[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.

                          ____________________