safety problems are also raised by the amendment's override 
of gun-safety laws for retired officers, a category that is defined to 
include anyone who has served in a law enforcement capacity for 15 
years ``in the aggregate'' before retiring or resigning and taking a 
different job. There is no requirement that a retiree demonstrate a 
special need for a firearm. While the amendment provides that an 
officer must have technically left law enforcement in ``good 
standing,'' it is well known that sub-par government employees are 
routinely released from their positions without a formal finding of 
misconduct. The amendment does not draw a distinction between officers 
who served ably and those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good 
standing'' while under investigation for domestic violence, racial 
profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still qualify for 
broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder of their lives. As 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police has observed:

       This legislation fails to take into account those officers 
     who have retired under threat of disciplinary action or 
     dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to the 
     level of ``mental instability.'' Officers who retire or quit 
     just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still 
     be eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency 
     in good standing. Even a police officer who retires with 
     exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or 
     other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a 
     concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police 
     management structure that identifies such problems in current 
     officers.

  Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the amendment is its potential 
to undermine the effective and safe functioning of police departments 
throughout the country. It removes the ability of police departments to 
enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 
firearms. Police chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own 
officers from carrying certain weapons on duty or off duty.
  Section 2 of the amendment provides that regardless of ``any other 
provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision 
thereof,'' any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer 
and who carries a photo ID will be authorized to carry any firearm. In 
a variety of contexts, including the Federal preemption of State law, 
courts have interpreted the term ``law'' to include agency rules and 
regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled this term specifically 
includes contractual obligations between employers and employees, such 
as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated by State and local 
police departments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I discussed, there is no requirement in the amendment 
that active-duty officers be authorized to carry each firearm that they 
wish to carry concealed. In other words, once an officer qualifies to 
carry a service weapon, he will have the right under this amendment to 
carry any gun, on duty or off duty--even if doing so violates his own 
police department's rules.
  Thus, if Congress enacts this legislation, police chiefs will be 
stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, for example, 
that they cannot bring guns into bars while off duty; that they cannot 
carry their service weapons on vacation; or that they cannot carry 
certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns on the job.
  As the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated in a 
letter to the Judiciary Committee, ``under the provisions of [this 
legislation], police chiefs and local governments would lose the 
authority to regulate what type of firearms the officers they employ 
can carry even while they are on duty.''

       As a result, the legislation would effectively eliminate 
     the ability of a police department to establish rules 
     restricting the ability of officers to carry only department-
     authorized firearms while on duty. The prospect of officers 
     carrying unauthorized firearms while on duty is very 
     troubling to the IACP for several reasons.
       First, an unauthorized weapon is unlikely to meet 
     departmental standards. This in turn means that the officer 
     will not have received approved departmental training in its 
     use, and will not have qualified with the weapon under 
     departmental regulations. Carrying an unauthorized weapon 
     thus presents a risk of injury to the officer, fellow 
     officers, and citizens, for the weapon itself may be unsafe 
     or otherwise unsuitable for police use, and the officer may 
     not be sufficiently proficient with its use to avoid adverse 
     consequences.
       In addition to the risk of injury involved, the carrying of 
     unauthorized weapons is a major source of police civil 
     liability in the U.S. today. An officer who fires an 
     unauthorized weapon in the line of duty risks civil liability 
     for the officer and for the department, even though the 
     shooting may have been otherwise legally justified. A number 
     of civil-suit plaintiffs have contended that the mere fact 
     that the weapon that caused the plaintiff's injury was 
     unauthorized is, in itself, sufficient legal grounds for a 
     finding of liability.

For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that this amendment 
``has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the safety 
of our communities and our officers.''
  Law enforcement executives face extremely difficult challenges today. 
As crime rates have started to rise again and new concerns about 
domestic security have emerged, police chiefs are forced to do more 
with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to cut back on 
funding for law enforcement. The administration has tried its best to 
eliminate federal funding for such critical programs as the COPS 
Universal-Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant program.
  The last thing Congress should do now is enact legislation that 
expands the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the 
ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of 
firearms and to maintain discipline. By denying police chiefs the right 
to run their own departments, the amendment would deal a severe blow to 
common sense and public safety.
  Each State and local government should be allowed to make its own 
judgment as to whether citizens and out-of-State visitors may carry 
concealed weapons, and whether active or retired law enforcement 
officers should be included in or exempted from any prohibition.
  This amendment will unnecessarily damage the efforts of States and 
local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. It will 
also expose States and local governments to unnecessary liability and 
nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain discipline and control 
within their own departments.
  The Nation will be better served if the Senate puts this misguided 
legislation aside and turns its attention to measures we know will 
reduce crime and enhance the safety of police officers and all 
Americans.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A minute and a half.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the bottom line on this--we are going to 
have a chance to vote on this next Tuesday--is this is an action by 
Congress to override State-considered legislation and local legislation 
on how to protect their local communities. Some States have made the 
judgment that they do not believe they ought to permit concealed 
weapons in bars and churches and other public places, such as in 
schools, because they do not want to have the proliferation of guns in 
schools, they do not want to have the proliferation of guns in bars, 
they do not believe concealed weapons ought to be in churches. The 
States and local communities have made that judgment in order to 
protect their local communities. But somehow we are deciding here in 
the Senate, on the basis of about an hour and 20 minutes of debate on 
this, that we are going to override the common good sense of States and 
local governments and say: We know best. If you are a police officer or 
retired officer, you can carry that concealed weapon, even though you 
are not trained to be able to use it or authorized to use it, into the 
bars, schools, and churches of this country. That makes no sense and is 
a contradiction of what the States and local communities do.
  How much further do we have to go to kowtow to the National Rifle 
Association?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S1632]]

  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.
  The legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement 
officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed 
firearms. What this means is that active and retired police officers 
will be able to carry their firearms virtually anywhere in the U.S. 
without having to worry about violating any local or State gun laws.
  The bill is noncontroversial and enjoys wide, bipartisan support in 
both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate bill, S. 
253, passed the Judiciary Committee in March 2003 on an 18 to 1 vote. 
The bill has 67 cosponsors, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, 
Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and every other member of the Senate 
leadership from both sides of the aisle. Senator Ben Nighthorse 
Campbell, a former law enforcement officer, is offering the amendment 
along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Member 
Patrick J. Leahy, and Minority Whip Harry Reid.
  The House bill, H.R. 218, has 286 cosponsors. In addition to a House 
majority, the bill has a majority of both the full Judiciary Committee 
and the subcommittee of jurisdiction. In 1999, the House passed a 
nearly identical measure as an amendment to another bill by an 
overwhelming 372 to 53 majority.
  This isn't a ``firearms issue''--it is an officer safety issue. And, 
on 11 September 2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland 
security issue.
  Law enforcement officers need this bill--it is the number one issue 
among rank-and-file officers today. Policy officers are frequently 
finding that they, and their families, are the targets of vindictive 
criminals. A police officer may not remember all the faces of all the 
criminals he or she has put behind bars, but every one of those 
criminals will. This legislation gives all police officers the means to 
legally protect themselves and their loved ones--even if off-duty or 
retired.
  Public safety and homeland security would benefit immensely from this 
bill becoming law. Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained 
body of men and women sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. 
Unlike other professions, a police officer is rarely ``off-duty.'' When 
there is a threat to the peace or public safety, the police officer is 
sworn to answer the call of duty. Officers who are traveling from one 
jurisdiction to another do not leave their instincts or training 
behind, but without their weapon, that knowledge and training is 
rendered virtually useless. These bills will provide the means for law 
enforcement officers to enforce the law and keep the peace--enabling 
them to put to use that training and answer the call to duty when the 
need arises. Without a weapon, the law enforcement officer is like a 
rescue diver without diving gear; all the right training and talent to 
lend to an emergency situation, but without the equipment needed to 
make that training of any use. Given the ongoing threat of terrorist 
activity against U.S. citizens, it just makes sense to give our first 
line of defense the tools they need in a first responder situation. 
Perhaps the strongest endorsement we can make is that thousands of 
violent criminals and terrorists will hate to see it pass.

  This is not a States' rights issue and the bill has been carefully 
crafted to ensure that it conforms to the U.S. Constitution and the 
precepts of Federalism. Congress has the authority, under the ``full 
faith and credit'' clause of the Constitution, to extend full faith and 
credit to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who 
have met the criteria to carry firearms set by one State, and make 
those credentials applicable and recognized in all States and 
territories in these United States. States and localities issue 
firearms to their police officers and set their own requirements for 
their officers in training and qualifying in the use of these weapons. 
This legislation maintains the States' power to set these requirements 
and determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified 
in the use of the firearm, and would allow only this narrow universe of 
persons to carry their firearms when traveling outside their 
jurisdiction. We believe this is similar to the States' issuance of 
drivers' licenses--the standards may differ slightly from State to 
State, but all States recognize that the drivers have been certified to 
operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
  All 50 States require their officers to receive many hours--the 
average is 48--of firearms training before they leave the academy. 
Before receiving their appointment, law enforcement officers must meet 
certain score requirements in order to qualify with their weapon, the 
average being about 76 percent. No officer with a score below the 70th 
percentile is considered qualified with his weapon.
  Most States require their officers to requalify with their weapons on 
a regular basis. Individual agencies may require their officers to 
qualify more frequently, but they must meet the State's minimum, which 
ranges from annually to every 5 years.
  How Do Retired Officers Qualify: In order to carry under this 
legislation, a retired law enforcement officer would have to qualify 
with his firearm at his own expense every 12 months and meet the 
qualifications as an active duty officer in his State of residence. For 
example, a New Jersey police officer that retires to North Carolina 
must qualify annually at his own expense and meet the same standards 
that an active duty officer in North Carolina must meet.
  Many Federal law enforcement officers currently have the authority to 
carry their firearms. Training and qualification for Federal law 
enforcement officers is not so dissimilar to that of State and local 
law enforcement officers. There have been no issues of concern with 
Federal officers carrying in all jurisdiction, why would there be for 
State and local law enforcement officers?

  There is Congressional precedent on this issue. Congress has 
previously acted to force States to recognize permits to carry issued 
by other States on the basis of employment in other instances. In June 
1993, the Senate and House approved and passed a law, PL 103-55, 
mandating reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to armored car 
company crew members among States. Congress amended the act in 1998, PL 
105-78, providing that the licenses must be renewed every 2 years. This 
precedent allows armored car guards--who do not have nearly the same 
level of training and qualifications as law enforcement officers--to 
receive a license to carry a firearm in one State and forces other 
States to recognize its validity.
  Airline pilots can obtain the authority law enforcement officers are 
seeking. In addition to armored car guards, Congress passed a law 
exempts airline pilots who participate in the ``Federal flight deck 
officer'' from Federal and State law with respect to the carrying of 
concealed firearms. Note that this authority is not limited just to the 
cockpit--but also while the pilots are on the ground and off-duty.
  Congress has the authority to preempt State and local prohibitions on 
the carrying of concealed weapons and has in the past granted a certain 
class of persons--based on the nature of their employment and their 
value in an emergency situation--the authority to carry firearms in all 
jurisdictions. To do the same for law enforcement just makes good 
sense.
  On the last weekend in June, FOP members from Maryland Lodge No. 70 
were packing up their campsite following a 3-day camping trip with 
their families in Harpers Ferry. That Sunday afternoon, after many of 
the officers and their families had left, a gunman opened fire on 
another camper, wounding him in the lower leg. Detective Timothy Utzig 
and Officer Andrew Albach reacted quickly, instructing their families 
to leave the scene, while they retrieved their firearms and confronted 
the man. The gunman, yelling incoherently, eventually obeyed the 
officers' orders to lie down on the ground. After searching him, they 
discovered that the man had several more live rounds for his shotgun in 
his possession. Detective Utzig and Officer Albach held the man until 
West Virginia authorities could arrive. It was discovered later that 
the gunman had an extensive criminal history--including a murder 
conviction.

  Sergeant Sam Harmon of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department 
said, ``There's no telling how many lives those men saved Sunday 
afternoon. These guys are my heroes for life.''
  They were certainly heroes, but they were also in violation of West 
Virginia

[[Page S1633]]

State law because they possessed firearms. These brave officers--who 
stopped a gunman's rampage on their day off, outside of their own 
jurisdiction--were not charged, but their action placed themselves in 
legal jeopardy, as well as physical. Had they complied with State law 
that Sunday, they or their families could have been victims. This is 
just one example of how public safety could be served if this bill were 
made law.
  In 1991, off-duty Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Johnson was 
vacationing in Phoenix, Arizona. He witnessed a man knock an elderly 
female to the ground, take her purse, and run. He immediately gave 
chase, without stopping to think that he was unarmed because he could 
not legally carry a firearm in Arizona. He caught the thief after a 
mile-long foot chase, and fought to subdue him. Had the criminal been 
armed, Officer Johnson would surely have been killed. Now retired, 
Officer Johnson had to go through a great deal of trouble in his own 
State of Minnesota to get a concealed carry weapon permit as it is up 
to each individual chief whether or not to issue. When he moved into a 
different jurisdiction, he had to get a judge to intercede because the 
chief of police in his new locality initially refused to issue him a 
permit.

  Off-duty and retired officers are often targeted for attack by 
vengeful criminals. Off-duty police officer Tim Brauer was having 
dinner with his family in an Oklahoma City restaurant, outside his 
jurisdiction. While in the restroom, he was attacked by a man he had 
previously arrested. At the time, Oklahoma State law permitted off duty 
law enforcement officers to carry their firearms only within their home 
jurisdiction. In obeying the law and leaving his firearm at home while 
out with his family, he was left vulnerable to his attacker. Officer 
Brauer suffered severe injuries, but he lived and his family was not 
harmed. Oklahoma law now permits officers to carry throughout the 
State.
  Officer Shynelle Marie Mason, a 2-year veteran with the Detroit, 
Michigan Police Department, was shot and killed on July 14, 2000, by a 
man she had previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. She 
encountered the man while off-duty; he confronted her and shot her 
several times in the chest. Though she was not on the clock, her death 
was considered a ``line of duty'' death and her name appears on the 
Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.
  Retired New York State Supreme Court Police Officer William Kirchoff, 
a 17-year law enforcement veteran who was forced into retirement in 
1989 as a direct result of an injury received when he was assaulted on 
the job, was the target of a contract assault/attempted murder. Tony 
Mattino, a career criminal with a long rap sheet for illegal possession 
of firearms and drugs was arrested and charged with assaulting Officer 
Kirchoff's 15-year-old daughter. Mattino was convicted for the assault 
and, prior to sentencing, threatened Officer Kirchoff. On February 21, 
1998, he made good on his pledge. A pizza delivery man arrived at the 
officer's home. Officer Kirchoff had not placed any delivery order, and 
would not allow the man inside his home. He did offer the delivery man 
the use of his cordless phone--at which point he was attacked. the man, 
wielding a metal baseball bat, forced his way into the house, striking 
Officer Kirchoff more than 10 times. His 10 year-old-son was in the 
home at the time of the attack. The officer was unarmed and had no 
firearms on his person or property. Ultimately, Officer Kirchoff was 
able to drive off his attacker, who remains at large to this day. 
Mattino is also currently free on probation. Since the attack, Officer 
Kirchoff has a license to carry in New York and six other States.

  Detective Donald Miller, a 10-year veteran with the New Bern Police 
Department in North Carolina was off-duty on December 23, 2001. He and 
his wife had just completed a visit to their newborn child in the 
hospital when the detective observed a man driving recklessly through 
the hospital parking lot. He confronted the man, who drew a handgun and 
fired--striking Miller in the head. Detective Miller, father of two, 
died 2 days later on Christmas Day. Though he was not on the clock, his 
death was considered a ``line of duty'' death and his name appears of 
the Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.

  Officer Dominick J. Infantes, Jr., a 7-year veteran with the New 
Jersey City Police Department, was attacked by two men wielding a pipe 
on July 4, 2001. He died 2 days later from severe head injuries. 
Infantes was off-duty when he asked two men to stop setting off 
fireworks near playing children. He identified himself as a police 
officer, but the two killers did not believe him because Infantes did 
not have a gun. Though he was not on the clock, his death was 
considered a ``line of duty'' death and his name appears of the Wall of 
Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.
  In 2000, off-duty Las Vegas Police Officer Dennis Devitte, a 20-year 
veteran was relaxing at a local sports bar when the establishment was 
attacked by three armed assailants. Two of the men opened fire on the 
crowd, hitting a man in a wheelchair. Officer Devitte did not 
hesitate--he pulled his tiny .25-caliber gun and, knowing he would have 
to get very close to make sure he hit his target, charged a man firing 
a .40-caliber semiautomatic. Officer Devitte got within one foot of the 
man, fired and killed the gunman--but not before he was shot eight 
times. The remaining two gunmen fled. All six civilians wounded in the 
assault recovered. One witness described Officer Devitte's action as 
``the most courageous thing I've ever seen.'' Officer Devitte lost six 
units of blood, his gun hand was badly damaged and his knee had to be 
entirely reconstructed with bones taken from a cadaver. And yet, he was 
back on the job 6 months later. For his incredibly heroic actions, 
Officer Devitte was selected as the ``Police Officer of the Year'' by 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and Parade 
magazine.

  On the 4th of July, 1999, off-duty Police Officer Alfredo Rodriguez 
of the Nassau County, NY Police Department was driving to Norwich, CT 
with his wife and four children when he observed a Norwich Police 
Officer attempt to arrest a highly intoxicated man running in and out 
of traffic. A second man attacked the Norwich officer from behind and 
attempted to take his firearm. Officer Rodriguez, although unarmed, 
pulled over, left his family and rushed to the aid of the officer. He 
was able to free the Norwich officer from a chokehold and disarm the 
attacker, who had successfully gotten the Norwich officer's firearm. 
The two officers restrained the initial suspect and battled the second 
until additional uniformed Norwich officers arrived. Officer Rodriguez 
was awarded Nassau County's Medal of Distinguished Service for his 
actions, which undoubtedly saved the life of Norwich Police Officer 
Peter Camp.
  In July 1995, recently Retired Police Chief John Diventer of the 
Hanover, NJ, Police Department was with his family visiting his 
family's grave plot in Newark, when he observed several robbers attack 
two elderly women and steal their purses. He attempted to intervene, 
and was shot and killed, At the time of the chief's murder, retired 
police officers were not authorized to carry firearms in New Jersey. 
This incident prompted a change in New Jersey law, which now permits 
retired officers to carry throughout the State.
  In closing, let me say about the amendment that is before us, 
concealed-carry, 67 Members of this Senate, Democrats and Republicans, 
believe this is a necessary and appropriate amendment to S. 1805. We 
believe it is. We think it is important that it be adopted, and that we 
extend these law-abiding, well-trained and schooled law enforcement 
officers and retirees this opportunity and privilege.
  With that, Mr. President, my time has expired. I understand we will 
now lay this amendment aside, to be voted on Tuesday next, and by the 
order of the unanimous consent agreement we arrived at last night, 
Senator Kennedy is now to have the floor to offer one of his amendments 
to be debated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to join Senators Campbell, Hatch and 
Leahy to offer the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is simple. It would exempt present and 
retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws that 
prohibit carrying concealed firearms, as long as

[[Page S1634]]

the officers were bearing valid ID issued from their employing agency.
  The Fraternal Order of Police, representing more than 1,000 Nevada 
law enforcement officers and more than 300,000 members nationwide, 
supports this amendment.
  They support this bill because it would improve public safety. It 
would allow law enforcement officers to protect the public, as well as 
themselves.
  This amendment mirrors a bill sponsored by more than two-thirds of 
America's Senators.
  Again, our overwhelming support underscores the fact that this 
measure will protect our communities, as well as the brave police 
officers who serve us so well.
  As I learned many years ago when I was on the Capitol police force, 
law enforcement officers are never truly ``off-duty.'' They are 
dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace.
  When there is a threat to the peace or to our public safety, law 
enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call--and answer it they 
do, whether they are on duty or not.
  Law enforcement officers are always protecting the innocent just as 
they are always under threat from the guilty.
  Although a police officer might not remember the name and face of 
every criminal he or she has put behind bars, criminals have long 
memories. A law enforcement officer is a target whether in or out of 
uniform, whether active or retired, and whether on duty or off.
  In fact, roughly 5 percent of officers who are killed in action are 
actually ``off duty'' at the time of their death.
  This amendment is designed to protect officers and their families 
from vindictive criminals, and to allow thousands of equipped, trained 
and certified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms that 
will help them protect innocent citizens.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this measure, which will make our 
communities safer and protect our brave police officers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2619

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we have a half an hour; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to send the amendment to 
the desk?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I believe the amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2619.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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:

(Purpose: To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to 
 require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform 
               testing of projectiles against body armor)

       On page 11, after line 19, add the following:

     SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

       (a) Expansion of Definition of Armor Piercing Ammunition.--
     Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
     the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), 
     to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
       ``(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or 
     marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the 
     Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to 
     be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard 
     ammunition of the same caliber.''.
       (b) Determination of the Capability of Projectiles To 
     Penetrate Body Armor.--Section 926 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate 
     standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body 
     Armor Exemplar.
       ``(2) The standards promulgated pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     shall take into account, among other factors, variations in 
     performance that are related to the length of the barrel of 
     the handgun or centerfire rifle from which the projectile is 
     fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the 
     projectile.
       ``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor 
     Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General 
     determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law 
     enforcement officers.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I mentioned that there had been a 
homicide in Massachusetts recently, over 18 months. It was juvenile 
homicide. I ask that the Record be so corrected.
  As we all know too well, the debate about gun violence has often been 
aggressive and polarizing with anti-gun violence advocates on one side 
of the debate, pro-gun advocates on the other. There are deep divisions 
in the country on the issue of gun safety, and the current debate on 
the gun immunity bill has thus far only served to highlight those 
divisions.
  I believe, however, that there are still some principles on which we 
can all agree. One principle is that we should do everything we can to 
protect the lives and safety of police officers who are working to 
protect our streets, schools, and communities.
  The amendment I am offering today is intended to close the existing 
loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets. Police 
officers depend on body armor for their lives. Body armor has saved 
thousands of police officers from death or serious injury by firearm 
assault. Most police officers who serve large jurisdictions wear armor 
at all times when on duty. Nevertheless, even with body armor, too many 
police officers remain vulnerable to gun violence.
  According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, every year between 
50 and 80 police officers are feloniously killed in the line of duty. 
In 2002, firearms were used in 51 of the 56 murders of police officers. 
In those shootings, 34 of the officers were wearing body armor at the 
time of their deaths. From 1992 to 2002, at least 20 police officers 
were killed after bullets penetrated their armor vests and entered 
their upper torso.
  Some gun organizations have argued that cop-killer bullets are a 
myth. The families of these slain police officers know better. In fact, 
we know that armor-piercing ammunition is not a myth because it is 
openly and notoriously marketed and sold by gun dealers.
  I direct my colleagues' attention to the Web site of Hi-Vel, 
Incorporated, a self-described exotic products distributor and 
manufacturer in Delta, UT. You can access its online catalog on the 
Internet right now. Hi-Vel's catalog lists an entry for armor-piercing 
ammunition. On that page you will find a listing for armor-piercing 
bullets that can penetrate metal objects. The bullets are available in 
packages of 10 for $9.95 each. Hi-Vel carries armor-piercing bullets 
for both the .223 caliber rifles such as the Bushmaster sniper rifle 
used in the Washington area attacks in October 2002, and the 7.62 
caliber assault weapons. Over the past 10 years, these two caliber 
weapons were responsible for the deaths of 14 of the 20 law enforcement 
officers killed by ammunition that penetrated body armor.
  In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 
caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police 
officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced 
threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel 
particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of 
soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.
  Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for 
penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 
2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored 
vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-
pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

  It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to 
be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for 
rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United 
States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition 
unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may 
purchase this ammunition without a background check. There is no 
Federal minimum age of possession. Purchases may be made over the 
counter, by mail order, by fax, by Internet, and there is

[[Page S1635]]

no Federal requirement that dealers retain sales records.
  In 1999, investigators for the General Accounting Office went 
undercover to assess the availability of .50 caliber armor-piercing 
ammunition. Purchasing cop-killer bullets, it turned out, is only 
slightly more difficult than buying a lottery ticket or a gallon of 
milk. Dealers in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia informed the 
investigators that the purchase of these kinds of ammunition is subject 
to no Federal, State, or local restrictions. Dealers in Alaska, 
Nebraska, and Oregon who advertised over the Internet told an 
undercover agent that he could buy the ammunition in a matter of 
minutes, even after he said he wanted the bullets shipped to 
Washington, DC, and needed them to pierce an armored limousine or 
theoretically take down a helicopter. Talk about homeland security.
  In a single year, over 100,000 rounds of military surplus armor-
piercing ammunition were sold to civilians in the United States. In 
addition, the gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, recently introduced a 
powerful new revolver, the .500 magnum, 4\1/2\ pounds, 15 inches long, 
that clearly has the capability of piercing body armor using ammunition 
allowed under the current law.
  The publication, Gun Week, reviewed the new weapon with enthusiasm: 
``Behold the magic, feel the power,'' it wrote.

       Many of our leaders will buy the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum 
     for the same reason that Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest: 
     Because it is there.

  Current Federal law bans certain armor-piercing ammunition for 
handguns. It establishes a content-based standard. It covers ammunition 
that is, first of all, constructed from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, 
brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium or, secondly, 
larger than .22 caliber with a jacket that weighs no more than 25 
percent of the total weight of the bullet.
  However, there are no restrictions on ammunition that may be 
manufactured from other materials but can still penetrate body armor. 
Even more important, there are no restrictions on armor-piercing 
ammunition used in rifles and assault weapons. Armor-piercing 
ammunition has no purpose other than penetrating bulletproof vests. It 
is of no use for hunting or self-defense. Such armor-piercing 
ammunition has no place in our society--none.
  Armor-piercing bullets that sidestep the Federal ban, such as that 
advertised on Hi-Vel's Web site, put the lives of American citizens and 
those sworn to defend American citizens in jeopardy every single day. 
We know the terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes 
in our gun laws. The terrorists training manual discovered by American 
soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al-Qaida operatives to buy 
assault weapons in the United States and use them against us.
  Terrorists are bent on exploiting weaknesses in our gun laws. Just 
think of what a terrorist could do with a sniper rifle and only a 
moderate supply of armor-piercing ammunition.
  My amendment amends the Federal ban on cop-killer bullets to include 
a performance standard and extends the ban on centerfire rifles, which 
include the sniper rifles and assault weapons responsible for the 
deaths of 17 police officers whose body armor was penetrated by this 
ammunition.
  My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used 
in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only 
covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing 
capability. That is it--designed or marketed as having armor-piercing 
capability, such as armor-piercing ammunition that is now advertised on 
the Hi-Vel Web site.
  Bullets that are designed or marketed to be armor piercing have no 
place in our society. Ducks, deer, and other wildlife do not wear body 
armor. Police officers do. We should not let another day pass without 
plugging the loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets.
  This is an issue on which mainstream gun owners and gun safety 
advocates can agree. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time? The Senator from 
Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have heard over the last few minutes 
what might appear, at first listening, to be alarming facts, figures, 
and statistics, but we all know that in any good debate the devil is in 
the details, and in the details of the Kennedy amendment are some 
hidden secrets that must be brought out so we can understand them.
  Let me, first and foremost, read into the Record a letter from the 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police. The Senator has talked 
about cop-killer bullets and protecting cops on the beat, those who 
wear soft body armor. This is what Chuck Canterbury, the national 
president of the Fraternal Order of Police, says in a letter to me that 
he has copied to Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, and to Senator 
Kennedy:

       I am writing to advise you of our strong opposition to an 
     amendment Senator Kennedy intends to offer later today----

  In relation to the underlying amendment.

       Senator Kennedy will certainly present his amendment as an 
     ``officer safety issue''----

  And that is exactly what we have heard over the last good number of 
minutes----

       to get dangerous ``cop-killer'' bullets----

  And he talks about how dangerous they are off the shelf.

       Regardless of its presentation, the amendment's actual aim 
     and effect would be to expand the definition of ``armor-
     piercing'' to include ammunition based, not on any threat to 
     law enforcement officers, but on a manufacturer's marketing 
     strategy.
  I do believe we saw that language on the Web site that he quoted--a 
strategy, a rhetorical expression as it relates to an encouragement to 
buy a given type of ammunition.
  He goes on to say:

       The truth of the matter is that only one law enforcement 
     officer has been killed by a round fired from a handgun which 
     penetrated his soft-body armor--and in that single instance, 
     it was the body armor that failed to provide the expected 
     ballistic protection, not because the round was ``armor 
     piercing.''
       It is our view that no expansion or revision of the current 
     law is needed to protect law enforcement officers. To put it 
     simply, this is not a genuine officer safety issue. If it 
     were, Senator Kennedy would not be offering his amendment to 
     a bill he strongly opposes and is working to defeat.

  It sounds as if not only is the president of the Fraternal Order of 
Police talking about the facts, he is talking about some reasonable 
logic.
  He goes on to say:

       The real officer safety issue is the adoption of----

  The amendment we just set aside----

     the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act.

  That amendment deals with carrying a concealed weapon, to which I 
believe the Senator spoke in opposition, which would exempt active and 
retired law enforcement officers from local prohibitions for the right 
to carry concealed firearms.
  Mr. Canterbury goes on:

       The Kennedy amendment was considered and defeated by the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee in March of 2003 on a 10-6 vote. 
     We believe that it should be rejected again.
       On behalf of more than 311,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I thank you for taking our views on this 
     issue into consideration.

  Here is the president of the National Grand Lodge of the Fraternal 
Order of Police saying that the Kennedy amendment is not what it is. 
What he is, in fact, saying is that the current armor-piercing, cop-
killing bullet law in place is the kind of adequate protection they 
need.
  I have made that letter available to all of our colleagues as we 
debate this issue.
  What will the Kennedy amendment do? I think it is important for us to 
understand in reality the impact of expanding this kind of definition 
and understanding.
  What it does--and I don't know that the Senator intends this 
purpose--is that it begins to eliminate ammunition that is used in a 
legitimate way for hunting. He is right, Bambi doesn't wear body armor. 
Bambi doesn't need to wear body armor. But in the legal sportsmen's 
industry and in hunting, here are some very common rifles: 30.30 
Winchester, 30.06 Springfield, 308 Winchester, 300 Savage, 7 mm 
Remington, 270 Winchester, 257 Roberts, 253 Winchester, and 223 
Remington, just to name a few. We believe based on our interpretation 
of the amendment that this kind of ammunition is eliminated.
  What we also know is that there is ammunition out there used with a 
rifle

[[Page S1636]]

that can pierce body armor. That is a fact. But the ammunition we are 
talking about that is traditionally known as the cop-killer bullet that 
is now outlawed in this country has nothing to do with the rifle. It 
had everything to do with the pistol, that weapon of choice by 
criminals in our country, and we know why.
  Criminals do not walk down the street with a 30.06 over their 
shoulder. Somehow there is the visible factor that denies them the use 
of that rifle. They use handguns. They conceal them. They hide them on 
their person. They carry them in a package or in a carrying type of 
valise. They do not carry rifles. Yet the Senator's amendment goes 
directly at the hunting sports; it goes directly at hunting ammunition. 
This is why at the appropriate time when we have concluded the debate 
on the Senator's amendment, I will offer an alternative amendment under 
the unanimous consent agreement that we think reflects what ought to be 
done in relation to what the Senator is offering.
  Let me also add that the most extensive study on this issue pursuant 
to a congressional mandate to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
Penalty Act of 1996 was a BATF draft report provided in 1997 to those 
individuals and organizations that had assisted in a BATF study of the 
issue of armor-piercing ammunition.
  That study mandated, in response to President Clinton's repeated 
call, for a ban on bullets capable of penetrating soft body armor. 
Those Presidential statements rightfully concerned many in Congress who 
were aware that a performance-based ban, and that is what the Senator 
is offering, would outlaw the majority of rifle ammunition used for 
hunting and target shooting worldwide. That is just what I have spoken 
to. If that is the Senator's intent, then I wish he would address that. 
Clearly that is what we believe one begins to enter into when they deal 
with a performance-based standard. The 1997 study took an intelligent 
and honest approach to examining how best to protect the lives of law 
enforcement officers, recognizing the reality that between 1985 and 
1994 no officer in the United States who was wearing a bullet-resistant 
vest died as a result of any round of ammunition having been fired from 
a handgun penetrating that officer's armor causing the primary lethal 
injuries.
  The study instead focused on how to improve police training, both in 
teaching officers how to defeat snatches by criminals and to encourage 
officers to wear vests routinely. Legislatively, the 1997 study 
rightfully concluded that to prohibit any of these commonly used 
pistol, rifle, shotgun cartridges because they might defeat a level 1 
bullet-resistant vest would create an unreasonable burden on the 
legitimate consumer of such cartridges.
  Combined with the availability of sensible, defensive strategies, the 
existence of laws restricting the common availability of armor-piercing 
ammunition was clearly working to protect law enforcement officers, and 
no attempt to discard the existing law, in my opinion and many others, 
should be undertaken.
  At the same time, because the existing laws are working, no 
additional legislation is necessary or required, certainly that that 
deals with performance-based standards, because one goes directly at 
ammunition used in target practice and in hunting. We do not believe, 
and I would hope the Senator from Massachusetts would agree, that is 
what we would intend to do.
  In conclusion, what I am saying is the current law is adequate. This 
is not perfecting language. This is language to try to defeat the 
underlying bill, S. 1805. Obviously, the Senator has spoken openly 
against that. This is in no way a bill that improves the underlying 
bill itself and we think very questionably does it improve any existing 
Federal law. What it begins to do is what the sporting community and 
the legitimate owners of firearms have always been fearful of, that if 
the handgun or the rifle could not be controlled, the ammunition would 
be targeted and certain classes of ammunition would begin to be 
controlled and outlawed, and that is exactly what Senator Kennedy is 
attempting to do with this amendment.
  I think it is obvious by my statement I will strongly oppose this, 
but I will offer--or I should say the majority leader will offer--an 
amendment finalizing the debate on Senator Kennedy's amendment that we 
think if there is reason to fine-tune the existing law, then we will 
offer that fine-tuning to make it extremely punitive for anyone who 
might use armor-piercing bullets that would strike a law enforcement 
officer in our country, or anyone else for that matter, that would 
result in injury or death.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Just under 19 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. President, I read through the copy of the Fraternal Order of 
Police. As the Senator pointed out, the truth of the matter is only one 
law enforcement officer has been killed by a round fired from a 
handgun. We are not talking about ammunition in a handgun. We are 
talking about assault weapons and rifles, and I am talking about the 
FBI. Let's look at what the FBI says.
  From 1992 to 2002, 20 law enforcement officers have been killed. 
Seventeen out of the 20 were killed with a rifle. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  The Senator referred to the earlier bill we had on the law. I am the 
author of that. It took 5 years to get that passed. Five years it was 
opposed by the NRA. I do not doubt it probably is going to take 5 years 
to do something about armor-piercing bullets that can shoot through 
body armor, through a limousine, or bring down a helicopter. That is 
what we are talking about, 17 of the fatal shootings.
  I ask unanimous consent that tables 10 and 36 of a document entitled 
``Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed by Firearms'' be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           TABLE 10.--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FELONIOUSLY KILLED BY FIREARMS
                                              [Wounded in Upper Torso While Wearing Body Armor, 1992-2001]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Point of entry                      Total     1992     1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................      114        5       11       11       10       12       16       14       11       10       14
Entered between side panels of vest..................       19        1        3        4        2        4        2        1        0        1        1
Entered through armhole or shoulder area of vest.....       32        1        2        2        3        2        2        1        6        5        8
Entered above vest (front or back of neck, collarbone       36        1        2        4        2        4        9        6        2        3        3
 area)...............................................
Entered below vest (abdominal or lower back area)....        8        0        1        0        1        1        0        3        0        1        1
Penetrated vest......................................       19        2        3        1        2        1        3        3        3        0        1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                           TABLE 36.--LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FELONIOUSLY KILLED BY FIREARMS
                                           [Point of Entry for Torso Wounds and Use of Body Armor, 1993-2002]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Point of entry                      Total     1993     1994     1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................      120       11       11       10       12       16       14       11       10       14       11
Entered between side panels of vest..................       19        3        4        2        4        2        1        0        1        1        1
Entered through armhole or shoulder area of vest.....       34        2        2        3        2        2        1        6        5        8        3
Entered above vest (front or back of neck, collarbone       38        2        4        2        4        9        6        2        3        3        3
 area)...............................................
Entered below vest (abdominal or lower back area)....       11        1        0        1        1        0        3        0        1        1        3
Penetrated vest......................................       18        3        1        2        1        3        3        3        0        1        1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S1637]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Seventeen of the fatal shootings were done by .223, 
.762, or 30.30 caliber rifles. Armor-piercing ammunition for these 
caliber rifles is widely advertised and available, and there are no 
restrictions at all on the deadly ammunition.
  My amendment will not apply to the ammunition routinely used in the 
hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it covers 
only the ammunition that is designed to market bullets having armor-
piercing capability. If that definition is not satisfactory to the 
Senator from Idaho, work with me over the weekend to get the right 
language that stops this, and he and I will offer a unanimous consent 
to be able to vote on that on the Senate floor. The Senator knows what 
we are driving at, the kind of armor-piercing bullets that can 
penetrate the vests our law enforcement officers are going to wear.
  I know the Fraternal Order feels we are trying to slow this bill 
down. With all respect to them, I have been the author of the armor-
piercing bullets for 20 years. I have put it on this. I will put it on 
something else. They will support us. The Senator from Idaho will 
support it. We will put it on the next bill that comes down here. They 
know that is not the issue.
  As I have pointed out, we are talking about the kind that is being 
advertised on the Web site. Here it is for everyone to see. What in the 
world is the possible justification for armor-piercing ammunition being 
sold in the United States of America today when we have threats in 
terms of homeland security, and we are advertising armor-piercing 
bullets out of rifles and assault weapons that can penetrate armor and 
penetrate helicopters ought to be permitted in the United States of 
America? The Senator has not given an answer for it. I have not heard a 
good answer for it.
  How does this infringe on the hunters in our country? What do we need 
an armor-piercing bullet for to go out and hunt deer? What is the 
reason for that? I still have not received any answer.
  Oh, it is difficult to define. This is open to a lot of different 
interpretations. We do not quite know what this will cover.
  We will work that out. We will work that out. That is not a good 
enough excuse. We are talking about the lives and deaths of these 
police officers, their families. We will be back again year after year. 
Make no mistake about it, this amendment is not going away. We are 
going to come back year after year, and those who are going to vote 
against it will have the opportunity to go back and explain it to the 
families of those brave law enforcement officers who are killed.
  What is the justification for permitting that? What possible 
justification is there for permitting that? There is absolutely none.
  This is the discussion the General Accounting Office had. It is a GAO 
study, which I will put in the Record. The whole section III of it is 
only 2\1/2\ pages. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 III. The Widespread Availability of Armor Piercing Ammunition in the 
                            Civilian Market

       As part of their investigation, GAO agents went undercover 
     to assess the availability of armor piercing fifty caliber 
     ammunition. This investigation showed that military surplus 
     ammunition is widely available.
       First, GAO agents contacted weapons dealers in Delaware, 
     Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. GAO 
     found that these dealers were willing to sell armor piercing 
     fifty caliber ammunition. According to GAO, the dealers in 
     Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia informed the agent 
     that purchasing these kinds of ammunition was not subject to 
     any federal, state, or local restrictions. The dealers in 
     Virginia told the agent that this specialized ammunition was 
     illegal to sell or possess in that state. The dealer in 
     Maryland said he would sell such ammunition only to Maryland 
     residents. Although the investigator told the dealers in 
     Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia that the 
     investigator was a Virginia resident, none of the other 
     dealers warned the agent about Virginia's restrictions.
       An undercover GAO agent also telephoned several ammunition 
     dealers that advertised specialized ammunition over the 
     Internet. The agent called ammunition dealers in Alaska, 
     Nebraska, and Oregon and recorded conversations in which he 
     purported to be a customer interested in buying ammunition 
     for shipment to Washington, D.C., or Virginia. The agent 
     found that he could secure the purchase of specialized 
     ammunition from any of the three dealers within a matter of 
     minutes.
       The dealers in Nebraska and Oregon stated that they could 
     make the transaction when the agent faxed a copy of his 
     driver's license with a signed statement that he was over 21 
     and was violating no federal, state, or local restrictions on 
     the purchase. Although the agent said he was from Virginia, 
     which bans this type of ammunition, neither dealer expressed 
     reservations about selling the ammunition to a Virginia 
     resident. According to the GAO investigator, the dealer in 
     Alaska said he had 10,000 rounds of armor piercing ammunition 
     and would sell the ammunition to the investigator. However, 
     the Alaska dealer said the investigator would have to pick up 
     the ammunition in Alaska because UPS Ground did not ship 
     goods from Alaska to the lower 48 states.
       The GAO investigator taped the conversations with the three 
     ammunition dealers. These conversations reveal that the 
     ammunition dealers employ an ``ask no questions'' approach. 
     They were willing to sell military surplus ammunition without 
     restriction even after the investigator said he wanted the 
     ammunition shipped to his work address in Washington, D.C., 
     and needed it to pierce an armored limousine or, 
     theoretically, to ``take down'' a helicopter.
       One of the dealers that GAO contacted was Cascade Ammo, in 
     Roseburg, Oregon. Cascade Ammo is one of Talon's three 
     largest civilian customers of refurbished military 
     ammunition. Although this dealer initially expressed 
     reservations about shipping armor piercing ammunition to 
     Washington, D.C., the dealer ultimately agreed to allow the 
     sale. When asked about the power of the ammunition, the 
     Oregon dealer said he believed armor piercing ammunition 
     would penetrate an armored limousine, as the following 
     interchanges indicate:
       Agent: I'm very much interested to making sure that these 
     rounds can go through like, the bullet-proof glass. Do you 
     think they'll go through bullet-proof glass?
       * * *
       Dealer: Well, in the old days, in the old [inaudible], they 
     used 700 grains, 720 or something. But nowadays they use 660, 
     so they're getting a little more velocity out of it. And, I 
     just can't see glass standing up to that.
       Agent: How about an armored limousine?
       Dealer: Yeah, you're using it to test it?
       Agent: Well, I . . .
       Dealer: Because we have some people who are testing armored 
     cars. Like 30-06 AP-rounds.
       Agent: Well, I . . . these would be a lot . . . 
     theoretically the .05 cal should be a lot stronger than a 30-
     06 . . .
       Dealer: Right, right.
       Agent: AP.
       Dealer: Right . . . So it should go through.
       Agent: Well, yeah, I guess you say testing against armored 
     limousines . . . Yeah, I'll be testing against armored 
     limousines. But, but it's gotta work.
       Dealer: Right.
       The Oregon dealer also was confident the ammunition could 
     ``take down'' a helicopter:
       Agent: Right. And then, if I theoretically wanted to use 
     these rounds to take down an aircraft, say either a 
     helicopter or something like that, I should be able to take a 
     helicopter down, shouldn't I?
       Dealer: Yeah, they're not armored. They're not armored to a 
     point that it would stop. If you look at, uh, a military 
     helicopter that's been through, uh, like the ones that came 
     back from Vietnam, they've got, uh, little plates of metal 
     where they weld up the bullet holes. They just take a little 
     piece of metal and they just weld over the bullet holes. It 
     makes the guy, the next guy, feel more comfortable when he's 
     in there.
       Agent: I guess so.
       Dealer: (laughing) You don't want to see a bullet hole in 
     there.
       Agent: Okay.
       Dealer: So, yeah, it'll go through any light stuff like 
     that.
       The final interchange with the Oregon dealer included the 
     following passages:
       Agent: Good. You know, I'm very happy to see that we'll be 
     able to do business here, because, I'm a little bit 
     concerned, because here on the East Coast when you go to buy 
     ammunition--these large, heavy-duty .50 cal--they ask a lot 
     of questions.
       Dealer: Oh.
       Agent: And I don't like people asking me questions why I 
     want this ammunition.
       Dealer: Well, see, they use them out here for hunting.
       Agent: Um huh. Well, you could say I'm going to be using 
     this for hunting also, but just hunting of a different kind.
       Dealer: (laughing) As long as it's noth-nothing illegal.
       Agent: Well, I wouldn't consider it illegal.
       Dealer: Okay. Alright.
       The conversations with the other ammunition dealers were 
     similar. For example, the dealer in Nebraska assured the 
     agent that this ammunition would go through metal, an armored 
     limousine, and bullet-proof glass. Later in the conversation, 
     the agent and the dealer discussed whether ordinary ``sniper 
     round'' ammunition or specialized armor piercing incendiary 
     ammunition would best meet the agent's need ``to be using 
     this against . . . an armored limousine and something with 
     ballistic glass.''
       During the agent's other conversation, the dealer in Alaska 
     claimed his armor piercing ammunition would ``go through six 
     inches of steel up to a 45 degree angle at a thousand 
     yards.'' When the agent explained that it was very important 
     for him to ``defeat an armored-type vehicle,'' the dealer 
     respond that

[[Page S1638]]

     ``when them cattle carts come running down your drive, you'd 
     better be able to stop it.'' The agent respond by saying, 
     ``Exactly, but you know, you can think who drives in armored 
     limousines, that's why I'm going to need it someday, those 
     people in armored limousines.'' Audio tapes of these 
     conversations are available on Rep. Waxman's webpage.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This is the part I want to read. They had discussions 
with different dealers, and we can go through some of those, but listen 
to what the Oregon dealer said. He was confident the ammunition could 
take a helicopter down. This is the agent from the GAO:

       Right. And then, if I theoretically wanted to use these 
     rounds--

  Armor-piercing ammunition of this type--

     to take down an aircraft, say either a helicopter or 
     something like that, I should be able to take a helicopter 
     down, shouldn't I?
       Dealer: Yeah, they're not armored. They're not armored to a 
     point that it would stop. . . .

  Then it continues. These are the discussions with the dealers. They 
talk about how they can penetrate the armor plating on automobiles and 
how they can bring down helicopters, and we are talking about 
continuing to let them be sold unregulated in this country, over 
100,000 rounds for it, and the result of which is we are seeing brave 
police officers wearing those armor-piercing vests killed.
  What is the possible justification? Why are we so intimidated by the 
National Rifle Association that we are not willing to deal with armor-
piercing bullets? That is it. That is it. We haven't heard the 
argument--and I would welcome it--how these kinds of bullets are 
necessary for hunting. I would love to hear that argument.

  Oh, we need these. I remember when we first offered legislation on 
the cop-killer bullets in the Judiciary Committee we heard they are 
necessary because we want to be humane to the deer, and those bullets 
go on and kill the deer rather than wound it. That is what we heard. 
Cop-killer bullets. That was the answer we heard for 5 years before we 
finally got that passed.
  I remember the time it passed. It was with the help and support of, 
actually, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Strom Thurmond. I 
remember it very clearly because I could not understand why we could 
not make progress. Now we know, with the new technology in this area, 
as we have seen in other areas, exactly what is happening. It is 
putting these police officers more and more at risk. That is why we are 
attempting to do this.
  We hear from the Senator he is going to offer some kind of other 
substitute. Why not do the real thing? What are we going to have, 
armor-piercing bullets ``lite''? So instead of 20 officers being killed 
there will only be 8? 12? Why not do the whole job? That is what this 
amendment will do. It will do something.
  When this amendment is eventually accepted, and it eventually will 
be, they will be able to look on page 40, the list of the law 
enforcement officers killed from armor-piercing bullets, and it will be 
empty because we will have done something that will be meaningful. But 
I tell you, we are going to come back every single year. We are going 
to have the FBI, and those numbers are going to continue to go up and 
up, as they are going up, according to the FBI report, with no 
justification whatsoever for including these provisions.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have 10 
minutes 11 seconds, the opponents of the amendment have 18 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would like to agree, I would just as soon 
have each of us have a little time before we vote. I know the 
leadership has it tight, and I know it has been difficult to work, but 
I would rather take 3 or 4 minutes before we vote on Monday. But I 
don't know whether that is possible. I don't like to ask consent here. 
I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this, but I think we 
probably would have more involved in it later on.
  I am instructed by the floor staff we will have a very brief time 
prior to the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me respond to the Senator's inquiry. I don't disagree 
with him. I think it is important we do have some limited time to 
discuss the difference between his amendment and what will be known as 
the Frist-Craig amendment that will be offered in a few moments. That 
is important.
  I think we have all heard the Senator from Massachusetts very 
clearly. He said he wants to ban assault weapons and rifle ammunition. 
What he didn't say, or what he will not say, is that the standards he 
establishes in his legislation, performance-based standards, ban what 
is currently on-the-shelf hunting ammunition. Does the hunting 
ammunition in a high-powered rifle have the ability to penetrate soft 
body armor? Yes, it does.
  Does it have the ability to penetrate other soft armor? Yes, it does. 
Is it used for that purpose? No. It is rarely ever found used for that 
purpose.
  We have a choice. Clearly it is against the law when it is used for 
that purpose and we all know that and we ought to go at those people 
who use legitimate firearms in illegal ways instead of trying to 
eliminate the firearm or, in this case, the ammunition. But, of course, 
we know, and all of America's hunters know, they could have a 30.06 in 
their gun safe, they could have a 30.30 in their gun safe, they could 
have a .308 in their gun safe, they could have a .270 in their gun 
safe, and if they didn't have the ammunition for it, it would be a 
marvelous historic relic of America's past. Is that what the Senator 
from Massachusetts wants?
  He says not. But we all know what performance-based standards do. 
When you establish a band through that, that is what you accomplish. 
The fact is, virtually all hunting and target rifle ammunition is 
capable of penetrating soft body armor. That is a reality. So by his 
definition does that go off the market? I believe it does. That is why 
I think it is unnecessary. That is why the President of the Fraternal 
Order of Police said the Kennedy amendment is to kill the underlying 
amendment or to make it dramatically of less value, and that he and 
311,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police disagree.
  Probably a good many of them are hunters, and they recognize more 
than anybody else because they are probably pretty talented people when 
it comes to understanding ballistics. When it comes to understanding 
ammunition, they probably know a great deal more about it than Senator 
Kennedy or this Senator, Mr. Craig.
  They say no, it isn't necessary. The current law that the Senator 
speaks to, that he is proud of--and he should be--is adequate. It does 
protect. It has removed armor-piercing bullets of the handgun type.

  Now we step into a whole new arena. Historically, those who want to 
control firearms in this country have always said: Oh, no, it is only 
the handgun we are after because it is the handgun that is most often 
used in the commission of a crime. It is the handgun we want to take 
out of circulation and away from the citizens of this country. Leave 
the long gun alone. We are all for sportsmen. We are all for hunters. 
We like guns. They are good guns. Those are bad guns.
  What the amendment of the Senator is suggesting is--he may not say 
they are bad guns, but he says their ammunition is bad. And if you take 
their ammunition away, then as I said earlier, these kinds of hunting 
rifles will become a marvelous museum piece and a relic of our historic 
past. I don't believe a majority of the Senate will go there. I hope 
the amendment I will soon offer will provide ample reason to say, yes, 
we are going to get tough on anybody who uses an armor-piercing bullet 
of any kind that is capable of penetrating a vest, soft body armor. 
That is what we ought to be about, instead of using the language and 
not the definition--and using the language and not the reality--and 
using performance-based bans to eliminate a very large category of 
hunting ammunition and other types of ammunition used for target 
practice and professionally in this country.
  I strongly oppose and will encourage my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, we have possibly one other Senator wishing to come to 
speak. Let me check on that. If that is not true, I see no reason we 
couldn't reserve the remainder of our time or move on to another 
amendment.

[[Page S1639]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to remind the Senate what we 
have just heard. It is a wonderful technique. I don't disparage my 
friend from Idaho, and he is my friend. But that is to misrepresent 
what the amendment does and then to differ with it.

  I have been here several years and I know that technique. It is one 
that I have used once in a while.
  People ought to understand, when we are talking about life and death, 
we ought to be willing to at least deal with the facts.
  The facts are as described in the amendment about what the definition 
would be in terms of the armor-piercing bullets. That talks about a 
projectile for centerfire rifles designed or marketed as having an 
armor-piercing capability that the Attorney General determined pursuant 
to the section 926(d) to be more likely to penetrate body armor than 
standard ammunition of the same caliber, period.
  Armor-piercing bullets--as my good friend says, wants to eliminate 
all ammunition for these weapons and, therefore, they will just be 
relics on the shelves of time.
  This is what it is; it is written into the amendment: a projectile 
for centerfire rifles designed or marketed as having armor-piercing 
capability that the Attorney General determines--not the Senator from 
Massachusetts, not the Senator from Idaho--but the one that has the 
capability to more likely penetrate body armor.
  That is what we are talking about--penetrating body armor that law 
enforcement officers wear and which stands between their life and their 
death.
  That is what this amendment does. We have already seen and sadly 
reviewed the statistics that are out there now about the brave officers 
who have already been killed. We will have an opportunity to do 
something about that on Tuesday next. Let us not fail to do so.
  Over the weekend, if there is language that is necessary to ensure 
that particular purpose can be achieved with more effective language, 
let me give the assurance to the Senator from Idaho and others 
interested who take that position that we are more than glad to work 
that out.
  We will not compromise on dealing with the fundamental issue; and 
that is armor-piercing bullets penetrating those vests or put at risk 
the lives of brave officers today and in the future.
  I withhold the remainder of my time. I saw the Senator from the State 
of Washington who I believe is ready to move ahead. I will either yield 
back my time or retain my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask at this moment that the Senator not 
yield time. I have a few moments remaining on my time. I am going to 
ask for a very short period of time to go into a quorum call at which 
time we will come out of it and offer the Frist-Craig amendment. I 
don't need to debate that for any length of time. That is in the order 
of the unanimous consent. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, 
those two then will be set aside to be voted on Tuesday next.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on the current amendment, the 
Kennedy amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 6\1/2\ minutes and the 
opponents have 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am prepared to yield back if the Senator is, and I will 
offer the first Craig amendment and speak for a few short minutes on 
that and then move on.
  Mr. REID. We yield back the time of Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time of the proponent 
of the amendment is yielded back.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that the Kennedy amendment will now 
be set aside to be voted on Tuesday next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2625

  Mr. CRAIG. I send to the desk the Frist-Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for Mr. Frist, for 
     himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2625.

  Mr. CRAIG. 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:

    (Purpose: To regulate the sale and possession of armor piercing 
                  ammunition, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor 
     piercing ammunition, unless--
       ``(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of 
     the United States, any department or agency of the United 
     States, any State, or any department, agency, or political 
     subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose 
     of exportation; or
       ``(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is 
     for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been 
     authorized by the Attorney General.
       ``(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver 
     armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--
       ``(A) is for the use of the United States, any department 
     or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, 
     agency, or political subdivision of a State;
       ``(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or
       ``(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and 
     has been authorized by the Attorney General.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence 
     is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other 
     provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to 
     any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a 
     crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for 
     an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or 
     dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be 
     prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries 
     armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such 
     crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in 
     addition to the punishment provided for such crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this 
     section--
       ``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
     than 15 years;
       ``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--
       ``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 
     1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and
       ``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in 
     section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''.
       (c) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to 
     determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing 
     of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
       (2) Issues to be studied.--The study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) variations in performance that are related to the 
     length of the barrel of the handgun or centerfire rifle from 
     which the projectile is fired; and
       (B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a 
     report containing the results of the study conducted under 
     this subsection to--
       (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
     Committee of the Senate; and
       (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
     Committee of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has a copy of this 
straightforward amendment that strengthens the current armor-piercing 
bullet law. It does a couple of things.
  It says the Attorney General shall commission a study to determine 
whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles 
against body armor is feasible and what impact it would have on 
sporting and hunting endeavors. It includes within the issues to be 
studied variations in performance that are related to the length of the 
barrel of the handgun or the

[[Page S1640]]

centerfired rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount of 
powder used to propel the projectile. The Attorney General shall 
deliver such report to the chairman and the ranking member of the House 
and Senate Judiciary Committee within 2 years of the date of the 
enactment of this legislation.
  This became the core of the debate between the Senator from 
Massachusetts and myself. What does ``performance-based standards'' 
mean, and how do they impact legitimate sporting and hunting 
ammunition?
  Also, insert as new, 18 USC, 924:

       (5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is 
     otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other 
     provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to 
     any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a 
     crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for 
     an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or 
     dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be 
     prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries 
     armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such 
     crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in 
     addition to the punishment provided for such crime of 
     violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction [under title 
     18 USC 924]--
       ``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less 
     than 15 years;
       ``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--
       ``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 
     1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and
       ``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in 
     section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''

  What are we doing? We are adding real teeth to current law. We are 
saying to the criminal element and the drug trafficking element in our 
country, if you use armor-piercing ammunition in your firearm and it 
maims or kills a law enforcement officer, we will put you away for 
life.
  That is what we are going to do. We do not tolerate it. We never 
have. The current law serves effectively, but if there is a sentence, 
then let's toughen it, let's strengthen it, let's give stronger 
positions to the law enforcement community of this country.
  That is the crux of the bill. It is straightforward. It is simple. We 
think it offers what certainly all of us want to see and what the law 
enforcement community of this country needs.
  I hope the Frist-Craig amendment will be accepted. It is a 
straightforward amendment. If the Senator would make himself available, 
we can conclude this debate, set this amendment aside, and move to the 
next amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is in the 
Chamber. In his absence, I offered the Frist-Craig amendment and spoke 
briefly to it as a true strengthening of current armor-piercing bullet 
legislation, to suggest very directly to the criminal element and the 
drug trafficking element in our country: If you use armor-piercing 
bullets and it wounds or takes the life of a law enforcement officer, 
we will put you away for life. I think that is about as clear and 
direct as we can become with the already strong prohibition that is in 
place for armor-piercing bullets that would be used in handguns.
  With that, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment because it 
does nothing to protect our law enforcement officers from armor-
piercing bullets. All it does say, as I understand it, is if law 
enforcement officers are killed, under the current law the penalties 
are going to be greater, including even in the death penalty.
  My amendment says, let's stop the armor-piercing bullets now to save 
lives. Let's be proactive and prevent the loss of lives. The Senator 
from Idaho says, well, after they are killed we are going to penalize 
these people more. My amendment would effectively save lives because we 
would effectively prohibit the kind of armor-piercing bullets from 
being sold or available to those who want to do our law enforcement 
personnel harm.
  So it just misses the point, the idea that we are going to do 
something after that police officer is killed. That will not do 
anything about these numbers I mention. We have just seen 20 officers 
killed over the last 10 years, and 17 of them by armor-piercing 
bullets. That is what they were killed by; and that is what my 
amendment is focused on. The Senator's amendment will do nothing about 
preventing that kind of activity. I appreciate his efforts in trying to 
do something, but this fails the mark.
  I withhold my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, his legislation goes at long guns, rifles, and their 
ammunition. What I did not say, with him coming back into the Chamber, 
is we do direct the Attorney General to look at, over a period of time, 
2 years--no later than that--and report to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, on which the Senator serves, a study to see whether what the 
Senator is proposing in his amendment wipes from the shelves of this 
country the kind of hunting ammunition we believe it will, and that 
certainly a good many others do.
  I am not insensitive to what the Senator is saying, but I am saying, 
let's get the facts. We do not want to wipe out half the hunting or 
two-thirds of the hunting ammunition and the target ammunition in this 
country. That is legitimate. It is law abiding. Does it get misused? 
Yes. Does some of it have armor-piercing capability, to some extent? 
Yes.
  Certainly this is what our intent is. In the meantime, let's toughen 
the law. Let's send the message to the criminal element in our country 
that armor-piercing ammunition is flat off limits or you pay a 
phenomenal price for it.
  Is it a deterrent? The Senator from Massachusetts would suggest it is 
not. In most instances, we find good, tough law enforcement, and a 
reality known by those who would commit crimes with this kind of 
ammunition in this country, does serve as a deterrent. That is the 
intent of the amendment. We believe it is a good amendment.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time if the Senator 
believes he has adequately covered this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. No. I just want to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I may, Mr. President, I yield myself time.
  Let me remind my colleagues that armor-piercing ammunition for rifles 
and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States of 
America. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition 
unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may 
purchase this ammunition without a background check, and there is no 
Federal minimum age for possession. Purchases may be made over the 
counter, by mail order, by fax, or by Internet, and there is no Federal 
requirement that dealers retain sale records.
  It is this current lawlessness that jeopardizes the safety of police 
officers. It is this failure of the existing law that has led to 20 
fatal shootings of police officers, and will lead to many more unless 
Congress acts, not studies--acts, not studies.
  The facts are well established. The FBI statistics do not lie. We do 
not need another study. We do not need another report. All we need to 
do is adopt the underlying legislation that gives the Attorney General 
the authority and the power to ensure the kind of armor-piercing 
bullets that are being used, that pierce the armor and kill our law 
enforcement officials, will be prohibited from use today.
  As I outlined in my amendment: ``a projectile for a centerfire rifle, 
designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, that the 
Attorney General determines . . .''--not the Senator from Idaho or the 
Senator from Massachusetts--``to be more likely to penetrate body armor 
than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''
  We either have a problem or we do not. I believe we do. Certainly the 
families of those brave officers who died believe we do--their families 
and those police departments. We have an opportunity to do this on next 
Tuesday. I

[[Page S1641]]

hope the Craig amendment will be defeated and that the amendment I 
offered will be accepted.
  I am prepared to yield back the remainder of time if the Senator is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I too am prepared to 
yield back the remainder of our time.
  Let me conclude my comments by saying, it is not the role of the 
Attorney General of the United States to determine what can or cannot 
be used in this country as forms of ammunition. It is our job, if we 
are going to do it. And we should not do it. The marketplace has done 
it. The Senator has shaped legislation that has controlled types of it, 
and that has been supported.
  I do not think we need to get as arbitrary as some Attorneys General 
can be and have been in the past as it relates to what their vision is 
versus what we believe ought to be illegal or legal in this country.
  Our job is to make it the law. That is what we are about here at this 
moment. But it is important that we establish parameters and 
understandings clearly to determine the kinds of tests that are 
performance based in what they do to what is now currently legal 
ammunition in this country.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time, and ask that the 
Frist-Craig amendment be set aside to be considered on Tuesday next.
  I believe the next item under our unanimous consent is to move to 
Senator Cantwell for her amendment for an unemployment insurance 
extension.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts yield back 
his time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The amendment will 
be set aside.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2617

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant Journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2617.

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

  (Purpose: To extend and expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
           Compensation Act of 2002, and for other purposes)

       At the end, add the following:

                  TITLE __--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

     SEC. __01. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT 
                   COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.

       (a) In General.--Section 208 of the Temporary Extended 
     Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 
     116 Stat. 30), as amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3) 
     and the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003 (Public 
     Law 108-26; 117 Stat. 751), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' 
     and inserting ``June 30, 2004'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' 
     and inserting ``June 30, 2004'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``december 31, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``june 30, 2004''; and
       (B) by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``June 
     30, 2004''; and
       (4) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``March 31, 2004'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2004''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).

     SEC. __02. ADDITIONAL REVISION TO CURRENT TEUC-X TRIGGER.

       Section 203(c)(2)(B) of the Temporary Extended Unemployment 
     Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 30) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State 
     under such Act if--
       ``(i) section 203(d) of such Act were applied as if it had 
     been amended by striking `5' each place it appears and 
     inserting `4'; and
       ``(ii) with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning on 
     or after the date of enactment of this clause--

       ``(I) paragraph (1)(A) of such section 203(d) did not 
     apply; and
       ``(II) clause (ii) of section 203(f)(1)(A) of such Act did 
     not apply.''.

     SEC. __03. TEMPORARY STATE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE APPLICATION OF 
                   LOOKBACKS UNDER THE FEDERAL-STATE EXTENDED 
                   UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 1970.

       For purposes of conforming with the provisions of the 
     Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 
     (26 U.S.C. 3304 note), a State may, during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
     June 30, 2004, waive the application of either subsection 
     (d)(1)(A) of section 203 of such Act or subsection 
     (f)(1)(A)(ii) of such section, or both.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time is allowed for debate on 
the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One hour, evenly divided.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. If I can be notified when I 
have used 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, while we are talking about gun liability, I think a 
more important question for this body to be debating is the liability 
we are leaving the American workers with when, in fact, this body 
refuses to pass unemployment benefit extensions at a time when our 
economy is not recovering at the speed it takes to create new jobs.
  As our own newspaper in Washington State, the Seattle Post 
Intelligencer, said this past week:

       Everything is not fine in the job market.

  That is what many Americans are saying. That is what many people 
across the country are starting to debate when they talk about the 
issue of outsourcing. Everything is not fine in the job market.
  The President and his economic advisers issued a report, the Economic 
Report from the President of the United States, as to the growth we 
were supposed to expect in our economy in 2004. If my colleagues have a 
copy of that report and turn to page 98, they will see that the 
President and his economic advisers, when talking about growth in real 
GDP over the long term, predict that jobs for this year are going to 
grow by 2.6 million. That was great economic news to a lot of Americans 
who have been sitting around since December without Federal 
unemployment benefits, sending out resume after resume, only to find 
that they are competing with hundreds of other more qualified Americans 
for a very few jobs.
  What became more frustrating to those unemployed Americans who have 
lost their jobs through no fault of their own, many as a result of 9/11 
and the impact of terrorist activities on our economy, such as in 
aviation, aerospace, and a general downturn, many of those Americans 
would rather have the paycheck than the unemployment check. But without 
jobs being created, they would like to have some assistance in making 
the mortgage payment, paying the rent, paying for health care, and 
taking care of their families.
  They were stunned when they found out that the President doesn't 
really stick by the 2.6 million number. Last week, the President and 
two Cabinet Secretaries, the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce, 
ventured to Washington State and refused to meet with unemployed 
workers there. We have had, for the better part of the last 2 years, an 
unemployment rate over 7 percent. We are a little bit below that right 
now, and we are concerned about stimulating the economy and from where 
job growth is going to come. When these two members of the President's 
Cabinet came to town and were asked about the President's economic 
forecast--asked whether they stick by the 2.6 million jobs that will be 
created, both of those Secretaries said: Those were assumptions based 
on economic models and the calculations have a margin of error.
  The American worker is not a rounding error on a statistician's desk. 
They are real people who are not getting the economic assistance they 
deserve.
  It is no surprise that other newspapers across the country have also 
noted this. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said:

       But the economic bounce has not yet been strong enough for 
     cautious employers to get beyond squeezing more production 
     from existing workers and taking the crucial step of hiring. 
     This leaves millions of unemployed sinking further into debt 
     and desperation.

  That points to what is going on here. The President is backing away 
from his economic numbers. People realize that job growth is not 
happening. Yet we refuse to pass an extension of unemployment benefits.
  Why is that so important? It is important to many Americans who would

[[Page S1642]]

rather have that paycheck than an unemployment check, and it can 
provide a real stimulus because for every dollar in unemployment 
insurance, it generates $2 of economic stimulus into the local economy.

  We continue to see these projections versus reality. The President's 
economic advisers said in 2002 that we were only going to lose a few 
jobs. We ended up actually losing 1.4 million jobs. In 2003, they said 
we were going to grow the economy, 1.7 million. We ended up losing 
another almost 500,000 jobs. Now in 2004, they say we are going to grow 
2.6 million jobs in what is left of this year. So far we have only 
gained 112,000 jobs.
  The economy is moving very slowly. We should not leave people out in 
the cold. That is exactly what we are doing by not passing Federal 
benefits on to those unemployed workers when they exhaust their State 
benefits. In fact, in December, we left out lots of workers: in 
Illinois, about 17,000 people; Texas, about 23,000; North Carolina, 
10,000; Ohio, over 10,000; Pennsylvania, 17,000 people; Georgia, 14,000 
people. At the end of December, when the benefit program expired at the 
State level, these people were no longer eligible for benefits at the 
Federal level because we curtailed the Federal program.
  What that means is that every month more and more people exhaust 
their State benefits as no jobs are found and thereby are denied 
Federal benefits. For example, for the first 6 months of this year, 
over 50,000 additional people from Washington State would be eligible, 
but won't receive help. On a national level, 2 million people would be 
eligible to receive Federal benefits.
  These numbers represent what happened to people in these States in 
December of 2003, when the other side of the aisle refused to grant the 
motion of seeking unanimous consent to pass unemployment benefits for 
American workers.
  Our colleagues in the House of Representatives who heard the message, 
probably when they went home over the recess and did their town 
meetings, listened to people across America and found out that this was 
a pretty big issue. People wanted to know, where am I going to find a 
job? Where is my spouse going to find a job? People were relying on 
loans from families just to make mortgage payments.
  So the House of Representatives came back from recess and actually 
passed unemployment benefit extensions because they got the message.
  We are still down in our economy. The key question is, How have we as 
a nation responded to these economic recessions in the past? How have 
previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, responded to 
recessions? We know that in the early 1990s we had a recession. The 
first Bush administration and the Clinton administration became 
aggressive about unemployment benefits and had a very expansive program 
that was in place for a total of 27 months.
  During that time, we ended up creating 2.9 million new jobs, a very 
positive outcome. In this recession and recovery, which began in 2001, 
we have lost 2.4 million jobs. The difference between this recession 
and the last is that we have cut off the Federal benefit program. And 
yet, we haven't yet had a net creation of jobs.

  We started to slowly shirk the jobs deficit, with 112,000 jobs in 
January, but we have curtailed the program before we have seen real 
results. Why would we do that when we have previous experience, from 
two different administrations, that shows that continuing the program 
really does help stimulate the economy?
  That is what we want to do. That is why I am not surprised that other 
people around the country such as the Akron Beacon Journal said:

       The recovery has aptly been called jobless. Offer a bridge 
     to a better time, and Congress won't simply aid those 
     struggling to find work. The country as a whole will benefit.

  This is not solely about helping individuals who are unemployed. It 
is a stimulus to the economy. What happens if the 2 million people who 
will lose Federal benefits over the next 6 months can't make mortgage 
payments and end up defaulting on their home mortgages. How is that 
good for the U.S. economy? Or say, for example, individuals can't make 
health insurance payments and end up costing more in uncompensated 
health care? How is that good for America?
  I was not surprised when I saw in the San Jose Mercury News that the 
other side of the aisle had been accused of being of little interest or 
being silent on this issue.
  Basically, the San Jose Mercury News said:

       Despite a recent uptick in hiring across the country in 
     2004, they could bring more hardship for million of Americans 
     out of work. A callous Congress is sitting behind as their 
     hope for receiving extended unemployment benefits fades.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Chair advises the Senator she 
has used 10 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for that information. 
I would like to continue until other of my colleagues from different 
regions of the country, which have been hit with high unemployment, 
come to the Chamber.
  I wish to focus on reality versus rhetoric. We have been promised 2.6 
million jobs, but instead, we have seen a loss of 2.3 million. The 
rhetoric doesn't stand up. If the President is going to deny his own 
economic report and say we are not going to create 2.6 million jobs, 
then give American workers a hand--extend unemployment benefits as a 
lifeline to help stimulate their family incomes and help stimulate our 
national economy.
  I ask the President and the other side of the aisle to take a little 
bit of time and go back in history. I know not everybody on the other 
side of the aisle agrees with the policies of a Democratic 
administration juxtaposed to this administration, but let's look at 
what the last Bush administration did when we had a downturn of our 
economy and how President George H. W. Bush handled the situation.
  He had a similar problem when he came into office: the 1990s 
recession. In April of 1992, the President saw that we had tremendous 
job loss in the millions, but the economy had started to pick up again. 
The first President Bush saw that the economy had picked up 379,000 
jobs. He could have stopped the unemployment benefit program right then 
and there. He could have said: My job is over; the economy is starting 
to grow again; I don't have to do anything else about this issue. But 
the President did not.
  The first President Bush extended unemployment benefits for an 
additional 9 months. He did it for 9 months--and it was a program with 
more weeks of benefits than the current program. It was 20 weeks 
instead of the 13 weeks we have for basic unemployment States.
  The first President Bush said: Yes, there was a little bit of job 
growth going on, but the negative impact of the recession means we 
should not stop Federal unemployment benefits.
  What has the second President Bush done? He has been faced with a 
similar recession. As we saw from the previous chart, we have lost 2.4 
million jobs in the last 2 years and this President sees a little 
uptick in the economic numbers. He sees about 112,000 jobs created in 
January. And what does he say? That's it; that's it; no more Federal 
unemployment benefit program. No unemployment benefits. No weeks, no 
program.
  Basically, we have left the American workers out in the cold as it 
relates to this opportunity to sustain themselves and sustain our 
economy in great economically challenging times.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at this 
history, to look at what the first Bush administration did under 
similar circumstances, to look at his results. They were very positive 
for the U.S. economy and for the U.S. worker. Analyze that juxtaposed 
to the positions we have taken in this body today, primarily because 
the other side of the aisle, a dozen times now, has refused us the 
right to have a vote on this issue. We are going to have that vote, and 
I hope my colleagues will stand up for the American worker and, most 
importantly, for the American economy that needs this stimulus.
  I see some of my colleagues have joined me in the Chamber. I say to 
the Senator from Maryland, who has been eloquent on these issues, I 
don't know how much time the Senator is seeking, but I will be happy to 
yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator controlling time?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, I am. Mr. President, how much time remains?

[[Page S1643]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 9 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to yield the Senator 3 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the 
amendment offered by the able Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, of 
which I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This amendment will extend the 
unemployment benefits which lapsed at the end of December--they have 
lapsed and are not available--and continue the program for 6 months, 
through the end of June.
  The program lapsed not because the fundamental economic problem which 
led to its creation--the very weak labor market--has been solved. That 
market's weakness remains a serious concern.
  Long-term unemployment--the problem for which this program was 
created--is near record levels. There are nearly 1.9 million unemployed 
workers in America who are long-term unemployed. That is, they have 
been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. They constitute almost 23 
percent of all unemployed workers. This level has been above 20 percent 
for the past 16 months, the longest stretch of long-term unemployment 
at this level in more than 20 years.
  It has been 34 months since the recession began. The economy has 
almost 2 percent fewer jobs than it had 34 months ago. Jobs are not 
being created in sufficient number to close this gap. Job creation is 
far below what is needed to improve the situation for unemployed 
workers.
  Some colleagues have argued that we do not need the program because 
we are no longer losing jobs. However, the job growth that the economy 
is producing is too slow to put back to work those who have lost their 
jobs. Of course, the administration predicted after they passed the 
2003 tax cut, that by last month, the economy would have created over 2 
million jobs. It created 300,000 jobs over that period.
  This amendment's proposal is not excessive by historical standards. 
In fact, the administration's refusal to act is what constitutes a 
break with historical precedent. Again and again in the past, we have 
extended unemployment insurance to provide some assistance to the long-
term unemployed.
  Finally, let me simply make this point: We build up an unemployment 
trust fund in good times to fund the benefits when we have an economic 
downturn. There is over $15 billion in the unemployment insurance trust 
fund to pay unemployment insurance benefits. We have millions out there 
needing this help. This money was collected for that purpose. It should 
be used for that purpose.
  I strongly urge support of this amendment.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her leadership. I 
wish to make a couple of points. First, there is a staggering amount of 
economic hurt in virtually every nook and cranny of my State. Our 
unemployment rate is over 7 percent.
  The Economic Development Administration recently announced that for 
key projects to create jobs in rural areas, small communities are going 
to have to come up with $22 to get $1 of help for infrastructure, 
something that can create good-paying jobs.
  We are trying to get the transportation bill passed, but with those 
kinds of measures, we desperately need to extend this lifeline 
legislation to the thousands and thousands of Oregonians and other 
Americans who are out of work.
  These are folks who simply have nowhere to turn to pay the bills. 
They are walking an economic tightrope, balancing fuel costs against 
food costs and fuel costs against medical costs.
  Without this extension and without the look-back rule that this 
legislation would provide, these are folks who are going to fall into 
the economic abyss. They deserve better.
  The fact is, the stock market is doing well. We are glad to see it. 
We are glad to see profits up at so many of our companies. All of these 
are pluses for our country. But the fact is, middle-class folks, and 
particularly the middle class that is unemployed, are feeling pinched 
like never before. I am very hopeful my colleagues will support this 
legislation. It is essential to provide a measure of relief to these 
folks who are enduring so much economic hurt.
  I have just gone through a series of community meetings at home, and 
it came up again and again. So I hope, in the name of compassion, but 
also in the name of helping these middle-class folks get back on their 
feet as they look for alternatives, as they look for other positions 
that pay them enough to support their families, that my colleagues 
would support this important Cantwell amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Cantwell 
amendment, and want to put this in a little perspective. We have an 
unemployment benefit insurance program and then we have the temporary 
extension of the benefit program which we have been doing for some time 
now. In fact, I think the temporary extension has been done two 
different times.
  I also want to clear up some of the confusion because there is a 
payroll survey which measures the amount of jobs created, and there is 
a household survey. We know what statistics can do depending in whose 
hands they are, but let us at least know what the facts are.
  Payroll survey measures--if someone goes to work for somebody, they 
get a job and go on their payroll, that is the payroll survey. So if a 
person is employed by somebody, it is counted in the payroll survey.
  When I was practicing as a veterinarian, I opened my own practice. I 
was self-employed. That does not go on the payroll survey, but it does 
go on the household survey. Right now, on eBay--we have all heard of 
eBay--there is a fairly solid estimate that there are now over 200,000 
people with full-time businesses operating on eBay. These are full-time 
jobs and the individuals are doing very well operating on eBay. They 
are buying and selling things on eBay.
  However, those 200,000 jobs are not counted in the payroll survey. 
That is the survey the Democrats are commonly referring to all the time 
when they are saying there are job losses.
  To show the difference between the payroll survey and the household 
survey with statistics, in January the payroll survey said we had 
created about 100,000 jobs. The household survey showed the creation of 
almost half a million jobs. Now if one believes the other side, they 
are saying to somebody who is self-employed that they do not have a 
job. Well, I am sorry, but when I was a self-employed veterinarian 
working 100 hours a week, I thought that was work. I thought that was a 
job. Listening to the other side, they are saying it is not a job.

  Having said that, let's look at unemployment rates, which is a 
measure of the payroll survey. When the Democrats were in charge of the 
House, the Senate, and the White House, all three bodies, they had the 
ability to extend this program on their own because they had the votes 
to do that. Let's look at the historical unemployment rates versus 
today's unemployment rates to see whether they extended the program; in 
other words, to see when they had the ability to act whether they 
matched it against what they are saying today.
  In the early 1990s when the Democrats were in control of the Senate, 
the House, and the White House, the unemployment rate at the start of 
the program was 7.0 percent. When we started the program this time, the 
unemployment rate was at 5.7 percent. At the peak of the program in the 
90s, the highest unemployment rate under the Democrats went up to 7.8 
percent. The peak unemployment rate this time went to 6.3 percent.
  When the Democrats voted to end the program, to terminate the 
extension of unemployment benefits, the unemployment rate was at 6.4 
percent.
  What is that unemployment rate today? It is at 5.6 percent, almost a 
full percentage point less than when the Democrats controlled the 
Senate, the House, and the White House, and they voted to terminate the 
program. Why did they vote to terminate it? Because

[[Page S1644]]

the extension of unemployment benefits is put in during times of high 
unemployment rates.
  Well, they are saying times have changed. Statistics back then do not 
compare with statistics now. I do not know why, but that is what they 
are saying.
  Let's point out what this Senate and the House did last year. We gave 
the States $8 billion to help fund their own unemployment programs--
especially those States that have high unemployment like Oregon. The 
Senator from Oregon was just on the floor speaking. We gave that money 
to the States to handle serious problems with individuals facing long-
term unemployment.
  What have the States done with that money? We gave them that money 2 
years ago. In March 2002, we gave $8 million to the States. What have 
they done with it? Well, there is $4.3 billion the States have not 
used. Are our States not compassionate? Do they not care about people, 
as the other side would have us believe?
  They have not spent over half of the money we gave from the Federal 
Government to the States.
  So I think we have to look at what is going on today with this 
amendment. I believe this is very well intentioned by the other side, 
but what has happened is our mindset has changed. What used to be 
considered full employment is now considered high unemployment. All of 
us back in the early 1990s thought a 5.5 percent unemployment rate 
would be considered full employment in this economy, because there are 
always people who are changing jobs so they are temporarily unemployed. 
There are always people who have difficulty because of training, they 
are getting some new training so it takes them longer to find a job. 
Then sometimes, frankly, in a changing economy, people do have to move 
to find a job. Sometimes it takes a long period of unemployment for 
people to make that decision. It is a very difficult decision to make.
  I think we need to be sensitive to people, but we also have to look 
at the reality we are facing. We are facing huge budget deficits today. 
How many of the people running for President have been talking about 
the budget problem? On the other side of the aisle, I have heard it 
talked about time and time again.
  Well, the extension of the unemployment benefits costs almost $1 
billion dollars a month. So if we extend it out to the end of this 
year, we are going to be talking about another $10 billion, or 
somewhere thereabouts, added to the budget deficit. That money will be 
borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, because when there is 
deficit spending, that is where it is taken out of. We all know that. 
It is a paper trust fund anyway, but we all know that is where it will 
be taken out of.
  So I think it is important for us to understand, first, what got us 
here, what the historical implications have been as I have laid them 
out, and then what do we do to get out of this dilemma. What we do to 
get out of it is to make sure we have a strong enough economy so new 
jobs will be created.
  What are all of the economists--and I do not care which philosophy 
the economists subscribe to, the one thing everybody agrees with is 
these large budget deficits we are experiencing today and that are 
projected out into the future are the No. 1 single threat to our 
economy. So if we want to have a secure future going forward, we must 
watch and curtail additional Federal spending.
  The reason we have the deficit today, over half of it, is because of 
the poor economy. So when businesses and individuals are not making as 
much money, they do not pay as much in taxes. Over half of the budget 
deficit is caused by that. About another 27 or 28 percent of the budget 
deficit was caused by increased Federal spending. And about 20 percent 
of it were the last two tax cuts that were enacted. But without those 
tax cuts--it is widely accepted now those tax cuts have helped the 
economy--we would be in even worse shape.

  The number one thing we can do for the economy, as a Federal 
Government is to create the atmosphere where those jobs are created. So 
the number one thing we can do is make sure we keep our fiscal house in 
order by restraining Federal spending.
  Looking back at the payroll survey, eight months prior to the tax 
cuts we lost 386,000 jobs. Eight months after the tax cuts we produced 
300,000 jobs. That is just the payroll survey statistics. That does not 
count the household survey, or all of those self-employed people I was 
talking about earlier. There are literally a couple of million jobs 
that have been produced since the tax cut, when you count self-employed 
people.
  The other side says that doesn't count. Just ask somebody who is 
self-employed whether they think their job counts and should count in 
the national statistics. I think everybody who is self-employed out 
there, if you have a mom-and-pop business, if you are a doctor who used 
to work for a hospital and have your own practice, or you are a nurse-
midwife and you decided to take the risk and go out on your own, does 
your job count? A nurse practitioner or a physical therapist, whatever 
the job is, should that job count? I believe it should. I believe that 
is why there are two different surveys, the household survey and a 
payroll survey. It is important that we have both of them so we can 
look at the big picture. The economy is changing. We have to have 
policies that reflect those changes.
  I yield the floor at this time so we can go back and forth and 
continue the debate. I see my friend from Oklahoma. Next time I get 
recognized, I will yield some time to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 57 seconds; they 
have 18 minutes 41 seconds.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair let me know when 3\1/2\ minutes has 
passed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
being our leader on this issue about concern for the unemployed. She 
has, along with our colleagues, on over 12 different occasions 
challenged the Senate to try to do the constructive and positive thing, 
in terms of the unemployed in this country.
  I listened to my friend from Nevada. I wonder what world he is living 
in. It probably is the world of the President of the United States. 
First, he gave us the State of the Union and said the economy is 
wonderful and getting better. Then he made a speech on the State of the 
economy and said everything is just rosy-posy. Then he spoke to the 
National Governors Association just this last 2 days ago and said 
everything is just fine; everything is doing well.
  Here I have three of this week's magazines talking about what is 
happening. ``Jobs Going Abroad.'' What is happening? ``New Jobs 
Migration.'' What is happening? ``Will America still be able to be a 
strong economy?'' This is what is happening in the world. And we have 
silence by this body.
  Look at this chart. Thirteen million children are going hungry every 
day in America, 3 million more Americans are living in poverty than 3 
years ago, and 90,000 workers are losing their unemployed compensation 
every single week. That is the real America.
  What we know is what has happened to real people in America. These 
are the administration's own figures. This is the Department of Labor. 
In 2000, the average family earned $44,000; now it is down to $42,000--
a near $1,500 reduction. That is what is happening.
  We have a real need out there. Everyone who travels the country 
understands it, except the Republicans.
  You have $15 billion in that fund. The Senator from Nevada says we 
have $4 billion that the States have. He knows as well as I they are 
restricted from using it because of Federal law. There is $15 billion 
out there. These are hard-working, decent Americans trying to pay a 
mortgage, trying to put food on the table, trying to take care of their 
children, and we are here saying, no, no, no; we are not going to give 
them the help and the assistance, the lifeline. They paid over a 
lifetime of working hard into this country. They paid into this fund. 
They are entitled to it. What is the reason for not providing this? 
What is the reason for not providing it? That is what the amendment

[[Page S1645]]

of the Senator from the State of Washington will do. It will give them 
a lifeline for the next 13 weeks so they will be able to keep their 
families together, have a sense of dignity, have a sense of pride, have 
a sense of optimism in their future and their family's future. We ought 
to be about the business of passing that and I hope we do this 
afternoon.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to reclaim 30 seconds, if I 
can.
  I will just take the time to read from this letter. I have a score, 
but this one says it all. It is from Tim O'Neal of Lexington, MA.
  I strongly urge your immediate action to support and to implement 
supplemental federal funding of unemployment benefits. I have been 
unemployed for approximately 18 months, though I'm a Vietnam veteran 
with a baccalaureate in chemistry, a recent JD, and more than 20 years 
of computer industry experience.
  Here you have in the paper today, number of mass layoffs rose sharply 
in January. More than 2,400 employees across the country reported 
laying off 50 or more workers in January, the third highest number of 
so-called mass layoffs since the Government began tracking them a 
decade ago. That is in today's Washington Post. There is the need.
  Senator Cantwell has the answer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington a 
question.
  I mentioned before that we gave the States about $8 billion a couple 
of years ago and that there is still over half of that money 
unexpended.
  I wanted to know if the Senator from Washington was aware that her 
State was given about $167 million and so far the unexpended available 
balance to the State of Washington is about $165 million out of $167 
million that was given to your state.
  I realize you have a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the 
country. I am kind of curious why your State has not spent the money we 
gave from the Federal Government?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to answer the Senator's question. I would 
like to do so on your time, since you have a little more time left than 
I do.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will yield you 1 minute.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts said, the States have that money 
obligated. They are committed to use it. The issue about the Federal 
program is that the Federal program is to lay on top of the State 
program.
  The point about $15.4 billion being in the Federal trust fund is that 
$15.4 billion is continually added to by the American employer on 
behalf of them and the employee and that fund grows. So the amount at 
the Federal level can be dedicated to help with this Federal extension 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will take a minute while the Senator 
from Oklahoma is getting ready to make a couple of other points.
  At some point we have to have some fiscal discipline around the 
Senate. There are good arguments to make in support of extending 
unemployment benefits. There is always anecdotal evidence, stories of 
hardship cases. You can always find those. If we had a 1-percent 
unemployment rate, you could find people out there who were unemployed, 
and unemployed for a long period of time, no matter how low the 
unemployment rate.
  The question is, by extending these benefits, do you create more of a 
problem than you are solving? In other words, we know that about 50 
percent of the people who are on unemployment will get a job in the 
last 2 weeks before their benefits run out.
  We have to have some discipline around here, put our fiscal house in 
order so that in the future we don't harm the economy, so that those 
jobs will be there for those people who want employment. For every 
person who wants to get a job and is willing to work, we need to have a 
job available.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how is the time being counted under the 
quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been charged to the Senator who 
put the quorum call in.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If neither yields time, the time will be shortened on both sides of 
the aisle equally.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is 4 minutes 29 seconds; 14 
minutes 34 on the opposite side.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will take a minute to report something 
to my colleagues. Hopefully this debate has stimulated some great 
thinking.
  As I pointed out, we can look at the history of the two different 
Bush administrations. The first Bush administration decided after 
creating 379,000 new jobs that it was going to extend unemployment 
benefits for 9 months--20 weeks for individuals who had already 
received State benefits could get a Federal benefit. This 
administration, having a similar recession in challenging economic 
times, only created 112,000 jobs in January and decided there would be 
no benefit program and no weeks for employees.
  I am not surprised to see the Washington Post headline ``Number of 
Mass Layoffs Rose Sharply in January''--``2,400 employers let go 50 or 
more people.'' That is the economic news facing the country.
  This administration and the other side of the aisle are not promising 
jobs or promising unemployment benefits. If someone wants to stand up 
and say we are going to have real job creation in 2004 and stand by the 
President's numbers, that is one thing. But if you are not promising 
either growth or economic assistance, then we have a serious problem.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, extending unemployment benefits would be 
one of the most important and significant action Congress takes this 
year. The economy and jobs are consistently the top areas of concern 
back home. The people that I speak to are far more interested in 
extending unemployment benefits than extending tax cuts to the wealthy. 
The House recently acted in strong bipartisan fashion and passed an 
amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have 
exhausted their state and federal benefits. Now it is time for the 
Senate to act as well.
  According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the number 
of individuals exhausting their regular State unemployment benefits and 
not qualifying for further benefits is higher than at any other time on 
record--about 90,000 workers a week. Painful history is being made. 
This Senate cannot stay silent. In January alone, about 375,000 
unemployed workers exhausted their regular state benefits and are not 
eligible for any Federal unemployment aid. This is on top of the 
395,000 unemployed workers who exhausted their state benefits last 
December 2003.
  Action is needed now. President Bush predicted that in 2003, we would 
create 1.7 million new jobs. Instead, the Nation lost 53,000 jobs. On 
Monday, President Bush said he thought the current unemployment numbers 
are ``good.'' Not where I'm from.
  In earlier slow economic times, previous Congresses have acted. In 
the 1974-75 recession, Congress provided 29 weeks of Federal 
unemployment benefits. In the 1981-82 recession, Congress provided 26 
weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 1990-91 recession, 
Congress provided 26 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 
program that expired on December 31, 2003, Congress provided 13 weeks 
of Federal unemployment benefits. That was below previous levels of 
Federal weeks but it was something.
  The Federal extended benefits program implemented during the last 
recession was not allowed to end until the economy had produced nearly 
three

[[Page S1646]]

million jobs above its pre-recession levels. The current program has 
ended when there are 2.4 million fewer jobs than when the recession 
began.
  The recently expired Federal unemployment program was closed to new 
enrollees last December 31, 2003. Workers currently receiving federal 
unemployment benefits will be phased out by the week of March 29, 2004. 
The recently expired federal unemployment program not only provided an 
added 13 weeks of Federally funded unemployment benefits for workers 
who have run out of State benefits--it provided an additional 7 weeks 
in States with the highest unemployment. Renewing this program--and 
hopefully expanding it to more traditional levels--is crucial.
  The Federal unemployment trust fund has over approximately $15 
billion in it--for this exact purpose--to allow unemployed workers who 
contributed to the fund while working to now use it in their time of 
need. The trust fund is the workers' money, made up from their 
contributions. Keeping money in consumers' hands will help sustain the 
economic recovery, too. Without it, more families will postpone medical 
care, watch their savings dry up, and lose their homes.
  The Bush administration has told us that a .1 percent national 
unemployment rate drop is proof positive that his tax cuts and other 
economic initiatives are beginning to work. However, what President 
Bush did not tell the American people that factory employment declined 
for the 42th consecutive month by eliminating approximately 24,000 
manufacturing jobs. Despite last month's growth, America's 
manufacturing core has shed an average of 53,000 jobs per month for the 
last 12 months. If a recovery is going on, it is essentially a jobless 
recovery. A jobless recovery is no recovery at all. The term is an 
oxymoron.
  The Labor Department statistics also reveal that five million 
Americans work part time jobs because they cannot find full-time jobs. 
Since President Bush took office, about 3 million private sector jobs 
have been lost and a total of almost 9 million Americans are now 
unemployed. We have also reached record levels of long-term 
unemployment.
  Manufacturing jobs, which helped to build and sustain America's 
middle class, are disappearing. A total of 2.6 million manufacturing 
jobs have been lost since January 2001, 11,000 last month alone. 
Manufacturing jobs are good jobs that pay high wages, provide good 
health benefits and retirement security. We cannot afford to let these 
good jobs leave our country or be lost.
  Michigan has been particularly hard hit, losing approximately 225,000 
jobs since January 2001 of which 185,000 were manufacturing jobs. Our 
states and our nation cannot sustain such losses. On Labor Day 
President Bush acknowledged that ``thousands'' of manufacturing jobs 
were lost in recent years. He was off by about 2.6 million.
  Let us pass an extension of unemployment benefits now. It is simply 
the right thing to do. It is the traditional thing to do in times like 
this.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the 
Record, illustrating previous Congressional action.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Cumulative Extension of UI
                   Year                               Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1974-1975.................................  29 weeks.
1981-1982.................................  26 weeks.
1990-1991.................................  33 weeks (states with high
                                             unemployment); 26 weeks
                                             (all other states).
2002......................................  26 weeks (states with high
                                             unemployment); 13 weeks
                                             (all other states).
Proposed legislation......................  20 weeks (states with high
                                             unemployment); 13 weeks
                                             (all other states).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for offering a very 
important amendment on unemployment insurance. This amendment is 
absolutely necessary because this administration has put this country 
on the wrong economic path.
  The economy is not improving, jobs are not being created, and workers 
and their families are suffering. Since this administration took 
office, America has lost nearly 3 million jobs, including over two and 
a half million in manufacturing. More than 9 million Americans are out 
of work. Unless we see an unbelievable turnaround in the next 8\1/2\ 
months, this administration will be the first since that of Herbert 
Hoover to preside over an economy where more jobs are lost than 
created.
  And what is the President's plan for economic recovery and job 
creation? More tax cuts for the wealthy; eviscerating overtime pay for 
hard-working Americans; shipping service and manufacturing jobs 
overseas; all while raising our deficits to record levels.
  It is not just the President alone who supports these policies--his 
administration supports these and other irresponsible policies as well. 
They have been forthcoming about their priorities and the priorities 
are out of step with working Americans. Therefore, no one should be 
surprised when instead of receiving a paycheck they receive a pink 
slip. No one should be surprised when they lose their house because the 
administration refuses to extend unemployment insurance benefits. No 
one should be surprised when retirees see their social security 
benefits slashed. No one should be surprised when companies move 
overseas or rely on workers overseas.
  Also troubling, just yesterday the Fed Chairman encouraged Congress 
and the Administration to make cuts into future Social Security 
payments in order to bring down the deficit. So now this administration 
is telling men and women who have worked hard their whole lives and are 
relying on Social Security to help them during their retirement years 
that they are better off cutting Social Security benefits rather than 
eliminate the tax cuts that go to the wealthy.
  The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors is 
quoted as saying, ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing 
international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the 
past. And that's a good thing.'' American workers are losing their jobs 
and the Administration says it's a ``good thing''. That is an 
extraordinary statement.
  In fact, not once in the past month has the President mentioned 
extending Federal unemployment benefits. What more must happen for this 
administration to wake up and begin to take meaningful action?
  The President talks about tremendous job growth this year. This 
prediction would only be met if job growth averaged more than 450,000 
new jobs each month, about four times the level of job growth in 
January according to the Economic Policy Institute.
  Americans are hurting and instead of taking steps to ensure job 
creation, this administration continues to call for more tax cuts--tax 
cuts that will favor the most wealthy, but do nothing for the families 
that are struggling today. These tax cuts will cost an additional $1 
trillion dollars over the next 10 years. What is even more alarming 
about this is that this is coming at the worst possible time--right 
when the baby boomers begin to retire.
  It is dumbfounding to me that just 3 years ago we were looking at the 
biggest surplus in our Nation's history--an annual surplus of $236 
billion. We were actually having interesting discussions about the 
effects of paying down the debt too fast. If only we were debating that 
today. Instead, we are facing an unsustainable fiscal path with the 
largest deficit in history--a deficit of $521 billion this year, a 
deficit that if not tackled soon, will have dangerous consequences.
  It has been projected that by 2009, if we continue on this 
irresponsible path, each person's share of the debt will total $35,283. 
This will lead to a reduction in consumer demand, an increase in 
interest rates, and it will make it enormously difficult for families 
across this country to achieve financial security.
  Today, the Labor Department reported that 350,000 people filed new 
claims for State unemployment benefits last week. Just yesterday, the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that from late 
December, when the Federal unemployment benefits program expired, 
through the end of February, 760,000 jobless workers will have 
exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving any 
additional Federal aid. More than 4,700 jobless workers in Connecticut 
will exhaust their benefits without qualifying for additional Federal 
aid.
  So that is why I wholeheartedly support extending Federal 
unemployment benefits right now. At the very least, we need to reach 
out to American workers and offer them a lifeline. This ought not be a 
partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.

[[Page S1647]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Cantwell's 
amendment to reinstate the temporary emergency unemployment 
compensation program.
  The amendment will reinstate the 13-week Federal unemployment 
insurance program, extend it for 6 months and ensure that ``high 
unemployment'' States continue to be covered.
  Given all of the pressures that workers face today--outsourcing, a 
political environment that is hostile to organized labor, and a lack of 
high-paying jobs--there is no more pressing issue facing our nation's 
workforce. And yet although Senate Democrats have asked more than a 
dozen times to unanimously pass the unemployment extension--each time 
Senate Republicans have said no. It is time that the Senate stop 
putting partisanship ahead of what nearly everyone agrees is smart 
policy.
  On February 4, the House of Representatives voted to reinstate 
unemployment benefits by a vote of 227 to 179, with 39 Republicans 
defying their leadership and voting in favor of the benefits.
  But until the Senate acts, hundreds of thousands of workers will be 
in the impossible position of trying to feed, clothe, and house their 
families with no work and no benefits.
  These are people who are persistently trying to re-enter the 
workforce, and yet must contend with an economy that has less than one 
job opening for every three workers.
  Today we can change this. This amendment provides crucial temporary 
assistance to those who have been hardest hit by the recent economic 
downturn, and provides them a chance to support themselves and their 
families while they look for work.
  Although the amendment would not provide more than 13 weeks of 
additional benefits to California, since my State's unemployment rate 
is 6.4 percent, not high enough to meet the 6.5 percent unemployment 
rate trigger in the amendment, it provides a meaningful extension for 
Californians by allowing unemployed Californians who were previously 
unqualified for unemployment benefits to collect 13 weeks of benefits 
as they look for new work.
  As of today, 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since 
President Bush took office in January 2001.
  In total, nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, including 
discouraged and underemployed workers.
  Historically, job loss during a recession is about 50 percent 
temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today, nearly 80 percent of the job 
loss is permanent. As a result, many of the unemployed will not return 
to work soon.
  In his Annual Economic Report, President Bush said that the 
outsourcing of jobs was the inevitable byproduct of an improving 
economy.
  The White House says the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs 
``eventually will outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy 
cheaper goods and services and new jobs are created in growing sectors 
of the economy.''
  How are people without jobs supposed to buy all these goods and 
services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export all 
the jobs?
  The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the 
office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve 
the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the 
training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.''
  As Senator Daschle pointed out, that sounds like a cruel joke. The 
President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal job 
training programs. And how do they know that the jobs they are training 
for will not be the next jobs targeted to be shipped overseas? It 
certainly will not be because the President is fighting to keep them 
here.
  It seems to me that the jury is in on the course we must take. I 
think it is wrong to move to a protectionist stance by raising tariffs 
or promoting a weak U.S. currency. Historically, such strategies have 
led to more problems than they have solved.

  U.S. companies should not be rewarded through our tax code for moving 
jobs offshore and then be allowed to bring foreign earned profits back 
into the U.S. at a tax rate that is a fraction of what they pay on 
their U.S. earned profits--just 5 percent, as compared to 38 percent in 
some cases.
  You and I pay more than five times that in personal income taxes.
  We should be encouraging firms to keep jobs here by producing the 
best trained, best educated workforce in the world.
  And, we must help those who are displaced by outsourcing by providing 
emergency unemployment insurance.
  This amendment provides just such a safety net for those who are 
temporarily displaced by the economic changes that are engulfing us.
  I ask President Bush to put his weight behind this effort to get 
unemployment benefits extended to those who have been looking for a job 
more than 13 weeks.
  If you are the President, you should be cheerleader number one for 
the American worker. And you should be supporting workers when they 
find themselves overcome by economic circumstances beyond their 
control.
  When the national economy was booming 4 years ago, California was 
particularly blessed. California's economy grew at double-digit rates, 
and California became the fifth-largest economy in the world.
  Billions of dollars of investment flowed into our State, and 
thousands of talented workers moved to California to take advantage of 
opportunities in Silicon Valley and other growth engines of the New 
Economy. Now that picture is dramatically different.
  After dropping to a decade-long low of 4.7 percent in December of 
2000, the unemployment rate in California is back up to 6.4 percent as 
of the end of 2003.
  During this period of economic hardship, we have a duty to give 
people the chance to get back onto their feet. This is an obligation 
that we have met in the past, most recently when faced with an economic 
downturn during the first Bush Administration. The Senate voted in 1991 
to extend temporary unemployment insurance on five separate occasions. 
Each time such extensions were approved by overwhelming bipartisan 
majorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and those Americans 
who have fallen on hard times.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Oklahoma wish?
  I yield to the Senator 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague and friend from 
Nevada for his statement.
  It is important that we create an environment to create jobs. We did 
that last year. We didn't have bipartisan support, with the exception 
of Senator Miller. But we passed a jobs bill last year. We passed a 
bill to help grow the economy. Guess what. It is working.
  We passed a bill last year that cut the tax on individuals about in 
half--15 percent. We passed a bill last year that cut the tax on 
capital gains from 20 to 15 percent. We passed a bill that reduced 
marginal rates; that took the rate from 27 percent, for example, and 
made it 25 percent.
  As a result of that, the economy is growing. With a rather stagnant 
economy, the stock market a year ago was less than 8,000; that is, the 
Dow Jones. It is over 10,500 today. The Nasdaq is over 50 percent. For 
the last three quarters, we now have significant economic growth. 
During the last two quarters, one quarter was 8 percent and the other 
quarter was 4.4 percent.
  We have had the most significant rapid expansion of job growth and 
economic growth in the last several months. In the last 6 months, 
according to the Wade survey, we have added about 300-some thousand 
jobs. If you look at the household survey, it is a couple of million 
jobs. The household survey includes self-employed, working at home on 
their computers, and so on.
  Also, I know this amendment says let us continue this Federal 
program. We have a State program of 26 weeks. We had a temporary 
Federal program for an additional 13 weeks. Many tried to make that a 
permanent program and many tried to double it. They weren't successful 
in doubling it. Now they are trying to make it permanent.
  They want to take a 13-week program that traditionally was temporary 
and usually phases out when the unemployment rate drops down. The 
unemployment rate has been dropping down. In

[[Page S1648]]

2003, it was 6.3 percent, and it has declined almost every month to 5.6 
percent. We have had significant improvement in the number of jobs, and 
the unemployment rate is 5.6 percent.

  But I notice that the proponents of the amendment said: What about 
the early 1990s? In the early 1990s, we discontinued unemployment 
temporary assistance when the rate was 6.4 percent. Today, it is 5.6 
percent--a full percentage point less than it was several years ago 
when we had this temporary program.
  Some people do not like the idea that it is a temporary program. They 
would like it to be a permanent program.
  It is not.
  A couple of other things:
  The number of unemployed is falling. If you go back to last year, it 
dropped from 9.2 million to 8.3 million--again, a significant 
improvement by almost a million.
  The number of Federal extended unemployment benefit claims has fallen 
dramatically as well. It is declining. That is because economic growth 
is going up. Yes. Sometimes there is a lag between economic growth and 
the number of new jobs created because you have a lot of inefficiency 
in the system.
  You have a more productive system. People are producing more with 
less, people are more efficient, and people are very productive. The 
productivity index has been skyrocketing. We have had a very 
productive, efficient workforce. So that is contributing.
  I want to make these points. We spent about $30 million in the last 
36 months for this program. Again, some people would like it to 
continue forever. When you have a national unemployment rate of 5.6 
percent--I don't know that we have had the Federal temporary 
unemployment assistance apply at a rate that low. I mention that.
  I also might mention that almost half the States have less than 5 
percent unemployment.
  I used to be in manufacturing. When the unemployment rate was less 
than 5 percent, it was almost full employment.
  You are always going to have an unemployment rate. You are always 
going to have some people moving from job to job. With a dynamic 
economy, people basically transfer from job to job. Their job may be 
phased out, but they are going to another job. That is part of high 
tech. That is part of modernizing industry. This is part of keeping up. 
That is part of the dynamics of the marketplace which maybe a lot of 
people would like to replace. People change jobs. That is not all that 
unhealthy. Sometimes that next job is a better job. Sometimes that next 
job might have great growth potential.
  This program is a Federal temporary program, and it shouldn't be made 
permanent. To make it permanent will add $5.4 billion on to the deficit 
this year. The deficit this year is already over $500 billion, 
according to OMB. CBO is going to say it is less than that. I happen to 
agree with the Congressional Budget Office. If you have a deficit of 
400-plus or 500-plus billion dollars, let us not add on another 5.4 
billion on top of it for this year. Enough is enough.
  How long are we going to continue the program? Do we continue this 
program if the unemployment rate gets below 5 percent? There has to be 
a time when we say enough is enough.
  The current program is in the process of phasing out. When we passed 
the last bill, we avoided a cliff by December 30. If somebody was in 
the 13-week program by the end of December, they got the full Federal 
13-week extension. We didn't have somebody automatically losing their 
benefit after 1 week on the Federal program.
  We also have a program for high unemployment States. That is a 
permanent Federal Extended Benefits program. Right now, Alaska 
qualifies for extended benefits. Nationally, they already get a 13-week 
Federal on top of the State 26 weeks. So Alaska already has 39 weeks. 
That is three-fourths of the year.

  We have to determine when is enough. I think we have crossed the 
line. There is a direct relationship--and the Senator from Nevada 
alluded to this--when we discontinue making extra payments, more people 
will find work. There is more incentive to get out and find that job, 
to make sure you get a job, to make sure you can take care of your 
family.
  Tradition has shown--and we saw this in the 1990s--when this program 
stopped in the 1990s, the unemployment rate declined by another 
percentage point because a lot of people went out and found jobs. In 
other words, the more you pay people not to work, the less inclined 
they are to work. There is a direct relationship. So we should, at some 
point, draw this program to a conclusion.
  We are saying keep the 26 week State program, keep the permanent 
Federal program for high unemployment States, those States that are 
really suffering through economic decline. But for the rest of the 
country, this is not called for. It is not affordable. It will be 
adding to the deficit. It is out of order as far as the budget is 
concerned.
  I will make a point of order on this but I withhold the vote until 
all time has expired on both sides. The pending amendment No. 2617 
offered by the Senator from Washington increases direct spending in 
excess of the allocation to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I raise 
a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of 
the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator the point of 
order is not timely. It can be made when all time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will reserve the point and see if additional Senators 
wish to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes five seconds.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will take a couple of minutes.
  I asked the Senator from Washington a question a little while ago. Of 
the $8 billion we gave to the States, each of the States was allocated 
a certain amount of money and the State of Washington was allocated 
around $167 million. Up to this point, the State of Washington--this is 
money on which the legislature in the State of Washington has to act; 
they take that money and spend it on unemployment benefits--so far has 
only used about $3.5 million of the $167 million.
  Earlier, the Senator from Massachusetts was in the Senate discussing 
with the Senator from Washington, saying it is difficult to access. 
Massachusetts has used every dollar they were given at that time--every 
dollar. So the Senator from Washington, the sponsor of this amendment, 
her own State has not used the money the Federal Government made 
accessible to them. It seems to me they ought to at least use that 
money to help the people in their own State.
  Also, we had the Workforce Reinvestment Act that passed unanimously 
in the Senate. This act would help about 900,000 people in the United 
States to be retrained for new jobs. The other side is filibustering 
the appointment of conferees. We need to complete that bill if we want 
to help those people out of work get retrained so we can get them into 
other jobs.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to make sure everyone is aware, when you talk 
about the State has money it has not utilized, are you referring to $8 
billion Congress appropriated as part of the package in 2002?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. There was $8 billion and there is still $4 billion on 
the table the States have not utilized for the unemployment 
compensation?
  Mr. ENSIGN. There is $4.3 billion that has not been used that we gave 
the States.
  Mr. NICKLES. My colleague mentioned the Workforce Investment Act that 
passed unanimously through the Senate and for whatever reasons our 
colleagues on the minority side have not agreed to the appointment of 
conferees. This is a bill that would help train people to get jobs.

  Mr. ENSIGN. They are filibustering the appointment of conferees.
  For those people who do not know what that is, we have to appoint 
people to be able to work out the differences between the House and the 
Senate so we can bring the final bills back to both before we take it 
to the White

[[Page S1649]]

House. They are filibustering a bill that was passed unanimously.
  Mr. NICKLES. A further clarification. I find it totally unacceptable 
and I cannot imagine not agreeing to appointing conferees on a bill 
that will help get people trained to find jobs.
  Also, I make an editorial comment. There is way too much of that 
happening. Our colleagues should be advised, this not agreeing to 
appointment of conferees is a travesty on the Senate procedures. Maybe 
people think it is commonplace. It is not commonplace in the tradition 
of the Senate.
  Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct, it is a rarely used 
tactic from the past that has been used increasingly more. It is 
obstructing the work of the Senate.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 3 minutes 7 
seconds and the other side has 2 minutes 3 seconds.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes to try to explain 
for my colleagues that while I have a great deal of respect for both my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they argue their points, 
obviously, we all hope for a better economy; we all hope things are 
going to get better.
  I have some experience with these issues. I have been in the private 
sector myself and been part of an organization that was about job 
creation, been part of an industry that has great hope for the future.
  The question is whether we want to take stimulus out of the economy 
by denying people unemployment benefits.
  I will not debate the chairman of the Budget Committee about his 
budget point of order, but I will say most Americans know that they pay 
into a trust fund, through their employers, and those funds are 
available at the Federal level in a trust fund for this program. So you 
can call it what you want as it relates to the Budget Act; these 
dollars are in a trust fund, paid into by employers on behalf of 
employees, and those funds can only be used for this purpose.
  We can decide we do not want to use them because we think the economy 
is getting better. That is what the other side seems to say. 
Unfortunately, that is not what the administration is willing to own up 
to. Basically, it will not promise job growth after issuing a report 
saying there will be 2.6 million jobs. And the other side will not own 
up to the need for job growth or own up to helping unemployed workers.
  The last Republican administration took the same problem and had a 
different outcome. It stepped up its efforts. Even though unemployment 
was dropping, even though the rate of unemployment was, month by month 
by month, dropping, and even though employment or new job creation was 
happening, the first Bush administration said, we believe 9 more months 
of unemployment benefits is needed.
  I am only asking for 6 months today. I ask my colleagues to take that 
into consideration when they are thinking about all the economic 
assistance we could be giving. You want to say the tax cut is working. 
Great. Then ask the President to stick by his economic plan of 2.6 
million jobs.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am finding out more about this amendment, and the more 
I find out, the less I like it. The sponsor of the amendment has 
written it in a way that her State receives extra benefits that most 
States do not. So this is not a simple extension. It is a simple 
extension, except a few States will get additional high unemployment 
assistance.
  I am bewildered. I came to the floor and thought it was a simple 
extension. It is not. It rewrites the definition of high unemployment. 
It changes the criteria and benefits for the State of Washington, and a 
probably one or two other States. The State of Washington has money on 
the table that we have already appropriated that the State legislature 
has not used, as the Senator from Nevada alluded to.
  One final note. We discontinued the Federal temporary assistance 
program in the early 1990s when the unemployment rate was at 6.4 
percent. The unemployment rate today is 5.6 percent. It is much lower. 
It is time to say, let's go back to the program that has permanent 
extended benefits only for high-unemployment States, not for every 
State.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will wrap up my remarks. I have a couple 
comments.
  First of all, the economy is improving now, it is not just going to 
improve in the future. We are in the middle of a recovery. We just had 
the strongest quarter of GDP growth in 20 years. Jobs are being 
produced.
  Payroll versus household--I do not know how many times we have to say 
it, but self-employed people count. They count in the household survey. 
Over 2 million jobs have been produced within the last year. When you 
count the households and all those self-employed people, those jobs 
should count in what we are talking about here.
  If somebody lost their job and then started their own company, that 
should count as a job. And that is what a lot of people have done. We 
know incredible success stories of when people have lost their jobs and 
then started their own companies.
  Mr. President, it is time to end this continued unemployment benefit 
extension, this billion-dollar-a-month program and encourage people to 
go to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Nevada that 
all his time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington has 34 seconds.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think the point is clear; and that is, 
this side of the aisle believes the American workers, who have lost 
their jobs through no fault of their own, should be given assistance 
until job creation is on the upswing in America so we can move further 
along this path and so that stimulus is still in the economy.
  That has been the result in the past two administrations. The last 
Bush administration believed in this, and now, somehow, we want to 
forget that economic success.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment No. 2617 offered by the 
Senator from Washington increases direct spending in excess of the 
allocation to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of 
order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I now ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set 
aside, and we will now move to the issue on voting rights.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 2626

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, shortly the majority leader will send 
an amendment to the desk to provide for a permanent extension of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. This was one of the truly landmark pieces of 
legislation in American history.
  Last Congress, Senator Dodd and I spearheaded, along with Senator 
Bond, what became a 2-year quest to reform the way elections are 
conducted in this country. Senator Dodd was correct in saying the 
election reform legislation we passed was the most important civil 
rights bill of this century, the 21st century.
  With the support of 92 Members of this Chamber, we were successful in 
protecting the rights of all Americans--all Americans--to cast a vote 
and have it counted, but to do so only once. Gone will be the days of 
dogs and dead people registering and voting, and so, too, will be the 
days of faulty equipment and being turned away at the

[[Page S1650]]

polls. Now the majority leader shortly will offer an amendment which 
makes permanent the most important civil rights bill of the previous 
century, the 20th century.
  If I may, let me recall a personal experience I had during that 
period in the 1960s that is indelibly imprinted on my mind. The day was 
August 28, 1963. It was the day Martin Luther King Jr. made that ``I 
Have A Dream'' speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The Mall 
was crowded with folks from here at the Capitol all the way down to the 
Lincoln Memorial. And in that crowd I found myself. I was there the day 
of the March on Washington and the day of the ``I Have A Dream'' 
speech. Unfortunately, I could not hear it because I was so far down 
the Mall, and there were so many people I did not hear the speech. But 
you had the sense, if you were in the crowd that day, and sympathetic 
with the effort to get voting rights, public accommodations, and fair 
housing, that you were in the presence of one of those seminal moments 
in American history.
  Of course, we now all reflect on that day, August 28, 1963, with 
great reverence, and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech is 
remembered as one of the great speeches in American history, delivered 
that day on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963. I will 
always remember that I had an opportunity to be a part of that most 
important day.
  A couple years after that, we passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
There were three things that march was about: public accommodation, 
passed in 1964; voting rights, which passed in 1965; and fair housing, 
1968. But voting, of course, is the most important in a democracy.
  Over the years, the Voting Rights Act has successfully addressed 
truly egregious problems which existed at that time. Unfortunately, 
though, the pattern of the Voting Rights Act is to not make it 
permanent and, once again, it is set to expire in 2007.
  The protections in the Voting Rights Act are, frankly, too important 
to provide on only a temporary basis, and that is the reason the 
majority leader will be offering shortly his amendment to make the 
Voting Rights Act permanent.
  The majority leader, in fact, just within the last couple of weeks 
organized a civil rights pilgrimage which was attended by a number of 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. My wife Elaine and I went to 
part of this 3-day pilgrimage that began in Alabama and ended in 
Nashville, with the dedication of the Civil Rights Room of the 
Nashville Public Library, which is replete with photographs of the 
lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville in the 1960s, which led to the 
peaceful integration of Nashville during that period.
  This was a meaningful experience for all of us who participated, at 
the majority leader's request, in this pilgrimage. Congressman John 
Lewis was along, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. 
We talked about August 28, 1963. He got to speak. He was the youngest 
speaker on the podium that day. Young John Lewis was there and thrilled 
to have an opportunity to speak, at age 23 or 22, on the same day and 
from the same podium as Rev. Martin Luther King.
  I can think of no better way to memorialize our commitment to a free 
and equal society than the adoption of the Frist amendment. This 
amendment makes the preclearance and bilingual requirements permanent, 
providing a clear message from the Senate that we stand committed to 
not only the protection of civil rights but also to the preservation of 
those rights as well.
  Some may suggest this action is premature. But how can the law of the 
land for 39 years be premature? Further, the language of the amendment 
is abundantly clear: ``the provisions of this section shall not 
expire.'' Let me repeat, in the amendment it says: ``the provisions of 
this section shall not expire.''
  I cannot think of any reason why anyone on either side of the aisle 
would oppose the protection of the franchise of all Americans. If so, 
we potentially jeopardize the fundamental tenet of our representative 
democracy.
  In conclusion, I commend the majority leader for this amendment. It 
is an excellent amendment. This is a step we should have taken years 
ago. I commend him for offering the amendment today. I hope it will be 
adopted by the Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself and Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2626.

  Mr. FRIST. 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:

   (Purpose: To make the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
                               permanent)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. MAKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 
                   1965 PERMANENT.

       (a) Permanency of Preclearance Requirements.--Section 
     4(a)(8) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     1973b(a)(8)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) The provisions of this section shall not expire.''.
       (b) Permanency of Bilingual Election Requirements.--Section 
     203(b)(1) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-
     1a(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``Before August 6, 2007, no 
     covered State'' and insert ``No covered State''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is the 
amendment my distinguished colleague from Kentucky spoke to a few 
moments ago. I introduce this on behalf of the Senator from Kentucky 
and myself in response, in part, to the expiration of a portion of the 
Voting Rights Act. I will speak to the details of it shortly.
  By way of introduction, 2 weeks ago, Congressman John Lewis and I 
participated in a trip to sites in Alabama and in Tennessee that 
reflected important times and places in those States as they pertained 
to civil rights and the movement of nonviolence and the struggle for 
voting rights. We had a wonderful, powerful trip crossing Selma's 
Edmund Pettus Bridge where almost 40 years ago Congressman Lewis had 
led marchers in the name of voting rights for all.
  The stories were powerful. They endured the beating without striking 
back, and they faced the hatred with the power of compassion and love.
  Their courage captured a victory that has been to the benefit of 
millions today, not just for African Americans but for others all over 
this country. I was deeply moved by their courage and their sacrifice 
at the time, and I am grateful for their service.
  This year, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act occurs. That 
act enshrined fair voting practices for all Americans. The act 
reaffirms the 15th amendment to the Constitution and prohibits 
individuals and governments from sabotaging the ability of African-
American citizens to vote.
  Dorothy Cotton, one of the participants with Congressman Lewis and I, 
who ran the Citizenship Education Project of the Southern Christian 
Leadership Council with Andrew Young, remarked that she remembers when 
voting registration offices were open only when most African Americans 
were working during that time of day. Rev. Bernard Lafayette, who was 
also with us, another great civil rights leader, remembers routine 
harassment at the registration office, such as being required to 
interpret obscure sections of the U.S. Constitution or--and his words 
are so vivid in my mind--being required to give the number of bubbles 
in a bar of soap.
  Clearly this was wrong. It was ugly, and it was unconstitutional. 
That is why the Congress moved to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
to once and for all protect the right of every American to vote.
  The Voting Rights Act also includes section 4, and it will be up for 
reauthorization in 2007. President Reagan reauthorized it for 25 years 
in 1982. Section 4 is the section that contains the

[[Page S1651]]

temporary preclearance provision that applies to certain States: 
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, 
Virginia, and parts of Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North 
Carolina. These States must submit any voting changes to the U.S. 
Department of Justice for preclearance and, if the Department of 
Justice concludes that the change weakens the voting strength of 
minority voters, it can refuse to approve the change.
  Section 4 provides an important measure of assurance that the full 
force of the U.S. Government stands behind voting rights for all 
Americans. That is why Senator McConnell and I today are offering an 
amendment to permanently reauthorize section 4 of the Voting Rights 
Act. With or without section 4, every American has the right to vote. 
That will never change. However, Senator McConnell and I want to make 
clear that America will never renege on the hard-fought gains of the 
civil rights movement. We don't want anyone to fear that their right to 
vote will ever be taken away. Those shameful days are over.
  Some of the heroes of the civil rights movement have endorsed this 
particular amendment. Congressman John Lewis supports it.
  Rev. Bernard Lafayette, who joined Congressman Lewis and I--actually 
Bernard Lafayette went with us on our pilgrimage last week, but also he 
and John Lewis were together at that fateful time in 1965 for the march 
in Selma. His words were this amendment would be an ``important 
psychological and political victory for democracy.''
  It is my fervent hope that one day soon racism and discrimination 
will be totally a thing of the past. Until that time, it is critical 
that the Justice Department retain this preclearance authority to 
review changes to State voting requirements, not only to allay fears 
that might arise but also to enshrine our progress to date.
  I do hope all of my colleagues will join me in ensuring the Federal 
Government will do all it can to protect the right to vote for all 
Americans. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I commend our majority leader for his strong statement and commitment 
of ensuring that the Voting Rights Act, which is of fundamental and key 
importance in terms of what American democracy is all about, is 
something that he wants to see and will extend it and that he is fully 
committed to working in every possible way to make that commitment come 
true. I also commend my friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator 
McConnell, for expressing similar sentiments. But this is not the best 
way to achieve that goal.
  What is important to come out of this debate is that the Senate, as 
an institution, is firmly committed, as we hear from the majority 
leader and from the leadership from that side, to making sure we 
continue the Voting Rights Act. The real question is, How is the best 
way to make sure that is possible?
  I was here in 1964 when we addressed the public accommodations laws 
and offered the amendment to eliminate the poll tax, and it was 
defeated. I was here in 1965. I am very familiar with the weeks we 
spent on that bill to actually get the Voting Rights Act.
  I was on the Judiciary Committee in 1982 and listened to the 
Republican Attorney General William French Smith--I can remember it 
almost as if it were yesterday--because the extension of the Voting 
Rights Act had been offered by myself and my wonderful friend and a 
great Senator, a Republican Senator, Senator Mathias. We had 32 votes. 
The Reagan administration was opposed to extending the Voting Rights 
Act. That is the history.
  Until the House of Representatives passed the Voting Rights Act 
overwhelmingly, we were unable to get to 50 votes and get a majority of 
the Judiciary Committee to vote to pass that out. It was only in the 
final hours actually that we were able to accept what was the Dole 
amendment.
  Those who are interested in looking at the history, we were able to 
get up to more than a veto-proof majority, and President Reagan signed 
the bill.
  This is not an issue to be lightly dealt with. This right to vote is 
a core issue in our country. We enshrined slavery into the 
Constitution. We fought a civil war to free ourselves from the pains of 
discrimination. It was Dr. King, quite frankly, who awakened the 
conscience of the Nation and the Nation came together and we saw the 
great progress that was made in the early 1960s to move us ahead with 
voting rights and public accommodations. Then, in 1968, we passed the 
Housing Act which really did not do a great deal in housing until 
actually the 1988 act.
  This has been a long march, as the Senators have pointed out. We have 
to ask ourselves whether now is the time to take this action.
  Let me read into the Record the letter I have received from the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. I read it at this time:

       On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
     Nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human 
     rights coalition, we write to express our opposition to the 
     amendment being offered by Majority Leader Frist to the 
     protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 1805, to 
     make the preclearance of the minority language provisions of 
     the Voting Rights Act permanent.
       The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil 
     rights statutes ever enacted by Congress. This law, which 
     enforces the 15th amendment, has been successful in removing 
     direct and indirect barriers to voting for African Americans, 
     Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans. And 
     since its passage, the act has survived narrow 
     interpretations by the United States Supreme Court only to be 
     amended by Congress to restore its original strength. 
     Nevertheless, voting disenfranchisement still exists today.
       As you know, the VRA's preclearance and minority language 
     provisions are scheduled for reauthorization in 2007. We in 
     the civil rights community plan to actively engage in the 
     process, including working to establish a strong legislative 
     record in support of reauthorization.

  I underline, Mr. President, the language that says ``establish a 
strong legislative record in support of reauthorization.'' That is a 
key phrase in terms of this letter and for reasons to which I will 
refer in a moment.

       Nevertheless, we oppose the Frist amendment because it is 
     premature. Critical analysis of issues surrounding 
     preclearance of minority language provisions of the Voting 
     Rights Act have not yet been fully examined and analyzed 
     carefully to reflect the current status of our laws, court 
     decisions, enforcement actions, and society.
       The Supreme Court has made it clear in recent years that it 
     will require Congress to establish a detailed record through 
     hearings and legislative findings in order to ensure that 
     provisions such as these survive constitutional scrutiny.
       Therefore, while we plan to strongly support the 
     reauthorization of these important provisions, we urge you to 
     vote no on the Frist amendment.

  The reasons for this urging are the relevant parts of this letter 
which have strong justification, given holdings by the Supreme Court on 
other actions that the Congress has taken in trying to expand rights 
and liberties for American citizens, and which have been struck down.
  Time in and time out and time and again the courts have referred to 
the legislative record that has been made on the Voting Rights Act. I 
remember it. I was a member of the Judiciary Committee. I remember the 
days and months of hearings and testimony, an extraordinary record was 
made, unparalleled in recent history, justifying that act, respected by 
the Supreme Court. And we are going to say that last night at 11 
o'clock the Senate agreed to take up an amendment with a 1-hour time 
limitation that is going to extend this, and the possibility of the 
Supreme Court looking back, when it is challenged--as we know it will 
be challenged--at the legislative history, the background, and they 
will find we had 1 hour of debate on the floor of the Senate and put at 
risk the Voting Rights Act.
  There are some--not the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, 
or the Senator from Kentucky, but there are those who want to see this 
undermined. We know that. We have to be guarded against that 
possibility. Voting rights are too important to risk it.
  Those families, those individuals, those Americans who are concerned 
about the issue of voting rights and in so many instances have been 
denied the right to vote and whose families have been denied the right 
to vote and have suffered, and in some instances have friends and 
family members who lost their lives in the struggle for civil

[[Page S1652]]

rights, say to us, let us do what we believe is necessary to do. Let us 
not have an abbreviated legislative process.
  Let us go to what the Supreme Court has recognized as being the way 
to ensure we will have the kind of protection for this most basic and 
fundamental right, and that is do it through the legislative process, 
through the hearings, through the testimony, through the evidence that 
will be collected and debated on the Senate floor. That is effectively 
what is being said by the leadership conference.
  That is why I am instructed, under more careful consideration, that 
Congressman Lewis, having read this and consulted with lawyers and 
constitutional authorities this afternoon, is opposed to this 
amendment.
  As I say, I am sure the majority leader understands the Supreme Court 
decisions that say how important it is to require a substantive record 
is made, and we do not have that record on the basis of an hour's 
debate this afternoon.
  The recent experience in the courts, in the Supreme Court decision of 
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Gibbs, and City of Burns v. 
Florida, show the Court will require a substantial legislative record 
when reviewing any future challenge to the provisions made permanent by 
this record. That is the holding of the Supreme Court, that they will 
require a substantial legislative record.
  We do not have a substantial legislative record. That is not a part 
of this debate. As a result, the Senate should take every necessary 
step to develop that substantial record that will ensure any amendment 
will withstand the constitutional scrutiny.
  I want to give assurances to the majority leader and my friend from 
Kentucky that we on the Judiciary Committee will work eagerly with the 
leadership on the other side to make sure when we come to grips with 
this issue, when we deal with the issue on the Senate floor and we have 
the full kind of debate and discussion, it will have the kind of 
background, experience, record, testimony, and extensive, exhaustive 
historical context so it will meet any possible challenge before the 
Supreme Court.
  We do not have that. According to constitutional authority, we are 
risking not only the provisions we are talking about but the underlying 
legislation. That is a risk this Senator is not prepared to support. So 
I respect and admire the motives that have inspired our colleagues and 
friends to offer this amendment, but I have to indicate virtually the 
unanimous recommendation of those who have benefited from the Voting 
Rights Act are in strong opposition to this amendment and have 
instructed me to make their positions clear to the membership of the 
Senate.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Might I inquire how much time is remaining on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 16 minutes and the 
Senator from Massachusetts has about 16 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Might I inquire of the Senator from Massachusetts if he 
has anyone further who wishes to speak in opposition to the Frist 
amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. First, I will make a few comments. I have been notified 
I have one other colleague who will be on his way in the next 4 or 5 
minutes. If not, we will be glad to go on.
  Mr. CRAIG. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor. Does the 
Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. CRAIG. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho yields the floor.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, we have to understand, as I think all of us do, that 
obviously the underlying legislation is important. I have spoken on 
this issue. I take strong exception to what is special interest 
legislation and singling out a particular industry from liability. That 
is important. The provisions that have been debated earlier this 
afternoon on the concealable weapons are very important as well in 
terms of safety and security. We debated the armor-piercing bullet. 
That is important in terms of lives and family. When we are talking now 
about the right to vote and ensuring the right to vote, this reaches 
the core value of our society and what this Nation is all about.
  We know the history of our Nation. I mentioned very briefly slavery 
was enshrined in the Constitution. We fought a civil war in order to 
free ourselves from it. But it was only in the early 1960s that we 
began to make the real progress. The most important of all of those 
kinds of civil rights was the right to vote and the extension of that 
right and the elimination of the poll tax, the literacy tests, all of 
the other kinds of tests that were put up there. This country has been 
reminded once again about the importance of the right to vote in the 
recent Presidential elections where we saw this enormous fiasco that 
took place in the State of Florida, the future of this country 
ultimately being decided in the Supreme Court of the United States 
rather than the hands of the American people.
  So the American people understand the importance. It is almost like a 
sacred right. If we were to talk about sacred rights in terms of what 
this society and country is about, it is about the right to vote. 
Nothing else is possible unless we have the right to vote, guaranteed 
to all of those citizens in our country who are eligible to have that 
right. It is fundamental to everything else this society is about.
  We know it is being challenged and we know there are many who would 
set it aside. We have seen that in recent times. We have seen the 
threat to the right to vote. Even after we understand some of the 
difficulties we had in the last Presidential election, we have seen the 
difficulty we have had in this body and around the States to make sure 
we were not going to have that problem again and again. We have not 
solved the problems we had, but we have to preserve it and protect it 
and we cannot tamper with this very important and significant 
responsibility we have.
  As I said before, I eagerly look forward to working with our two 
colleagues, who have spoken eloquently about their strong commitment, 
in ensuring that we are going to have an extension of the Voting Rights 
Act. I look forward to working with them in the Judiciary Committee. I 
know our two colleagues are not members of the Judiciary Committee, but 
we have enormous respect for them and their strong support will make an 
incredible difference in ensuring we will get the extension, we will 
build the record, and we will ensure the next time we pass this, we 
will have the kind of record that will be sustained in this Supreme 
Court and any future Supreme Court.
  We do not want to put that at risk now. We do not want that. That is 
not a wise decision. The people who have suffered too long and been 
denied that right to vote believe very strongly that to be the case. I 
think we should observe their very serious concerns, follow those, and 
work to build the kind of record that will survive any constitutional 
scrutiny and ensure that rather with the existing protections we have, 
we are going to create even greater ones.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator from Idaho wishes to yield back his time, 
we can do so.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator. I believe we have one of our 
colleagues still yet to come so we will wait for him for a short time. 
Time is running on this amendment.
  How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes 7 seconds. The 
Senator from Massachusetts has 11 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just received word on what we are now 
debating. I make a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page S1653]]

Am I correct that this is a Frist amendment to this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The majority leader offered 
the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. The Frist amendment is amending the Voting Rights Act; is 
that correct? It would make the preclearance and minority language 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act permanent; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair very much for that.
  First let me express my gratitude to the majority leader for having a 
strong interest in this. As someone who for the last several years, 
since the election of 2000, has spent a great deal of time on the 
conduct of Federal elections, I worked closely with Mitch McConnell and 
Kit Bond of Missouri and Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, who chairs the 
House committee and has jurisdiction over Federal elections over in the 
other Chamber, along with a number of other people. There were a lot of 
people involved in this, but we were able to put together the HAVA Act, 
the Help America Vote Act. It is in the view of many the first civil 
rights legislation of the 21st century. Some have called it the most 
significant legislation affecting the right to vote since the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965.
  Certainly, one of the issues we looked at and discussed rather 
briefly was the issue of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act 
when it comes to language minorities. But when we were dealing with 
that bill, we did not vote to make permanent those provisions. And for 
good reason.
  This is a very important part of the Voting Rights Act, these 
language minority and preclearance provisions. It is hardly the place, 
I suggest, with all due respect to those who are interested in this, as 
a floor amendment to any bill here. We are on a bill addressing the 
issue of guns, and rather suddenly we are asked to permanently change 
one of the most profoundly important laws in our nation.
  Just to cite one example to my colleagues, if we adopt this today--
there is a group very much in the news at this very hour. And that is 
the people of Haiti. Now, there is a substantial population in the 
State of Florida of people who are formerly from Haiti, Haitian 
Americans. If this language is adopted, some have raised concerns that 
it could have the effect of making it more difficult for Americans of 
Haitian background, who do not speak English as a first language, to 
obtain the voting information and technologies to which they might 
otherwise be entitled and which they might require in order to cast a 
ballot. The same concern has been raised about Americans of other 
backgrounds, as well, for whom English is not a first language.
  I don't think there is a single Member in this Chamber who wants to 
vote today on a provision that could make it more difficult, if not 
impossible, for thousands if not tens of thousands of citizens, in 
effect, to vote. But we are told by those who deal in this issue every 
day that this amendment could have that effect. If we adopt this 
amendment in an hour's debate here, rather than after the kind of 
thoughtful analysis that should go into this, it could actually result 
in discrimination against Americans who clearly are language 
minorities. I am confident that none of us wants to see that happen.
  This is hardly the time, place, and manner to make such a profound 
change in law. Frankly, I don't have a prepared speech. I was just 
listening to this debate in my office, and having worked on this issue, 
I know how much time you take to get this right. To come over and have 
an amendment adopted that could permanently exclude a substantial part 
of our citizenry from the language minority provisions, I don't think 
we want to be on record on that today.
  These provisions of the Voting Rights Act, by the way, doesn't expire 
until the year 2007. We have 3 years. I think it is always wise to get 
something done when you can get it done. But the normal way you proceed 
is to sit down, work these things out, listen to people, and examine 
whether or not certain groups qualify or should qualify. But I don't 
think anyone would exclude from the Voting Rights Act potentially 
countless people who have come to this country for reasons with which 
we are all unfortunately too familiar, and who clearly qualify as 
language minorities.
  I, for one, cannot vote for this. I wouldn't want to be on record 
supporting this. I would like to work with the majority leader and 
others who would like to figure out how to get this done. I will do it 
this year.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has stated as much 
themselves in a letter they sent to the majority leader. It was dated 
today, to give you some idea of how fast this is moving. They say in 
their concluding paragraph:

       While we plan to strongly support the reauthorization of 
     these important provisions, we urge you to vote no on the 
     Frist amendment. The reasons are that this is a complicated 
     process that takes some time to make sure you are including 
     those who deserve to be included and excluding those who may 
     no longer or should not be included under the language 
     minority provisions.

  They believe it is premature. Their critical analysis of the issues 
surrounding the preclearance and minority language provisions has not 
been fully examined and analyzed. I hope no one would suggest 
otherwise. A floor amendment is hardly the place.
  If you hold a vote and exclude multiple language minority groups 
because you've made this law permanent after a one-hour debate, I would 
think you would ask your leadership to pause a minute and analyze 
whether this is correct. If it is correct, should we amend this 
language? Should we include them? If not, why not? Shouldn't there be a 
more thoughtful way to proceed on a matter of this import?
  There is no other right, in my view, that is as important as the 
right to vote. It is a right upon which all other rights depend. It is 
the central ingredient for our democracy--the right of people to vote.
  We have understood over the years that there are those who come to 
our shores and become wonderful Americans who have language barriers. 
If those people are excluded from the process of engaging in electing 
Federal officials and electing the leadership of this country, then we 
are not fulfilling our obligation historically to see to it that this 
basic, fundamental right is being protected.
  I am very much interested in seeing us make permanent, if we can, 
these language minority and preclearance provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act. I would like to do it in a way that is far more 
deliberative than a 1-hour debate on the floor of the Senate dealing 
with a gun manufacturer bill. This is not the way we ought to be doing 
business on something as fundamental as the right to vote.
  I prefer not to vote no on this. I would prefer this amendment be 
withdrawn and then resubmit it under proper circumstances so we can 
have the opportunity to do the analysis necessary to arrive at right 
conclusions.
  I am the only one speaking about this at this particular moment.
  I don't know what the time frame is. Is there a limited time of 
debate? I make an inquiry of the Chair.
  Are we going to vote on this matter in a few minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 3 minutes 16 seconds 
remaining. The Senator from Idaho has 12 minutes 52 seconds remaining. 
The Senate is operating under a unanimous consent agreement according 
to which 1 hour was allowed for debate of this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Do I understand that at the conclusion of roughly 15 or 16 
minutes we will then vote on amending major provisions of the Voting 
Rights Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. After voting on the Cantwell amendment, under 
the previous order, the Senate will vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to think twice about this. 
It is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we are talking about. We are 
talking about amending this act permanently and possibly excluding 
major ethnic groups in this country permanently. Please. This issue 
requires more thought than it can be given here. This is not the way to 
go about changing one of the most important laws ever enacted in our 
great country. We should not in effect tell our colleagues that they 
have 15 minutes to decide on whether or not potentially millions of 
Haitians, Africans, Asians, Hispanics,

[[Page S1654]]

and Europeans would be permanently excluded from key protections of the 
Voting Rights Act when we have 3 more years to make that decision.
  To do this on an amendment to a gun manufacturer bill is stunning to 
me. Why would we take something as critical and important as the Voting 
Rights Act and throw it on the table without further consideration and 
thought?
  I urge my colleagues in the time they have to please talk to the 
majority leader and see if we can't pull this back by unanimous consent 
and let those of us who spend time on these issues sit and work on 
this. This is no way to be dealing with millions of people in our 
country who deserve the right to vote and to be protected properly 
under language minority and preclearance provisions.
  I make that plea to my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think all of us prefer when we deal with 
certain subjects that all amendments to the underlying subject be 
germane. That isn't the way the Senate works. Certainly my colleague 
from Connecticut knows there are other amendments being discussed today 
that by no stretch of the imagination are germane.
  But this is a critical issue. It is timely. It is necessary. We speak 
to it. That is why the majority leader brought it to the floor. It is 
critical to our country that we continue to show our openness as we 
reach out and become inclusive with all of those who as citizens have 
the right to participate in the electoral process. That is exactly what 
we are about.
  We have one colleague who still wishes to speak. He will be here in 
moments.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes 57 seconds, and 
counting.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will put us into a quorum call for a few 
moments anticipating his arrival.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join in support of this important 
amendment for permanent extension of the Voting Rights Act. Voting is 
fundamental in our democracy. It has yielded enormous returns.
  We know of the historical discrimination against minorities, against 
African Americans.
  The essence of a democracy is a free electorate. Voting rights are 
very important. It ought to be on our books on a permanent basis.
  I think it is so fundamental that it doesn't take long to express the 
underlying reasons for its importance and the fundamental reason why it 
should be in existence of the law on a permanent basis.
  I support this amendment.
  In the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 51 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from the 
State of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber in a hurry because 
it has come to my attention that this amendment, which is perhaps in a 
technical sense not germane to the main bill in the Senate--but I 
understand there is an agreement that it could be considered and would 
not be out of order--but my concern is this: The Voting Rights Act of 
1965 was an important landmark in the Nation's history. It was passed 
by the Congress in an attempt to make sure that no person, regardless 
of race, regardless of color, was denied their right, their fundamental 
right to vote. This was long overdue, very important, and certainly a 
result to which we all continue to aspire.
  Perhaps Members of the Senate who have, like me, not had a chance to 
study this amendment in great detail, or perhaps what the ramifications 
of this amendment are, might be interested to know a few facts; that 
is, that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to all the States in the 
Nation. In other words, we are being asked to extend the Voting Rights 
Act only as it applies to a handful of primarily Southern States.
  In 1965, perhaps it made sense to apply the Voting Rights Act to just 
a handful of States that historically and, yes, tragically, had a 
history of denying minorities their rights to be American citizens and 
enjoy the franchise unimpeded by those who would deny them that right. 
But this is not 1965. This is the year 2004.
  If, indeed, this presumption, in essence, that says in order to 
change the way in which you conduct your elections, before you 
redistrict your State and electoral districts, you must seek permission 
from the Department of Justice, if indeed, that is still good policy 
for the States that are covered by the Voting Rights Act, I submit it 
is good policy for the Nation as a whole. I doubt in all seriousness 
that many Members of this body understand what they are being asked to 
do, which is to extend this act only to a handful of States.
  As I say, if it is good policy, I believe it should be extended to 
the entire Nation. Obviously, we have come a long way in this country 
since 1965. Some may argue that some States should have a presumption 
of guilt while others should have a presumption of innocence. But, 
indeed, I believe there ought to be a uniform policy that applies to 
the entire Nation when we are talking about something as important as 
voting rights and when we are talking about something as important as 
protecting the voting rights of all Americans, including minorities who 
have, in fact, suffered discrimination in the past.
  I raise the question for my colleagues, those who are listening, to 
ask whether we truly understand what the implications are of this 
amendment and how it would affect the entire country, and how in 
practice, if I understand the amendment correctly, it would only apply 
to a handful of States. There is an agreement under which second-degree 
amendments are out of order, or I would offer an amendment to apply to 
the entire Nation, if that were permitted. But under this arrangement, 
under this agreement, I can merely ask the question for my colleagues 
to ponder if this policy should apply nationwide and not just to a 
handful of States, including my State of Texas.

  I yield back any remaining time to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 1 minute 42 
seconds, and the Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 10 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Idaho is prepared to yield back. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is prepared to do so.
  Mr. REID. He is not ready yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I yield back time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada yields back remaining 
time on his side.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time. The unanimous 
consent we are operating under moves us

[[Page S1655]]

to two votes, the Cantwell unemployment extension and the Frist voting 
rights.
  Have the yeas and nays been called on both of these amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
Cantwell amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the voting rights 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested on the 
Frist second.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2617

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the 
Cantwell amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 58, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, while there were 58 votes--a majority 
voted for this amendment--we will come back to address this again and 
again because we are going to see job growth is not happening at the 
pace people believe. While we have postponed it today, thinking the UI 
trust fund is not being used as part of our deficit, the UI trust fund 
should go to these unemployed workers. We will be back to debate this 
issue again.
  I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 2626 Withdrawn

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
No. 2626, which was to be considered next, be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
superb statement, and I also thank the Senator from Kentucky for his 
comments in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act. He made 
an eloquent statement and sent a message which I know is well received 
across this country. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I want to 
work with him and the Senator from Kentucky to try to achieve what he 
wants, and that is the permanent extension of the Voting Rights Act. We 
will work closely with him to try to get it done in a timely way.
  I thank him very much for focusing attention on this issue. I am 
grateful to him for his leadership.
  Mr. President, on a final point, I draw the attention of the Senate 
to this vote on unemployment compensation. A wide majority, a broad 
majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate voted for extension 
of unemployment benefits. I commend the Senator from Washington for her 
leadership on this issue. I know she believes, as I do, that this is 
not the end of the fight but just one of the innings of fight. I thank 
her for her leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I also thank the majority leader 
and others for agreeing to vitiate the vote on the Voting Rights Act. I 
underscore the comments made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts 
to work with the majority leader and others interested in getting this 
done. It can be done rather simply. We do need to build a record on the 
issue. That is exactly the way to go.
  I commend the majority leader for moving on this. We do not want to 
wait until the year 2007. I thank him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. We will move on now, under our unanimous consent request, 
to a Mikulski amendment, a Frist amendment, a Corzine amendment, a 
Frist amendment, and a Bingaman amendment. At this moment, I do not 
think we are quite ready to move on, so I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill for 
the majority and spoken to the majority leader. It is their intention, 
and I think it is a good idea, to have Senator Mikulski finish her 
amendment. She has 40 minutes. Following that, there would be an 
amendment offered by the majority. When we complete the debate on those 
two matters, we would vote on those two matters. We would, in fact, 
have two votes, and they would be stacked. Following that, we would 
again look at the schedule and see where we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 2627

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment concerning the DC 
sniper victims, and I send it to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators 
Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Corzine, and Mrs. Clinton, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2627.

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

(Purpose: To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen 
   Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil 
                           liability action)

       On page 8, line 22, strike ``or''.
       On page 9, line 2, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       On page 9, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen 
     Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo.''.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of my Maryland 
constituents and other neighbors across the Potomac to offer an 
amendment on behalf of the sniper victims. My colleagues might remember 
that over 1 year ago, the citizens of Maryland, Virginia, and the 
District of Columbia were terrorized by snipers. Soccer games were 
cancelled. People were afraid to buy gas

[[Page S1656]]

and terrified to go into a Home Depot. What was happening was that 10 
innocent people were killed while they were mowing their lawn or 
getting gas or while a new bride was going shopping at Home Depot to 
gussy up her home, or one was a bus driver getting ready to do his 
duty. These families have experienced tremendous loss, and the Nation 
mourned with them.
  We so thank our law enforcement agencies for helping us catch the 
snipers and the judicial system that is working to try them, but now we 
also need to make sure that we protect the victims and the victims' 
families.
  I bring to the attention of my colleagues that the legislation 
Congress is considering now could inflict further pain on the families. 
It could slam the courthouse door on the families of the sniper victims 
and on all Americans who believe they are harmed by negligent actions 
related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free pass, 
and it will prevent families and survivors from holding irresponsible 
stores accountable if they are negligent.
  It actually would prohibit these families from going to court to seek 
redress, for it would actually prohibit them from letting a jury of 
their peers decide if a gun store or a manufacturer was negligent.
  If this legislation passes, one could still go to court over a toy 
gun but not a real gun. I think that is wrong.
  My amendment is to make sure the sniper victims and their families 
have a right to go to court. Before I tell my colleagues about those 
families, let me tell my colleagues what my amendment will do. My 
amendment protects the legal rights of the families. It allows current 
and future cases by sniper victims and their families to proceed.
  Currently, one case is pending in Washington State court. It creates 
an exemption to the text of S. 1805 for all cases involving a victim of 
John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo. This is a very narrowly drawn 
bill. It does not exempt any other cases. It does not impact on any of 
the legal standards of the bill, and it does not prevent a court from 
dismissing a case if there is no negligence.
  What it does is create an exemption only, and I emphasize ``only,'' 
for cases involving a victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo. 
This is the Maryland-DC-Virginia sniper case.
  I in no way want to create any ambiguity in this bill or create a 
loophole in this bill. But this is a very serious matter. I am here in 
behalf of those families.
  Conrad Johnson, who was the sniper's last victim, I remember hearing 
the news when he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery County. He was 
killed by the sniper just as he was getting ready to get on his route. 
He was so beloved in that community that 2,000 people came to his 
funeral. He drove this route for so many years. They loved him. Thirty 
members of his family gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He 
was always finding ways to take care of his family and his community. 
Conrad Johnson was one of the many Marylanders whose families are still 
grieving because of this reign of terror that gripped their State. Five 
Maryland families lost their loved ones in the sniper's first 24 hours.
  Today I stand here for the rights of those families, to have their 
day in court: the rights of Jim Martin's family; he was shot when he 
stopped to buy groceries for his church program; James ``Sonny'' 
Buchanan, a landscape architect who was soon to be married; or the 
husband and the 7-year-old son of Sarah Ramos, who was shot 25 minutes 
later as she sat on a bench waiting for a ride to go to her babysitting 
job; also for the little boy named Iran Brown, who was shot in the 
chest as he was dropped off to go into middle school. Thanks to a 
guardian angel, it was his aunt, a nurse, who was with him that day 
when he was dropped off so she could sweep him up and be with him as he 
lay hemorrhaging in the hospital. Thank God, for the genius of American 
medicine that little boy is alive.
  Family after family has endured incredible pain. Also, there are 
other cases that are pending. These families have been through so much 
they can never recover their tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make 
sure they have their day in court. That is why my amendment is offered 
to protect them, and that is why it is in such plain and simple 
language. It is limited to victims of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. 
I don't need any legal experts to interpret this amendment. No judge 
has to decide if the case fits one exemption or another. That is 
because, under my amendment, any case involving them must proceed.
  This is very serious. When we look at the matter, there is evidence 
that indicates the snipers bought something called a Bushmaster from 
the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA. The Bull's Eye Shooter 
Supply Company had lost the assault rifle used by the sniper victim. In 
3 years, it managed to lose 237 other guns. Imagine a gunshop that not 
only couldn't find records on this gun, it had lost 237 guns.
  I am not going to prejudge cases, but I am going to point fingers. 
Something was terribly, terribly wrong at this place.
  When we look at this, Bull's Eye could not account for 238 guns. 
Bull's Eye's missing gun rate was greater than 99 percent of all 
Federal arms licenses. Eighty percent of all dealers that sell at least 
50 firearms a year can provide records to account for every one of 
them. Why couldn't that happen there?
  There is item after item about this case. When you look at Malvo and 
look at Muhammad, what you find is the snipers obtained a one-shot, 
one-kill assault weapon that was from the Bull's Eye Shooter.
  When we look at their records, we find that Muhammad was under a 
domestic violence protective order and Malvo was both a juvenile and an 
illegal alien.
  How did they get their hands on these guns? That is for law 
enforcement to decide. That is how our legal process should follow its 
regular order, to seek redress. But this points out a set of terrible 
situations that led to the death of these 10 people in our region. This 
is why I am offering this amendment. After the deaths of these 
wonderful people, their families should have redress in court. The boy 
who was shot in his chest and is still recovering, though at school, 
should have redress.
  I am going to be very clear that in this bill we do not create 
ambiguity, confusion, or something that would derail this. I urge the 
Senate to adopt my amendment and to allow the cases affecting this 
particular group of people to be able to proceed without prejudice or 
without any unintended consequences of this legislation.
  I yield the floor and reserve such time as I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Does the Senator have other speakers?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator does have other speakers.
  Mr. CRAIG. Do you wish to proceed with them?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Illinois, an outspoken 
advocate on this issue.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  Those of us working in Washington, DC, remember this sniper incident. 
Not only do I work here but my daughter lives here with my son-in-law 
and grandson, and they live in one of the suburbs represented by the 
Senator from Maryland.
  I can tell you when these two snipers were moving around the area, 
ordinary families were living in fear. They had a sniper rifle and they 
were killing innocent people. Some 13 were killed and 6 were injured. 
Here are the photos of a few of the victims.
  After this terrible sniper incident, we learned there was a gun 
dealer who could not even account for the gun that was used to kill 
these innocent people. So the survivors, as well as the victims' 
families, came forward and said they wanted to hold that gun dealer 
accountable in court for irresponsible and reckless conduct in selling 
firearms, in allowing them to get into the hands of these snipers. That 
is reasonable for the family to do. It is something I support.
  But make no mistake, this bill, S. 1805, slams the courthouse door on 
these victims and their families. The Senator from Maryland, Ms. 
Mikulski, is standing here, pleading with those who bring the bill 
forward to keep in mind the sniper victims and their families and give 
them a chance to have their day in court. If the court decides

[[Page S1657]]

they don't have a right to recovery, so be it. But should we pass a law 
to say these families do not even have a chance to go after the 
reckless misconduct of these gun dealers that resulted in the deaths of 
their loved ones? That is what this bill is all about. The Senator from 
Maryland has dramatized it in terms that everyone who works in this 
Capitol will understand.
  There was a time when you couldn't go home from work, from this 
building, for fear of being shot in the street. It happened over and 
over and over again. Why in the world would the Senate pass a bill to 
insulate this reckless gun dealer from his civil liability for selling 
these guns?
  I thank the Senator for her leadership.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski is here, doing something 
that is, unfortunately, necessary because the underlying legislation 
would cause currently pending suits on behalf of the families and the 
estates of these victims of the snipers to be thrown out of court. That 
is not only unfortunate but it is unconscionable.
  There are arguments that this legislation is crafted so these suits 
go forward. But that is not the case at all. The two salient facts in 
the sniper shootings with respect to this legislation are, first, the 
sniper, Malvo, claims he shoplifted the gun. The storeowner claims that 
he was unaware of these weapons being missing until he was contacted 
after the shooting by the ATF.
  As a result, none of the appropriate exemptions from the preemption 
to sue would be applicable in this particular situation.
  There are two particular exemptions that are often pointed to. One 
talks about the negligent entrustment, which is a theory of law, and 
negligence per se. None would apply because it requires the defendant 
to have knowledge of a violation of the statute or knowledge that 
something untoward would happen. Under the facts as we know them, the 
defendant alleges he was unaware of the missing weapons.
  In addition, the other exemption would be if there was a violation of 
Federal and State statute and that violation was the proximate cause, 
almost direct or substantial cause of the harm caused to the plaintiff.
  That, too, can be substantiated. We have a situation where this 
statute not only does not cover this situation and would require these 
cases be thrown out of court, but it raises the extraordinary question 
about what other cases there might be in the future that would cry out 
for justice, to bring a suit and demand some type of compensation 
because of negligence caused by a gun dealer or manufacturer or trade 
association. They, too, would fall. That would be as compelling as 
these cases of the Washington area sniper victims.
  I commend Senator Mikulski for standing up for these families. They 
are good people. This is a cutout of these cases from law and allowing 
them to go forward. But it just begs the question of how many other 
worthy cases will be frustrated by this legislation, if we pass it. I, 
of course, urge that we do not pass the legislation. But I certainly 
urge the amendment proposed by Senator Mikulski be agreed to.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 20 minutes, and the 
Senator from Maryland has 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use some of my time at this moment.
  At the outset, let me say Senator Mikulski and I are best of friends. 
We appreciate our friendship, and we work closely on a variety of 
pieces of legislation. There is nothing I would do nor is there 
anything S. 1805 will do to damage the argument and passion and concern 
Senator Mikulski has put before us today with her amendment. If you 
believe in the underlying bill, S. 1805, there is a problem, and the 
problem is Senator Mikulski carves out a very big exception and guts 
the bill in the underlying principle. Let me talk about that principle.
  I ask the Senator to go with me to page 7 of the bill and to look at 
section 4 of the bill. Let us talk about that in relation to the 
phenomenal tragedy that hit this city and the families she is 
discussing.
  Not only did her friends and neighbors hunker down in fear, but so 
did we as John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad terrorized the 
neighborhoods in Maryland and Virginia.
  Here is the problem. What are the facts? The Senator said I am not 
going to try the case on the floor, but I am going to point fingers. I 
am not going to try the case on the floor, but I am going to point 
fingers.
  We probably have reasonable cause to point fingers at Bull's Eye in 
Tacoma, WA. Something went wrong up there. There are over 300 guns 
missing. Lee Malvo himself said, I stole the Bushmaster I used in the 
sniper incidents in Virginia and in Maryland. ``I stole the gun.'' He 
said so. It is on the record. Already he sets up an interesting 
scenario.

  As a result of that, the BATF pulled the license of the gun dealer 
and recommended felony charges be brought by the Justice Department. 
This case is maturing at this moment.
  What does our bill do? It tries to very narrowly create an 
environment and an exception.
  Let us go to that bill and to page 7. Let me read starting on page 6 
of the bill because I think it is important. Many Senators have ignored 
this in the rhetoric of the day. They shouldn't ignore it.

       In general, the term ``qualified civil liability action'' 
     means a civil action brought by any person against a 
     manufacturer or seller of a qualified product or a trade 
     association for damages resulting from the criminal or 
     unlawful misuse of a qualified product by a person or a third 
     party but shall not include--

  In other words, the exceptions under which the Malvo and Muhammad 
case can be tried in which those parties the Senator is talking about 
contain compensation are the following.

       No. 1, an action brought against the transactor convicted 
     under section 924 of title 18 United States Code or a 
     comparable or identical State felony law by a party directly 
     harmed by the conduct for which the transferee is convicted.

  Parties harmed. In other words, did the transferee, the gun dealer, 
malfunction? Did he break the law? There is a strong appearance that he 
might have.

       No. 2, an action brought against a seller for negligent 
     entrustment or negligent per se.
       No. 3, an action in which a manufacturer or a seller of a 
     qualified product knowingly and willingly violated State and 
     Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of a 
     product and the violation was a proximate cause for the harm 
     and for which the relief is sought.
       No. 4, an action for breach of contract or warranty in 
     connection with--

  And then we go on to deal with basically product liability.
  My point is quite simple. I believe we are protecting those families. 
I would not write the kind of law that is being suggested would be 
written. What I am concerned about are lawsuits in which we are trying 
to hold accountable the innocent party--in this case potentially a 
manufacturer of a product--unless there is criminal intent, or unless 
they have broken the law.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I can't yield. My time is limited. I am sorry. The Senator 
has had time. Let me continue.
  That is the sense of the argument we are dealing with here. Negligent 
entrustment:

       In subparagraph (a)(2), the term ``negligent entrustment'' 
     means the supplying of a qualified product by a supplier for 
     use by another person when the supplier knows or should 
     know--

  That is very important.

     --the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to and 
     does use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk 
     of physical injury to the person or to others.

  What are we trying to do here?
  Again, I have said time and time again over the last 24 hours it is a 
very narrow exception, but to entrust us to a century of tort law that 
says innocent parties are not guilty nor should they be swept into 
lawsuits if they have met certain standards of the law--in this case, 
licensed gun dealers and manufacturers.

  Did the folks up at Bull's Eye in Tacoma meet those standards? We 
don't know. But I will tell you the BATF pulled their Federal firearms 
license. There is an investigation underway. If they lost that many 
firearms and they didn't notice it and they didn't report

[[Page S1658]]

it, I am not an attorney, but I have to assume they have a big 
violation on their hands. If Malvo walks in and pulls a Bushmaster from 
off the rack and walks out with it and that is not detected, they have 
a problem on their hands. I believe they have a problem on their hands, 
and they are not exempt.
  The argument is--and some have used it--they do not even make it to 
the courthouse. That is not a valid statement.
  This is a basis from which you argue before the court and a 
knowledgeable, and I hope trusting, judge will take these evaluations 
in hand and make the determination that this is not a frivolous or a 
junk lawsuit; that there is basis, and the reason there is basis is 
because there has been a clear violation of Federal law.
  If there has not been a violation of Federal law, even though many of 
us can certainly have great concern about the families involved, do we 
continue to suggest that we go out and harass through the courts legal, 
law-abiding citizens and producers of a legal product in this country 
simply because it fits the passion of the day or the politics of the 
moment? I think not. I don't think the Senator from Maryland wants to 
do that. It is clear if you carve out this exception, you gut the bill 
because you are saying no, no. We are saying we are giving you all of 
these exceptions very clearly in the law. I read them to you. They are 
in the law. It is section 4. That is what we are dealing with. It is a 
very important part of it.

  We think it is the right thing to do at this time. I believe a 
majority of my colleagues in the Senate agree with that. The reason 
they agree is for the very reason we have been very specific and clear 
to adhere to Federal law but to make sure we are not just going to the 
court for the purpose of expanding the sweep that one might like to 
take because they do not like guns or they do not like the current law 
or they want to control them in different ways.
  The Federal law is there. It is clear. It is present. The 
investigation is underway. We cannot try that case here. But I do agree 
with the Senator from Maryland, we cannot try to, but we can point 
fingers.
  Our bill, S. 1805, sets up a very clear case in which these lawsuits 
can be effectively argued and a decision made whether there was a 
rupturing of Federal law or whether we do have law-abiding 
practitioners in the business of the manufacturing and sale of firearms 
in this country. That has to be and it must remain the basis of the 
argument and the basis of this law. The amendment the Senator offers 
goes directly in the opposite, to carve out special exceptions within 
the law now and into the future.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have two legal opinions, one from 
Lloyd Cutler, a very distinguished American lawyer who has served as 
White House counsel to a President, who says that S. 1805 contains 
language that would require the dismissal of the Johnson case. I have 
another legal opinion from Boise, Schiller & Flexner who essentially 
say the exceptions would only preserve civil claims brought under other 
kinds of law. Other than that, what they are saying is this would 
preempt their ability to bring this case.
  The opinions clearly state that section 4 on page 7 articulated by my 
esteemed colleague does not hold water. It does not protect the victims 
of Malvo and Muhammad because it is in such plain English limited to 
those cases by the name of the perpetrator and predator. This does not 
create a loophole.
  Talk about loophole, talk about the gun shield loophole, talk about 
all the other loopholes in the gun bills. My amendment does not create 
a loophole.
  The legal opinions show there is ambiguity in S. 1805 and that 
section 4 could preempt the ability of these families to bring this 
case.
  The distinguished Senator from Idaho has his opinion. I have my two 
legal opinions that show that there is confusion and honest 
disagreement about the bill. That is why the Mikulski amendment is 
necessary, to clear up the ambiguity on the matter of these cases 
committed by Malvo and Muhammad.
  His point and my legal opinions prove the necessity of the amendment, 
to clear up the confusion, end the ambiguity, protect these victims and 
the families and their right to pursue.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois, a distinguished lawyer himself, 
to further amplify this argument.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  I say to the Senator from Idaho who stood up here and said he did not 
believe the survivors of the DC sniper shooting had a right to go to 
court and therefore he was going to oppose the Senator's amendment, I 
guess that is clearly his point of view, but he said just the opposite. 
He said he reads this law to allow the victims and their families of 
the DC sniper to go court against the dealer.
  If that is his opinion, then he ought to accept the amendment from 
the Senator from Maryland because that is all she is asking for.
  If you do not believe the victims of the DC sniper should have a day 
in court against the dealer to determine whether or not he is guilty of 
wrongdoing, then just say it. But if you believe that these sniper 
victims and their families should have a day in court, for goodness' 
sake, accept the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. If you do not, 
it really tells the story of your bill.
  If your bill is going to stop the families and victims of the DC 
snipers from holding a gun dealer guilty for irresponsible, reckless 
misconduct, frankly, that is another good reason for us to defeat the 
bill. Let us stand behind the innocent victims of the DC snipers.
  Talk about people who hate guns. I do not hate guns but I hate 
snipers who shoot children and innocent people on the street and I hate 
the people who sell them guns irresponsibly. I think they ought to be 
held accountable. That is all the Senator from Maryland is asking.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Continuing my argument, there is ambiguity and there is 
honest disagreement. I know the Senator from Idaho might bring us a CRS 
opinion saying the cases might survive. My colleague from Rhode Island 
has an earlier CRS opinion that says the opposite. The point is, there 
is ambiguity both in the law and in opinions about the law.
  My amendment is a simple, straightforward way to clear up the 
ambiguity and let these cases move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators are reminded to address each 
other in the third person.
  The Senator from Idaho has 10 minutes 27 seconds remained.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry: Did I do something wrong?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois referred to the 
Senator from Idaho in the first person.
  Mr. DURBIN. I beg your pardon.
  Parliamentary inquiry: I referred to the Senator from Idaho on the 
floor; is that improper?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator several times during his talk used 
the pronoun ``you.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I apologize for using the pronoun ``you.'' I will never 
do it again.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides of the Mikulski amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 20 seconds for the Senator from 
Idaho and 14 seconds for the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CRAIG. With 14 seconds remaining for the Senator from Maryland to 
argue, this is her amendment, and under the unanimous consent I will 
then offer the Frist-Craig amendment. As we know, then they will be 
stood up to be voted on, Frist-Craig first, Mikulski second.
  If the Senator would like to make any concluding remarks about her 
amendment, I would certainly welcome that. She then controls 20 minutes 
of the 40 that would be on my amendment and the debate could go on.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Excuse me, Senator. The Frist-Craig amendment is on 
what topic, sir?
  Mr. CRAIG. On your topic.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the Frist-Craig amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG. I have not offered it yet.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. You want to conclude debate on this amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Then we set yours aside for the Frist-Craig debate on the 
same subject matter and then stand these up for votes.

[[Page S1659]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I have no objection to that.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that, I assume all time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                           Amendment No. 2628

  Mr. CRAIG. I ask that the Mikulski amendment be set aside for the 
purpose of introduction of an amendment on behalf of Majority Leader 
Frist and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for Mr. Frist, for 
     himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2628.

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

  (Purpose: To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John 
Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil 
           liability action that meets certain requirements)

       On page 8, line 22, strike ``or''.
       On page 9, line 2, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; or ''.
       On page 9, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (vi) an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen 
     Muhammad or John Lee Malvo that meets 1 of the requirements 
     under clauses (i) through (v).

  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I 
am told we have not had the opportunity to see the text of these 
amendments. If we are going to work in good faith, it is very important 
that on all of these alternative amendments the text be provided if 
they are available and certainly before they are offered.
  Mr. CRAIG. If the minority leader will yield, it is my fault. I 
apologize. We will place ourselves in a quorum until they have copies. 
It is brief and to the point and easy to understand for everyone.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I apologize once again to the Senator from 
Maryland that the stand-beside amendment I offer in conjunction with 
hers was not delivered to her. We have a stand-beside Frist-Craig 
amendment to the Corzine amendment, which may follow immediately. We 
are copying that now to make sure Senator Corzine and the other side 
has a copy of it.
  My amendment, as you can see, is really very simple, but it is also 
extremely important. It is simple in this respect: 55 cosponsors of S. 
1805 have cosponsored S. 1805 because of its narrowness, of its 
cleanliness in the fact that we do not clutter up a lot of laws and we 
create one very limited but very important exemption, and that is junk 
lawsuits filed by a third party cannot reach through and suggest that 
someone who produces a legal product can be held liable for that 
product unless they have broken the law or a person selling that 
product is not held liable for that product unless they have broken the 
law.
  My amendment says, in essence, if an action involving a shooting 
victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo meets any of the 
exceptions of S. 1805, the action will not be barred by this bill.
  Again, what are those exceptions? Well, I have read them earlier. Let 
me repeat them. They are very clearly outlined in section 4 of the 
bill, and what we say is:

       The term ``qualified civil liability action'' means a civil 
     action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller 
     of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages 
     resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified 
     product by the person or a third party.

  In other words, if that third party is a guy who breaks the law, but 
the seller and the manufacturer are not, then the judge looks at that 
and makes that determination and says no.
  But here in the case in Maryland and in Virginia, if it is found 
that:

     an action brought against a transferor convicted under 
     section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a 
     comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly 
     harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so 
     convicted--

  ``Transferee,'' in this case, in my opinion, at least, is Bull's Eye. 
They are the ones responsible for that firearm. They are the ones that 
would have sold it legally. In this case it was stolen from their shop. 
It appears to have gone unreported.
  Secondly:

     an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment 
     or negligence per se. . . .

  So we have not swept that away nor will we sweep that away. In fact, 
I believe we strengthen it, and so does the Congressional Research 
Service. While there may be a difference of opinion on that, I think 
what is significant is that Senator Daschle and I agree. We teamed up 
together to strengthen this and to clarify it. Quoting the 
Congressional Research Service, our amendment:

     would strike ``knowingly and willfully'' in the preceding 
     sentence, potentially increasing the likelihood that this 
     exception to the general immunity afforded under the bill 
     would be applicable in any given case.

  In this case, it probably strengthens the position we are dealing 
with here, as the Senator from Maryland and I visit about it.
  The third exception that clearly could be applicable, and that my 
amendment says if found is applicable, in the Muhammad and Malvo case:

     an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified 
     product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the 
     sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a 
     proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

  In other words, relief for these families who were the victims of 
John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo.
  I believe it is a clear, clean amendment. I don't think it is 
ambiguous at all. But it does argue one premise in the law that always 
must be argued, and that is, did Bull's Eye break the law? Well, we are 
investigating that now. Did the manufacturer of the Bushmaster in any 
way violate the law? That is probably getting investigated, too, 
although even the Brady Center doesn't impugn in any way that the 
manufacturer was involved in this. Those are the facts.
  In other words, what I am suggesting by this amendment, what I 
believe is still clear in 1805, is that we are not exempting the 
victims of the sniper shootings of DC and the Virginia and Maryland 
area. It is not our intent to do so. It is our intent to allow them to 
go to court. It is our intent to allow them to argue this before a 
judge. It is our intent to allow a judge to make a decision based on 
these exceptions and now the clearly respelled out exceptions in the 
Frist-Craig amendment as to whether, based on this law, there can be 
compensation to these families from, in this instance, a dealer and a 
manufacturer. That is the essence of it.
  I don't believe the courthouse door is locked. All attorneys are 
entitled to their own opinions. Everybody reads the law a bit 
differently. So is my opinion stronger than your opinion? I know what 
my intent is. I know what Senator Daschle's intent is. I know our 
intent is not to lock the courthouse door. We believe we don't. And it 
has been thoroughly checked by numerous lawyers. We think our amendment 
is sound.
  I am going to ask the Senate not to gut the underlying 1805 but to 
vote for the Frist-Craig amendment which will not only strengthen the 
amendment, strengthen the position but, I believe, fulfill the concern 
and the arguments of the Senator from Maryland.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho points to every 
exception because he can't point to one exception that will clearly 
establish the right of these plaintiffs to go forward to make their 
case. The way this legislation is structured, first, the qualified 
civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State 
court. You are thrown out of court unless you can get yourself back in 
by an exemption. In these cases, you are dismissed. You are already in 
court but you are out the door. The intent is very clear. It is to stop 
individuals from suing dealers, manufacturers, and trade associations.

[[Page S1660]]

  What about these exemptions? The first exemption deals with the 
transferor or convicted. There have been no charges in Bull's Eye, no 
conviction. What happens? The case is already dismissed. Is there 
language the Senator from Idaho will apply reinstating the case 
automatically?
  The second is a possibility that is negligent entrustment or 
negligence per se. All of these require knowledge on the part of the 
defendant. The facts of Bull's Eye clearly suggest there is no evidence 
or none so far proven that the owner knew the gun was shoplifted and, 
in fact, he alleges he was not aware of any missing weapons until he 
was confronted by the ATF after the crime. This does not apply.
  Finally, there is the violation of a Federal or State statute. The 
Senator from Idaho often talks about, well, if there is a violation of 
Federal and State statute, that, of course, allows a person to go 
forward with this case.
  But there are two parts of this test. State or Federal statute 
violated, and that violation causes proximately, substantially the 
injury. In effect, what would have to be shown for any type of 
liability to adhere to the Bull's Eye case under this arrangement is 
that he was aware of the missing weapons more than 48 hours before he 
was confronted by the ATF, and he consciously disregarded his 
obligation to report not just a missing weapon but the particular 
weapon that was taken by Malvo. None of these exceptions apply to 
Bull's Eye or, if they apply, it is a very tortured reach to make the 
application.
  Then this amendment simply says: Well, if you fall under the statute, 
you get to use the statute. This is a circular, is a kind way to 
describe what this is. You could substitute anybody's name in the 
United States. It doesn't have to be John Allen Muhammad or John Lee 
Malvo. It could be the victim of any criminal today walking around the 
streets of America with a handgun. Because if you are injured by that 
individual with a handgun and you fall into these categories, you get 
to go to court.
  But this is an easy amendment because very few people, if any, will 
qualify under these criteria. That is the whole point of this carefully 
worded, excruciatingly arcane approach to shutting people out of court. 
That is what this is about.
  Essentially you can't have it both ways. You can't stand up here and 
claim you are protecting the industry from frivolous suits but every 
suit we bring up is a possible worthy and meritorious suit. Well, of 
course, that will get into court. Of course, it is one of the 
exceptions. You don't get it both ways.
  You get it one way in this bill. Innocent people injured by the 
negligence of dealers, of manufacturers lose. And they win.
  We are not just giving out Federal firearms licenses, if this 
legislation passes. We are giving a license to be negligent and 
reckless--grossly negligent and grossly reckless. That is what a 
Federal firearms license means, if this legislation passes.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for yielding the time to me. I 
associate myself with the amendment that was initially introduced by my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. I rise to raise questions 
about that which is currently now being offered by the Senator from 
Idaho.
  There is no doubt about the appropriateness of the amendment, as it 
was presented by the Senator from Maryland, because it was her 
constituents, seven of them, who were shot by the sniper, six of whom 
died.
  For over a month in the fall of 2001, John Muhammad and John Lee 
Malvo terrorized the Washington metropolitan area through a series of 
vicious sniper attacks on innocent men, women, and children. In the 
area, Americans were afraid to walk outside, afraid to pump gas 
outside, school activities were moved to enclosed areas. Everyone was a 
target.
  As it turned out, there was ample reason to be frightened. From the 
trunk of Muhammad's car, the snipers used a Bushmaster assault weapon 
to shoot 13 people in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Ten of 
the 13 died. We have heard the names of those such as Linda Franklin, 
47-year-old FBI analyst, standing with her husband in the Home Depot 
parking lot in Virginia. She was killed. Another was Pascal Charlot, a 
72-year-old retired carpenter standing on a street corner, shot and 
killed. Another victim was Iran Brown, a 13-year-old boy who had just 
been dropped off at school.
  My fellow Senators now prepare to tell mothers and victims throughout 
the United States that they don't have a right to file a civil lawsuit 
against individuals and businesses that helped cause this tragic event.
  We had a debate on the floor yesterday. There was a question, a 
semantic question, about whether or not the Bull's Eye store was really 
closed. One of my staff people called the number and they said: Yes, we 
are open until 7 o'clock. Do you want anything--this is my edition: if 
you want anything shipped out, we will get you guns.
  So we argued about whether or not they were really closed or who had 
the license or what. Those are extraneous things having no significance 
in the debate.
  We see the same thing replicated here. If you meet certain 
conditions, you are still able to bring suit. But if one of the several 
conditions is present, then you can't bring suit.
  Why don't we tell it like it is? And that is, by whatever stretch of 
the imagination you want to bring, these people, the victims of the 
sniper attacks, are unable to bring a suit. There is no doubt about it. 
We can discuss language all you want, but it is the intent.
  Throw another obstacle in the way for these victims to get some 
justice, some sense of what it is that took place that was wrong and 
how we can help prevent it in the future.
  To hear these discussions immersed in language changes--I suppose if 
you study it closely enough, you will find punctuation changes. Bull's 
Eye claimed they didn't have any record of sale. They cannot explain 
how the snipers obtained the assault weapon. I have not heard any 
condemnation of their poor practices; that 237 weapons were lost. What 
a shame. If any normal store lost items that cost this much, they would 
be in a state of panic. Apparently, these guys did not care that much, 
but we still want to prevent those who have been victimized by their 
poor behavior from getting compensation that is justly theirs under 
normal circumstances.
  Why we have to take away people's rights is something, frankly, I do 
not understand. I hope the public at large begins to raise questions: 
What is this? Do you mean if I am injured in an automobile accident and 
the automobile manufacturer has been negligent, that they did not 
protect the gas tank properly, so it exploded when it was hit in the 
back, I shouldn't be able to get compensation for that small error? It 
may have burned you alive. Or if there was such a casual structure of 
behavior with a pharmaceutical company, and they put the wrong tablets 
in a bottle, or if someone there, in a moment of madness, put the wrong 
tablets in a bottle and a person becomes ill or dies, they shouldn't be 
able to bring an action? This strikes me as something that the 
citizenry, who is expecting us to take care of them, is unable to 
comprehend.
  This debate goes on and there is always another trick, another 
maneuver to try and interrupt the flow of what we would consider normal 
justice. I hope we will defeat the amendment because it adds nothing to 
the compromise that we have to arrive at to get the kind of voting 
pattern--the record that says, yes, we made sure the people who suffer 
these terrible damages have a right to compensation or to a review by 
the court to decide that issue.
  I hope we will defeat the Frist-Craig amendment and get on to the 
Mikulski amendment, which approaches the problem directly. These people 
have been severely injured by the actions of the snipers who got the 
gun illegally, inappropriately, improperly--call it what you will.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 22 seconds.

[[Page S1661]]

  Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the amount of time I 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use a limited amount of that time. 
If the Senator from Maryland wishes to close out the debate, I will 
make my closing statement, and we can move to a vote quickly.
  Let me address what the Senator from New Jersey said a moment ago and 
direct his attention to subsection (v) of section 4. He talked about a 
car not functioning properly and somebody being injured. That is called 
product liability. It says:

       (v) an action for physical injuries or property damage 
     resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of 
     the product, when used as intended. . . .

  Please read the bill when you make those kinds of statements because 
if the Senator had, that would have been, in my opinion, improper. We 
are not talking product liability.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the question being referred to me directly?
  Mr. CRAIG. No, I am only responding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator knows I am only responding to a comment he 
made. I am simply suggesting that for the next few moments he might 
wish to read that subsection. Here we are not dealing with product 
liability. It appeared the Bushmaster tragically operated very well. 
What is at hand is, Are the people at Bull's Eye involved in 
wrongdoing? That is the question at hand. And should we go after them?
  We are carving that out in a way so that the victims can go after 
them if they are found guilty of a Federal violation. Let me read what 
CRS suggests the Daschle-Craig amendment does:

       In the case at hand--

  They are referring to the DC snipers--

       it has been asserted that the firearm--

  And we can only say ``asserted'' at this moment because it is under 
investigation--

     it has been asserted that the firearm used in the D.C.-area 
     sniper shootings ``disappeared'' from Bull's Eye's place of 
     business ``[o]n or about August or September of 2002,'' and 
     was not reported as missing until November 5, 2002. Pursuant 
     to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(6) a licensee--

  That is Bull's Eye--

     is required to report the theft or loss of a firearm within 
     48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. Thus, in the 
     event that it is established that Bull's Eye was aware that 
     the firearm was missing from its inventory more than 48 hours 
     prior to November 5, 2002, the amendment would appear to lend 
     further support to the application of the exception to 
     immunity under 4(5). . . .

  My point is quite simple: If the evidence is there--and I believe the 
Senator from New Jersey yesterday referenced the presence of Lee Malvo 
on a video. I was unaware of that. If that is true, that is apparently 
more evidence. But once again, here we are with a jumble of facts that 
we really do not know because we were not the investigators; we were 
not on the scene. We are taking this from newspaper reports.

  What I am saying is if the Bull's Eye shop is in violation of the 
law, then the Frist-Craig amendment or the underlying S. 1805 clearly 
does protect all of these victims so they have their day in court. The 
courthouse door is not shut, would not be shut, will not be shut by S. 
1805 or the amendment at hand.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, before giving all the remaining time to 
Senator Mikulski, I would like to make one point. In the CRS report to 
which the Senator referred, essentially he failed to note a footnote 
that says essentially that it does not appear that any evidence has 
been produced of actual violations of these provisions by Bull's Eye in 
the case at hand.
  If you assume they violated the law, then, of course, the exemption 
applies. The facts we know now suggest they knew nothing about the 
disappearance of the weapons, and this legislation will bar the 
individuals from court.
  I add one simple point. Even if we are slightly in doubt debating 
this issue, we should support Senator Mikulski's amendment which puts 
them in court.
  I yield the remaining time to Senator Mikulski.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment does nothing. It keeps 
the status quo of the bill, S. 1805. It restates what the bill says. It 
says that the sniper cases have to fit in to one of the exceptions that 
are described in section 4, paragraph 5. That is what it already says.
  The legal experts that I have consulted and have consulted with the 
Brady organization believe that the cases do not fit. I understand 
that, under the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, the sniper cases 
will likely be dismissed. I am going to talk about the legal experts, 
but again the mere fact that we are having such intense debate shows 
the ambiguity and confusion, which is why the Mikulski amendment is 
needed.
  Now I will go to the opinion of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, a 
distinguished law firm. What they tell us is, according to the terms of 
S. 1805, it would foreclose and require the immediate dismissal of any 
State or Federal qualified civil liability action which the statute 
defines to include a civil action brought by any person against the 
manufacturer or seller for damages resulting from the criminal or 
unlawful use. They are saying it is going to be dismissed.
  They then say when one goes to all of the prohibitions, they believe 
that because of the way it is drafted, particularly the items in the 
exception, that it expressly disclaims any intention to create causes 
of actions or remedies. The above-described exceptions would only 
preserve civil claims brought under otherwise applicable State or 
Federal law. Other than that, the proposed legislation would preempt as 
a matter of Federal law the State or Federal lawsuits against 
irresponsible sellers, manufacturers, or so on.
  What they are saying is this would require an immediate dismissal of 
the sniper victims' claims. We cannot do this. According to the legal 
experts, close examination of the exceptions enumerated in section 4 of 
the proposed immunity, which they are trying to shoehorn in--they are 
trying to shoehorn Malvo in; they are trying to shoehorn Muhammad in to 
these exceptions. These exceptions reveal that none would appear to 
preserve the claims brought by the victims of the sniper attacks and 
their families against the parties responsible for permitting the 
snipers to obtain these murder weapons.
  In fact, they go on to say:

       In fact, the passage of S. 1805 would likely compel the 
     judge in the sniper case immediately to dismiss those claims.

  They refer then to section (5)(A) and there are paragraphs. That 
proposed legislation would prove those provisions contain only the 
exceptions that even conceivably apply to the snipers' case.
  I could go on. This is a 13-page legal opinion. It is not appropriate 
for me to read the whole opinion, but the statutory violation exception 
embodied in paragraph (5)(A) will not save the snipers victims' claims.
  The plain language of section (5)(A)(iii) would appear to dictate the 
same result in the sniper case.

       Despite the above-discussed evidence of the Bull's Eye 
     numerous failings as a gun dealer, there is no reason to 
     believe that the plaintiffs in the sniper case will be 
     allowed to show that Bull's Eye violated any State or Federal 
     statute. . . .Indeed, after his arrest, Malvo admitted that 
     he shoplifted the weapon from Bull's Eye in the summer of 
     2002. Although the plaintiffs claim that Bull's Eye's lax 
     security practices permitted Malvo to acquire the weapon, 
     . . .

  Again, we are not trying the case here but, yes, he stole the gun. 
There are 237 guns missing from that same gunshop. Something was pretty 
sloppy there. Somebody was pretty negligent there. Something was 
terribly wrong that 238 people could steal guns, including a juvenile 
illegal alien who was obviously walking around a gunshop if he 
shoplifted it.
  What we are talking about is the statutory violation exception 
embodied in (5)(A) would totally blow the snipers victims' claims.
  Again, it is being tried in the courts, and I want it to be tried in 
the courts. Maybe the kid did not shoplift it, but somehow or another 
in that gunshop in Tacoma, WA, with 238 guns missing, something went 
terribly wrong. They should have their day in court to at least raise 
whether there was these issues of negligence.

[[Page S1662]]

  I really do believe the Frist-Craig amendment would gut their ability 
to move ahead. It is trying to shoehorn into these exceptions and yet 
at the same time these very exceptions would prohibit them from 
bringing their claim. I really ask on behalf of these families to be 
able to do this.
  Also, in another section, the negligent entrustment/negligence per se 
exceptions embodied in paragraph (5)(A)(iii) will not save them. As an 
initial matter, these exceptions are limited to a seller, and it goes 
on and on. What it says in a nutshell is that it would preclude them 
from moving forward.
  For the information of my colleagues, this legal opinion letter was 
printed in yesterday's Record.
  I also acknowledge that the Senator from Idaho has a different view 
than this legal opinion but that is the point of the amendment. I have 
a legal opinion. He has his expertise and the CRS opinion.
  I think it is the opinion of the American people, that when someone 
brings a whole community to a paralyzing halt, when people have been 
ghoulishly and grimly shot down in a deliberate, predatory, and cruel 
manner that in this country one ought to at least be able to go to 
court to seek some redress. All I am doing is preserving their right to 
do so.
  When we say we want to stand up for America, I am standing not only 
for these victims but I am standing up to keep the courthouse door open 
to them, and that is really what the rule of law should mean in the 
United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to ask the Senator from Maryland a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 25 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator from Maryland, is there anything 
that is in the Craig amendment that changes the ability of these 
victims to sue?
  There are conditions, are there not, that he places in there that 
make them jump through another hoop in order to be able to sue?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, it gives a whole set of other obstacles.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. They may have not met these conditions but they still 
have had the damage and the tragedy that befell them?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, and they have also filed suits. What we are 
concerned with is this bill will preempt those suits. They will be 
thrown out. They will be dismissed and the families will face yet 
another injustice at the hands of the Congress.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have 8 minutes remaining. I will try not 
to use it and will yield it back so we can get to the votes on these 
two amendments.
  The Senator from Maryland talked about an American principle, and I 
agree with her. There is an American principle that says everyone 
should have their day in court, and she is right. There is a second 
American principle that says that law-abiding citizens who do law-
abiding things should not be dragged into court for frivolous purposes 
or junk lawsuits. That is the other American principle. It is as old as 
tort law itself. The responsibility is tied to the individual, unless 
the individual under law is found totally negligent.
  She and I have agreed the case cannot be tried here because we simply 
do not know the facts. We know a little bit about it. We know bits and 
pieces about it but we have not seen the BATF's report. We have not 
seen the kind of investigation that has gone on. I agree with the 
Senator; everyone should have their day in court. I do not know how 
some are saying that S. 1805 does not even allow them to get to court.
  It allows them to argue before a judge the basis of the law, and the 
judge will make the determination. I suggest that that is called ``in 
court'' and that is exactly what my amendment does. That is what S. 
1805 does. It is very clear.
  The Senator might be suggesting that this is just one small group. 
No, no, this is not one small group. This happens to be a tragically 
large group, by all of our estimation in Virginia and Maryland, but 
once this is decided how will this precedent be used by others?
  She talks about gutting the opportunity. I suggest her amendment guts 
S. 1805. Proponents of the amendment claim that it provides an 
exception for a small group, but any carve-out that is made part of 
this legislation would have the Government turned on its own principles 
of equity and justice insofar as the amendment would designate a 
particular group of people, though sympathetic--and all of us agree to 
that--different in the eyes of the law than others and justice so far 
as it would be required to hold remote other responsibilities for the 
independent actions of two men.
  That is the essence of the two amendments. They are very clear before 
us. It is time we vote on these issues. The Senator from New Jersey is 
now in the Chamber with his amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the remainder of my time. I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to asking for the yeas and 
nays on both amendments at once?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that, under the agreement, the 
Frist-Craig amendment would go first and the Mikulski amendment would 
follow.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 2628

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2628. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior Journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 2628) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2627

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate on the 
Mikulski amendment, evenly divided, to

[[Page S1663]]

be followed by a vote. And the yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment, I believe, is far superior 
to the amendment the Senate just adopted. It is a simple, 
straightforward amendment. It exempts from the bill all cases related 
to those committed by the despicable predators John Malvo and John 
Muhammad. This is a very specific, very limited exemption. I urge the 
Senators to consider it.
  If we really want to honor the victims of the sniper cases, please 
give them the opportunity to pursue their cases in court. We have a 
substantial legal opinion from an eminent scholar such as Lloyd Cutler, 
who says if this bill passes, and passes with Frist-Craig, the victims' 
cases will be thrown out of court absolutely or, at the very least, be 
left in great ambiguity.
  Please, let us do justice to the victims and at least give them the 
opportunity to seek justice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, you have just voted 
for the Frist-Craig amendment. If you now vote for the Mikulski 
amendment, you have totally reversed your vote. The Mikulski amendment 
guts the underlying bill, S. 1805, carves out a substantial exception. 
If you are supportive of S. 1805, then you vote no.
  But do we protect the right of the victims for their day in court? We 
absolutely do. There are four major exceptions in which we say, if 
these parties are found guilty, if there was a negligent gun dealer, if 
there was a negligent manufacturer--and that is a fact and it is 
proven--then their day in court is there, as it should be.
  But we do not allow frivolous third-party lawsuits. That is the 
underlying premise of the bill. Again, if you voted for Frist-Craig, I 
would ask you to vote against Mikulski.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Mikulski 
amendment. The yeas and nays have previously been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Campbell
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 2627) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is an amendment by 
the Senator from New Jersey with 30 minutes of debate equally divided.


                           Amendment No. 2629

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, and Senator Boxer, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. 
     Boxer proposes an amendment numbered 2629.

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

  (Purpose: To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are 
 victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate 
                      in the arming of criminals)

       On page 11, after line 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCEPTION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an 
     officer or employee of any Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under 
     Federal or State law.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the underlying 
legislation before the Senate which waives liability for gun dealers 
and manufacturers. In my view, this legislation strips away the legal 
rights of victims of gun violence and shields wrongdoers from 
accountability. It provides special exemptions for the narrowest of 
special interests, and it would make our country less safe.
  The bill uses a variety of complicated legal concepts, narrowly drawn 
exemptions, to shield irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers from 
accountability. When we get beyond the legalese and Washington speak, 
the bottom line is the bill will limit the legal rights of gun violence 
victims.
  I think that is wrong. In my view, no victim of gun violence should 
be denied their day in court. Each should be allowed an opportunity--a 
chance--to make their case. That is why I believe this whole bill is a 
mistake.
  That said, I am a realist. I recognize the majority of my colleagues, 
based on the cosponsorship, disagree. On Tuesday, this legislation will 
likely be approved. That is why my amendment is so important and needs 
to be dealt with.
  My hope is we can at least reach an agreement that even if we are 
going to strip away the rights for most Americans, we will not take 
away the rights from the men and women who serve as our Nation's law 
enforcement officers, the protectors of the peace, the people who serve 
on our streets, in our neighborhoods, our first responders.
  I know all my colleagues appreciate the tremendous service and risk 
our law enforcement on our streets provides to our communities, so I 
hope they will share my interest in protecting their rights.
  The importance of protecting the rights of our police officers was 
brought home to me and, I am sure, Senator Lautenberg through a case of 
two police officers in the State of New Jersey: New Jersey Police 
Detective David Lemongello and Officer Ken McGuire.

  In 2001, they were seriously injured when a career criminal shot them 
while they were working undercover. This criminal was prohibited from 
purchasing a firearm but he obtained his gun illegally from a 
trafficker. As it turns out, the trafficker also was prohibited from 
buying weapons and had used a so-called straw purchaser to make 
multiple gun purchases from a store in West Virginia.
  The cash sale for thousands of dollars was so obviously suspicious 
that the dealer apparently felt guilty. On the very same day, but after 
he took the money and after the guns walked out the door, the dealer 
called into the ATF and identified him. But that was

[[Page S1664]]

after the guns were gone. Unfortunately, at the time of the sale the 
dealer apparently thought it was more important to make a profit than 
to protect the lives of innocent victims.
  Sure enough, Officers Lemongello and McGuire paid a severe price for 
that pawnshop's negligence. They suffered a serious injury and came 
very close to losing their lives. Their families suffered from their 
loss and both of them lost their careers and are no longer able to 
serve as policemen.
  I will read a direct statement from one of these officers, Ken 
McGuire, because I think it expresses better than I can just how 
outrageous it would be for the Senate to strip them of their rights. 
This is some of what Officer McGuire said:

       During a stake-out, Detective Lemongello and I were shot by 
     a felon. I ended up getting into a gunfight with the criminal 
     in a snowy backyard. That has changed my life forever. I was 
     shot through the right femur, and it blew apart my femur and 
     also caused extensive damage to my leg. I was also shot 
     through my stomach, and it hit the mesenteric artery. I lost 
     17 units of blood that night. . . . Because of the injuries I 
     suffered from that shooting, I will never be a police officer 
     again.

  That is the same for Officer Lemongello.
  He goes on to say:

       I've heard some people say, ``Well, criminals can just get 
     guns,'' as if there is nothing anybody can do to stop them 
     from getting guns. Well, guns don't fall from the sky, or 
     grow from trees, this one didn't either. The man who shot us 
     got the gun because of an irresponsible gun dealer in West 
     Virginia . . . who sold 12 handguns to a straw purchaser who 
     gave them to a gun trafficker. What legitimate reason would 
     two people have to buy 12 handguns? . . . Why wouldn't the 
     gun dealer even ask the purchaser: Why would you need 12 
     guns? Why? Did I mention the purchasers paid for all of this 
     in cash? If there is any doubt of the destination of these 
     guns, which was northern New Jersey, months earlier I 
     arrested a suspect with the same gun make and model from the 
     same shipment in town.

  Officer McGuire continues:

       We have filed a lawsuit in West Virginia to hold the 
     irresponsible dealer accountable. The dealer argued in court 
     that it had no responsibility to use reasonable care in its 
     business, but a judge in West Virginia disagreed. She ruled 
     that we have a legitimate case under West Virginia law, and 
     that a jury should decide whether this dealer acted 
     reasonably.
       That's all I want today: my day in court, to exercise my 
     right as an American to present my case before a jury of my 
     peers and let them decide, under the law, whether these gun 
     sellers were reasonable or whether they contributed to my 
     shooting.

  Officer McGuire says:

       If this bill is passed, Congress will be changing the laws 
     for gun sellers, overruling the West Virginia judge, and 
     taking away our rights. That is shameful.

  I think it is, too.

       I call on all Senators to do everything in their power to 
     prevent this bill from becoming law.

  That was the message from Officer McGuire, but it could have just as 
easily come from the countless other law enforcement officers who have 
been injured or killed by guns trafficked by irresponsible gun dealers 
and manufacturers.
  I was talking to Senator Durbin about a situation in Chicago. There 
is case after case. How can any of us look into the eyes of any of 
these officers, such as Officer McGuire, and tell them we are going to 
take away their rights? How can we tell David Lemongello he risked his 
life on behalf of our community, and he almost lost it because of an 
irresponsible gun dealer, he will be suffering from the attack for the 
rest of his life but if he wants to go to court, if he wants justice, 
our answer to him is no?
  Remember, the question before the Senate is not whether these two 
police officers, or any police officer, has a good case. It is simply 
whether they have a right to make their case. It is whether they have a 
right to try to convince a jury that a gun dealer acted irresponsibly 
and whether they deserve compensation as a result.
  I do not call this a frivolous lawsuit. I consider this a right for a 
law enforcement officer to have a right to make their case in court 
before a jury. This bill would deny them that day in court. Not only 
would it strip these two heroes of their legal rights, it would do so 
retroactively.
  I know we are going to hear about narrowly defined exceptions that 
will not allow for it. I do not think law enforcement officers should 
be limited in their ability to make their case before a jury. As far as 
I am concerned, it is an affront to these officers and an insult to 
every police officer who puts his or her life on the line for the 
community, and it sends precisely the wrong message when we are 
supposed to be enhancing homeland security and reinforcing the risks 
that people are taking to protect our families and our communities 
across this country.
  My amendment is very simple. In fact, I will read it word for word:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an 
     officer or an employee of any Federal, State or local law 
     enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under 
     Federal or State law.

  I suspect we will hear about amendments that draw these narrow lines 
of exception. Why is it that a law enforcement officer cannot go into a 
court and get redress if they have been wronged in the illegal sale or 
the negligent sale of firearms to criminals? I do not get it.
  That is the entire amendment. That is what we are working on. In 
essence, this amendment stands for the proposition that we should not 
strip police officers of their rights. It says that members of law 
enforcement who are victims of gun violence should have their day in 
court--no new rights, nothing guaranteed, just their day in court.
  The advocates of this legislation argue that it is necessary to 
prevent frivolous litigation. I think they are wrong. But does this 
Senate really believe that law enforcement officers are flooding the 
courts with frivolous lawsuits? Is that what our law enforcement 
officers are doing? Do we really believe that men and women who devote 
their lives to enforcing our laws are trivializing the judicial 
process, that Congress needs to take away their rights because they 
are? I do not believe that and I do not believe anybody in this body 
does.

  There is no evidence of it, and even to suggest it seems out of place 
given the trust that we give to these men and women in our local 
communities.
  Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for us every 
day. The least they should be able to expect from us is that we would 
not strip away their rights when they suffer from gun violence, and 
that is what I think we are doing. I hope my colleagues will stand with 
me and the men and women of law enforcement and support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CORZINE. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 25 
seconds.
  Mr. CORZINE. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and good friend 
from New Jersey with whom I have worked very closely on many issues. 
There is not anything that we have done that binds us more closely than 
this action because we are witnessing it firsthand. We talked to the 
two officers who were mentioned in Senator Corzine's commentary.
  To me, this whole situation is surreal. The fact is, when there is a 
photo opportunity with a cop who is in uniform, we can see him chased 
by six Senators to get a picture taken with him. When there are 
townhall meetings, Senators will talk about how brave those cops are 
and that what they do is they put their lives on the line each and 
every day, and many of their families may be thinking that just maybe 
they may not see daddy coming back from work.
  And here, the hard cold hearts are saying, well, listen, put your 
back on the line, put yourself on the line, but do not expect that we 
are going to help you collect any damages. You can be the breadwinner 
in the family, the only working person in the family. When that person 
is shot and killed, the incomes rarely continue for a significant 
period of time with enough income to take care of a family.

  What do you tell a family which has a couple of children and a spouse 
dependent on the wages of that police officer? You tell them, Well, 
look, just remember one thing. It is like being a pilot in the 
military. You could go out

[[Page S1665]]

and lose your life. The difference is the military takes some care of 
you. There are insurance programs, other programs. Many of these small 
police departments don't have the kind of resources to provide on their 
own for the well-being of those families.
  This is an outrage that is being perpetrated on these law enforcement 
people. It is an outrage. I hope the public understands what we are 
doing here. We want the people to work in those dangerous jobs, but we 
don't want to let them on their own go to the courts. That is the 
process in this country of ours. We will not let them go to court to 
see if there are any damages. They never repair the damage to the mind. 
They never repair the damage to the heart. You can't repair the damage 
to the soul. But we at least ought to be able to say: Listen, if you 
can bring a suit that shows either the manufacturer or the distributor 
or the retailer, like the shop in Oregon, was negligent in their 
handling of the weapon--no safeguards on these weapons--we ought to be 
able to say to them, if anything happens to you, you can go to court 
and you can seek damages.
  But there is a group here who says no, we want to take away your 
right to sue. Do you know why? Because the NRA doesn't like it--putting 
it straight up. The NRA doesn't want that to happen. The NRA writes the 
legislation, for goodness sake. They don't want it to be available. 
They don't want these people to have the same rights everybody else 
has. If you are killed in an airplane crash or a car crash or 
otherwise, you have a right to go to court.
  I have heard the story about product liability. We are not going 
through that again. We don't worry about product liability. We worry 
about negligence and recklessness and you are blocked from bringing 
suit. It is outrageous.
  In the year 2003, 148 law enforcement officers across the nation were 
killed in the line of duty; 52 of those fallen officers were shot to 
death. I would like it if the managers of the bill who so desperately 
want this to pass would go to those families and say: You know what, we 
are sorry. Gosh, Joe was a good guy. We heard about him. He was a Boy 
Scout leader, all of those things. But that is the nature of the job. 
So you lost him. Go find another way, Madam Smith, to see if you can 
support your kids. See if you can get a job. You may have to leave the 
kids at home because you don't have enough money to take care of them 
and buy other things.
  Every law enforcement officer fatality is a national tragedy. The 
only place it doesn't ring true is here. They don't want you to have 
the same rights ordinary citizens have when they are injured. It is 
incredible to me.
  We go through semantic schemes here about: No, it doesn't really mean 
that. But it does block their right to collect damages if they are 
injured.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from New 
Jersey has expired. Who seeks time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a list of police officers who object to this bill 
and feel they are not protected, including an ad run by the Brady 
Campaign.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Police Organizations That Oppose the Immunity Bill

     Major Cities Chiefs Association (represents police executives 
         from over 50 of the largest cities in the United States)
     National Black Police Association (NBPA) (nationwide 
         organization of African American Police Associations 
         representing approximately 35,000 individual members)
     Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association 
         (HAPCOA) (represents over 1,500 command law enforcement 
         officers from local, state and federal agencies)
     Police Foundation (a private, nonprofit research institution 
         supporting innovation in policing)
     Michigan State Association of Chiefs of Police
     Rhode Island State Association of Chiefs of Police
     Chief Randall J. Ammerman, Two Rivers, WI Police Department
     Chief Ron Atstupenas, Blackstone, MA Police Department
     Chief William Bratton, Los Angeles, CA Police Department
     Commander (Ret.) Lloyd Bratz, Cleveland, OH Police Department
     Chief (Ret.) Neil K. Brodin, Minneapolis, MN Police 
         Department
     Ronald J. Brogan, D.A.R.E. America, Special Agent (Ret.) DEA
     Chief Thomas V. Brownell, Amsterdam, NY Police Department
     James L. Buchanan, Officer (Ret.) Montgomery County, MD 
         Police Department
     Detective Sean Burke, Lawrence, MA Police Department
     Chief John H. Cease, Wilmington, NC Police Department
     Chief Michael J. Chitwood, Portland, ME Police Department
     Superintendent Philip J. Cline, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Chief Kenneth V. Collins, Maplewood, MN Police Department
     Agent Patrick Clowry, U.S. DOJ
     Deputy Javier Custodio, Passaic County Sheriffs Department, 
         NJ
     Chief James Deloach, South Bethany, DE Police Department
     Chief Gary P. Dias, Rhode Island Division of Sheriffs, East 
         Providence, RI
     Chief Jed Dolnick, Jackson, WI Police Department
     Chief Martin Duffy, Newton Township, PA Police Department
     Officer David Elliott, Scranton, PA Police Department
     Captain Richard C. Fahltech, Baltimore City, MD Police 
         Department
     Chief David G. Farrington, Burnsville, MN Police Department
     Officer Linden Franco, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Enriqueta Gallegos, Department Of Homeland Security, U.S. 
         Border Patrol
     Officer Doris Garcia, New York City Police Department
     Chief Charles Gruber, South Barrington, IL Police Department
     Patrick Gulton, Asst. Special Agent in Charge, Treasury 
         Dept., Seattle, WA
     Chief (Ret.) Thomas K. Hayselden, Shawnee, KS Police 
         Department
     Former Superintendent Terry G. Hillard, Chicago, IL Police 
         Department
     Steven Higgins, Director (Ret.) ATF
     Officer Otis Hosley, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Deputy Chief Victor E. Hugo, Amsterdam, NY Police Department
     Chief Ken James, Emeryville, CA Police Department
     Chief Calvin Johnson, Dumfries, VA Police Department
     Captain Michael Johnson, Philadelphia, PA Police Department
     Officer Bernard Kelly, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Agent Lavra A. Kelso, U.S. Marshals' Service
     Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle, WA Police Department
     Sergeant Robert Kirchner, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Chief Michael F. Knapp, Medina, WA Police Department
     Officer Chad Knorr, Amity Township, PA Police Department
     Officer Edward Krely, Philadelphia, PA Police Department
     Deputy Chief Jeffery A. Kumorek, Gary, IN Police Department
     Detective John Kutnour, Overland Park, KS Police Department
     Lieutenant Curtis S. Lavarello, Sarasota County, FL, Sheriffs 
         Department
     Sheriff Ralph Lopez, Bexar County Sheriffs Office, San 
         Antonio, TX
     Chief Cory Lynn, Ketchum, Idaho Police Department
     Chief Larry W. Mathieson, Ormond Beach, FL Police Department
     Officer J.R. Malveiro, Philadelphia, PA Police Department
     Officer Joseph Marker, Philadelphia, PA Police Department
     Chief Mark A. Marshall, Smithfield, VA Police Department
     Chief Burnham E. Matthews, Alameda, CA Police Department
     Captain Michael McCarrick, Philadelphia, PA Police Department
     Sergeant Michael McGuire, Essex County, NJ Police Department
     Chief Jack McKeever, Lindenhurst, IL Police Department
     Chief Roy Meisner, City of Berkeley, CA Police Department
     Jill B. Musser, Legal Advisor, Boise, Idaho Police Department
     Chief William Musser, Meridian, Idaho Police Department,
     James Nestor, NJ Attorney General's Office
     Detective Kevin Nolan, Salem, NH Police Department
     Gerald Nunziato, Special Agent-In-Charge (Ret.), ATF
     Chief Howard O'Neal, Neptune Township, NJ, Police Department
     Chief Albert Ortiz, San Antonio, TX Police Department
     Chief Richard J. Pennington, Atlanta, GA Police Department
     Officer Thomas Pierce, Chicago, IL Police Department
     Chief Charles C. Plummer, Alameda County, CA Sheriff's Office
     Chief Irvin Portis, Jackson, MI Police Department
     Chief Sonya T. Proctor, Bladensburg, MD Police Department
     Agent Michael J. Prout, U.S. Marshals' Service
     Lieutenant Raj Ramnarace, LaCrosse, WI Police Department
     Chief Edward Reines, Yauapai-Pescrott Tribal Police, AZ
     Jerry Robinson, Acting Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of 
         Investigative Services, Chicago, IL Police Department

[[Page S1666]]

     Chief Kenneth D. Ridinger, Woodstown, NJ Police Department
     Agent Jeffrey Schneider, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
     Gerald Schoenle, Director, Erie County Central Police 
         Services, Buffalo, NY
     Chief Michael Seibert, Bolivar, MO Police Department
     Sergeant Mike Suplicki, K-9 Unit, Passaic County Sheriffs 
         Department, NJ
     Detective Captain Edward Swannack, Neptune Township, NJ
     Chief Toussaint E. Summers, Jr., Herndon, VA Police 
         Department
     Chief William F. Taylor, Rice University Policy Department, 
         Houston, TX
     Chief Vincent Vespia, South Kingstown, RI Police Department
     Chief (Ret.) Joseph J. Vince, Jr., Crime Gun Analysis Branch, 
         ATF
     Chief Garnett F. Watson, Jr., Gary, IN Police Department
     Hubert Williams, President, Police Foundation, Washington, DC
                                  ____


   Police Chiefs Urge U.S. Senate: Don't Protect Gun Dealers Who Arm 
                                Killers


     big-city police chiefs join l.a. chief bill bratton to demand 
                accountability for reckless gun dealers

       America's top cops have joined forces to oppose an 
     outrageous bill now being pushed through the U.S. Senate. 
     Incredibly, it would reward reckless gun dealers with 
     immunity from legal challenges.
       This legislation is the highest priority of the National 
     Rifle Association.
       Police are already battling a tidal wave of illegal guns. 
     This legislation would make this problem worse--and make 
     cops' lives even more dangerous. That's why the Major Cities 
     Chiefs Association and other law enforcement groups have 
     joined Chief Bratton to forcefully oppose this dangerous 
     bill.

     A cop's worst nightmare: Bull's Eye and the D.C. area snipers

       Just 1% of gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in 
     crimes. Consider, for example, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of 
     Tacoma, Washington. Bull's Eye ``lost'' the assault rifle 
     used by the D.C. area snipers to murder 12 people. In three 
     years it managed to ``lose 237 other guns, as well. In all it 
     supplied guns traced to at least 52 crimes. If the Senate 
     caves and this bill passes, dealers like Bull's Eye will get 
     off scot-free and the NRA will win a victory for its 
     extremist agenda.

     Stand with America's Police: Go to our website: STOPtheNRA.com

       Polls show that 2 out of 3 Americans want irresponsible gun 
     merchants such as the dealer that armed the D.C. area snipers 
     held accountable. But we must make our voices heard--or the 
     NRA's money and lobbying will prevail. Go to 
     www.STOPtheNRA.com and sign our petition so we can send your 
     name to the senators who support this outrageous bill.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief and yield back the 
remainder of my time. Of course, our amendment will be set aside. I 
will offer a Frist-Craig amendment. I hope we can limit the time on 
that. All are encouraging we vote sooner rather than later.
  I must say, one of the strengths of the underlying bill, S. 1805, is 
it adopted the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic 
or how unsympathetic; no matter how notorious or how mundane the 
circumstances of their victimization. It creates the kind of legal 
standards in this country we believe all people should stand under.
  The Senator from New Jersey is a man who creates law. The picture 
beside him is of a man who enforces law. We have obvious and open 
respect for both, and we should in this country, because we are a 
country of laws. That gentleman you talked about so eloquently who is 
pictured beside you is a man who puts on the uniform every day and goes 
in harm's way. There is no doubt about it. There is not a Senator on 
this floor who doesn't respect men and women in uniform, whether they 
be civil police in this country or are men and women in the armed 
services.
  At the same time, that man enforces law. His life oftentimes is put 
in much more jeopardy by plea-bargaining the criminal back onto the 
street day after day in urban America, and they have to go out and 
rearrest them and rearrest them again. Tragically enough, those 
criminals go out and steal guns. Sometimes they buy them. And sometimes 
they lie when they buy them. But most of them are stopped by background 
checks today. That officer has to face them again.
  We understand that principle. That is the history of America. That is 
the history of law enforcement. The great tragedy today in law is 
criminal law, in my opinion, that we keep kicking them back to the 
streets instead of doing the time for the crime and causing that 
gentleman to have to go out and face them once again because they are a 
repeat, repeat, repeat offender.
  What S. 1805 attempts to establish is plaintiffs' rights should be 
dependent on settled principles of law, not emotion and not sympathy. 
If a lawsuit has enough merit under traditional tort standards to be 
allowed by the bill, we believe that cause of action should be 
available to all plaintiffs, regardless of their occupation or their 
employer or whether particularly an attacker had harmed them. In other 
words, we are not suggesting there be carve-outs and special 
exemptions.
  But clearly, and I can argue and the Senator has already said, I 
would come back to those five very key exceptions we have placed in S. 
1805. I am not going to repeat those. I have repeated them several 
times tonight. They are in the bill. They are in the bill a majority of 
the Senators here support, Democrat and Republican. Why do they? 
Because they bring stability to the law. They create clear standards. 
They don't say that a law-abiding citizen producing a lawful product is 
somehow liable if someone takes it and misuses it; that the person who 
misuses it is the person who ought to be liable. That person ought to 
be the criminal, if so found guilty. That is a premise of the law and 
it is an important premise of the law.
  I hope my colleagues tonight will oppose the Corzine amendment. It 
guts the underlying bill. I doubt the Senator from New Jersey planned 
to vote for S. 1805. I can't view this as a friendly amendment. I don't 
think it is intended to be. I think it is intended to tear down the 
fundamental structure built under S. 1805, to establish solid 
principles, clear understandings, not to allow junk lawsuits to move 
through, but to allow that gentleman pictured beside you his day in 
court. Because the courthouse door is not locked. The opportunity to 
argue before the judge still remains so that suit can be filed, so that 
case can move on if the principles of the law are met and the standards 
meet the test.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask the Corzine 
amendment be laid aside.


                           Amendment No. 2630

  Mr. CRAIG. I send to the desk the Frist amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for Mr. Frist for 
     himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 2630.

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

  (Purpose: To protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are 
 victimized by crime to secure compensation from those who participate 
                      in the arming of criminals)

       On page 9, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (E) Law enforcement exception.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to limit the right of an officer or employee of 
     any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to 
     recover damages authorized under Federal or State law in a 
     civil action that meets 1 of the requirements under clauses 
     (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).

  Mr. CRAIG. I will be brief. I think our colleagues wish that of us 
tonight. This amendment is not unlike the amendment the Senate accepted 
a few moments ago in relation to the Mikulski amendment. Let me read 
it. It is every bit as simple and straightforward as the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey:

       Law enforcement exception--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the right of an officer or employee of any 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency to recover 
     damages authorized under Federal or State law in a civil 
     action that meets 1 of the requirements under clause (i) 
     through (v) of subparagraph (A).

  Of course, I have read that subparagraph and all of those exceptions 
to you time and time again over the last several days.
  We believe it is clear-cut. We believe that creates the stability 
within the law. It sets in motion something very important; that is, 
the old principle of tort law--that it is the individual who is guilty 
for their actions and they should not be trying to reach through layers 
upon layers of acts to find somebody who produced a quality product and 
say you are guilty because you produced it and, therefore, you ought

[[Page S1667]]

to pay because somebody misused and damaged or took someone's life. We 
have never done that as a country, and we shouldn't. We have found 
negligence, and we should where it exists, where there has been 
willingness, where there has been a violation of law that is found. 
People ought to pay the price if they don't play by the rules.
  In the gun community, I know how important this right is in America, 
and with this right goes phenomenal responsibility.
  This Senate, time and time again, down through the decades has 
established very specifically those responsibilities because we view 
this as an extremely valuable right.
  I say to the Senator from New Jersey that I am not going to keep that 
policeman out of the courthouse. I and Americans respect him and his 
profession too much to say you cannot go after redress, but you must 
find that the laws that you enforce are the same laws that you respect 
and must live by.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, who controls time in opposition to the 
Craig amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority manager controls the time. That 
would be the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, and I thank the 
Presiding Officer.
  The Senator from Idaho says when he wrote this bill, he did it 
without emotion and without sympathy. Clearly, if he is going to oppose 
this amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, then he is doing 
it without sympathy for the 54 law enforcement officers who are killed 
each year in the line of duty with guns. That is what the Senator said.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Of course I will not because you would not yield when you 
had the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Fine. I will take my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will say this to the Senator from Idaho: It is hard for 
me to imagine, to believe that you believe that a lawsuit brought by 
that police officer or his family for being shot in the line of duty is 
a junk lawsuit as you have characterized these over and over again. The 
Senator from Idaho should join me in the city of Chicago where I have 
visited officers of that police force shot in the line of duty who are 
quadriplegic for the rest of their lives because a gang banger shot 
them in the line of duty. And you tell that officer and his family--the 
Senator from Idaho should tell that officer and his family--that if 
they are going to seek redress from a gun dealer who sold those guns to 
the gang bangers, that that lawsuit for that officer and his family is 
a junk lawsuit--a junk lawsuit. Please.
  How in the world can we in the Senate stand here and pronounce our 
admiration and respect for the men and women in uniform who protect us 
every single day, and then when they are stricken in the line of duty, 
when they are shot defending us, tell them when they want to go against 
the gun dealers who put these junk guns on the street, these Saturday 
night specials through straw purchasers and gun traffickers, that that 
lawsuit brought by that officer and his family is a junk lawsuit that 
you want to stop with this legislation?
  That troubles me. It troubles me because, frankly, I think we 
understand if we are going to ask anyone in our community to risk their 
lives every single day for us by wearing that badge and that uniform, 
we owe them something more than words. We should be standing by them 
when they, frankly, give their lives and risk their lives for us every 
single day.
  The choice we have with the Corzine amendment is a clear choice: 
Stand by the police or stand by the gun dealers. The Senator from Idaho 
says we need to stand by the gun dealers; that this is a jobs bill. We 
need to stand by the gun manufacturers; this is a jobs bill. What about 
the men and women in uniform and our law enforcement agencies across 
America? What about their jobs? Are they worth standing by or standing 
by their families?
  I say to those who are going to oppose the Corzine amendment that if 
you have a problem in your neighborhood and there is crime in the 
neighborhood, don't call 9-1-1. No, dial up your local gun dealer 
because if you dial 9-1-1, you are going to get one of these policemen 
who just might get hurt and file a junk lawsuit. You had better dial up 
that gun dealer. Call the gun dealer and ask him to please come out and 
protect your family.
  I cannot imagine that we are going to allow this to occur. The Frist-
Craig amendment is meaningless when it says whatever the bill said 
originally it applies to law enforcement officials. It doesn't do a 
thing for them.
  The Corzine amendment does. It says we are going to stand behind the 
police. If he is shot in the line of duty, we will stand by him and his 
family to go after the wrongdoer and the gun dealer who is selling 
those guns to the gang bangers and street killers, the cop killers on 
the street.
  If you want to vote for the Frist-Craig amendment in this underlying 
bill, frankly, we are turning our back on those men and women who are 
risking their lives every single day for us.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey for this amendment. We should be 
offering this amendment not only for law enforcement officials but for 
firefighters, medical responders, and every single person in America 
who puts their life on the line for us every single day and risk death 
by firearms because this underlying bill is saying to them, if you are 
hurt and you sue, you are filing a junk lawsuit.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 12 minutes 28 
seconds. The Senator from Rhode Island has 9 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Sessions.
  I am not going to respond to the Senator from Illinois only to say 
that he impugned my heart. He suggested I was a person without 
sympathy. I have never done that to him. I believe he is a person of 
goodwill who comes here to represent the citizens of the State of 
Illinois.
  When I talk about sympathy, I talk about the impartiality of law. He 
is an attorney and I am not. He knows that the law is impartial and it 
is clear.
  So I must tell you that I grit my teeth a little bit when he suggests 
that this Senator has no passion or concern for the loss of life. That 
is a step too far.
  Let me yield 5 minutes to Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was a prosecutor for a number of 
years. Some of my best friends are police officers. I try to meet with 
them when I am in my State. I met with 11 or 12 of them in Cherokee on 
the Georgia line last week. They are not telling me that if they are 
shot or one of their fellow officers are shot they want to sue the gun 
manufacturers. None of them have ever suggested that to me. They 
believe that criminals with guns ought to be prosecuted aggressively 
and go to jail for it when they catch them. They ought to be punished. 
And if they shoot and kill a police officer, they want to see them go 
to jail or be executed. A lot of people who are opposing this 
legislation oppose the death penalty for those who kill police 
officers.
  The point of this is very simple. In American law, from our ancient 
traditions, wrongdoers are the people who ought to be sued. If a 
terrorist comes in here and shoots a policeman, a cold-blooded criminal 
shoots any American citizen, you should sue the person who shot you. 
That is what we are all about. That is what the law has been about.
  Now we are in a situation in which the law has been politicized and 
used to carry out an agenda. To say that a gun dealer or a gun 
manufacturer that has complied with all the extensive regulations for 
the sale of firearms, has done everything right, that somehow they 
should be the ones to be sued if a criminal in an intervening action 
obtains a weapon from another person perhaps and commits a crime with 
it and shoots someone, that is not what

[[Page S1668]]

American law is about. It is an abuse of the liability system in 
America. It is consistent with current law and our traditions. It is 
why, to date, none of these lawsuits against gun manufacturers has been 
successful and why few are successful against gun dealers.

  However, if a gun manufacturer or if a gun dealer, in particular, 
sells a weapon contrary to the complex and detailed regulations the 
Federal Government, State, and cities required, that person can be not 
only sued for damages, that person can be prosecuted.
  When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted criminals who used 
guns; I prosecuted gun dealers who sold guns illegally. They have to 
get an ID from the purchaser. They make him sign an affidavit that he 
is not a felon. They do a gun check. They have to be a resident of the 
State, as I recall. They cannot be a drug addict. If they know there is 
an impropriety and sell the gun anyway, they can be responsible and be 
sued for it and should be--and should be prosecuted, for that matter.
  What we need to focus on in America today is that the Constitution of 
this country allows the American people to keep and bear arms. Those 
who do not agree, get over it. That is where the American people are. 
That is what the Constitution says. That is what the rules are. If you 
want to offer legislation to put further controls on the right of an 
individual in America to keep and bear arms, put it out here and let's 
debate it and see if it has enough votes to win.
  This idea of mayors, attorneys general, district attorneys, and 
governmental officials filing lawsuits against gun manufacturers who 
complied with the law, to try to make them responsible in an end run 
effort to carry out an antigun agenda in some of our big, liberal 
cities in America--they do not understand where most Americans are 
about hunting and guns--is improper. It is not the way we ought to go 
about this business.
  The Senator from Idaho is correct; this liability question is one we 
need to deal with. There is a concerted effort in America to utilize 
the legal system in some of our liberal courts to try to knock down the 
right to manufacture and sell guns. It is protected by Federal law. It 
is controlled by Federal law. It is mandated by Federal law. People who 
comply with the law should not be sued. If they do not comply, they 
should be sued and prosecuted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me make two or three quick points and 
then yield to Senator Lautenberg and then to Senator Corzine.
  First, a neutral assessment of this legislation suggests strongly 
that it is not just frivolous lawsuits that are going to be barred by 
this legislation; there are going to be many meritorious lawsuits. We 
already know about these suits. We know about Officer McGuire; we know 
about the victims of the Washington snipers. Those individuals will be 
barred from courts. Those are not frivolous suits.
  Again, there has been discussion about junk cases. I believe there 
will be a lot of junk guns on the streets because essentially what this 
legislation does is this. When a Federal firearms dealer gets his 
license, he also gets a license to be negligent. He can follow the 
rules but he can be negligent. There is no Federal legislation or State 
legislation, in many cases, that requires the storage at a facility of 
weapons, so you can leave them lying around. That is what they 
apparently did at Bull's Eye.

  That is negligence, and that negligence harmed several individuals. 
And this particular law, if adopted, will prevent people from 
exercising their rights for compensation based upon that activity.
  All this discussion leads to the inescapable belief on my part that 
the proponents want it both ways. They stand here and decry the attack 
on the industry, the gun industry besieged by lawsuits, and then turn 
and say: Of course, Officer Lemongello will get to court and Officer 
McGuire will get to court and the sniper victims will get to court. 
They cannot have it both ways.
  The law is not impartial. The law is what we make it. We are making a 
law today that favors, in an unprecedented fashion, the gun industry, 
gun dealers, and the National Rifle Association. That is our making. It 
is not some cosmic event taking place and suddenly we have the law. We 
are telling them, be negligent, be irresponsible, be reckless, do not 
worry about it, we have taken care of you.
  What do we say to the victims of the crimes? Tough luck. You were in 
the wrong place, officer. You were in the wrong place, Conrad Johnson, 
starting your bus up early in the morning. Your family will never get a 
nickel from the companies or individuals who were negligent.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. REED. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
  Mr. REED. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask to have the Presiding Officer 
call attention to the fact when I have 30 seconds remaining.
  We listen to the same rhetoric, decry the risk that our law 
enforcement people take when they go out to work and how we really 
respect them--except that we do not want to give them the same 
environment that every ordinary citizen in this country has.
  We hear about the fact that if you get the criminals off the streets 
and they do not come out again, and then they go back again, what does 
it have to do with whether or not we block the suit from law 
enforcement personnel who have been injured, who have families who want 
redress for them having been killed at work? It has nothing to do with 
it.
  That is the whole thing. It is an obfuscation of what this bill is 
about. This bill does not change a bit with this amendment. It just 
reinforces what the bill says, and that is, take away people's rights 
to sue, people's rights for redress. Whether it is an errant gun 
manufacturer, a dealer, a distributor, an errant airline, or an errant 
car manufacturer, people should have the right to sue.
  There have been opinions thrown around that, unfortunately, do not 
match that of a distinguished attorney such as David Boies who says 
this bill will cause a dismissal of the suit of Lemongello and McGuire 
immediately. The proposed immunity legislation would require the 
immediate dismissal of these claims.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record what the office 
of David Boies, one of the most prominent criminal attorneys in the 
country, has confirmed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Lemongello v. Will Company, No. Civ.A. 02-C-2952, 2003 WL 
     21488208 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. Mar. 19, 2003). New Jersey Police 
     Detective David Lemongello and Officer Kenneth McGuire were 
     seriously injured in January 2001 when they were shot by a 
     career criminal while performing undercover police work. Even 
     though the shooter was a person prohibited by law from 
     purchasing a firearm, he obtained his weapon, a nine 
     millimeter semi-automatic Ruger handgun, illegally from a gun 
     trafficker. The trafficker, in turn, was also prohibited from 
     buying weapons due to a prior felony, so he used an 
     accomplice (a so-called ``straw purchaser'') to make multiple 
     gun purchases from defendant Will Jewelry & Loan, in West 
     Virginia. In their lawsuit against Will Jewelry & Loan and 
     others, the officers allege that the gun dealer acted 
     negligently in selling the straw purchaser twelve guns 
     (including the Ruger used in the shooting of the two 
     officers) that had been selected in person by the gun 
     trafficker and paid for in a single cash transaction. The 
     circumstances of that sale were so suspect that the defendant 
     dealer reported it to the AFT--but only after the purchase 
     price had been collected and the guns had left the store. The 
     officers' suit further charges gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger & 
     Company with negligently failing to monitor and train its 
     distributors and dealers and negligently failing to prevent 
     them from engaging in straw and multiple firearm sales. 
     Although a West Virginia trial court has held that the 
     plaintiffs have stated valid negligence and public nuisance 
     claims under state law, the proposed immunity legislation 
     would require the immediate dismissal of those claims. 
     Notwithstanding the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants 
     failed to exercise reasonable care in their sales of 
     firearms, neither the dealer nor the manufacturer violated 
     any statutory prohibition in selling the guns. Nor could the 
     plaintiffs contend that their case falls within the 
     ``negligent entrustment'' exception to the proposed immunity 
     legislation because the gun dealer supplied the firearm to a 
     straw purchaser--not to someone whom the seller knew or 
     should have known was likely to, and did, use the

[[Page S1669]]

     product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical 
     injury to the person or others.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Many police officers and police chiefs wrote in their 
opposition to this bill, law enforcement personnel from various police 
departments around the country, including Chief William Musser of 
Meridian, OH, Police Department. He writes that he is opposed to this. 
We have officers from other States as well, including Chief Cory Lynn 
from Ketchum, ID, Police Department, in opposition to this legislation.
  This letter was printed in the Record of yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator 
from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate is pretty 
clear. This is a simple principle: Will we protect law enforcement 
officers such as Officer Lemongello from losing their rights under this 
bill or won't we?
  The fact is, the narrow drawing of these exemptions is going to take 
cases like I identified in my opening remarks--such as buying guns in 
West Virginia from a negligent dealer, who admitted, themselves, on the 
same day they had a problem; and it went into the courts--and we are 
going to take away their rights to sue. This will not fit under those 
legal constraints.
  The amendment is clear and straightforward. It says that nothing in 
this legislation will limit the legal rights of law enforcement 
personnel. All my amendment does is open that up. There are no 
conditions. There are no caveats. It is clear. It is simple. My 
amendment does not add any new rights. It just guarantees that officers 
will not lose any.
  I am emotional about these individuals who put their lives on the 
line all the time. I accept that others feel the same way. But we 
should not be taking away the rights of these individuals to get into a 
court and not only pursue the person who perpetrated the crime, but if 
someone has facilitated that crime, because they have been negligent, 
that ought to be also someone who is subject to the law.
  I think we are doing just the opposite. The Frist-Craig amendment is 
completely meaningless in this context because it is exactly the same 
language that is already in the bill. It is transparent and does not 
change a thing.
  This officer will not be able to get into a court of law. This 
officer will lose his right to sue. That is not right. It is not right 
for the other 52 American police officers who lost their lives in 2002 
or 2003, and the many, many who have been injured.
  I don't understand why we don't want to give them the rights they 
deserve under our Constitution. This is not about whether you have a 
right to bear arms. This is not about the second amendment. This is 
about having the right, when there is negligence and criminal behavior, 
to go into a court of law and protect yourself.
  We are doing it for law enforcement--for law enforcement--not just 
generally. These are not frivolous suits. These are people who know the 
law. They are not bringing up frivolous suits, and I do not think I am 
hearing that. So if we are not going to have frivolous lawsuits, which 
is the argument we are trying to make, we need this legislation.
  Why are we taking away the right to sue from law enforcement across 
this country? I ask my colleagues to stand with me. I think we are 
undermining the safety and the security and the principles and the 
rights of law enforcement. I think the Senate ought to be standing with 
law enforcement to make sure they are protected. If we vote no against 
my amendment, we are doing the opposite. I hope we will stand strong 
and stand firmly with law enforcement because that is what we need to 
do if we say we appreciate what they are doing for our families and our 
communities.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the opposition has yielded 
back all their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be as brief as possible. The hour is late.
  I know the Senator from New Jersey speaks with a good heart, and I 
appreciate that. I think we all do. He mentioned two important words 
just in the last of his closing debate. He mentioned the word 
``criminal,'' criminal action, the right to sue, and he mentioned 
``negligence'' and the right to sue. Then he said: We block that 
policeman from the courthouse door.
  I must ask him to return to page 7 of the bill, exception one and 
exception two:

       an action brought against a transferor convicted under 
     section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a 
     comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly 
     harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so 
     convicted. . . .

  He is talking about criminal action. That action is deemed as a 
criminal act in the law.
  How about negligence? Well, it is the next one down.
  It is No. 2:

       an action brought against a seller for negligent 
     entrustment or negligence per se. . . .

  Let me tell you what the FOP says. I think we all know what the FOP 
is. That is the Fraternal Order of Police, some 311,000 strong. They 
oppose the Corzine amendment. We have just visited with them. They 
called us and they said: Why? Because they do not believe it 
accomplishes what they would like accomplished, and they like the 
underlying law.
  I think it is fundamentally important that we try to build clean 
principles within the law. I would have to agree with the Senator from 
New Jersey that policeman is not going to file or have his attorneys 
file a junk lawsuit. The Senator is absolutely right. But 31 apparently 
have been filed, some are under appeals, and 21 of them have been 
thrown out of court by judges who said: Go away, because that is what 
this lawsuit is.
  Now, oftentimes the municipality and/or the individuals and/or the 
county will file it in the name of a fallen officer. I can understand 
the emotion. I think we all feel it. But the judge said the law is the 
law and there was no basis, and he threw them out. Yet it cost the 
industry--the law-abiding industry--hundreds of millions of dollars. It 
is beginning to weaken many of our legitimate, legal gun manufacturers, 
that oftentimes build the firearm that officer carries on his side to 
protect himself and his fellow officers in the commission of their 
responsibilities.
  We should not be doing that as a country. But clearly we must insist 
that the law be clear, unambiguous, and that the officer have his day 
in court if he is harmed by a criminal or by someone who has acted in a 
criminal way, someone who has violated the law, someone, through 
negligence, has somehow caused a firearm to get into the hands of a 
criminal.
  Then the case is brought, and S. 1805 does not block that.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the Frist-Craig amendment and the Corzine amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking the yeas and nays on 
both amendments with one show of hands?
  Mr. CRAIG. If there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The yeas 
and nays are requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2630. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.

[[Page S1670]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 2630) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2629

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business is consideration of 
the Corzine amendment. There are 2 minutes equally divided to be 
followed by a vote. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. In fact, I 
will read it:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing in 
     this Act shall be construed as limiting the right of an 
     officer or employee of any Federal, State or local law 
     enforcement agency to recover damages authorized under 
     Federal or State law.

  This is a police officer who was shot, injured, and is no longer able 
to work in New Jersey. Fifty-two were killed in 2002 by guns in the 
hands of criminals, sold negligently--people should have the ability to 
go to court and get redress. These are not junk lawsuits, not frivolous 
lawsuits.
  Law enforcement officers ought to have the ability to protect their 
rights in court. They should have their day in court. That is what this 
amendment does, and the narrow definitions that are allowed for in the 
underlying bill will keep Officers McGuire and Lemongello out of court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against the 
Corzine amendment. I ask it on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, 
some 311,000 strong, who oppose this amendment, who oppose a special 
carve-out in a law that is meant to treat all fairly and equitably. 
This amendment would gut the underlying bill, S. 1805, and I ask my 
colleagues to oppose it and vote against it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2629. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), and the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Murkowski
  The amendment (No. 2629) was rejected.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have worked a long day and through what 
this time last night was appearing to be a very complicated unanimous 
consent. But I think it flowed well today. All of our colleagues worked 
hard, and we have been able to meet all but one vote we had on that 
unanimous consent.
  It is my understanding that it is possible Senator Bingaman will 
offer his amendment in the morning.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend will yield, on our side, 
Senator Dayton will be here in the morning to offer his amendment. 
Following that, Senator Levin will offer an amendment. Senator Bingaman 
wishes to offer his amendment on Monday.
  I also say to my friend that Senator Reed has told me he will come 
tomorrow or Monday to start laying the groundwork for his amendment and 
the amendment with Senator Feinstein. The votes on those amendments 
will occur Tuesday morning. When they get the floor, they can talk 
about their amendments either tomorrow or Monday.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
cooperation in working with us to facilitate this bill today, to move 
it in a timely way and get the votes necessary throughout the day. He 
has worked hard, along with all of us, to get that accomplished. We 
have had several votes.
  Let me also thank, midway through this, my staff and certainly the 
staff of the Judiciary Committee and others who worked to make sure we 
had the information in a timely way to move forward.
  It is my understanding this is the last vote of the day.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of this most important 
legislation. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this bill, which is sponsored 
by Senators Craig and Baucus.
  This legislation protects firearm and ammunition manufacturers from 
lawsuits related to deliberate and illegal misuse of their products. 
Even more important, it protects the rights of Americans who choose to 
legally purchase and use their products.
  As a gun owner since I was a young boy, I strongly support the 
constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. 
This constitutional right of responsible individuals should not be 
compromised or jeopardized by a small handful who use firearms to 
commit crimes.

[[Page S1671]]

  In my native State of Nevada, many people own firearms and the vast 
majority of them use their guns responsibly and safely. It is their 
right to do so, guaranteed in the United States Constitution. It is not 
some privilege granted at the whim of Congress or any other part of 
government. So I will work on a bipartisan basis to protect and 
safeguard that right.
  I will work to pass this bill, and I think we have the votes to pass 
it.
  Toward the end of last year, we tried to consider this bill in the 
United States Senate. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough time left in 
the first session of this Congress to consider this bill in a fair 
manner.
  Now the time has come to pass this bill.
  We will now debate and vote on the amendments that Senators want to 
offer to this bill, and then we will pass it. And when we do, we will 
be standing up for the Constitution and the rights of every American 
citizen.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________