[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8908-S8927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order and pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 15, S. 397: A bill to prohibit civil
liability actions from being brought or continued against
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of
firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other
relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Bill Frist, George Allen, Larry E. Craig, Craig Thomas,
Michael B. Enzi, Jeff Sessions, Christopher Bond, Lamar
Alexander, Mitch McConnell, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn,
Richard Burr, John McCain, Richard Shelby, Saxby
Chambliss, John Ensign, Chuck Hagel.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 2 minutes are
equally divided on each side.
Who yields time?
Mr. FRIST. We yield back our time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
motion
[[Page S8909]]
for cloture. Whatever Members feel about gun liability, and there are
many divided opinions here, nothing could be more important than
returning to the DOD bill, supporting our troops, supporting our
veterans. It is a $440 billion bill. The fact that we cannot debate it
for more than a few hours says something is wrong with this Senate. We
can do both. We should not leave the DOD bill until we finish. I urge a
``no'' vote on cloture, whatever your view is on the gun liability
provision.
Mr. KYL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Under the rules of the
Senate, would it not be possible to debate the Defense authorization
bill for 30 hours if we had voted for cloture or if we do vote for
cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There would have been up to 30 hours if
approved.
Mr. KYL. So we would have the opportunity if we were to invoke
cloture to debate the Defense authorization bill for 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DODD. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it not also true in a postcloture
environment, had cloture been invoked, many of the amendments dealing
with veteran benefits and other issues would have been denied
consideration?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be difficult for the Chair to
determine that at this point.
Mr. FRIST. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order.
Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Following up on that, is it not
true that even though amendments are relevant in a postcloture
situation, if they are not technically germane, they fall?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
Motion to Proceed to S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The Senator will state the inquiry.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Would the Thune
amendment that was pending on a review of the BRAC closings that are
going on around the country would have been germane after cloture on
the Defense bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that there
are several Thune amendments that relate to BRAC.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will ask specifically by number if the clerk will
give me the Thune amendment on the postponement of BRAC. We had
several, but there was one on postponement.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. FRIST. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
Mr. FRIST. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for.
Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--32
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Obama
Reed
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Craig
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are
32. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are now proceeding to S. 397, after a
very strong cloture vote with 66 Senators voting to move forward on
this legislation. It is something we have had taken up quite a number
of times. It has broad support in terms of business groups, gun owners,
law enforcement, labor unions, and sportsmen. There is nothing in it
that is harmful or damaging to our legal system. There is nothing in it
that provides any special interest protection to gun manufacturers. But
it is a legitimate response to a growing concern that our legal system
is being abused in such a way that could actually take legitimate
businesses and put them out of business.
I think it is something that is of great concern to us, and this
Senate has a majority that is ready to move forward with it. In the
great spirit of our Senate, we will have a lot of debate. There are
those who don't approve. I know Senator Reed of Rhode Island is a
strong opponent of this legislation and he will certainly have a great
opportunity to express his concerns on it. That is part of what we do.
I note, however, this is not the first time the words will have been
spoken on this issue. This bill has been up for some years now and has
come close to becoming law on several occasions, but has not yet done
so.
It is important that we note that this legislation has the potential
to impact our economy adversely. We need to look at how these proposed
novel legal theories adversely affect our economy. Someone will be
making firearms in the world. People are not going to stop buying
firearms. They have a constitutional right to do so. It would be the
height of stupidity if we were to create laws and a legal system that
put our firearm manufacturers out of business so that we have to buy
imported firearms. That would not make good sense.
Our ultimate obligation is to the public. This body should take no
steps that would provide improper immunity for defective practices or
defective firearms that could be sold. That absolutely must not be
done. With that said, it is essential that we refrain from developing a
legal system, however, where lawyers are able to create causes of
action and steer public policy through litigation--a public policy they
have not been able to win at the ballot box, and not been able to win
through their State legislatures and the Congress. So since they have
not been able to win in the legislative branches, what we have had is a
group of activist anti-gun people trying to accomplish the same goal
through litigation.
We also need to remember in all we do regarding litigation that
personal responsibility is an important American characteristic.
Individual responsibility must not be stripped from all our
expectations, where plaintiffs are suing third parties on an almost
strict liability theory. Many trial lawyers are attempting to invent
new causes of action, with hopes of striking a litigation oil well. As
a result, industries such as arms manufacturing and the food industry
are facing enormous insecurities. These industries have great reason to
be insecure. Everyone knows
[[Page S8910]]
how detrimental runaway verdicts can be and one major verdict can
bankrupt an industry. Huge costs arise from simply defending an unjust
lawsuit. Indeed, such lawsuits, even if lacking any merit and
ultimately unsuccessful, can deplete an industry's resources and
depress stock prices.
Defendant industries must hire expensive attorneys and have their
employees spending countless hours responding to the lawyers, providing
them information and so forth, and meeting with them. Industries, in
addition, must purchase liability insurance which takes away from funds
necessary for expanding their new jobs, safety, research and
development that they might otherwise be able to spend it on, which is
important. No other nation must compete in the world marketplace
carrying such a huge litigation cost as American businesses do and
particularly gun manufacturers. Eventually, these costs are passed on
to the consumer. Product prices increase and availability of the
products becomes scarce.
In 1998, individuals and municipalities began filing dozens of novel
lawsuits against members of the firearms industry. These suits are
intended to drive the gun industry out of business by holding
manufacturers and dealers liable for the intentional and criminal acts
of third parties over whom they have absolutely no control. The
firearms industry is particularly vulnerable to lawsuits.
In his testimony before a House subcommittee in 2003, the general
counsel of the National Shooting Sports Federation stated:
Industry-wide cost of defense to date [against these
lawsuits] now exceed $100 million. This is a huge sum of
money for a small industry like ours. The firearms industry
taken together would not equal a Fortune 500 company. The
National Shooting Sports Foundation now believes litigation
expenses have exceeded $150 million, Mr. President.
The danger that these lawsuits can destroy the gun industry is
especially ominous because our national security and liberties are at
stake. First, the gun industry manufactures firearms for American
military forces and law enforcement agencies. Unlike many foreign
countries, the United States doesn't have a government armory, but
relies on private industry to make our firearms. Due in part to Federal
purchasing rules, these guns are made in the United States by American
workers. Successful lawsuits can leave the U.S. at the mercy of
foreign small arms suppliers.
Second, by restricting the industry's ability to make and sell guns
and ammunition, the lawsuits threaten the ability of Americans to
exercise their second amendment rights. I can imagine the impact the
ruin of the gun manufacturing industry would have on my home State of
Alabama, which is one of the premier States in the Nation for hunting
whitetail deer and eastern wild turkey. Hunting is a part of the way of
life for nearly 500,000 Alabamans. That is about 1 in 9 of our
citizens. Imagine if they were unable to obtain hunting rifles or
ammunition. What would happen to the hunting industry, which brings
close to $45 million a year in revenues into the State and provides
nearly 16,000 jobs?
Additionally, if the arms industry must continue to hash out massive
legal fees or eventually goes under, thousands of workers will lose
their jobs. Manufacturers are already laying off workers to pay the
legal bills. Secondary suppliers to gun makers have also suffered. This
is why it is not surprising that the labor unions representing workers
at major firearms plants, such as the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers of East Alton, IL, support this bill.
This union's business representatives stated the jobs of their 2,850
union members ``would disappear if the trial lawyers and opportunistic
politicians get their way.''
Insurance rates for firearms manufacturers have skyrocketed since
these suits began. I am going to talk about these suits and why they
are fundamentally wrong in a minute. These suits have caused the
insurance to go up and some manufacturers are being denied insurance
and seeing their policies cancelled, leaving them unprotected and
vulnerable to bankruptcy.
Thirty-three State legislatures have acted to block similar lawsuits,
either by limiting the power of localities to file suit or by amending
State product liability laws. However, one lawsuit in one State could
bankrupt the industry, making all of those State laws inconsequential.
That is why it is essential that we pass this law.
The lawsuits we are talking about--the kind of lawsuits we will be
discussing today are the kind of lawsuits that do not have merit. They
are not the kind of lawsuits that ought to be brought. Many of them
eventually get dismissed by judges. Most of them do eventually. But the
costs are huge and, who knows, some day an activist court may start
allowing these lawsuits to be successful.
The anti-gun activists, at their base philosophy, want to blame
violent acts of third parties--that is violent, illegal acts by
criminals--on manufacturers of guns, because they manufactured the gun,
and they want to be able to sue the seller who sold the gun simply for
selling them. This doesn't make sense. Should a car dealer be sued if
someone intentionally runs down a pedestrian because the car dealer
sold the car that was used by a third party to commit a crime, a
homicide? What about the car manufacturer? What an absurd thought. But
that is the equivalent of what these plaintiffs are arguing to recover
from gun manufacturers and sellers.
Guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but so can cars. Why would
the manufacturer or seller of a gun who is not negligent, who obeys all
of the applicable laws--we have a host of them--be held accountable for
the unforeseeable action of some criminal third party? They should not,
and this bill would simply prohibit that.
If you buy a gun and someone comes into your house and attempts to
attack you or your family and you pull out that gun and attempt to use
it and it fails to work because it was defective, and that criminal
harms you or your family, you should be able to sue the gun
manufacturer for a defective product. But if it fires as it is supposed
to, as it was designed to, it operates like whatever widget is made in
this manufacturing world we are in, and it does what it is supposed to
do and it is a lawful product, you should not be able to be sued.
I don't understand how these lawsuits are being maintained. But we
have major cities in this country that have taken it as a policy to sue
the manufacturers for creating a product that works precisely as it is
supposed to work, that is designed according to the laws of the United
States, and it is sold according to the laws of the United States, and
they still want to sue them for an intervening criminal act. That is
contrary to our classical law of lawsuits and plaintiff lawsuits. It is
something that I sense is being eroded, these classical principles of
litigation today. I think that is one reason we are beginning to have
movements to have court reform, lawsuit reform, around the country
because courts have allowed things to go beyond what traditionally they
were ever allowed to do.
So it sort of makes these gun manufacturers a guarantor, a person who
would pay for all damages that might occur for a gun they manufactured.
That cannot be the law and must not be the law. These plaintiffs are
demanding colossal monetary damages and a broad range of injunctive
relief; that is, orders from the court concerning this. These
injunctions would relate to the design, manufacture, distribution,
marketing, and the sale of firearms. We already have laws that cover
all of that.
By the way, we have had laws about all of that. We have debated other
laws the Congress and State legislatures have chosen not to pass. So
the attempt, in a very real sense, is to put pressure on these
companies to do things the elected representatives have decided they
should not do or should not be required to do.
Some of the demands that are being made are the kinds of demands that
legislatures, not courts, should be deciding: one-gun-a-month purchase
restrictions not required by the State law, requiring manufacturers and
distributors ``to participate in a court-ordered study of demand for
firearms and to cease sales in excess of lawful demand,'' prohibition
on sales to dealers who are not stocking dealers with at least $250,000
in inventory, a permanent injunction requiring the addition of a
[[Page S8911]]
safety feature for handguns that will prevent their discharge by
``those who steal handguns.''
That will be a pretty ingenious device, if you can make it work. It
is going to be on every gun that is sold? It may be within the power of
this Congress to vote such a restriction if it can be done. It seems
like somewhere in my memory we voted on something such as that.
But to have a judge who is supposed to be a neutral arbiter in a
lawsuit start entering injunctions to require these kinds of things is
beyond legitimate principles of law.
One of the most amusing demands was a prohibition on the sale of guns
near Chicago ``that by their design are unreasonably attractive to
criminals.'' Guns could not be sold near Chicago that are ``by their
design unreasonably attractive to criminals.''
What would that mean? What kind of responsibility does a manufacturer
have? Should each court make that determination? Is that what they were
elected to do? Is that the role of the court? No. It is a legislative
requirement.
These lawsuits are part of an anti-gun activist effort to make an end
run around the legislative system. That is the fact. Because their
efforts to pass restrictive legislation have only partially succeeded,
they want to do more. So they are taking their cause to the judicial
system hoping they will land in court before an activist judge who will
somehow allow their view of how guns should be sold and manufactured to
become a part of a judge's order. Just impose it. One judge who may not
be elected--if it is a Federal judge, he has a lifetime appointment--
just impose this by a court order. That is why people are concerned. So
far they have not been successful in winning these cases.
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that allowing this type of liability
would--they were correct about this--``open up a Pandora's box. For
example, the city could sue manufacturers of matches for arson, or
automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents, or breweries for drunk
driving.''
That is the same principle. I believe that judge in Ohio was correct.
In the city of Bridgeport v. Smith & Wesson Corporation, Judge Robert
McWeeny aptly stated that ``plaintiffs must have envisioned such
settlements as the dawning of a new age of litigation during which the
gun industry, liquor industry and purveyors of junk food would follow
the tobacco industry.'' It is clearly an attempt to build on and expand
those kinds of theories of tobacco lawsuits to go even further than
what we are dealing with here.
The Florida Supreme Court summed up the issue nicely when it refused
to hear a plaintiff's appeal against the firearms industry in a
lawsuit.
The plaintiff did not prevail in an appeal to the higher court in
Florida, and the court held this:
The power to legislate belongs not to the judicial branch
of Government, but to the legislative branch.
Hallelujah, Judge. I am glad you get it. Judges ought to be neutral
umpires, not activists. They should not be setting public policy. They
should not allow their courts to be used as a tool to further a
political agenda, an agenda that has been rejected in the State
legislature or Congress.
However, all it will take is one activist judge or activist court to
destroy an entire industry in reality. So that is why the legislation
is important.
Let me mention what this bill does and does not do. The bill is
incredibly narrow. It only forbids lawsuits brought against lawful
manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are
based on criminal or unlawful misuse of the product by a third party.
I know it is hard to believe, but that is the theory of these
lawsuits. That theory is you sold a gun lawfully, OK. You followed the
complex Federal regulations that have a huge host of requirements. You
followed the State legislature's requirements, often very complex,
also, to the T, and it comes in the hand of a criminal, and they use it
for a crime. Now the manufacturer and the seller are liable. What kind
of law is that? We do not need that. These lawsuits are happening, and
so all this would say is that those kinds of lawsuits cannot be
brought.
Manufacturers and sellers are still responsible for their own
negligent or criminal conduct and must operate entirely within the
complex State and Federal laws. Therefore, plaintiffs are not prevented
from having a day in court. Plaintiffs can go to court if the gun
dealers do not follow the law, if they negligently sell the gun, if
they produce a product that is improper or they sell to someone they
know should not be sold to or did not follow steps to determine whether
the individual was properly subject to buying a gun.
The plaintiff can still argue that actions such as negligent
entrustment, breach of contract, or warranty, or normal product
liability involving actual industries caused by an improperly
functioning firearm can be legitimately brought as a lawsuit and should
be able to be brought. Furthermore, any allegation that the bill
burdens law enforcement is completely false. Gun manufacturers and
sellers are already heavily regulated by hundreds of pages of statutes
and regulations. The Government requires that all gun manufacturers,
importers, and dealers receive licenses. They have to have those
licenses. And they must keep all their records by serial number, and
each gun has to have a distinct, separate serial number recorded before
entering or leaving their inventory. That is, if they are manufactured
in Massachusetts or someplace and they are shipped to Alabama, they
ship it by each one's serial number and it is recorded. If it is
received by a distribution center in Alabama, it is recorded there, and
if it is moved off to a gun store or a Wal-Mart where they sell guns,
it is entered there. When it is sold, it is entered. That serial number
is recorded against the name of the person who bought it. That person
who bought it must produce identification, must sign a sworn statement
that they have not been convicted of a crime, that they are not under
the influence of drugs, and a number of other things. They sign it. It
is a Federal offense if they lie about it. And they do a background
check.
So there are a lot of regulations set forth. The records have to be
open for inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
without a warrant and at any time. They don't have a warrant. They can
go into these licensed dealers any time, any day, and examine their
records. That is the burden we put on gun dealers.
They can also do annual inspections without a specific investigation
or obtain a warrant as any other law enforcement agency can.
Mr. President, I think I overstated it. The ATF can without a warrant
any time do an inspection if it is related to an investigation of a gun
that has been traced there, and they have an opportunity to do annual
inspections at any time through the year as part of their enforcement
dealings, and they do that. That guns are not heavily regulated is a
complete myth. Gun dealers are carefully managed.
As a former U.S. attorney, I participated in the prosecution of a gun
dealer for bad recordkeeping. He was most offended. Over a number of
years we have created even more regulation. He really felt put upon,
but he wasn't filling out the forms. He wasn't making people sign. He
was telling people not to put down that they lived out of State because
that affected whether the gun could be sold. He would tell them, don't
fill that out, and things of that nature. He was not complying, and we
prosecuted him. He went to jail and lost his ability to sell guns.
Licensed dealers have to conduct a Federal criminal background check
on their retail sales either directly through the FBI, through its
National Instant Criminal Background Check, NICS, or through State
systems that also use NICS. All retail gun buyers are screened to the
best of the Government's ability.
Additionally, the industry has voluntary programs to promote safe gun
storage and to help dealers avoid selling to potential illegal
traffickers in guns. Manufacturers also have a time-honored tradition
of acting responsibly to issue recalls and make repairs if they become
aware of defects. Law-abiding manufacturers and dealers of firearms are
not threats to our society. They have not committed crimes by supplying
our citizens with lawfully acquired firearms. It is essential that the
people who are guilty, people who commit the crime, who deserve
punishment, receive the punishment. More
[[Page S8912]]
importantly, this legislation is needed so that people who have
suffered a real injury from a real cause of action can be heard and
taken seriously while those who are trying to improperly spread the
blame will not.
Mr. President, it is the responsibility of Congress to review our
civil litigation system, our court system, and see how it is working.
If over a period of years tactics and techniques are developed that
exploit weaknesses or loopholes or gaps in that system or allow the
system to be abused, then I think everybody would recognize that we
ought to take action to fix it. Every day, attorneys file lawsuits
under laws that we pass and the court's interpretation of those laws.
Congress has every right to monitor this, and we have a duty once we
determine a type of litigation is so legally unsound and detrimental to
lawful commerce that it should be constrained to enact meaningful
legislation to constrain it and to stop abuse.
In the past, Congress has found it necessary to protect the light
aircraft industry, community health centers, aviation industry, medical
implant makers, Amtrak, computer industry members affected by Y2K
problems, and good Samaritans.
Senator McConnell offered a bill to protect a person who tried to
save another person, who was the victim of an accident, from dying. He
believed that a person trying to do the best they can to protect
someone else should not be sued, if they are somehow found to be faulty
in a good Samaritan act.
Congress may enact litigation reforms when lawsuits are affecting
interstate commerce, and many of these lawsuits are trying to use State
courts to restrict the conduct of the firearms nationally. They are
trying to create legal holdings by the courts that would impact the
entire industry nationally. In fact, it is the stated purpose of many
of these groups. And a single verdict, even a single verdict, large
verdict of an anti-gun plaintiff, could bankrupt or in effect regulate
an entire segment of our economy and of America's national defense and
put it out of business.
I do not know when there has been a better example of when this type
of legislation is needed. We must pass this bill. It is long overdue.
It has 60 cosponsors. It is time for us to move forward and get it
done.
It is simply wrong when we as a Congress have approved the sale of
firearms in America and, through the Constitution, allowed the
manufacture and sale of firearms, to allow those manufacturers who
comply with the many rules we have set forth--they comply with those
rules, to be sued for intervening criminal acts. They sell a gun and it
ends up in the hands of a criminal, unbeknownst to them. If they knew,
if they had reason to know, if they were negligent in going through the
requirements of the law or failed to do the requirements of the law,
they can be sued. But if they do it right and it goes into the hands of
someone who uses it for a criminal purpose, the manufacturer of that
gun absolutely should not be subject to a lawsuit. It is a political
thing that is going on out there, the filing of these lawsuits all over
the country in an attempt to crush an industry that this Congress and
our Constitution have stated to be a legitimate industry.
I know Senator Reed has many wise comments on this, able Senator that
he is. We will disagree, but I certainly respect his views.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 397, the
so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Like its
predecessor which the Senate soundly rejected last year, this bill is
one of the most blatant special interest giveaways that I have seen
during my time in the Senate. At a time when more than 7.5 million
Americans are unemployed and our Nation faces a deficit of $333
billion, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, inadequate homeland security
funding, and now a Supreme Court vacancy, to me the Republican
leadership choosing to devote our precious time to a bill that would
deny victims of gun violence their day in court and protect the gun
industry is a travesty.
The gun lobby argues that this legislation would put an end to
frivolous lawsuits that claim gun companies should be liable simply
because their guns are used in crimes. In fact, the bill would bar
virtually all negligence and product liability cases in State and
Federal courts while throwing out pending cases as well as preventing
future cases. The bill would provide this sweeping immunity to gun
dealers, gun manufacturers, and even trade associations. Interestingly,
the NRA modified the bill so that this year they don't appear to be
granting themselves legal immunity as they did the last time around.
The track record for this bill in the last two Congresses has,
thankfully, been one of failure. We can only assume that the gun lobby
is hoping that the third time will be the charm. The gun lobby and its
allies in Congress had to abandon their effort to pass similar
legislation in the 107th Congress, after the Washington area sniper
attacks terrorized an entire region. Then last year, in one of the more
bizarre twists in recent Senate history, the National Rifle Association
instructed the Republican leadership to kill the bill after a majority
of Senators voted to add reasonable gun safety measures--to require
background checks at gun shows, renew the assault weapons ban, and
require child safety locks to be sold with handguns.
It is a good thing that the Senate defeated this bill because it
would have thrown out the civil lawsuits filed by the families of the
victims of the sniper attacks, even though the Washington State gun
dealer who had the Bushmaster sniper rifle in his inventory could not
account for that weapon or more than 230 others. Instead, the families
of the victims won a $2.5 million settlement from Bull's Eye Shooter
Supply and Bushmaster, the assault weapons maker who negligently
supplied Bull's Eye despite its abysmal record of missing guns and
regulatory violations.
At the heart here is not activist courts making law. The heart of
this is people who have been harmed by weapons, innocent people, people
such as the victims of the Washington sniper--someone walking to their
car from the Home Depot and being shot and killed; a bus driver waiting
to take his rounds in the morning, having a cup of coffee, reading the
paper, with a wife and children at home, shot by snipers. Where did
they get those weapons? They got them through the negligence of a
licensed gun dealer. This legislation would effectively prevent those
families from recovering damages, compensation for the loss of a
husband and father, the loss of a wife. This is not about activist
judges making law. This is about shutting the doors to the courts of
America, mostly State courts, to prevent those who have been harmed by
the negligence of others to be made whole. That is what this is about.
That is why it is so wrong.
With respect to the sort of activism of public policymaking, we all
recognize in this body that Federal law is one aspect, but State law is
also important. In fact, most tort law is based upon State law. State
assemblies make up State laws. They decide causes of action. They
decide defenses. They do a lot of those things in conjunction with
litigation in their courts. This legislation preempts all 50 States.
This says to the State of Georgia, the State of Alabama, the State of
Rhode Island, the State of Michigan, you can't have the ability of your
citizens to go to court. Even if you believe it is appropriate and
right in your State courts, we are preempting you. That is also wrong.
In addition to the monetary settlement for the victims of the
families that were the victims of the snipers, in the settlement,
Bushmaster agreed to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that
should prevent other criminals from obtaining guns, something
Bushmaster had never done before. What you have is a situation of
negligence, and this negligence can extend not only from the dealer but
to the manufacturer. This legislation not only would deny the right of
a victim to come forward and ask for compensation, but also to reform
the system.
We have to recognize, too, that there are elaborate rules for the
governance of weapons and firearms and tobacco, an agency of the
Federal Government. But this is one industry that is virtually not
subject to any product liability, any consumer product safety
[[Page S8913]]
rules, any other type of regulation. This legislation would undercut
ways in which a court could do justice. Because the Senate rejected
this legislation last year, these victims and their families had their
day in court, and at least one manufacturer's commercial practices were
improved in ways that benefit all Americans. What could be more helpful
to all of us if a manufacturer takes the time and the effort,
appropriately, to inform his dealers about appropriate practices in
selling weapons, about avoiding selling weapons to those people who
might be trafficking in weapons, avoiding selling weapons to those
people who might be irresponsible and reckless in the use of those
weapons? That can only benefit all of us.
But despite all of these things, we find ourselves again in a
familiar situation, one in which the NRA's pet project is again being
granted a virtually direct, nonstop ticket to the Senate floor. The
Senate Judiciary Committee has held no hearings on this legislation,
and no committee markups were ever scheduled. The bill's supporters
knew it would be difficult to withstand the kind of scrutiny that might
result in careful, deliberate, and thorough committee hearings, so they
brought it straight to the Senate floor. Here we are today. Now it is
up to us make sure that there is a full and vigorous debate, including
not only amendments to deal directly with aspects of this legislation
but also to address other issues with respect to violence in America
and gun safety.
If we are going to grant blanket legal immunity to the firearms
industry, it is imperative that we address inadequacies in other areas
with respect to gun safety legislation. Mothers and fathers across
America go out of their way every day to protect themselves and their
children from harm. How unsettling it must be for these families to
think that the gun industry, which is already exempt from Federal
product safety regulations that apply to children's toys,
pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other product in this country, may
now receive legal protection that no other industry enjoys.
I listened closely to the Senator from Alabama talking about this as
if a car manufacturer was being held responsible for the actions of
others. Well, they could be in certain situations. If a car dealer
leaves his cars unlocked with keys in the ignition at night and someone
comes and takes that car, drives it away, causes damage, certainly the
issue arises, was that car dealer using good common sense? Certainly,
that would be a case that would at least get to the notion of filing
the case.
This bill would prevent such a similar case from the gun
manufacturers and the gun dealers, but there is no attempt, at least
today, to limit those types of liability to other manufacturers. I
believe that shows how narrow this is and how it is focused to a very
special interest. That is unfortunate.
As with any other business, there are good actors and bad actors with
respect to the gun industry. There are those who carefully follow the
law and those who ignore it. But granting unprecedented legal immunity
to the entire industry without requiring any additional
responsibilities to protect the public from reckless behavior would be
a grave mistake. It will only encourage those who already engage in
questionable conduct.
I urge my colleagues, as we work through this debate, to listen
closely and to try to recognize that we are taking unprecedented action
with respect to undermining the traditional system of common justice.
First, we are usurping authority for State law that is traditionally
the purview of State assemblies and legislatures. Then we are granting
an unprecedented immunity to one very particular industry. That might
be a precedent, unfortunately, for other industries that come forward,
which would be a severe unraveling of the protections we all have.
All of this, again, begins not with someone going out to stage a
lawsuit by being shot. That is the last thing that happens. The victims
of this gun violence, who are the subject of these suits, didn't want
to be victims. They didn't want to be in court. The bus driver waiting
there to start his run was not thinking, Oh, boy, someone is going to
shoot me so we can start a case and change public policy. He was shot
by a sniper who obtained a gun through the negligence of others. Yet
that family would have been denied their relief in court if this bill
had passed last year.
There was discussion about personal responsibility. There is personal
responsibility. It is important. It is fundamental to everything we do.
What about the responsibility of the gun dealer to know how many
weapons he has on hand, where they are, not to leave it out so it can
be taken? Apparently the youngest sniper, who was barely of age, just
picked it up off a counter and walked out of the store with it, a rifle
that was used later to shoot and kill several people. Where is that
personal responsibility? And if you are the victim of that lack of
responsibility, how can you have your day in court if this legislation
passes?
Now, we have a lot of work to do in this Congress. We should get on
with it. That is why it is amazing that we have left the Defense bill
that would provide the resources to protect our soldiers, sailors,
marines, airmen and airwomen across the globe to move to this very
narrow, special interest bill. I think it is extremely unfortunate.
A part of the rationale for this bill advanced by the proponents is
that there is a crisis. There is a crisis with respect to the industry.
They are about to lose their ability to manufacture. They are going to
go bankrupt. We won't have any weapons for our national security. That
is not substantiated by any of the facts before us.
The gun lobby says it needs protection because it is faced with a
litigation crisis. The facts tell precisely the opposite story. There
is no crisis. There is a crisis in Iraq. There is a crisis in
Afghanistan. There is a crisis across the globe with international
terrorists. That is a crisis. But it is not a crisis with respect to
gun liability in this country. Yet we move from legislation dealing
with these huge crises, some of which have existential consequences to
us, particularly if terrorists ever get their hands on any type of
nuclear material, to a situation where there is no crisis.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
Mr. REED. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would like to yield the hour allotted to me to the
floor manager, the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
The only two publicly held gun companies that have filed recent
statements at the Securities and Exchange Commission contradict the
claim that they are threatened by lawsuits. Smith & Wesson filed a
statement with the SEC on June 29, 2005, stating that:
We expect net product sales in fiscal 2005 to be
approximately $124 million, a 5% increase over the $117.9
million reported for fiscal 2004. Firearms sales for fiscal
2005 are expected to increase by approximately 11% over
fiscal 2004 levels.
That is their SEC report which they have to file subject to severe
penalties for misstatement and mistruth. I believe that. It appears to
be a banner year for Smith & Wesson. There is no crisis.
They go on and say in another filing on March 10, 2005:
In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred
$4,535 in defense costs, net of amounts received from
insurance carriers, relative to product liability and
municipal litigation.
What they said is--this company, with a banner year of increased
sales, with projections for better sales--they incurred $4,535 in out-
of-pocket costs to defend product liability and municipal litigation
claims and suits. That is a crisis? Sales are up. Litigation costs in
this particular area--out-of-pocket costs, to be accurate, of $4,500.
That is what they are telling the Federal regulators, under severe
penalties for misstatements and even inaccurate statements. There is no
crisis.
In that same period for which they incurred $4,535 in out-of-pocket
costs, Smith & Wesson spent over $4.1 million in advertising. Maybe the
real crisis is they have to spend a lot on advertising. But that is not
a crisis situation. That is not sufficient to bring the Senate here to
debate a bill to give them protections from these types of suits.
Meanwhile, gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger told the SEC in a March 11,
2005 filing:
It is not probable and is unlikely that litigation,
including punitive damage claims,
[[Page S8914]]
will have a material adverse effect on the financial position
of the Company.
Essentially, what these two publicly reporting companies have said,
despite all of the discussion by others that they are on the verge of
bankruptcy, is: There is no material adverse effect on our financials
based on this type of litigation. There is no crisis.
So at the same time the gun makers are reporting to the SEC that
litigation costs are not likely to have a material adverse effect on
the businesses, their trade associations have been rapidly inflating
the unsubstantiated estimates of litigation costs. Gun lobby claims of
alleged litigation costs have risen in $25 million increments, with no
data of any kind to support these claims because most of these
companies in the industry are privately held. But I would suggest if
the publicly held companies are offering their truthful admissions to
the SEC--unless the privately held companies are woefully unmanaged or
are unusually involved in this type of litigation--then these estimates
have to be widely suspect.
Here are the claims of increased costs: April of 2003, estimated
litigation has cost the industry $100 million in the last 5 years; July
of 2004, estimated litigation costs of $150 million; November of 2004,
estimated litigation costs of $175 million; February of 2005, some
estimates talk about $200 million.
Now, it does not seem to track when you have major companies saying
they have no material impact, paying out of pocket $4,500, and then you
have these wildly inflated estimates.
Number of lawsuits faced by the gun industry is, if anything, far
less than many other industries. From 1993 to 2003, 57 suits were filed
against gun industry defendants, out of an estimated 10 million tort
suits, according to the State Court Journal published by the National
Center for State Courts--57 out of 10 million. That is not a record of
litigants out of control.
The actual monetary awards faced by the gun lobby are even less. The
gun lobby's record in court is far worse than the tobacco industry's,
which for decades won every case brought against it. But the gun lobby
has not lost them all either. In fact, many of the cases my colleague
from Alabama was citing were some appeals court cases that were turning
down plaintiffs who were unsuccessful at the trial court level. The
results of these cases are what one would expect as suits against any
industry: Some cases are dismissed, some cases are won by plaintiffs,
some are on appeal, others are the result of a settlement between the
parties.
Now, the fact is, most of the legal defense costs faced by gun
industry participants have been covered by product liability insurance,
with very little funding coming out of pocket. Again, every industry in
the country has to insure itself against these risks. It seems to me
there is nothing to indicate the insurance claims against these gun
lobbies and gun manufacturers are out of line with those. In this
respect, the gun lobby is no different than any other industry.
Moreover, the power of the gun lobby to protect itself from litigation
and promote its views is illustrated by the war chest it has put
together for this specific purpose over the past several years.
In 1999, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and others in the
gun lobby created what is known as the Hunting and Shooting Sports
Heritage Fund by setting aside a small percentage of industry revenues.
The fund supports lobbying activities as well as industry public
relations initiatives emphasizing the positive aspects of firearms, and
it helps cover the cost of retaining internal memos and other sensitive
documents with a law firm in California so the gun lobby can avoid the
kind of unwanted leaks and exposure that plagued the tobacco industry
for many years. Some reports indicate the fund has raised as much as
$100 million.
We are going to be talking about a lot of victims of gun violence
over the next few days, and I can tell you that none of them has access
to a $100 million war chest to protect their legal interests or promote
their point of view.
In any case, the purpose of lawsuits filed on behalf of victims is
not to bankrupt the industry. In fact, some of the cases filed have
sought only injunctive relief, including reforms of industry trade
practices that would make the public safer. This is not always about
money. In some cases it is about safety for the general public.
It is telling that the new Senate version of the gun industry
immunity bill has been changed specifically to ban suits seeking
injunctive relief. The argument, of course, is there is a crisis, and
the crisis is the financial crisis of the gun manufacturers and the gun
dealers, but yet this legislation was altered this year to avoid
injunctive relief, which has very little direct impact in terms of
awards, punitive or otherwise.
Even when plaintiffs seek commonsense reforms in the industry that
could save lives, rather than have money damages, the gun lobby and its
allies in Congress seek to shut the courthouse door in the face of
these victims.
The findings section of the bill states:
[T]he possibility of imposing liability on an entire
industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse
of the legal system.
That sounds reasonable until you consider that the very essence of
the cases the bill seeks to eliminate is that the harm suffered by
victims of gun violence is often not solely caused by others, but that
specific negligent conduct by defendants in the industry contributed to
that harm. That is a key point here. This is not a situation as to
anyone in the industry--a manufacturer or dealer--who has followed all
the rules and has done everything correctly, and then someone else did
something wrong. In order to bring a suit for negligence, you have to
point out, allege at least negligent activities on behalf of the
defendant, be he or she a manufacturer or dealer. So the core here is
the allegation that the defendant--those people this legislation seeks
to immunize--did something wrong. Liability attaches if a court finds
they did something wrong.
Moreover, the bill would exclude many cases that do not seek to hold
the entire industry liable but instead focuses on specific dealers or
manufacturers based on their negligent contribution to specific
instances of harm to victims of gun violence. This is not just a
situation where the whole industry is sued. This is a situation where
anybody in the industry who is sued gets the benefit of these
protections.
Unfortunately, this bill would overturn longstanding, widely accepted
principles of civil liability law, which generally holds that persons
and companies may be liable for the foreseeable consequences of their
wrongful acts. By throwing out common law standards established
throughout our Nation's history by State courts, and substituting new
standards for negligence and product liability actions conceived by
attorneys of the gun lobby, this bill would deprive Americans of their
legal rights in cases involving a wide range of industry misconduct.
Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, that some cases against
the industry might be frivolous, this bill applies the legislative
equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction where a surgical strike
would be sufficient. The bill proposes a sweeping Federal intrusion
into traditional State responsibilities for defining and administering
State tort law, yet there is no evidence that the State courts are not
handling their responsibilities competently in this area of law. There
has been no rash of questionable jury awards, and not a single decision
or final judgment of any court that justifies this unprecedented
legislation.
Nevertheless, the bill's proponents seek to preempt the law of 50
States to create a special, higher standard for negligence and product
liability actions against gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and trade
associations.
We are being asked to do this for an industry that already enjoys an
exemption from the Federal health and safety regulations that apply to
virtually every other product made in this country. There is no crisis.
There is no showing that the gun lobby is in danger of extinction as a
result of lawsuits.
We must look at the facts and not the rhetoric. Again, as to a
company that spends out of pocket $4,500 a year, when their sales are
increasing by about 11 percent, that is not a crisis. There is nothing,
I think, substantiated to suggest otherwise.
Now, Mr. President, we are going to engage in a series of discussions
over
[[Page S8915]]
the next several days here. But I think we have to be very clear, this
legislation would undercut State laws and State court practices that
have existed for as long as the country has existed. It would do so for
the benefit of a very special interest group. It would deny access to
courts for people who have been harmed, really harmed.
Let's take some of these cases. Take the case of Denise Johnson, the
wife of the late Conrad Johnson. Conrad Johnson was the bus driver who
was the final sniper victim of the Washington area snipers. The
snipers' Bushmaster assault rifle was one of more than 230 guns that
disappeared from the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply gun store in Washington
State. The gun store's careless oversight of firearms in its inventory
raised serious questions of negligence that fully deserved to be
explored by the civil courts.
Two hundred thirty misplaced weapons--if that is not at least a
suggestion of some negligence, I do not know what is. This legislation,
had it been enacted last year, would have denied the Johnson family
their rights in court, their rights to go to that alleged negligent
dealer and say: Without your action, without your negligence, my
husband, our father, would be alive today.
But in addition to that, the manufacturer's actions also were
questionable. Despite questionable control activities in relation to
their inventory at Bull's Eye--serious and well-known problems at the
gun store--they were still able to acquire weapons from the
manufacturer. As I indicated before, the Johnsons were able to settle
their claim in court. But if this legislation had passed last year,
they would have been thrown out.
Now, there are other examples that are prevalent that also would have
been dismissed by this legislation had it been passed, and future cases
if, in fact, we pass it in this session.
There is the case of David Lemongello and Ken McGuire, former police
officers of Orange, NJ. On January 12, 2001, Mr. Lemongello and Mr.
McGuire were shot several times by a violent criminal who should never
have had a gun. Because of the injuries he suffered, Mr. Lemongello
will never be a police officer again. The gun used in the shooting was
one of 12 guns purchased by 2 individuals on a single day from Will
Jewelry & Loan, a gun dealership in West Virginia.
Mr. James Gray, a felon, used a woman with a clean record to purchase
all 12 guns at once with cash. He and the woman came into the gun shop
with thousands of dollars, and Gray pointed out guns he wanted, and
then had the woman purchase them in a clear example of a ``straw
purchase'' to evade the law. In fact, the gun dealer was so concerned
about the suspicious transaction that, after taking the money and
giving him the gun, he called the ATF. But it was too late; the guns
were already destined for the illegal market. The actions of the gun
dealer--who failed to follow sales guidelines recommended by the
National Shooting Sports Foundation--raise serious questions of
negligence.
The manufacturer of the gun, Sturm, Ruger, is a member of NSSF, yet
it failed to require its dealers and distributors to follow the
guidelines. At one point in the proceedings, the West Virginia gun
dealer and the manufacturer of the gun asked Judge Irene Berger of
Kanawha County, West Virginia, to dismiss the case. She heard the gun
seller's legal arguments and rejected each of them, applying the
general rule of West Virginia law to allow the case to proceed.
Here is a classic example. Someone comes in with another person,
purchases 12 guns at once, selects the guns, and pays with cash, but
making sure the other person is the one whose name is run through the
FBI records check, and then drives away. Doesn't that raise suspicion
in your mind if you are a conscientious dealer? Don't you do anything
other than call ATF? That is negligence in many respects. Certainly a
victim of that crime eventually should have the right to take that case
to court.
The gun industry bill would have overridden that judge's decision in
West Virginia and thrown out the case of the police officers. Again,
the Senate rejected this legislation last year, and in June 2004
Officers Lemongello and McGuire won a $1 million settlement to
compensate them for their career-ending injuries. After the lawsuit,
the dealer and two other area pawnshops agreed to implement safer
practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of
ending large-volume sales of handguns. These practices go beyond the
law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors.
So here is another situation. It is not only the immediate
compensation to these police officers whose whole lives and careers
have been changed irrevocably; it is also making it safer for other
people so the next time someone wanders into this particular gun shop
of this dealer, they won't be selling 12 or so handguns without
seriously checking who is buying.
Today, as we face another attempt in the Senate to take away the
rights of innocent victims of gun lobby negligence, there are still
many legitimate pending cases that will be thrown out by the bill
before the Senate. We can always anticipate additional situations. In
fact, there is a very strong likelihood that if this legislation
passes, whatever steps are taken today by gun dealers and manufacturers
will be abandoned or lessened because effectively they have a free
pass. No one can sue them. They don't have to worry about the litigant
going to court and saying, your sales practices or your behavior were
negligent. We have given them immunity. In fact, one might even
anticipate more incidents.
But there are cases pending today that could be affected. For
example, in another case, Guzman v. Kahr Arms, a lawsuit was filed by
the family of 26-year-old Danny Guzman of Worcester, MA, who was
fatally wounded when a 9 mm gun stolen from a gun manufacturer's plant
was stolen by a drug-addicted employee who had a criminal record. The
manufacturer, Kahr Arms, operated the factory without basic security
measures to protect against thefts, such as metal detectors, security
mirrors, or security guards. Guns were routinely taken from the factory
by felons it had hired without conducting background checks. The gun
used to kill Danny Guzman was one of several stolen by Kahr Arms
employees before serial numbers had been stamped on them, rendering
them virtually untraceable. The guns were then resold to criminals in
exchange for money and drugs.
The loaded gun that killed Mr. Guzman was found by a 4-year-old
behind an apartment building near the scene of the shooting. Had Kahr
Arms performed drug tests or background checks on the prospective
employees or secured its facilities to prevent thefts, Danny Guzman
might be alive today. A Massachusetts judge has held that the suit
states a valid legal claim for negligence. But this bill would throw
the case out of court, denying Danny's family their day in court.
That is the reality of this legislation. That is what we are
protecting. We are protecting manufacturers who take no care in hiring
employees, yet give them access and proximity to weapons, and who
employ no effective security measures. That, at least, is negligence.
At least they should be tried in court. This legislation would immunize
that.
Ask yourselves again, What incentive would manufacturers such as Kahr
Arms have to spend any money on background checks, to spend any money
on security? None at all because, frankly, they have a free ride, a
pass. No one can touch them. And in this legislation we are not about
to start regulating the manufacturing practices of gun manufacturers in
the United States.
Now, every industry has good actors and bad actors and the firearms
industry is no exception. There are manufacturers that produce high-
quality products that feature necessary devices to make the firearms as
safe as possible. There are other manufacturers that create poorly
designed, poorly constructed firearms that are favored by criminals,
that have no place in the home, at the shooting range, or on hunting
grounds. Likewise, there are licensed dealers who comply with both the
letter and the spirit of our gun laws and do everything in their power
to ensure firearms are sold only to lawful buyers. There are other
dealers who routinely sell guns regardless of the age or criminal
background of the buyer. Essentially, they wink and look the other way.
This small minority of bad apple dealers has a significant impact on
gun
[[Page S8916]]
violence on our streets throughout the country. According to the
Federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent
of all guns recovered in all criminal investigations; 57 percent of the
guns recovered in criminal investigations pass through their hands.
Does that suggest there are some gun dealers who are negligent, who are
not following the letter or the spirit of the law? And the gun
manufacturers know who the problem dealers are because when guns are
recovered at crime scenes, they receive firearm tracing reports that
show which dealers sell disproportionally to criminals. But in too many
cases, the gun industry refuses to police itself.
If this legislation passes, there will be less incentive to take
precautions, to take steps to prevent guns from getting in the hands of
those people who would use them irresponsibly.
The national crime gun trace data from 1989 through 1996 gathered by
the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicates
the following gun dealers sold the highest number of crime guns in
America and exhibited crime gun tracing patterns indicative of drug
trafficking. Whereas most gun dealers have been associated with zero
gun traces, guns sold by these suspect gun dealers turn up in the wrong
hands over and over again.
For example, in Badger Outdoors, Inc., of West Milwaukee, Wi, the
dealer sold 554 guns traced to a crime, and 475 of those guns had a
``short time to crime'' as defined by ATF. The guns were involved in at
least 27 homicides, 101 assaults, 9 robberies, and 417 additional gun
crimes. The dealer also sold at least 1,563 handguns in multiple sales.
From 1994 to 1996, straw purchaser Lawrence Shikes bought 10 guns from
Badger. In one case, he immediately sold the gun to an undercover
Federal agent who told Shikes he was a felon. Several weapons Shikes
purchased have been recovered from a killer, a rapist, a convicted
armed robber, a man who shot a police officer, and three juvenile
shooting suspects.
So, again, a very small percentage, but still we are immunizing these
people also. This legislation doesn't make any distinction between
competent, conscientious gun dealers. It is everyone. And we know
everybody is not following the rules as scrupulously as they should.
To put a check on the behavior, if you are harmed and injured by this
negligence, go to court and say, I have been harmed, this defendant
contributed to my injury and I seek compensation, this legislation will
tell that victim, go away; the courts are closed to you.
There are other cases. Realco Guns of Forestville, MD; Southern
Police Equipment, Richmond, Va; Atlantic Gun & Tackle, Bedford Heights,
OH; Colosimo's of Philadelphia, PA; Don's Guns & Galleries in
Indianapolis, IN. Throughout the country, the exception to the rule,
and the rule is generally conscientious individuals follow the laws.
But this legislation protects these individuals as well as the
conscientious dealers. Again, it is inappropriate, unfortunate,
unsubstantiated.
Where is the crisis? All the public records we have of the gun
manufacturers say there is no material impact on the financial well-
being. Those are reports submitted to the SEC, not press releases from
lobbying groups. We are going to upset the traditions of tort law
throughout this country for a situation where no crisis exists.
Again, we have moved from consideration of one of the most
significant pieces of legislation we consider every year, the Armed
Forces authorization, to deal with this issue--no crisis, no substance,
but an industry-political motivation by the NRA and the gun lobby to
protect their members from bona fide allegations of negligence in
certain cases.
There is no explosion of suits. These are minimal, a fraction of the
tort suits in this country. Yet we are here today to devote a huge
amount of time after moving away from the Defense bill to consider this
legislation. Procedurally, it is terrible. We should be talking now, as
we all hoped we would, about further benefits for our military
personnel, about improving their quality of life, improving their
equipment, giving them the resources to defend us. Yet we are now
staked out, literally, to try to provide benefits for the negligence of
a few people in an industry that has no financial crisis and is in no
danger of going away.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there still remains a very serious
problem and a very serious threat to gun manufacturers in the United
States. Sure, a lot of these cases have not been successful because
they are so bogus, so contrary to classical rules that a person is not
liable for an intervening action done by a criminal, an intervening
criminal act.
I will add, when I was a U.S. attorney, an individual walked off a
veterans hospital grounds and was murdered. They sued the VA hospital
for wrongful death. I defended on the theory that the hospital could be
liable under certain circumstances, but there was a strong principle of
law which I cited that an intervening criminal act is not foreseeable.
You are not expected to foresee that someone will take a lawful product
and use it to commit a crime or that they would commit a crime. This is
a settled legal principle.
We are eroding these things and we end up with all kinds of problems.
That is one of the things disrupting our legal system, particularly if
there is a political cause here, a group of people who absolutely
oppose firearms in any fashion. Mayors in major cities are encouraging
these lawsuits and pushing them. We end up with some real problems.
Let me share with our colleagues this letter from Beretta
Corporation. It was mailed out in 2005 by Mr. Jeff Reh, general
counsel, written to the Vice President of the United States. He says a
few weeks ago the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a
decision supporting a DC statute that those manufacturers of semi-
automatic pistols and rifles are held strictly liable for any crime
committed in the District with such a firearm.
It had not been used until the District of Columbia recently filed a
lawsuit against the firearm industry in an attempt to hold firearm
makers, manufacturers, importers, and distributors liable for the cost
of criminal gun misuse in the District.
The court of appeals, sitting en banc, dismissed many parts of the
case but did rule that:
Victims of gun violence can sue firearm manufacturers
simply to determine whether that company's firearm was used
in the victim's shooting, and if so, they become liable.
He goes on to say that such a decision ``will make firearm
manufacturers liable for all costs attributed to such shootings, even
if the firearm involved was originally sold in a State far from the
District of Columbia and to a lawful customer.''
If you sell a gun to somebody in Minnesota and they bring it to DC
and some criminal uses it to shoot somebody, the gun manufacturer now
becomes liable for that Beretta or Smith & Wesson or whoever made it.
They go on to say this decision ``has a likelihood of bankrupting not
only Beretta, but every maker of semiautomatic pistols and rifles since
1991.'' There are hundreds of homicides committed with firearms each
year in DC, and others are injured. And the defendants, under this
bill, would have no defense that they originally sold the pistol or
rifle to a civilian customer. So they ask that this legislation be
supported.
Without it, companies like Beretta, Colt, Smith & Wesson,
Ruger, and dozens of others, could be wiped out by a flood of
lawsuits emanating from the District. This is not a
theoretical concern.
The instrument to deprive the United States citizens of the
tools through which they enjoyed a second amendment freedom
now rests in the hands of trial lawyers in the District.
Equally grave, control of the future supply of firearms
needed by our fighting forces and law enforcement officials
and private citizens throughout the country also rests in the
hands of these attorneys. We will seek Supreme Court review
of this decision, but the result of a Supreme Court review is
not guaranteed. Your help might provide our only chance of
survival.
It is the principle of the thing we are concerned about, first and
foremost. Do we believe that a manufacturer who complied with the law
and who sold a gun in Minnesota or in Kansas and sold it lawfully,
according to the rules of the State of Alabama or Minnesota and Federal
Government rules, and that gun ends up in the District of Columbia,
they now become liable for an intervening criminal act? That is not a
principle of law that can be defended,
[[Page S8917]]
according to justice or fairness. But we are in that mode now of using
the courts to effect a political agenda that goes beyond what the
Congress and elected representatives are prepared to vote. In effect,
it would bankrupt these companies and may be able to prohibit people
from even having firearms or certainly denying them a place to go buy a
new firearm and ultimately denying them the right to purchase firearms.
So that is what we are concerned about. We are not trying to
overreach here. We are trying to eliminate this political abuse of the
legal system to effect a policy decision not subject to being won in
the legislative branch.
Under this bill, I think it is very important to note that you can
sue gun sellers and manufacturers who violate the law. It is crystal
clear in the statute that this is so. To start off, one of the first
things it says is an action can be brought against a transferer--that
is, a seller--of a gun by any party directly harmed by the product of
which the transferee is so convicted for violating the law. It also
says this in paragraph 2:
These are actions that are allowed to be maintained by this
legislation and are not constricted.--An action brought
against a seller of the gun for negligent entrustment for
negligence per se.
It is some sort of negligent act that gave the gun to the customer.
We will leave it at that.
No. 3, an action can be brought against a manufacturer or seller of a
qualified product, or gun, who knowingly violated a State or Federal
statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product when that
was the proximate cause of the injury, such as the 12 guns being sold
and mentioned by Senator Reed earlier. I suspect that violated a law.
It is certainly a violation of the law for a person to knowingly or
negligently entrust a gun to someone when they believe or have reason
to believe that it is a straw purchase. That would be a violation of
the law. You have to produce an ID, sign a statement, say it is your
gun, say you have not been convicted of a crime, say you are not a drug
addict, where your residence is, and other laws that States and
communities may have, such as waiting periods, before you can pick it
up. You have to wait for the background check to see if those
statements you made are valid.
So you can still bring those lawsuits if you don't comply with that.
Lawsuits can be brought whenever the manufacturer or seller knowingly
made any false entry or failed to make, negligently or otherwise, an
appropriate entry in any record required to be kept under Federal or
State law with respect to the qualified product or if they aided or
abetted or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious
oral or written statements with respect to any material fact to the law
necessary in the sale or other disposition of the qualified product.
And if they can maintain a lawsuit also, if you aided and abetted or
conspired to sell or dispose of a qualified product, knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe the buyer of the qualified product was
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm, which would include
a straw purchase, if you know you are selling it to this person and you
know it is going to that person, then you would know that would be
improper and it would be a negligent entrustment or violation of the
statute.
I think those are important exceptions, as are many others. So it
doesn't give immunity to gun dealers. That much we can say for sure.
Now, it has been said that, well, these dealers--this little gunshop
down here did something wrong and they would have insurance and the
insurance company would pay. It is not so bad on them. But, Mr.
President, that is a slippery slope, an unwise public policy argument
that I think we use too much. One of the things that raises questions
in my mind about the effectiveness of a lot of litigation today is it
is argued that it is going to punish this person who did something
wrong. But in truth, the insurance company pays all of it probably--
maybe all of it, maybe a small deductible is paid by the wrongdoer, and
insurance company pays the cost of defending the lawsuit. It is not the
wrongdoer. So the juries are told they are punishing this wrongdoer who
made an error, but really the insurance company pays it. What happens?
They raise the rates on everybody. So if one gun dealer has messed up
and he gets sued, as he should be, and he has to pay a verdict, the
weird way our system is working today is the insurance company pays the
verdict, and everybody's rates go up--every gun dealer who complies
with the law, their rates go up too. It is something that has been
bothering me as time goes by.
They are stating, as legal theories, broad powers and requesting
broad relief, similar to some of the things I mentioned here in the
District of Columbia in the Beretta letter. Sometimes the plaintiffs
have argued that the very sale of a large number of guns and pistols,
when a manufacturer knows that some of those ``might'' end up in the
hands of criminals, means that they become liable. What kind of law is
that? It is a stretch beyond the breaking point that if you comply with
the law, you sell a firearm to a lawful customer in your shop and they
have the proper identification, and you take all the proper steps,
somehow that you become liable if that person utilizes it unlawfully or
sells it or gives it to somebody who utilizes it unlawfully.
That is not the way the American legal system works. Those are the
kinds of lawsuits being pushed, I submit, for political reasons because
people are frustrated that they have not been able to get the
legislatures to eliminate firearms. Who should be liable? The person
who commits the crime. John Malvo--if he commits a crime using a gun,
he should be the one that pays and is sued in our system but, of
course, people say Malvo doesn't have any money, so we will sue Wal-
Mart because Wal-Mart sold the gun to somebody and it eventually went
through somebody's hands and they got it, or whatever store sold the
gun. Or we will even sue Smith & Wesson in Boston because they sold the
gun and somebody was injured with it. What kind of law is that? I am
very concerned about this theory. We have moved so far from our
principle of liability. That is why it is quite appropriate here. And
there may be other instances with other businesses around the country
that are being unfairly held liable for actions that should not be
their responsibility.
I will make a point about the serial number. I raised an issue I am
personally aware of. The manufacturers have to put a serial number on
every gun, which has to be recorded every step of the way as it moves
from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the subdistributor, to
the retail store, to the customer. They are recorded and kept up with.
A statement is filed including the name, address, phone number,
driver's license, and a number of other things that are required by
State and Federal law before it can ever be sold. It is now, and has
been for many years, a crime to produce a gun that does not have that
serial number, and it is a crime to erase it. It is a crime to sell a
gun that doesn't have a serial number on it or has a number that has
been erased. When I was a Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted many cases--
30, 40, or 50 cases--in which criminals, thinking they could somehow
avoid detection, would file off the serial number or somebody filed it
off for somebody and delivered it to them, and both of them have
committed a crime at that point. That is because we want to be able to
identify that weapon and not have it subject to moving around without
being able to be identified.
I would just say, there are a lot of laws that we pass in our legal
system to clamp down on the sale of guns because they are, indeed, a
dangerous instrumentality. But our Constitution provides the right of
citizens to keep and bear arms. Our State and local laws provide that
protection to our citizens, and we set many restrictions on it. The
problem we are dealing with is the possibility that courts will create
legal liability on a manufacturer of a lawful product, a lawful product
that has been sold according to the strict requirements of Federal and
State law, and that they somehow become an insurer of everything wrong
that occurs as a result of the utilization of that lawful product.
All we are trying to do is bring some balance. I think the statute
has been gone over for many years now. People on both sides of the
aisle understand; there are probably 60-plus votes of people who are
prepared to vote for this
[[Page S8918]]
legislation. One reason it has that kind of broad support is that the
bugs have been worked out of it. Things that would have gone too far
have been eliminated. People have had many months to review it. I think
we have a good piece of legislation.
I respect my colleagues who differ, but I strongly think it would be
in the interest of good public policy to pass this legislation, and
that is why I support it.
I offer the letter from the Beretta Corporation and ask unanimous
consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
Accokeek, MD, May 11, 2005.
Hon. Richard B. Cheney,
Vice President of the United States, Eisenhower Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Vice President: A few weeks ago, the Washington,
D.C. Court of Appeals issued a decision supporting a D.C.
statute that holds the manufacturers of semiautomatic pistols
and rifles strictly liable for any crime committed in the
District with such a firearm.
Passed in 1991, the D.C. statute had not been used until
the District of Columbia recently filed a lawsuit against the
firearm industry in an attempt to hold firearm makers,
importers and distributors liable for the cost of criminal
gun misuse in the District. Although the Court of Appeals
(sitting en banc in the case D.C. v. Beretta U.S.A. et al.)
dismissed many parts of the case, it affirmed the D.C. strict
liability statute and, moreover, ruled that victims of gun
violence can sue firearm manufacturers simply to determine
whether that company's firearm was used in the victim's
shooting.
It is unlawful to possess most firearms in the District
(including semiautomatic pistols) and it is unlawful to
assault someone using a firearm. Notwithstanding these two
criminal acts, neither of which are within the control of or
can be prevented by firearm makers, the D.C. strict liability
statute (and the D.C. Court of Appeals decision supporting
it) will make firearm manufacturers liable for all costs
attributed to such shootings, even if the firearm involved
was originally sold in a state far from the District to a
lawful customer.
Beretta U.S.A. Corp. makes the standard sidearm for the
U.S. Armed Forces (the Beretta M9 9mm pistol). We have long-
term contracts right now to supply this pistol to our
fighting forces in Iraq and these pistols have been used
extensively in combat during the current campaign, just as
they have seen use since adopted by the Armed Forces in 1985.
Beretta U.S.A also supplies pistols to law enforcement
departments throughout the U.S., including the Maryland State
Police, Los Angeles City Police Department and to the Chicago
Police Department. We also supply firearms used for self-
protection and for sporting purposes to private citizens
throughout our country.
The decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals to uphold the
D.C. strict liability statute has the likelihood of
bankrupting, not only Beretta U.S.A., but every maker of
semiautomatic pistols and rifles since 1991. There are
hundreds of homicides committed with firearms each year in
D.C. and additional hundreds of injuries involving criminal
misuse of firearms. No firearm maker has the resources to
defend against hundreds of lawsuits each year and, if that
company's pistol or rifle is determined to have been used in
a criminal shooting in the District, these companies do not
have the resources to pay the resultant judgment against
them--a judgment against which they would have no defense if
the pistol or rifle was originally sold to a civilian
customer.
When the D.C. law was passed in 1991, it was styled to
apply only to the makers of ``assault rifles'' and
machineguns. Strangely, the definition of ``machinegun'' in
the statute includes semiautomatic firearms capable of
holding more than 12 rounds. Since any magazine-fed firearm
is capable of receiving magazines (whether made by the
firearm manufacturer or by someone else later) that hold more
than 12 rounds, this means that such a product is considered
a machinegun in the District, even though it is semiautomatic
and even if it did not hold 12 rounds at the time of its
misuse.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397 and.
H.R. 800) would stop this remarkable and egregious decision
by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The Act, if passed, will block
lawsuits against the distributors and dealers of firearms for
criminal misuse of their products over which they have no
control.
We urgently request your support for this legislation.
Without it, companies like Beretta U.S.A., Colt, Smith &
Wesson, Ruger and dozens of others could be wiped out by a
flood of lawsuits emanating from the District.
This is not a theoretical concern. The instrument to
deprive U.S. citizens of the tools through which they enjoy
their 2nd Amendment freedoms now rests in the hands of trial
lawyers in the District. Equally grave, control of the future
supply of firearms needed by our fighting forces and by law
enforcement officials and private citizens throughout the
U.S. also rests in the hands of these attorneys.
We will seek Supreme Court review of this decision, but the
result of a Supreme Court review is also not guaranteed. Your
help in supporting S. 397 and H.R. 800 might provide our only
other chance at survival.
Sincerest and respectful regards,
Jeffrey K. Reh,
General Counsel,
and Vice-General Manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is an important debate and
discussion, but I ask unanimous consent to speak on a different topic
and have it count against the 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Guaranteed Veterans Healthcare
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I had hoped at this time to come to the
floor to vote on an amendment that I introduced with Senator Tim
Johnson and other colleagues, to make sure that veterans health care
funding is, in fact, secured and stable for the future through an
amendment which was supported by the American Legion--by many groups--
the Disabled American Veterans, Blind Veterans of America, Jewish War
Veterans of the USA, AMVETS, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed
Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans--all of
whom want us to pass the Stabenow amendment which would make veterans
health care funding mandatory, reliable, rather than having the
situation we are in with the VA coming to us with a shortfall right now
and asking for emergency funding, then a debate on what we are going to
do for next year.
This is a very important amendment. It was pending prior to the vote
on whether to invoke cloture, or to bring one level of debate to a
close. If cloture had been invoked, this amendment would not be in
order to be voted on. It would not have been in order, which is why,
among other reasons, I voted not to proceed to invoking cloture.
There are a number of very important amendments that address the
needs of our troops and their families, and other important issues
about keeping us safe, securing nuclear materials, and other critical
issues that were brought forward by colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. These are amendments that need to be debated and included, in
many instances, I would say, in the Defense reauthorization bill.
I am deeply disappointed that instead of proceeding with that work
and getting it done in the next day or two, which we on this side of
the aisle committed to do--our leader indicated we would commit to stay
here and get that work done--instead of doing that, we saw the
leadership put this aside and go to another issue that is of concern, I
know, to the gun industry.
But we are at war. We are at war. We have men and women who need our
best efforts, both those who are our troops serving us, as well as
those who have a veteran's cap on right now who have served us in other
wars or come home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
I want to speak to the Defense authorization bill which I strongly
support, as well as the amendment that I hope we will return to when we
come back to the Defense bill. I hope it will be very quickly because
our men and women in the armed services are counting on us to get the
work done and make it the best product we can possibly make it in terms
of our national defense and the Defense reauthorization.
I do support the 2006 Defense authorization bill. I believe providing
the equipment and resources our service men and women need to do their
jobs is one of our most important responsibilities, which is why I wish
we were debating that right now. This duty is especially important, as
I said before, in a time of war. As everyone knows, our men and women
in uniform are under tremendous stress as they either prepare to deploy
or are currently serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am
pleased the Defense reauthorization bill will authorize a 3.1-percent
pay raise for military personnel and provide $70 million in additional
funds for childcare and family assistance services for our military
families.
I know Senator Murray has an additional amendment that relates to
supporting families and childcare, which I think is very important.
Foremost in the minds of the men and women in uniform with whom I
[[Page S8919]]
visit is the safety and security of their families. The bill that was
pulled in order to have this debate on gun manufacturers is a bill that
also authorizes $350 million in additional funding for up-armored
vehicles, and $500 million for the Improvised Explosive Device Task
Force.
It also continues our strong support for the Nunn-Lugar cooperative
threat reduction programs that work to keep weapons of mass destruction
out of the hands of terrorists--an incredibly important effort that
needs to be fully funded and receive our full commitment in every way.
These and other important provisions of this legislation will help
make our country safer, make our troops safer and more capable as they
serve us abroad.
I met with men and women from Michigan and across the country who are
recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Some have suffered minor
injuries that will not have a dramatic impact on the rest of their
lives. Others, because of their injuries, will need years of
rehabilitation and will face considerable obstacles as they return to
their civilian lives. We owe these men and women our continued support
so they can recover from their injuries and lead productive lives.
Today's soldiers are tomorrow's veterans. America has made a promise
to these brave men and women to provide them with the care they need
and deserve. They deserve the respect and support of a grateful nation
when they return home. We also owe it to the men and women who have
fought America's prior conflicts to maintain a place for them in the VA
system so they can receive the care they need. We need to keep our
promises to our veterans, young and old.
Today, I was privileged to participate in a press conference before
the question came up about closing debate on these kinds of amendments.
I was pleased that the current National Commander, Tom Cadmus, who is
from Michigan, was there representing the American Legion. There were
numerous other veterans organizations represented, as I listed earlier
in my comments. All of them were saying to us: Let's stop this taking
from one pocket to put in the other, taking from Peter to pay Paul,
with our veterans. Let's keep the promise of veterans health care,
period, and put veterans health care into a category that will allow
that to happen on an ongoing basis.
I believe we must consider the ongoing costs of medical care for
America's veterans as part of the continuing costs of national defense.
The long-term legacy of the wars we fight today is the care for the men
and women who have worn the uniform and been willing to pay the
ultimate price for their Nation.
Senator Johnson and I and other colleagues are offering this
amendment, which is currently still pending on the Department of
Defense reauthorization, to provide full funding for VA health care to
ensure that the VA has the resources necessary to provide quality
health care in a timely manner to our Nation's sick and disabled
veterans. The Stabenow-Johnson amendment provides guaranteed funding
for America's veterans from two sources. First, the legislation
provides an annual discretionary amount that would be locked in future
years at the 2005 funding level. Second, in the future--and
importantly--the VA would receive a sum of mandatory funding that would
be adjusted year to year based on changes in demand from the VA health
care system and the rate of health care inflation. In other words, it
would depend on the number of veterans rather than this arbitrary
debate now on inflationary increases.
We know the current formulation has not worked because the VA tells
us that they are over $1 billion short now in funding for health care
services for our veterans. I think that is absolutely inexcusable, and
it needs to be fixed permanently. The amendment that we have offered
creates a funding mechanism that will ensure that the VA has the
resources it needs to provide a steady and reliable stream of funds to
care for America's veterans, and it will also ensure that Congress will
continue to be responsible for the oversight of the VA health care
system, as it does with other Federal programs that are funded directly
from the U.S. Treasury.
In fact, this amendment would bring funding for veterans health care
into line with almost 90 percent of the health care funding that is
provided by the Federal Government. Almost 90 percent of federally
funded health care programs are in the mandatory category, not
discretionary. Why in the world would we say to our veterans they don't
deserve the same kind of treatment in terms of the Federal budget for
mandatory spending that other programs receive, such as Medicare and
Medicaid?
The amendment also requires a review in 2 years by the Comptroller
General to determine whether adequate funding for veterans health care
was achieved. Depending on the outcome of this review, Congress would
have the opportunity to make changes to the law to ensure that veterans
receive the care they deserve.
The problem we face today is that resources for veterans health care
are falling behind demand. In other words, we are creating more
veterans than we are covering under our health care system. Shortly
after coming into office, the President created a task force to improve
health care delivery for our Nation's veterans. The task force found
that historically there has been a gap between the demand for VA care
and the resources to meet the need. The task force also found that:
The current mismatch is far greater . . . and its impact
potentially far more detrimental, both to the VA's ability to
furnish high-quality care and to support the system to serve
those in need.
The task force released its report in May of 2003, well before we
understood the impact of our men and women fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and what that would mean to our veterans' health care
system. If this mismatch between demand and resources was bad in May of
2003, imagine what it is today. That is why we see this gap. That is
why we need to address--and the Senate has now passed, twice--$1.5
billion for emergency spending for veterans health care.
Over 360,000 soldiers have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, and
over 86,000 have sought health care up to this point from the VA.
There are an additional 740,000 military personnel who served in Iraq
and Afghanistan. They are still in the service. This next generation of
veterans will be eligible for VA health care and will place additional
demands on a system that is already strained.
In addition, each reservist and National Guardsman who has served in
Iraq is eligible for 2 years of free health care at the VA. I support
that. The administration has in its own way admitted that they do not
have sufficient resources to provide adequate care for America's
veterans. While they would not until recently admit that there was a
shortfall, they have for years attempted to ration care and cut
services at the expense of our Nation's veterans. This is just not
acceptable.
In 2003, the VA banned the enrollment of new priority 8 veterans. For
the past 3 years I fought attempts by the administration to charge our
middle-class veterans a $250 enrollment fee to join the VA health care
system, and a 100-percent increase in prescription drug copays.
This year the administration also proposed slashing Federal support
for the State veterans homes from $114 million to $12 million. The
heads of the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans and the D.J. Jacobetti Home
for Veterans in Marquette tell me these cuts would be devastating to
them in serving our veterans in Michigan. The fiscal year 2005 and 2006
VA health budgets are a case study in why Congress should guarantee
reliable and adequate resources through direct spending. Last March,
the President submitted an inadequate fiscal year 2005 budget request
for VA health care to Congress. That fell $3.2 billion short of the
recommendation of the Independent Budget, which is an annual estimate
of critical veterans health care needs by a coalition of leading
veterans organizations. In fact, in February 2004, Anthony Principi,
then the Secretary of the VA, testified before Congress that the
request the President submitted to Congress fell $1.2 billion short of
the amount he had recommended. It then fell to Congress to again
increase the amount provided to VA for health care. The final amount
Congress provided to the VA for health care was $1.2 billion over the
President's request. While above the President's request, it was
[[Page S8920]]
still not enough to meet the immediate needs.
In April of this year, I supported an amendment by Senator Murray to
the fiscal year 2005 supplemental to Iraq and Afghanistan to provide
$1.9 billion for veterans medical care, specifically for those veterans
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the debate on the amendment, we were again told that the
President's budget was sufficient. In fact, on April 5, Secretary of
Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson sent a letter to the Senate that said:
I can assure you that the VA does not need emergency
supplemental funds in the 2005 budget to continue to provide
timely quality service. That is always our goal.
Mr. President, since April the story has changed, and we now know the
truth.
On June 23, 2005, the VA testified before Congress that they
forecasted a 2.5-percent growth in demand--in other words, more
veterans, as we have all been saying, more veterans coming into the
system--when in fact the increased demand this year is 5 percent. They
said 2.5 percent; it actually was 5 percent. This has left the VA with
a $1 billion shortfall. I was proud to support an amendment the
following week to the Senate's Interior appropriations bill that
provided an additional $1.5 billion for veterans health care. The
following day, on June 30, the House passed emergency supplemental
legislation that would cut this by $575 million, in line with the
President's request.
At the time, our friends in the House suggested that the Senate was
making up numbers. In fact, we wanted to be sure that the VA had enough
funds to cover the shortfall and to cover any potential shortfall of
next year. As it turned out, we received more bad news from the
administration a couple weeks ago, on July 14, when the administration
requested another $300 million for this year and a whopping $1.7
billion for next year. The total shortfall for this year and next now
stands at nearly $3 billion.
The Interior appropriations bill is currently in conference. I am
hopeful that the bill will include $1.5 billion for this year, as the
Senate has twice unanimously supported. Further, last week the Senate
Appropriations Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee,
under the able leadership of Senator Hutchison and Senator Feinstein,
included extra funding to cover the 2006 shortfall in VA health care.
Mr. President, I recall all of these events to make two points.
First, it is clear that the demand for VA health care is increasing,
and a good portion of this increase can be attributed to men and women
seeking care after they have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Second
is to show that despite the best intentions of the VA and Congress, the
VA does not have a reliable, and dependable stream of funding to
provide for veterans health care needs. We should not have to pass an
emergency funding bill to give our veterans the health care they have
earned.
Imagine that. It is not acceptable. It has been over a month and
Congress has still not resolved the $1.3 billion shortfall in VA
medical services for this year. We owe our service men and women more
than that.
In 1993, there were about 2\1/2\ million veterans in the VA system,
and there are more than 7 million veterans enrolled in the system, over
half of which receive care on a regular basis today. Despite the
increase in patients, the VA has received an average of a 5-percent
increase in appropriations over the last 8 years. At last count, at
least 86,000 men and women who have returned from Iraq have sought
health care from the VA, and we can safely assume this number will
reach hundreds of thousands. This bill gives the resources our troops
need to prepare and defend our country in Iraq. We must not forget them
when they come home. We have an obligation to keep our promises to our
veterans.
Mr. President, I am very hopeful that we will quickly return to the
Defense reauthorization bill and have the opportunity to show our
veterans all across America that we will permanently keep our
commitment to them by passing the Stabenow-Johnson amendment. There are
other important amendments that remain in front of us now because we
have discontinued the opportunity for us to improve on this bill, a
bill I support, but a bill that needs to be the very best that we can
do for our men and women serving us today and for our veterans. I hope
we will quickly return to it and that we will get about the business of
continuing to work on these critical amendments and quickly bring this
to a close. And we can do it this week if there is the will to do it so
that we provide the very best to our men and women in service and those
who have come home and put on the veterans cap.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time under the 30 hours to
Senator Reed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. First, let me thank the Senator for yielding the time. I
appreciate that very much. I want to make some brief comments.
My colleague and friend from Alabama made reference to the Beretta
Company and apparently their concern about legislation in the District
of Columbia. I want to make a few points to clarify what I believe the
context of this letter from Beretta is. First, the District of Columbia
Council apparently passed strict liability legislation which is an
example of an elected body, not a judge, making up laws. We might
disagree with them, but the point is that this is an elected body doing
this; this is not judge-made law. As I understand it, the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia simply upheld the statute. They
acted appropriately, procedurally correct, and the statute is in force.
I do not know if this is the intent of the suggestion, but a lot of the
debate today has been about letting legislators and legislatures do
their jobs without defying the court. In this situation of Beretta,
that is exactly what happened. The DC Council acted, the court of
appeals said we have no reason to disagree substantively with what you
have done and the law stands.
But I think there are much more important points to be made in the
context of this legislation. The proposed legislation is not simply
attempting to eliminate claims of strict liability against gun
manufacturers, gun dealers, and trade associations. It goes all the way
to wiping out a broad array of negligence claims. And the essence of
negligence is that the defendant, or the one who is being accused of
negligence, must fail to perform some duty, the duty to the injured
party.
There has to be some personal action, not simply doing something that
has been legislatively ruled to be wrong. In that context, one can look
at the concerns of the Beretta Company about strict liability much
differently than in this legislation, and I think it would be wrong to
assume and argue that because they are concerned about strict liability
applied entirely to the legislation before us.
Now I assume they oppose the legislation. But the issue is much
broader than strict liability; it is negligence. It is not a situation
where a manufacturer or an individual will be held liable for something
they never did. The essence of negligence is you have to fail to
perform a duty, and that is at the heart of the legislation before us,
providing broad exemptions and immunities for gun dealers, gun
manufacturers, and trade associations whose own conduct would at least
lead to allegations in court of negligent behavior.
I wanted to make those two points, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask to speak on a nongermane topic for
approximately 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the time
would be counted against the 30 hours; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. No objection.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
[[Page S8921]]
Brian Harvey
Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to honor Brian Harvey. He is a
loving husband, father, grandfather, teacher, advocate, and a hero in
the fight to protect Americans from deadly asbestos.
Anyone who has followed the debate over asbestos in Congress will
immediately remember Brian for his booming voice, for the way he could
capture the attention of every person in a packed committee hearing
room and for his commitment to saving lives and bringing victims the
justice they deserve.
This picture shows him doing what he did best: urging Congress to ban
asbestos and to protect victims. Brian Harvey is my hero.
Mr. President, it is my sad duty today to report to the Senate that
Brian passed away on Friday, July 22. Today, I want to extend my
condolences to his entire family, including his wife Sue, his daughter
Valerie, his stepchildren Ethan, Anne, and Amy, and his three
grandchildren. But mostly I want to share my thanks that Brian was
given more time on this Earth than many asbestos victims and that he
used that time to help others.
I was very lucky to work with Brian over the past 3 years. We came
together at an important time in both our lives and in the history of
congressional action on asbestos. Back in 2002, Brian was defying the
odds in fighting mesothelioma and looking for a way to share his
experience and to help others. At the same time, I was 1 year into my
effort in the Senate to ban asbestos.
I was surprised and horrified to learn that asbestos was still being
put in lots of commonly used consumer products on purpose. In my
research, I learned about the deadly toll of asbestos diseases and
about the lack of prevention, research, and treatment. I wrote a bill
to address those critical needs. I was very proud to have Brian Harvey
at my side and at the podium as I introduced that bill in June of 2002.
Brian Harvey is my hero because he never hesitated to stand up and
speak truth to power. Whenever we had a hearing or press conference,
whenever Senators needed to understand the horror of asbestos disease,
whenever my legislation needed a little boost or a powerful push, Brian
Harvey was the first person on a plane from Washington State all the
way here to Washington, DC.
Like so many asbestos victims, Brian was exposed to asbestos through
no fault of his own. Brian grew up in Shelton, WA, and like me he
attended Washington State University. During his summers back in
college, Brian worked at a paper products mill in Shelton, WA. That is
where he was exposed to asbestos fibers, but the damage of that
exposure would not be revealed until three decades later.
In September of 1999, Brian experienced shortness of breath and
fatigue. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and the odds were stacked
against him. Most people diagnosed with mesothelioma who do not receive
treatment die within 8 months. Those who do receive treatment increase
their life expectancy to an average of only 18 months. Overall, a
person's chance of surviving 5 years is 1 in 20. Brian lived 6 years
after being diagnosed. He was truly one in a million.
Brian Harvey was lucky in many ways. He was diagnosed early. He got
experimental treatment at the University of Washington. He had skilled
doctors and medical professionals, and he had the support of his entire
family and many friends. Many asbestos victims are not that lucky.
Brian recognized that, and he used the time he was given to speak up
for others whose lives and families have been torn apart by asbestos.
Brian Harvey is my hero because he did not despair about his own
personal challenges. Instead, he shared those challenges with all of
us, helping us to understand the threat and to inspire change in our
public policy. And he did it with an actor's presence and a deeply
human personal touch. Brian used to say to me that the left side of his
body was made of Gore-Tex. And it was. But that did not explain Brian's
toughness or his determination.
That came solely from his heart.
Brian Harvey is my hero because he made a difference. He pushed
Congress to treat victims fairly and to ban asbestos. While that work
is still a work in progress, Brian's voice and passion echo as loudly
today as they did that day 3 years ago when he stood beside me as we
introduced the bill for the first time. Brian Harvey is my hero because
in the face of so many challenges that could have drained his energy,
he found the strength inside to fight the good fight.
Every time I stood up for asbestos victims, Brian Harvey was at my
side. He was there on June 28, 2002, when I first introduced my bill.
He was by my side in June of 2003 when we stood together to call for
fairness for asbestos victims. On March 5, 2003, Brian testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and with his passion and power he
called for increased detection and fair compensation for asbestos
victims. Three months later, on June 24, 2003, the Judiciary Committee
included my ban in its reform bill. On March 25, 2004, at a press
conference to call for passage of my bill, Brian Harvey was there as
well.
It is very hard for me to picture the next hearing or press
conference without Brian standing by my side. But I will continue the
fight. When Brian and I met 3 years ago, the odds were against both of
us. The medical odds were against Brian. Every day for him was a
triumph. And the legislative odds, the chance we could pass a bill,
were against both of us. We have made progress, but we are not there
yet. I know it will be harder without Brian's advocacy, but I also know
he has done so much to bring that goal now within reach. I know
eventually we will ban asbestos, we will ensure victims are treated
fairly, we will find new treatments for asbestos disease, and we will
protect future generations from this epidemic. When that day comes, all
of us will have Brian Harvey to thank.
Again, I extend my thoughts and my prayers to Brian's lovely family
and his many friends. Last week, when Brian was in the hospital, I
spoke to his wife Sue and his daughter Anne. Brian was not well enough
for me to speak with him, but I talked to the nurse at his bedside. I
asked her to tell Brian something that I have always wanted him to
know: You are my hero. Brian Harvey was given extra time on this planet
to help other people. That is exactly what he did. Brian Harvey will
always be my hero.
I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tragedy At The Boy Scout Jamboree
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when people ask me what is the best
thing about Alaska, I can talk about the mountains, I can talk about
the trees, I can talk about our great salmon. They are all very
wonderful, very special. But the very best thing about Alaska is its
people. The spirit of voluntarism and civic engagement is what makes
Alaska one of the best places in the Nation to live and to raise
families.
Alaskans not only invest their time and energy in their own children,
they also invest it in the development of their neighbors' children.
This spirit of giving manifests itself in the thousands of hours that
adult volunteers contribute to youth activities, such as Scouting.
Scouting enriches the lives of young people in many parts of my State
because adult volunteers give generously of their time to work with our
young people. My two boys have proudly participated in Scouting in the
Mat-Su Western District as members of Troop 176 in Anchorage. I am very
proud of the opportunities they have through Boy Scouts.
Now, as we know, last evening there were four adult volunteers who
were associated with the Western Alaskan Council of the Boy Scouts of
America who lost their lives at the Boy Scout Jamboree which is taking
place at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredricksburg, VA. Accounts in the
newspapers this morning back home in Anchorage were riveting,
[[Page S8922]]
tragic, and I think they hit all of us in a place in our heart we are
always going to remember.
Mr. President, the four gentlemen who were killed last evening were:
Ron Bitzer of Anchorage. Ron and his wife Karen had just recently
made the decision to move out of State. They were selling their home,
and they were going to be moving out of State.
Michael LaCroix, who I had the privilege of working with on the Boys
& Girls Club board. Mike was a small businessman and owned a very
successful business in Anchorage. He was with his son here in the
jamboree.
Michael Shibe of Anchorage was also here with two of his sons, twin
boys.
The fourth individual was Scott Powell. Scott moved from Alaska, as I
understand, just last year. He had served for more than 20 years as the
program director of Camp Gorsuch, which is the Boy Scout camp in
Alaska.
In my office today, we were talking about Scott Powell and the
recognition that just about every Boy Scout in Alaska and the moms and
dads who go either to help out at the camp or go there for the end-of-
camp ceremonies knew, recognized, and loved Scott Powell. He touched
the lives of countless Alaskan youth.
All of these gentlemen are going to be terribly, terribly missed.
Another Alaskan volunteer, Larry Call, of Anchorage, was injured in
the incident. We understand he is hospitalized. Of course, we are
praying for his speedy recovery.
I do not intend to dwell this afternoon on the tragic details of what
has happened. The fact is, these men are heroes and should not be
remembered for the way they lost their lives but for how they lived
their lives. This is a phrase that was coined by Vivian Eney, the widow
of a U.S. Capitol Police officer, who lost her husband in a sudden and
unexpected training accident.
The four Scout leaders who we pause to think about today will be
remembered for the way they lived their lives. They will be remembered
as heroes for the service they gave to the young people of Alaska.
At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
observe a moment of silence so we may reflect upon the events that
occurred last evening and so we may also express our love and our
support for the Scouts and their family members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(Moment of silence.)
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my message to the families of these
five outstanding leaders and to all of the Boy Scouts in Alaska and
around the world is simple: Please know that the Senate and, indeed,
the Nation grieves with you on this very difficult day.
I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski for her
eloquent remarks and for taking this opportunity to reflect on the
contribution of these Boy Scout leaders to the moral and spiritual and
emotional and psychological maturation of young boys.
The truth is, young boys today are having a harder time than girls in
relation to their graduation rate from college, their crime rate, their
imprisonment rate. There are other problems occurring in boys. Boys are
struggling in our society today.
I am a strong believer in the Boy Scouts. I thank so much the Senator
from Alaska for her kind remarks. I had the honor to be an Eagle Scout.
Every Thursday night, a group of us from Hybart, AL, met in Camden, AL,
which was 15 miles north of Hybart. Hybart was just a little crossroads
community. My father had a country store. There were a couple little
stores. People were farmers and carpenters and worked at the railroad
or whatever.
There were nine boys there. Of those nine boys, eight became Eagle
Scouts. I don't think a single one had a parent who graduated
completely from college. One became a Life Scout, he almost became an
Eagle Scout. And as I think of those kids with whom I grew up, they did
well. One is a Ph.D. now, teaching at the University of South Carolina.
One is a dentist in Charleston. One is a medical doctor, Johnny Hybart
from Hybart. He is in Pensacola now, working at the hospital there. Bob
Vick is a CPA. Pete Miles is an engineering graduate and a former plant
manager at a major corporation. And Andy and Greg Johnson both
graduated from college, one in engineering and one in business, and are
very successful. Mike Hybart graduated with a horticulture degree from
Auburn and is in the real estate business now.
It was a great pleasure for me to participate as a member of Troop 94
in Camden. As the Senator from Alaska read the names of Michael Shibe
and Michael LaCroix and Ronald Bitzer and Scott Edward Powell, who were
killed serving their boys, I thought of people who meant so much to me:
John Gates and Peyton Burford and Billy Malone and Dean Tait, and quite
a number of others, and Rev. Frank Scott, my Methodist preacher who
traveled with us on trips, and how much that meant to me and us as a
community and how it shaped our lives in ways that are really
unknowable.
I also remember the most exciting trip I ever took; it was with Troop
94 and we stayed at Fort A.P. Hill, Camp A.P. Hill, I believe it was
called at the time. As our troop came to Washington, I do not think a
single member of the troop had ever been to Washington. We were from
rural Alabama. Our leaders decided it would be a big trip, and
everybody planned it for a year or more, and we came up.
Our Scoutmaster, Mr. John Gates, was quite a leader, and Peyton
Burford and the team of adults made it a highly successful trip. It was
in the springtime, as I recall, and I do not think they had hot water
at A.P. Hill. It was cold water, but they made you take a shower. We
stayed in the old barracks that were vacant at the time. The Army was
very helpful to us in making that facility available. We were able to
use it as a base to come in to Washington and to tour the area during a
trip that was very, very, very meaningful to me and to others.
I have on my mantlepiece in my office here in Washington, on this
very day, a picture of that troop with all those kids--60 or more, I
guess it was. A big chunk--maybe 12 or 14--at that time were Eagle
Scouts, and more than that became Eagle Scouts.
It was a very, very important part of our lives. The key to it was
good leadership. Our leaders, as those leaders in Alaska, gave untold
hours to make those events meaningful. If you were not a good leader,
you would not be able to maintain a troop, and you would not be able to
bring them from Alaska all the way down to A.P. Hill in Virginia as
part of a Jamboree.
There are 32,000 Scouts at that Jamboree, I understand, with over
3,000 leaders present. It is a very important and good thing that at
this very moment we think about the thousands and thousands of leaders
in the Scouting program all over America who have meant so much to
young people and have shaped their lives in so many positive ways that
would not have happened otherwise.
When you go to your Scout meeting--every Thursday night, as we did--
you say that oath: On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God
and my country, to obey the Scout laws, to help other people at all
times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally
straight.
Some find that offensive. I can't imagine why. What kind of objection
could somebody have to ideals such as that. Every week you also recite
the Scout laws. A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty--you don't hear that word
much anymore--brave, clean and reverent. Those are good qualities. I
don't see anything in those qualities that violates the Constitution or
should in any way cause them to not be able to be supported by the
military on their bases.
I am thankful that the majority leader, Bill Frist, offered
legislation to make crystal clear that Scouts will be able to
participate actively on our military facilities as they have for so
many years. Along with Senator Reed--a graduate of West Point he is--I
serve on the board of West Point with him. Senator Reed chairs that
board. I remember one of the briefings we had about the young people
who graduate from West Point and go on to a military career. They said
the two groups of graduates that had the highest reenlistment rate, the
two groups that made the Army a career in the highest
[[Page S8923]]
percentage, were children of former military parents and Eagle Scouts.
There is some connection there, a connection in terms of duty and
honor and commitment to country and to our creator in a way that is
special. The Scouts and our military do share some ideals.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to share these remarks. I
appreciate the Senator from Alaska so much for her tribute to these
fine leaders who gave their lives in service to the young men under
their supervision.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we are currently debating the
motion to proceed on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
Act. I am supportive of this legislation. I am happy to see 65 of my
colleagues join me in invoking cloture today so we can reach resolution
on the bill later this week. This is critical legislation for gun
manufacturers, some of whom work in my State and employ hard-working
Texans. It is important for our economy and for our national security.
I plan to speak about this issue in greater detail later, but I wanted
to take a few moments to address another urgent matter.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and that the
time be discounted against the 30 hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration Reform
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today, Chairman Specter of the
Senate Judiciary Committee convened a very important hearing addressing
one of the most urgent matters confronting our Nation; that is, the
need to fix our broken immigration system. I want to speak a few
minutes about a proposal that I have made, along with my colleague from
Arizona, Senator Kyl, together representing two border States, ones
that perhaps have the most experience with this issue because of our
proximity to the border with Mexico.
In summary, this bill strengthens our border enforcement while it
comprehensively reforms our immigration system. Unfortunately, the
ongoing immigration debate has too often divided Americans of goodwill
into two camps--those who are angry and frustrated by our failure to
enforce the law, and those who are angry and frustrated that our
immigration laws do not reflect reality. I have learned that those two
groups, both of whom deeply care about America and are committed to
building a system that works, share more in common than they or many
other people actually realize. The only groups who benefit from the
current system are human smugglers, unscrupulous employers, and others
who profit at the expense of people who are trying to come into this
country and work through illegal channels. Unfortunately, we know that
those channels are being investigated and potentially exploited by
those who want to come here to do us harm.
The reality is we need both stronger enforcement and reasonable
reform of our immigration laws. It is my opinion that we, in the past,
have not devoted the funds, the resources, or the manpower necessary to
enforce our immigration laws or to protect our borders. No discussion
of reform is possible without a clear commitment to--and a substantial
escalation of--our efforts to enforce the law.
Over a series of months now, as chairman of the Immigration
Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have come to believe
that increased enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. Any reform
proposal must both serve our national security and our national
economy. It must be capable of securing our country, but it must also
be compatible with our growing economy.
As I mentioned a moment ago, as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Immigration, I have worked closely with Senator Kyl, who chairs the
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to conduct a
thorough review of our Nation's immigration laws. We have covered a
wide variety of subjects, and we have had the opportunity to hear from
a diverse group of experts. From an analysis of how the immigration
system failed on 9/11, to the role of our neighboring countries in
raising living standards in their home countries, our hearings have
laid a foundation upon which we have developed a comprehensive
solution, one that will not result in yet another immigration crisis
some 10 or 20 years down the road.
We all know our immigration system has been broken for many years.
First, the volume of illegal immigration continues to increase.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there has been a dramatic
increase in illegal immigration since 9/11, approximately 30% since
2000. That same organization estimates there are approximately 10.3
million illegal aliens in the United States currently.
Over the course of the 1990s, the number of illegal aliens increased
by half a million a year, almost matching the number of visas that
Congress has made available for legal immigrants. Last year alone, the
Border Patrol detained roughly 1.1 million aliens who had come across
the border. Professionals I have talked with on my travels to Texas and
along the border, people whose experience and professionalism I trust,
estimate that we are only detaining perhaps one out of every three or
one out of every four people who are coming across our borders
illegally.
Second, and for me the most alarming, is the information that
suggests that terrorists and other criminals, including smugglers, are
aware of the holes in our system. They may be--and I am confident that
they are--looking at ways to exploit these weaknesses.
In recent visits in McAllen, TX, and Laredo, TX, I learned from
people who have been long familiar with the movement of people back and
forwards across our borders that the nature of illegal immigration has
changed dramatically. The number of aliens from noncontiguous
countries, sometimes called OTMs--in other words, people from countries
other than Mexico--has doubled in the last year alone. Already this
year the Department of Homeland Security has apprehended about 100,000
aliens across the southern border who are from noncontiguous countries.
While many of these individuals are coming from countries that you
would expect, countries in Central and South America, many come from
countries that have direct connections with terrorism. For example, we
know that the Border Patrol has apprehended at least 400 aliens from
countries with direct ties to terrorism.
Former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
Admiral James Loy, stated that ``entrenched human smuggling networks
and corruption in areas beyond our boarders can be exploited by
terrorist organizations.'' He went on to state that ``several al-Qaeda
leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through
Mexico and also believe that illegal entry is more advantageous than
legal entry for operational security reasons.''
I believe the vast majority of the people who come to this country,
even those who come outside of our laws, come here for understandable
reasons. That is, people who have no hope and no opportunity where they
live see this tremendous beacon of opportunity that America represents,
and they want to come here to work and provide for their families.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that our porous borders
represent a national security vulnerability which can also be exploited
by international terrorists. We know the current system benefits
smugglers and all too frequently leads to the deaths of immigrants
whose only crime was trying to find a better life for themselves and
their families. Indeed, the greatest hazard to people who come to this
country to find work is the fact that they have to, under current law,
resort too often to an illegal entry into the country. They turn their
lives over to people who care nothing about them and who are willing to
leave them to die under the most extraordinarily bad circumstances.
They must work for employers who can exploit them because they know
they can't report labor law violations to the authorities. And they
suffer criminal acts, such as domestic violence, and they must endure
these acts because they believe they can't report the crime to law
enforcement authorities or else they risk deportation.
I believe a reform proposal must encourage aliens to participate in
the legal process, to live within the law.
[[Page S8924]]
Ultimately, after they have completed their time of work in this
country, most will return home to their countries and to their families
and to contribute to their societies in their homeland. And those who
decide to live permanently must enter through the legal process.
When people who come to this country live outside of the law, they
are vulnerable to exploitation and violence. They risk their lives,
sometimes just to visit their families. I believe we must take away
this black market from smugglers and others who exploit these
vulnerable immigrants by addressing deficiencies in our current system.
Identifying problems, of course, is not the most difficult part of
our jobs. If this were easy, someone would have already done it. It is
not easy, but it merits our best efforts. The challenge that Senator
Kyl and I have assumed is to find a solution, to find workable results.
Last Wednesday, we introduced the Comprehensive Enforcement and
Immigration Reform Act of 2005, a bill that we believe will restore
America's faith in lawful immigration and will meet the needs of our
country, both from a security perspective and from the standpoint of
our growing economy which needs the work provided by many immigrants.
The bill is based upon certain principles. First, we have to
reestablish the rule of law. Second, we have to enact laws that are
capable of strong enforcement. That means they have to be realistic.
Third, and most importantly, the law must be fair. If we address
deficiencies in the current immigration process, then we must require
that everyone who is here, even those who have come here just to
provide for their families, must go through normal legal channels.
The good news is that our bill provides them a direction and a way to
do that in a way that is not overly disruptive of their employment or
of their family life. We believe it provides a path so that they can
regain their status as legal temporary workers or, if eligible, as
legal permanent residents.
The men and women who secure our borders at the ports of entry, and
frequently at remote locations, should be commended for the job they do
every day. But we have not provided them with the resources they need
to be able to give them any reasonable chance of success.
Last week, the Senate approved the Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill, which, to the credit of the Senator from New
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, included increases for border security and
immigration enforcement.
Senator Kyl and I have introduced a bill that we believe builds on
that foundation. First of all, it authorizes 1,250 new Customs and
border protection officers over the next 5 years. It calls on the
Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 new Border Patrol agents
over that same 5-year period. That same amount was authorized by
Congress in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. It calls for the
expansion of a process called expedited removal, which is a fair and
effective system for quickly removing those who are ineligible to enter
our country. Right now, we only use expedited removal in a few
locations along the border. But our bill calls for the Department of
Homeland Security to expand that process to all Border Patrol sectors,
and we also provide for additional safeguards for aliens by requiring a
supervisory official with the Government sign off on any removal.
Let me say a quick word about expedited removal. Right now, because
of a lack of detention facilities, we have what is commonly called a
``catch and release'' program. For those we catch coming across the
border illegally, a criminal background check is done to determine
whether they are a threat to the American people; but if they don't
appear on one of these watch lists or criminal background databases,
they are released into the U.S. and asked to return for a hearing. It
should not surprise any of us that this ``catch and release'' program
results in more people not showing up than do show up, and those who
show up for their hearing and are ordered removed then do not show up
later when they are asked to report for their deportation process.
So that is the problem that we simply have to remedy. And I believe
that expansion of the expedited removal process will deal with it in a
way that is consistent with our laws and our values and our need for an
effective border security program.
Our bill also addresses the release of aliens who come into the
country from countries other than Mexico. It raises the minimum bond
amounts for these aliens from $1,500 to $5,000. That means that fewer
people from countries other than Mexico will be released, and those who
are released will have a greater incentive to appear for their
hearings.
Another important component of immigration reform is interior
enforcement. We also need to deal with those who make it past the
border and into the interior of our Nation. Tackling illegal
immigration cannot be done in a piecemeal fashion. If we increase our
ability to apprehend illegal aliens at the border, we must have a place
to put them. Once detained, lawyers and judges are necessary to ensure
that these people receive timely and fair hearings. Reform, therefore,
must evaluate the whole enforcement process, and we must remove
obstacles that appear anywhere in the process.
The goal is simple: If we apprehend someone who has no legal right to
be in this country and is not entitled to any claim of asylum, then we
must have an effective and efficient means to remove them from the U.S.
The bill Senator Kyl and I have introduced will restore confidence in
the system. First, it authorizes an additional 10,000 detention beds.
Currently, there are only 23,000 detention beds. You will recall that a
moment ago I said last year alone immigration control authorities
apprehended 1.1 million people coming across our border illegally. Yet
we only have 23,000 detention beds. That leads to what I described
earlier as the ``catch and release'' program, which has proven to be
completely unworkable.
The intelligence reform bill called for an additional 40,000 beds
over the next few years. The bill that we have introduced increases the
total amount to 50,000 detention beds. Still, that is not enough to
detain everyone who comes across the border illegally. That is where
expedited removal comes into play--a process to remove aliens quickly
so that we reduce the need for bed space.
Our bill also increases penalties for alien smuggling, document
fraud, and gang violence by aliens. We know, as I said a moment ago,
that the nature of the people coming across our border, through our
porous southern border, has changed. We are seeing many people who are
violent gang members coming from places in Central America. We know
that people are coming from Asia and from Europe, all around the world,
and they are transiting through Mexico.
Alien smugglers are the people that make that happen. We have learned
that they consider human beings to be just another commodity. They are
just as likely to smuggle arms, drugs or anything else that will make
them money. We need to make sure that we crack down on these alien
smugglers that facilitate this intrusion into our country illegally and
show that we are committed to tough punishment. Our bill accomplishes
that.
We provide greater tools for the Department of Homeland Security and
the Department of State to require that countries accept their own
citizens back if they violate our immigration laws and they come into
our country illegally.
Our bill also clarifies the authority of State and local officials to
enforce immigration laws and authorizes the reimbursement of local and
State officials for costs they incur in enforcing Federal immigration
law.
Recently, I traveled to Victoria, TX, and met with a group of
sheriffs down there. It so happened that the Minutemen who first
organized in Arizona were organizing in Goliad, TX, and local law
enforcement officials were concerned about having these citizen
volunteers engage in what essentially is a law enforcement process.
They said to me:
If the Federal Government would provide us additional
resources, we would be glad to help. We need some training,
but we would be glad to be cross-designated, if that is
important, to enforce both Federal immigration laws as well
as State and local laws. We would be glad to detain them in
our local jail
[[Page S8925]]
facilities pending their hearings, if necessary, but it is
going to take a little help from the Federal Government.
I told them that I welcomed their offer to assist because I believe
interior enforcement performed by many of these local law enforcement
officials is an important part of this puzzle.
Our bill also creates a new senior-level position at the Department
of Justice committed to immigration enforcement.
The third piece of the enforcement puzzle deals with the employment
of undocumented immigrants. The Congressional Research Service
estimates that out of the roughly 10 million people who have come into
our country in violation of our laws, about 6 million are currently in
the workforce. I believe that a vast majority of employers simply want
an effective, user-friendly way to comply with the law. In other words,
they want a way to determine whether the person who shows up in their
place of business saying ``I would like to work for you'' is in fact
legally authorized to work in the United States. We must ensure that we
provide them an efficient, easy-to-use system that is airtight.
The example I often use is the following: if I show up at a
convenience store and buy something, I can present my debit card or
Visa or Master Card. In a matter of seconds, the clerk can swipe the
card and it can authorize that purchase using modern technology. Why
can we not use something similar--maybe with a few more bells and
whistles--to allow employers to determine whether a person they want to
hire is in fact eligible to work?
Since 1996, the Government has been testing an electronic
verification system that provides instantaneous confirmation of an
individual's authorization to work in the United States. Our experience
with this program tells us that it can work but only if we give it
sufficient resources. Our bill calls for an expansion of this
electronic verification system and requires all employers to
participate.
But while we make sure that there is a way for employers to check, we
also have to make sure we crack down on employers who continue to
operate in the black market of illegal labor. We have to crack down on
the criminals who sell and who create fake identity documents and
Social Security cards, which can also be exploited by terrorists.
Because our bill will create bright-line rules for employers,
companies will be able to know whether they are in compliance or not.
That is an obligation we owe them. If we are going to ask them to
comply with the law, we have to give them a clear and simple way to do
so. Our bill will further reduce identity theft and fraud by increasing
the penalties for false claims to citizenship or for filing false
information with the Social Security Administration. It requires Social
Security cards to be more secure and it imposes standards for the
issuance of birth certificates, so someone may not simply counterfeit
these documents and make a false claim to citizenship.
Our bill also imposes certain obligations on countries who would like
to make their citizens eligible to participate in this program. This
would address another big challenge that we have, and that is the
development gap between the United States and other countries.
We, along with those other countries, have an interest in ending the
one-way flow of workers, which only results in the drain of highly
motivated workers from those countries and further impedes their
development. Our proposal would not only require the sending countries
to assist with border security, but it will require them to cooperate
with the United States in bridging the development gap between our
country and theirs. Foreign Minister Derbez of Mexico has said that
``[T]he Mexican government has to be able to give Mexicans . . . the
opportunity to generate the wealth that today they produce in other
places.''
I could not agree more. Other countries need for their young,
energetic risk-takers and hard workers to ultimately return home, to
bring back to their countries the savings and skills they have acquired
in the United States.
The bill we have introduced will require countries to enter into an
agreement in which each country agrees to cooperate on border
enforcement, to work to reduce gang violence and smuggling, to provide
information on criminal aliens and terrorists, and to accept the return
of nationals whom the United States has ordered removed.
Lastly, let me cover the temporary worker program. I mentioned a
moment ago that out of the 10 million or so people who have come to
this country illegally, about 6 million are in the workforce. I believe
the fact is many of these immigrants have come here to provide for
their families, something all of us as human beings can empathize with
and understand. Who among us would not do anything in our power, risk
life itself, to provide for our families, even if it happened to be
outside of our laws?
We know many jobs being performed by immigrants in this country are
jobs American citizens are reluctant to fill. I can only think about
roofers working with hot asphalt in south Texas during August as the
one example of that kind of job. Whether it is that or picking
agricultural products, there are a lot of jobs, unfortunately, that
Americans simply are reluctant to fill. We know we have a need for the
work provided by many immigrants.
What we provide for in our bill is a temporary worker program. That
is something I believe can best be characterized as a work-and-return
program, not a work-and-stay program.
Some have said that is unrealistic, that you will never get people
who come to the United States to agree to return. I guess we can all
have opinions, but I have something even better than my opinion. The
Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan, impartial think-tank that looks at
some of these matters, has done a survey of almost 5,000 Mexican
immigrants who applied for matricula consular card, a Mexican identity
card, at Mexican consulates in the United States. They asked migrants
to fill out a 12-page survey, and one of the questions they answered
was this: Would you agree to work in a temporary worker program in the
United States if it was legally authorized, even though at the end of
that time period you would have to return home to your country of
origin?
By a ratio of 4 to 1, 71 percent to 17 percent, these immigrants said
they would. I think that is solid evidence that people who are
currently working in the shadows realize that they operate without the
protection of our labor laws, without the protection of our criminal
laws, and all too frequently they view law enforcement with suspicion
rather than as an ally. They are looking for an opportunity to come out
into the sunshine and to secure the protection our laws provide.
Our bill does create a new temporary worker category that allows
workers who have a job offer from a U.S. employer to enter the country
for a period of up to 2 years to work in the United States. Before the
employer can hire the worker, the employer must advertise a position,
offer it to any qualified American worker, and agree to pay at least
minimum wage. The worker will go through background screening, will be
issued secure biometric documentation, that they are who they say they
are and are coming here to work and not for some other nefarious
purpose.
We also create some financial incentives so that the worker, after
the period of their temporary visa expires, will return home with the
savings and skills they have acquired while working in the United
States.
I talked moments ago about the Pew Hispanic survey. Circular
migration is important both for the United States and for countries
such as Mexico and the countries of Central America who are losing
their young risk takers and the potential entrepreneurs, the people who
are essential to the development of their own economy.
What economy could withstand the loss of the young men and women, the
people who are going to be the engines of those economies and the
prosperity of those countries? The public officials in Mexico and
Central America with whom I talked do understand they need to have
these people come back with the savings and skills they have acquired
in the United States, so they can develop a way forward for their own
people. In the end, it will benefit the United States because it will
take a lot of pressure off illegal immigration if people can find hope
and opportunity and good jobs in their own country.
[[Page S8926]]
Finally, let me address what perhaps is the hardest issue: the people
who are here now who have come here outside of our laws.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center again, about a third of these
individuals have been here for more than 10 years. So we do know that
some have established roots in the United States, but we also know we
have to find some way to transition this population into legal status.
It must not, however, create a new path for people who have come here
outside our laws. Our bill allows them to get back in line so they can
return to the United States in a temporary worker program or, should
they choose, as legal permanent residents.
But we do it in a way that is premised upon fundamental fairness. I
believe there are many people in America who would be deeply offended
if we said: if you come to this country through legal channels, that is
nice, but we are going to allow people who have come here illegally to
have a preference, and we are going to let them jump ahead of you in
line.
Our bill provides a path for people to return to their country of
origin and then, on an expedited basis, return to the United States. It
will not be disruptive. To secure their participation, it may be
necessary for them to know by the time they leave that they will be
eligible to come back immediately once they secure the proper
documentation. And we need to address processing delays so that they
can obtain that proper documentation in a matter of days. If disruption
is the only concern, then I see no reason why the model cannot minimize
or eliminate that disruption.
This bill is a comprehensive bill, and I know my colleagues are as
concerned as I am about finding a workable solution to this problem. I
speak today to share with all of our colleagues, not just the people
who sit on the Judiciary Committee and who participated in the hearing
this morning, an overview of our proposal which I think has some real
promise in achieving results.
I believe our constituents sent us here to represent them to solve
problems, not to engage in partisan or otherwise divisive rhetoric
designed to pick a fight. Our proposal is one idea about how we can
find our way through this thicket, how we can thread the needle in a
way that does not provide amnesty. I think our colleagues across the
Rotunda in the House of Representatives will be open to discussing our
proposal, for it is consistent with their principles of reform.
I thank the Chair. I thank the indulgence of my colleagues. I yield
the remainder of my hour to the Senator from Alabama.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad I had an opportunity to be
presiding this afternoon and to hear Senator Cornyn speak. I appreciate
his assuming the Chair for a moment so I could step down here and
compliment him and Senator Kyl for their work on this legislation.
They have introduced a comprehensive bill to improve our immigration
system, focusing, as the Presiding Officer said in his remarks, on
border security, on interior security, on employment accountability,
and on a legal status for temporary workers.
I am glad they have taken the time to work on this program. We have
talked about it many times over the last several months, and I know the
hours they spent on this. I have not had an opportunity yet to see all
the specifics of the bill, but I know the principles they are working
on and I heard the speech. I believe in what they are trying to do, and
I think it is terribly important that we as an entire Senate take this
issue up and begin to deal with it.
We need to stop thumbing our nose at the rule of law and decide which
persons from other countries should be allowed to work and study and
live in our country and create a legal status for them, and then
enforce the law. We must do that. It is hypocritical for us to go
around the world preaching about the rule of law to other countries
when 10 million people or so are living illegally in this country.
Our failure to solve the problem also unloads huge health and
education costs on State and local governments and puts the immigrant
population at risk.
So the Cornyn-Kyl bill stands for the rule of law by enforcing our
borders and creating a solid temporary worker program so that we know
who is here, and that they are here within a clear legal framework.
The people of this country expect us to deal with this issue. This is
a difficult issue, but it is what we are sent here for: We are sent
here to deal with the major issues facing our country, and I can think
of no more important issue for us to deal with than upholding the rule
of law by securing our borders, protecting our interior, and making
sure that people we welcome to live here and work here are here
legally, and that we then enforce the law.
But, as important as the Cornyn-Kyl bill is, we can do more. This
bill enforces the borders and welcomes temporary workers. But we also
need to do a couple of other things. One of the other things we need to
do is to welcome foreign students, not just foreign workers. A second
thing we need to do, with a half million to a million prospective
citizens who come to our country legally every year, is to help them
become Americans. We need to help them to become a part of this country
whose most important accomplishment is admitting and welcoming people
from all over the word, of every background, and helping those new
citizens become something new--Americans who are proud of where they
came from but prouder to say they are all Americans.
Foreign students who come to the United States to study at our
colleges and universities are a boon not only to our educational
system, but also to our economy and to our foreign policy. But after
September 11, in an effort to increase our security--which is
appropriate--we have been making it harder for international students
to come to the United States. Earlier this year, the administration
removed one important hurdle by extending the Visa Mantis process,
which clears foreign students and researchers who are studying advanced
sciences.
The Presiding Officer, Senator Lugar, Senator Coleman, and I, and
others have spent some time over the last year working with the
administration on the question of foreign students coming to the United
States. There were 570,000 foreign students who attended classes in the
United States last year. Sixty percent of the postdoctoral students in
the United States last year were foreign students. One-half of the
students in our graduate programs in computer sciences and in
engineering are foreign students. Many of these students are here
working to help increase our standard of living. Many will return to
their home countries after 4 years with a fresh perspective on our
country and on what their own country could become.
When I visited the country of Georgia last March, which recently
became a pro-Western democracy, I was reminded that most of the top
officials there had been students in the United States of America. They
were doing things there we could have never encouraged them to do. They
were doing them because they came here and learned what it meant to be
an American and were using those principles in their own country of
Georgia.
Many other foreign students will stay here and, thanks to their
studies, they will invent new products or start new businesses, and
that creates jobs here at home. So we need to welcome these students
when they are legally here in the United States.
Finally, we also need to do more to welcome and support legal
residents who are working to become American citizens. Each year we
welcome about 1 million new permanent legal residents, many of whom go
on to become citizens of the United States. To become an American is a
significant accomplishment. First, you must live in the United States
for 5 years. Next, you must speak some English. Next, you
[[Page S8927]]
must learn about our history and government. Next, you must be of good
character. Next, you must swear an oath to renounce the old government
from where you came and swear allegiance to the United States of
America and its Constitution. That is no small thing.
Between 500,000 and 1 million new citizens each year come in and
complete that process and take that oath.
Earlier this year, Senator Schumer and I introduced a bill to codify
that oath of allegiance that new citizens swear to when they become
citizens. It is hard to believe that while the Pledge of Allegiance,
the National Anthem, and the American Flag are all prescribed by law,
we have been allowing the oath of allegiance, a binding pledge for new
citizens, to be determined merely by Federal regulators. We can do more
to welcome these new citizens.
In the near future, in September, I hope to introduce legislation
that perhaps could become part of a comprehensive immigration bill.
This legislation would provide new incentives and support for legal
immigrants to learn English, our common language, and to learn about
our Nation's history and government and values. I hope that effort to
welcome new legal immigrants and to help them become a part of our
American community will become a part of the Senate's overall approach
to immigration reform.
Our country is unique in the world. We are not defined by common
ethnic background or origin. We and our ancestors came from every
corner of the world to be a part of this country because it was founded
on something much bigger, much grander than ethnic heritage or a tie to
the land. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is what binds us together as Americans: a belief in our common
values, values such as equal opportunity, the rule of law, and liberty.
That is why we welcome immigrants who swear allegiance to our country
and to those values as new citizens. That is why our Nation of
immigrants has always succeeded and can succeed in the future.
If we are to continue to succeed, we must pass along these values
that comprise our American identity--pass them on to posterity--both to
our children and to those new citizens who come to our shores from
distant lands.
In the coming months, this Senate will have a chance to reform our
Nation's immigration policy. The Cornyn-Kyl legislation is a
tremendously important first step toward a comprehensive immigration
bill. It is one whose principles I support. I look forward to working
with its authors as it moves through the Senate. I hope as we write
this comprehensive immigration legislation, though, we also remember to
welcome foreign students who add so much to our economy and spread our
values to the world, and that we remember to welcome legal immigrants
who wish to join the American family and help them learn our common
language, learn our values, and become American citizens.
I hope the legislation that I will offer in September can help us
along that track.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Alabama is
recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I join with Senator Alexander in
complimenting you and Senator Kyl for the legislation that you have
just described for us. The Senator from Texas, as I know, has taken the
lead on this very important and complex subject. I salute you for it.
Some would say it is a thankless task, it can't be done, and will
make nobody happy. But I believe you have the right principles. If the
right principles are applied with the right prescriptive language, we
can make great progress in this area, and I salute you for it.
Frequently have I quoted Senator Alexander in the phrase he has used:
No child should grow up in America who doesn't know what it means to be
an American.
I think that is good for immigrants, too, as the Senator just said so
eloquently. I salute him.
I also thank the Senator from Texas for considering a critical
component of this legislation he has proposed, and that is the part
that deals with State and local law enforcement. I have just written a
Law Review article for Stanford University to deal with that area of
the law. Suffice it to say, local law enforcement does have complete
authority to detain people who are violating the criminal laws of the
United States. But that has been confused. Clearing this up more,
setting up a mechanism so that they can participate if they choose,
would be helpful to enforcing the law. That is so because we have
700,000 State and local law enforcement officers at every street corner
and town in America. We have only 2,000 INS immigration officers inside
the border--not those on the Border Patrol and on the border, but those
inside the border. So obviously we are not very serious about
ultimately reaching a lawful system if we exclude them.
I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in
morning business and I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________