[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 652-658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 652]]

                              GUN CONTROL

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, unfortunately, one of the issues that 
continues to show up and seems to have


nine lives--or more than nine, is the matter of gun control. We have 
seen it every session a number of times. I am sure we will see it 
again. I think it is something about which we ought to talk. I believe 
most people have come to the conclusion that the passage of additional 
laws is not going to make a great deal of difference in the behavior of 
criminals. Sadly, law abiding citizens who are exercising their 
constitutional rights are the ones who will be impacted by additional 
gun control laws. But it would not affect those who do not intend to 
abide by the law. Therefore, the idea of additional laws certainly is 
questionable.
  In my mind, it is not the direction we ought to take. Fortunately, I 
think the majority of people in this country also believed the passage 
of new laws is not the solution. We need to enforce the numerous gun 
laws that are on the books.
  Thankfully for our country, the President has not been able to carry 
out his continuing agenda of wanting more and more gun laws. But, 
regrettably, he has not been able to make enforcement more effective. 
More laws are not going to keep those who are willing to break the law 
from doing things illegally. Stronger enforcement of existing laws is 
the answer. The administration, however, has not presented such a 
program. Certainly, we need to move in that direction.
  When tragedies occur, as they did in Colorado and a number of other 
places, of course all of us wonder what we can do to ensure that these 
tragedies do not happen again. The first impulse in a legislative body 
is to pass more laws.
  Unfortunately, that is often the most political thing to do. But the 
fact of the matter is, in almost every instance numerous gun laws were 
broken when these terrible acts were committed. One might say, what 
advantage is there in passing more? Indeed, what we ought to be doing 
is talking about enforcement.
  As many of you know, the administration has been busy developing new 
gun control initiatives and additional laws--everything from 
threatening gun manufacturers with Federal lawsuits to mandatory 
licensing of new handgun purchases. Currently, there are 26 
municipalities that have filed lawsuits against the gun industry, and 
they are shown on this chart. These lawsuits seek to make gun 
manufacturers liable for the criminal misuse of firearms. Interestingly 
enough, three cases have been thrown out by judges in Cincinnati, OH, 
Bridgeport, CT, and Miami-Dade County, FL.
  These cases are interesting. For instance these judges noted:

       . . . the City's complaint is an improper attempt to have 
     this Court substitute its judgment for that of the 
     legislature[.] Only the legislature has the power to engage 
     in the type of regulation. . . .

  The city of Cincinnati.

       The plaintiffs have no statutory of common law basis to 
     recoup their expenditures. . . .

  The city of Bridgeport.

       . . . the Plaintiffs have not directed this Court to any 
     statute or case that would allow a city or county to proceed 
     against a group of manufacturers. . . .

  Miami-Dade County, FL.
  The courts have pointed out municipal lawsuits are not the answer. 
Interestingly enough, the President has announced the Justice 
Department will pursue a similar lawsuit against the gun manufacturers 
on behalf of HUD. Basically, the Federal Government is trying to 
pressure gun manufacturers into settling their current cases.
  Once again, the action highlights the President's failure to pass gun 
control legislation. Instead of bringing forth legislation, he is 
seeking to go through the judiciary to do what he has been unable to 
accomplish in Congress.
  This next graph shows the results of a poll taken recently by CNN and 
USA Today. It was conducted between December 9 and 12 of last year. Let 
me read it:

       As you may know, the U.S. Justice Department is considering 
     filing a lawsuit against the gun manufacture industry seeking 
     to recover the costs associated with gun-related crimes. The 
     companies that manufacture guns in the U.S. have stated the 
     charges have no merit. Which side do you agree with more in 
     this dispute: the Justice Department (or) the gun 
     manufacturers?

  The result was, those who agreed with the lawsuit by Justice were 28 
percent, and those who agreed the lawsuit had little merit were 67 
percent. I really believe this poll reflects how American's feel about 
a government lawsuit against the gun industry.
  In the President's State of the Union address he spoke about the idea 
of having individual states regulate the sale of handguns by requiring 
a photo ID and documentation of the successful completion of a safety 
course--just to purchase a handgun. This is clearly another attempt by 
the President to tighten gun laws on law-abiding citizens. Of course, 
criminals do not register their guns. Enforcement, however, is how we 
get guns out of the hands of the criminals. Republicans have continued 
to support law enforcement efforts.
  Project Exile, for example, which has been put into place around the 
country, has dropped the murder rate in Richmond, Virginia by 30 
percent each year that it has been in place.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton cannot say the same for his gun 
control efforts. This is a graph of ATF gun referrals, prosecutions, 
and convictions in 1992 and 1998. Between 1992 and 1998 ATF referrals 
for prosecution went down by 5,500 or 44 percent; prosecutions have 
dropped 40 percent; and, finally, convictions have dropped 31 percent.
  This graph shows just how tough the administration has been since 
1992 regarding the enforcement of existing federal gun laws.
  Last year, I asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct an 
audit of the National Instant Check System (NICS). The system was put 
in place in November 1998 as phase 2 of the Brady Act. I asked the GAO 
for an audit to see if, indeed, it is operating as Congress intended it 
to. I am confident when the report is released--and it has not yet been 
released but will be very soon--we will have results that show the NICS 
has not been as effective as we hoped it would be.
  Lastly, since last November, there have been numerous news articles 
from around the country that highlight the publics disfavor with 
attempts by the President to add more gun control laws. I want to take 
a minute to highlight a couple of these. One is titled, it is the 
``Wrong Approach,'' by the Cheyenne Tribune Eagle, which suggests:

       Since the President has been unable to ban individuals from 
     owning guns, Mr. Clinton has decided to do an end run around 
     the Constitution.

  That is the point of view of that particular paper.
  Another is titled, ``Gun Deaths, Injuries on Decline.'' This article 
speaks about a government study which shows that gun deaths have 
declined since the late 1960's.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print these articles in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Cheyenne Tribune Eagle, Dec. 16, 1999]

      Wrong Approach--Federal Lawsuit Ignores Rights of Gun Makers

       Once again, President Bill Clinton, our national 
     embarrassment, is showing utter contempt for our Constitution 
     as well as for the basic rights of the individual and the 
     concept of freedom.
       Since he has been unable to ban individuals from owning 
     guns, Mr. Clinton has decided to do an end-run around the 
     Constitution by threatening to sue gun manufacturers. Mr. 
     Clinton is exactly the type of despotic leader the Framers 
     had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
       As Thomas Jefferson said, ``The strongest reason for the 
     people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a 
     last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in 
     government.''
       But Mr. Clinton and his elk, meaning the liberals in 
     Congress and all who would idly sit back and allow government 
     to infringe upon a right our framers declared ``shall not be 
     infringed,'' are guilty of abridging our freedoms, 
     endangering our lives and threatening the future of the very 
     government they were elected to preserve.
       Mr. Clinton has failed to get Congress to completely ignore 
     the Constitution and ban guns so now he has decided to turn 
     to the courts to get his way.
       He said his administration would sue the gun manufacturers, 
     much in the same fashion as the administration sued the 
     tobacco

[[Page 653]]

     industry, in order to force the private companies to bend to 
     Mr. Clinton's will and his socialistic and erroneous world 
     view.
       The president's dubious claim is that the industry's 
     marketing and manufacturing methods are responsible for 
     violent crime at the nation's 3,000 public-housing 
     authorities.
       What Clinton fails to comprehend is that government is 
     mostly responsible for the conditions that breed violent 
     crime in public housing.
       If Mr. Clinton wishes to end violence in public-housing 
     complexes, he should end public housing. It is a drain on 
     society and ultimately harms the individuals government 
     purports to help. Besides, government has no Constitutional 
     authority to offer public housing.
       Another government action that leads to unnecessary 
     violence is its war on drugs. Prohibiting individuals the 
     freedom to pursue drug use is also not authorized by the 
     Constitution. The decriminalization of drugs would have the 
     end result of lessening the burden on our prison system and 
     dramatically reducing violence, much like the repeal of the 
     prohibition against alcohol.
       Ultimately, however, the criminal is the one to blame for 
     his actions. Just because a person uses a gun while 
     committing a crime is no reason to blame gun manufacturers. 
     That is tantamount to blaming automakers for every car 
     accident or burger joints for every heart attack.
       Mr. Clinton knows he can cripple the gun makers by suing 
     them. Just the cost of defending against a government lawsuit 
     can be cost prohibitive. In effect, it is government banning 
     guns by economically destroying the makers in what can only 
     be termed thuggery. Already 24 cities, including Cincinnati 
     and Cleveland, and two states have filed lawsuits against gun 
     makers.
       Hearings are expected to begin in January. We will be 
     watching this one closely.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 19, 1999]

  Gun Deaths, Injuries on Decline--1997 Fatalities Were Lowest Since 
                        '60s; Many Reasons Cited

       Atlanta, Nov. 18.--Gun deaths in the United States dropped 
     21 percent between 1993 and 1997 to the lowest level in more 
     than 30 years, and firearm-related injuries fell 41 percent, 
     the government reported yesterday.
       Experts cited such reasons as tougher gun control laws, a 
     booming economy, better police work and gun safety courses.
       The study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     looked at all gunshot wounds reported at emergency rooms, 
     whether they were intentional, accidental or self-inflicted.
       The number of fatalities dropped from 39,595--15.4 gun 
     deaths per 100,000 people--in 1993, to 32,436--12.1 per 
     100,000--in 1997.
       The rate ``is the lowest it's been since the mid-'60s,'' 
     said J. Lee Annest, a CDC statistician. ``This progress is 
     really encouraging and really says that joint prevention 
     efforts of public health officials, legislators and law 
     enforcement should continue.''
       The drop was not unexpected: Homicide rates in the 1990s 
     have fallen to levels not seen since the 1960s, and about 
     two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns. But the 
     latest figures also include suicides and accidental deaths.
       Moreover, nonfatal shootings fell from 104,390 to 64,207 in 
     the same period, or from 40.5 per 100,000 to 24.0.
       Jim Manown, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, 
     said the numbers prove that more gun laws are not needed, 
     only that the laws on the books need to be enforced.
       ``It is a fact that this substantial drop in gun violence 
     directly correlated to a big increase in gun enforcement by 
     police,'' said Lawrence W. Sherman, a University of 
     Pennsylvania professor who has studied gun policy. ``Police 
     were not treating guns in a preventive sense prior to 1993 
     and now they are.''
       Some experts also credit a strong economy that has helped 
     reduce overall crime rates and suicide attempts. Margaret A. 
     Zahn, a North Carolina State University criminology 
     professor, said prosperity has also allowed governments to 
     spend more on services that prevent gun violence, such as 
     domestic violence shelters and youth recreation programs.
       The CDC also listed such possible factors as an aging 
     population, increased gun safety measures and the waning of 
     the crack trade.
       Gun control advocates said they are encouraged, but pointed 
     out that even so, an average of 265 people a day were shot in 
     1997.
       ``People shouldn't be satisfied,'' said Nancy Hwa, 
     spokeswoman for Handgun Control and the Center to Prevent 
     Handgun Violence. ``Everybody is still at risk, and the 
     presence of guns should still be a major concern.''
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 12, 2000]

                 Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy?

                          (By Robert B. Reich)

       If I had my way there would be laws restricting cigarettes 
     and handguns. But Congress won't even pass halfway measures. 
     Cigarette companies have admitted they produce death sticks, 
     yet Congress won't lift a finger to stub them out. Teenage 
     boys continue to shoot up high schools, yet Congress won't 
     pass stricter gun controls. The politically potent cigarette 
     and gun industries have got what they wanted: no action. 
     Almost makes you lose faith in democracy, doesn't it?
       Apparently that's exactly what's happened to the Clinton 
     administration. Fed up with trying to move legislation, the 
     White House is launching lawsuits to succeed where 
     legislation failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of 
     making our frail democracy even weaker.
       The Justice Department is going after the tobacco companies 
     with a law designed to fight mobsters--the 1970 Racketeer 
     Influenced and Corrupt Organizations chapter of the Organized 
     Crime Control Act. Justice alleges that the tobacco companies 
     violated RICO by conspiring to create an illegal enterprise. 
     They did this by agreeing to a ``concerted public-relations 
     campaign'' to deny any link between smoking and disease, 
     suppress internal research and engage in 116 ``racketeering 
     acts'' of mail and wire fraud, which included advertisements 
     and press releases the companies knew to be false.
       A few weeks ago, the administration announced another large 
     lawsuit, this one against America's gun manufacturers, 
     Justice couldn't argue that the gun makers had conspired to 
     mislead the public about the danger of their products, so it 
     decided against using RICO in favor of offering ``legal 
     advice'' to public housing authorities organized under the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, who are suing 
     the gun makers on behalf of their three million tenants. The 
     basis of this case is strict liability and negligence. The 
     gun makers allegedly sold defective products, or products 
     they knew or should have known would harm people.
       Both of these legal grounds--the mobster-like conspiracy of 
     cigarette manufacturers to mislead the public, and the 
     defective aspects of guns or the negligence of their 
     manufacturers--are stretches, to say the least. If any 
     agreement to mislead any segment of the public is a 
     ``conspiracy'' under RICO, then America's entire advertising 
     industry is in deep trouble, not to mention health-
     maintenance organizations, the legal profession, automobile 
     dealers and the Pentagon. And if every product that might 
     result in death or serious injury is ``defective,'' you might 
     as well say good-bye to liquor and beer, fatty foods and 
     sharp cooking utensils.
       These two novel legal theories give the administration 
     extraordinary discretion to decide who's misleading the 
     public and whose products are defective. You might approve 
     the outcomes in these two cases, but they establish 
     precedents for other cases you might find wildly unjust.
       Worse, no judge will ever scrutinize these theories. The 
     administration has no intention of seeing these lawsuits 
     through to final verdicts. The goal of both efforts is to 
     threaten the industries with such large penalties that 
     they'll agree to a deal--for the cigarette makers, to pay a 
     large amount of money to the Federal Government, coupled 
     perhaps with a steep increase in the price of a pack of 
     cigarettes: and for the gun makers, to limit bulk purchases 
     and put more safety devices on guns. In announcing the 
     lawsuit against the gun makers HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo 
     assured the press that the whole effort was just a bargaining 
     ploy: ``If all parties act in good faith we'll stay at the 
     negotiating table.''
       But the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end runs 
     around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of 
     laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of 
     legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil 
     lawsuits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux 
     legislation, which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of 
     administration officials operating in secrecy.
       It's one thing for cities and states to go to court (big 
     tobacco has already agreed to pay the states $246 billion to 
     settle state Medicaid suits, and 28 cities along with New 
     York state and Connecticut are now suing the gun 
     manufacturers); it's quite another for the feds to bring to 
     bear the entire weight of the nation. New York state isn't 
     exactly a pushover, but its attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, 
     says the federal lawsuit will finally pressure gun makers to 
     settle. New York's lawsuit is a small dagger, he says. ``the 
     feds' is a meat ax.''
       The feds' meat ax may be a good way to get an industry to 
     shape up, but it's a bad way to get democracy to shape up. 
     Yes, American politics is rotting. Special-interest money is 
     oozing over Capitol Hill. The makers of cigarettes and guns 
     have enormous clout in Washington, and they are bribing our 
     elected representatives to turn their backs on these 
     problems.
       But the way to fix everything isn't to turn our backs on 
     the democratic process and pursue litigation; as the 
     administration is doing. It's to campaign for people who 
     promise to take action against cigarettes and guns, and 
     against the re-election of House and Senate members who 
     won't. And to fight like hell for campaign finance reform. In 
     short, the answer is to make democracy work better, not to 
     give up on it.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 22, 1999]

         Liberals Have Second Thoughts on the Second Amendment

                           (By Collin Levey)

       It's the year of Littleton, ``smart guns'' and city 
     lawsuits against gun makers. So

[[Page 654]]

     where are the law professors speaking up for gun control? In 
     the past few years, many of the premier constitutional 
     experts of the left have come to a shocking conclusion: The 
     Second Amendment must be taken seriously.
       Back in 1989, the University of Tennessee's Sanford 
     Levinson became something of a maverick by writing an article 
     in the Yale Law Journal called ``The Embarrassing Second 
     Amendment,'' in which he maintained that the amendment 
     guaranteed an individual right to own guns. Mr. Levinson's 
     argument flew in the face of the interpretation that had 
     prevailed since a 1939 Supreme Court ruling, which held that 
     the amendment's reference to a ``well-regulated militia'' 
     meant it only guaranteed a ``collective'' right to bear arms.
       Until recently, few legal scholars had done much research 
     on the Second Amendment. ``One came up knowing it was a 
     collective right--not because we learned about it in law 
     school, but because we read the occasional op-ed,'' says Dan 
     Polsby of Virginia's George Mason Law School. ``Sandy 
     Levinson made it respectable to think that heterodoxy might 
     be possible.''
       The most prominent of the converts is Harvard's Laurence 
     Tribe, once touted as a potential Supreme Court appointee in 
     a Democratic administration. Mr. Tribe surprised many of his 
     fellow liberals when the latest edition of his widely used 
     textbook, ``American Constitutional Law,'' appeared this 
     year. Previous versions had virtually ignored the Second 
     Amendment. The new one gives it a full work-up--and comes 
     down on the side of Mr. Levinson.
       Mr. Tribe believes the right to bear arms is limited, 
     subject to ``reasonable regulation in the interest of public 
     safety,'' as he and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote 
     in the New York Times last month. But Mr. Tribe has written 
     that people on both sides of the policy divide face an 
     ``inescapable tension . . . between the reading of the Second 
     Amendment that would advance the policies they favor and the 
     reading of the Second Amendment to which intellectual 
     honesty, and their own theories of Constitutional 
     interpretation, would drive them.''
       Journalist Daniel Lazare, a liberal gun-control advocate, 
     acknowledges the tension, writing in Harper's: ``The truth 
     about the Second Amendment is something that liberals cannot 
     bear to admit: The right wing is right.'' Mr. Lazare argues 
     for amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment.
       What accounts for the change in Second Amendment 
     interpretation? One of the catalysts has been a recently 
     unearthed series of clues to the Framers' intentions. These 
     include early drafts of the amendment penned by James Madison 
     in 1789. In his original version he made ``The right of the 
     people'' the first clause, indicating his belief that it is 
     the right of the people to keep and bear arms that makes a 
     well-regulated militia possible. State constitutions of the 
     era confirm this interpretation: Pennsylvania accorded its 
     citizens the ``right to bear arms for the defense of 
     themselves and the state.''
       In a letter to English Whig John Cartwright, Thomas 
     Jefferson wrote that ``the constitutions of most of our 
     states assert, that all power is inherent in the people; . . 
     . that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.'' 
     These cross-Atlantic discussions are important, since the 
     Framers were distinguishing the right of Americans to bear 
     arms from English law's treatment of the question. Joyce Lee 
     Malcolm, a professor at Bentley College, has examined the 
     Second Amendment in light of English law. She concludes that 
     the Colonists had intended to adopt basic ideas of English 
     governance but to strengthen the people's rights. A right to 
     ``keep and bear'' was seen as a bulwark against oppressive 
     government.
       Other scholars have found supporting evidence in the 14th 
     Amendment, which bars states, in addition to the federal 
     government, from restricting certain rights of citizens. 
     According to Robert Cottrell of George Washington University, 
     in the aftermath of slavery, with no real police presence, 
     this protection was critical to preventing the monopoly of 
     guns from resting in the hands of white officials, many of 
     whom moonlighted in white hoods. The 14th Amendment has been 
     a powerful force in constitutional law, playing a key role in 
     the development of free-speech jurisprudence.
       ``The emaciated condition of the Second Amendment now is 
     very similar to the condition of the First Amendment in 
     1908,'' says Duke University Law professor William Van 
     Alstyne. In the aftermath of World War I, Supreme Court 
     Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis began 
     writing dissents in favor of a broader reading of the First 
     Amendment. But not until the 1930s did courts begin adopting 
     their arguments.
       The new reading of the Second Amendment may get a hearing 
     if a gun control case, Emerson v. Texas, makes it to the 
     Supreme Court. In a divorce proceeding, Timothy Joe Emerson 
     was issued what's been called a ``y'all be civil'' 
     restraining order--routine in Texas divorce cases. Unknown to 
     him, one provision barred him from possessing a gun. When he 
     took his 9mm Beretta out of a desk drawer during an argument 
     with his wife, he was charged with violation of a federal gun 
     control law.
       U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ruled that the order 
     violated Mr. Emerson's Second Amendment rights. As Mr. Polsby 
     puts it, ``If you're simply attaching a firearms forfeiture 
     to a person who has no such designation as a dangerous 
     person, that's not acceptable if the Second Amendment means 
     anything.''
       The state of Texas has appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit 
     Court of Appeals. If that court's ruling makes it to the 
     Supreme Court, it would be the first gun-control case heard 
     by the justices since 1939's U.S. v. Miller, which set the 
     precedent for the collective-right interpretation. In that 
     case, the Supreme Court held that a bootlegger was rightly 
     convicted of transporting a sawed-off shotgun across state 
     lines, on the grounds that the weapon had no legitimate use 
     in a militia.
       Today, two Supreme Court justices have suggested interest 
     in a reading of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an 
     individual right. Clarence Thomas has noted the law-review 
     articles piling up on the side of an expanded interpretation, 
     suggesting it may be time to reconsider Miller. And Antonin 
     Scalia, in a decision on an unrelated matter, referred to 
     ``the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the 
     First and Second Amendments.''
       ``As a liberal and a humanist,'' Prof. Tribe says today, 
     ``people thought I was betraying them by saying that the 
     Second Amendment is part of the Constitution.'' But, he adds, 
     ``what is being knocked away now is a phony pillar and a 
     mirage.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 29, 1999]

ATF Firearms Prosecution Referrals Drop--Study Says Criminal Cases Have 
               Fallen Since 1992, But Picked Up Last Year

                           (By Edward Walsh)

       There has been a steady decline during the Clinton 
     administration in the number of weapons-related criminal 
     cases that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) 
     has turned over to federal prosecutors for legal action 
     according to a new study made public yesterday.
       The study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse 
     (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which analyzes law enforcement 
     data, said the number of ATF referrals to federal prosecutors 
     has dropped by 44 percent since 1992, when there were 9,885 
     referrals. Last year, the agency charged with enforcing 
     federal firearms laws referred 5,510 cases to federal 
     prosecutors, according to TRAC. Most ATF referrals to federal 
     prosecutors involve alleged weapons offenses.
       It also said that until last year there has been a matching 
     decline in the number of federal prosecutions of ATF weapons 
     cases, which fell from 4,108 in 1992 to 2,165 in 1997. But in 
     1998, that trend was reversed with the prosecution of 2,710 
     ATF weapons cases, a 25 percent increase over the previous 
     year, the report said.
       The TRAC researchers, who analyzed data from the Justice 
     Department, the Office of Personnel Management and ATF, said 
     one reason there may be fewer criminal referrals is that 
     ATF's work force is smaller now than it was earlier in the 
     decade. The agency's total force has declined by 8 percent 
     since 1992 and there has been an even sharper drop of 14 
     percent in the number of its criminal investigators. ATF had 
     2,072 criminal investigators in 1992 and 1,779 last year, 
     according to the report.
       The findings are likely to fuel the gun control debate in 
     Congress, where opponents, such as the National Rifle 
     Association, argue that there is no need for new gun control 
     laws and that the administration should concentrate on 
     enforcing existing laws.
       Administration officials did not dispute the trend toward 
     fewer federal prosecutions, but said part of this was due to 
     a decision by ATF to concentrate more of its resources on 
     complex investigations of major gun traffickers and less on 
     individual firearms law violations.
       A Justice Department spokeswoman, who declined to be 
     identified, also disputed the accuracy of some of the numbers 
     in the TRAC report. The report said that in 1998 there were 
     2,528 federal prosecutions under two frequently used federal 
     firearms laws, but Justice Department records show that 5,876 
     defendants were prosecuted under those laws that year, she 
     said.
       She said the number of federal firearms violators who have 
     received sentences of more than five years in prison has 
     increased by more than 25 percent since 1992, reflecting 
     ATF's decision to focus more on gun traffickers.
       ``There is a decline in those [firearms] charges, but it is 
     not as dramatic as portrayed here, the spokeswoman said.
       ``The number of low-end federal offenders is down because 
     the ATF is strapped for resources and made a conscious 
     decision to focus on traffickers and because the states are 
     doing a better job so we don't have to do those cases.''
       An ATF spokeswoman, who also did not want her name used, 
     said the agency experienced a 20 percent reduction in field 
     agents

[[Page 655]]

     between 1993 and 1997, losing some of its most experienced 
     agents to retirement. ATF is now aggressively hiring agents, 
     she said, but it will take time to train them and get them in 
     the field.
       The ATF spokeswoman also said that statistics on 
     prosecutions do not reflect all of the agency's activities, 
     which in the 1990s have included major investigations of the 
     bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the 
     federal building in Oklahoma City.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe all of us want to find a better 
solution to illegal gun use. We intend to do that. People in my State 
believe more laws are not the answer, that, indeed, the enforcement of 
gun laws is the answer. We are pleased to see that the administration 
has finally added increased funding for the enforcement of existing gun 
laws--something we have been talking about over the last 7 years. The 
dollars alone, however, will not do it. There has to be some oversight. 
We have to make sure there is an effective use of law enforcement.
  Mr. President, I yield time to my friend from Idaho.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Wyoming yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand the Senator from Wyoming controls the time. I 
wonder if, after the Senator from Idaho speaks for 5 or 10 minutes, the 
Senator will be willing to give me 5 or 10 minutes on a separate 
subject.
  Mr. THOMAS. Will it be possible to let Senator Smith speak for a 
couple of minutes and then Senator Gregg can wind up our hour? Mr. 
President, will that be all right?
  Mr. GREGG. That will be fine.
  Mr. THOMAS. That way, we will hear from the Senator from Idaho, the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Senator from Idaho begins, has the 
Senator from Wyoming propounded a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be 
allowed to speak and then the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, 
and then the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gregg from New Hampshire being the 
third speaker.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I simply ask the Senator 
from Wyoming if I may be reserved 10 minutes within that timeframe.
  Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Craig 
Thomas, for coming to the floor today once again to shape and clarify 
some of these issues that are going to be front and center before this 
Congress and this Senate over the coming months as we deal with 
Presidential initiatives, Presidential budgets, and some of the issues 
that are going to be, by fall and November, election-time issues.
  Last week, I took issue with the President's State of the Union 
Address in a broad sense as it related to the budget and some of the 
initiatives he propounded within the State of the Union. Today, I will 
focus, as my colleague from Wyoming has focused, on the element in the 
President's speech dealing with guns and gun violence.
  Last November, the Centers for Disease Control reported 34,000 
Americans die every year from firearm injuries. If there is good news 
to be found in that terrible statistic, it is that the number has 
declined every year for the last 4 years. It is fewer than the 43,000 
Americans who die every year from motor vehicle accidents. And yet when 
we have some of our colleagues on the floor pounding their podiums and 
saying how terrible it is--and it is terrible--they forget to put it in 
relation to other kinds of accidents and/or intentional acts that 
produce deaths among the American citizenry.
  That figure of 34,000 is far less than the 44,000 to 98,000 patients 
who die every year by medical error. That is right. I am talking about 
errors made in the delivery of medicine. It is estimated that 44,000 to 
98,000 patients die every year by medical error--that is a statistic 
which comes from the Institute of Medicine--and yet somehow when such a 
tragedy happens, it does not make the headline in the paper; it simply 
makes the obituary page.
  When we consider there are over 200 million privately owned guns in 
the United States, we cannot escape the conclusion that the 
overwhelming majority of America's 80 million gun owners are peaceful 
and extremely responsible and using their constitutional rights in a 
responsible-citizen way. There are 80 million gun owners and 200 
million privately owned guns in America.
  We in the Government are charged with the responsibility of seeing 
that guns are used appropriately within the Constitution. That is, in 
part, our job. It is an American right and responsibility of all 
Americans, should they wish to exercise it. We are here to deal with 
those who use guns to intimidate, to steal, to rape, to murder. That is 
what the Government is for. That is our job, not to restrict or control 
the right of the free citizen in the exercise of his or her 
constitutional right, but to go at those who do the opposite, who use 
the right in the wrong way--to steal, to rape, or to murder. This duty 
comes before any other matter that we would want or should want to 
consider on the issue of guns.
  We know when the Government takes this responsibility seriously, we 
save lives. You can come to the floor and pass all of the politically 
driven bills that you want to, but if they are not enforced or not 
enforceable, then it is a political statement, not a responsible act of 
our Government.
  In Richmond, VA, a Republican initiative called Project Exile has 
stepped up and prosecuted the gun-toting criminals and cut the murder 
rate by 30 percent every year since it was enacted in 1997. That is in 
Richmond, VA. In fact, it is said in Richmond that a man walked into a 
7-Eleven with a baseball bat to rob it. They caught him. They said: Why 
didn't you use a gun? He said: You get locked up if you use a gun.
  Isn't it amazing that the criminal element of our society will read 
and respond to the effective and targeted enforcement of a law? As a 
result of that, in a city that was plagued by what any person would 
judge as a high rate of crime and murder, it has dropped that 
precipitously, since the targeted direction of law enforcement not only 
to arrest but to prosecute and lock up those who misuse their gun 
rights.
  How does the administration address the duty to the American people? 
Over the past 7 years, the Clinton-Gore administration has cut the 
ATF's pursuit of criminals who use guns by nearly half. The number of 
prosecutions fell by nearly as much, and the number of gun-toting 
criminals convicted fell by one-third. This isn't an NRA statistic; 
this is an independent Syracuse University statistic. It is objective 
by every politician's measurement.
  This is how it profiles on a chart. Last year, in this Chamber, Vice 
President Al Gore cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of interfering 
with peaceful, law-abiding, responsible gun ownership--not criminals, 
but responsible citizens exercising their right to go out and buy a 
firearm for their personal ownership and possibly for their personal 
protection.
  It was quite a moment for the Vice President. There he sat in that 
chair, the image of leadership. He was able to tell Americans how 
concerned he was about gun violence because he had cast the tiebreaking 
vote to impose greater restrictions on law-abiding Americans.
  But I wonder, when this administration was gutting the enforcement of 
laws against gun violence, was the Vice President casting his vote 
then? No. Here is the Vice President's record, right here on this 
chart. This is where he and the President took over the law enforcement 
responsibilities of the Justice Department of this country.
  Look what happened during the Reagan and the Bush years--aggressive 
efforts to go at the criminals; arrests went up; crime began to go 
down.
  Here the Clinton-Gore administration backed off. They cut budgets. 
You know the rest of the story. When this administration was letting 
violent

[[Page 656]]

criminals off, I have a simple question to ask: Where was Al?
  How many gun-toting criminals would be locked up today if the 
Clinton-Gore administration had merely kept pace with the Reagan-Bush 
administration's record portrayed on this chart? I would like to hear 
the Vice President answer this question to American mothers. It is the 
right question to ask. It is a response that all deserve.
  But there is more disturbing evidence that this administration does 
not take seriously its duty in law enforcement.
  The national instant check system is designed to immediately notify 
the FBI if a criminal is trying to purchase a gun. I support that. 
Every Senator supports the ability of someone going into a licensed 
firearm dealer to buy a firearm immediately being checked, just like 
swiping your credit card through a machine at any retail outlet in 
America and instantly finding whether you have credit on your card so 
you can make that purchase.
  We want the same kind of response when it comes to the purchase of a 
gun. We are nearly there. We have nudged, we have pushed, we have 
cajoled this administration and their Justice Department until they 
have finally done it--although they dragged their feet progressively 
over the last 8 years.
  According to a staff report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since 
November of 1998, this Republican initiative, started here on this 
floor--the instant check system background check--has stopped over 
100,000 criminals from purchasing guns. That represents an enormous 
number of bad actors who need to be put back in jail. How many have the 
administration put back in jail? To my knowledge, none.
  You heard the President in the well of the House in the State of the 
Union Address talk about all of these criminals detected and stopped 
from buying a gun. If a criminal walks into a hardware store or a gun 
shop and attempts to buy a gun over the counter from a licensed firearm 
dealer, and his background is checked, and he is a felon with a record, 
he has violated a law. He is in violation of the law. Yet the ATF has 
referred only one-fifth of 1 percent of these criminals acting 
illegally to the Justice Department for prosecution.
  Mr. President, I am sorry. You can talk all you want about guns, but 
your actions show you don't care. You only want the politics of it.
  Last year, this Congress said: No. We do not want the politics of it. 
We will not take that effort. We want substance. The administration 
claims it has increased the referral of firearms cases back to the 
States for prosecution. But that is the same as letting a criminal off 
the hook.
  That is not an accusation of the States. These are Federal firearms 
violations. They deserve Federal prosecution. State prosecutors have 
fewer resources than Federal prosecutors, and State firearm convictions 
result in shorter sentences. Moreover, with a budget that grew 65 
percent from 1992 to 1998, I am sorry, Janet Reno, we gave you the 
money; you didn't do the job. That growth in budget was the Justice 
Department.
  The Clinton-Gore administration even lets convicted felons off the 
hook. Last September, we came to the floor to speak about it. This 
President, with his Executive power, granted clemency to 12 terrorists 
convicted of 36 counts of violating Federal firearms laws. I am amazed 
at you, Bill Clinton, that you can stand on the floor of the U.S. House 
of Representatives and, with a straight face, talk about firearms 
control, when you turned loose convicted felons, convicted of firearms 
violations.
  As recently as last year, the President said he would spend not more 
than $5 million on the programs such as Project Exile, the kind I just 
outlined used in Richmond, VA. We asked for $50 million. The President 
largely got his way. The final figure was about $7 million. Sorry, Mr. 
President. Last year at this time you didn't deserve credit for any of 
it. Now you have stepped up. Now you are saying you want $280 million 
to hire new investigators and prosecutors, both at the Federal and the 
State level. I ask you why, Mr. President? I think I know the answer. 
It is polling well. You went out and asked the question of the American 
people about law enforcement, something every Senator knows about, and 
it polled well. It got in the State of the Union.
  It is far from clear that inadequate funding is the problem. The drop 
in prosecutions we have seen under this administration cannot be 
explained entirely by staff levels. The ATF observers at Syracuse 
University attest, ``other unknown forces or policies changes are 
apparently at work.'' Many observers believe the administration already 
has the resources it needs to increase as dramatically as they want the 
prosecutions necessary.
  I ask unanimous consent to continue for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. One other issue I think is important: The President did 
something the other night that is the most radical expression on gun 
control by any President in the history of this country--I think that 
is worth repeating--the most radical proposal on gun control by any 
President in the history of this country. Here is what he said:

       Every state in this country already requires . . . 
     automobile drivers to have a license. I think they ought to 
     do the same thing for handgun purchases.

  Mr. President, it is obvious you don't understand.
  What the President failed to grasp is that no State requires a 
license to purchase a car. If you want to have it hauled home to your 
ranch out in Wyoming and you stay on your ranch and you never get off 
on the public road, you, Senator Craig Thomas, do not need a license to 
own a car. You need a license to drive a car on a public right of way, 
on a public road. States do not require a license to drive a car except 
on public roads. That is the whole point the President made. The 
average American scratches his head and says, yes, license cars, 
license guns. But the President said you had to have a license to buy a 
gun, a direct statement of violation of the second amendment of our 
Constitution.
  I can understand why Americans are frustrated, but I doubt the 
President has had a driver's license, maybe a valid one, in a long 
while. He has not needed one. I doubt he has ever waited in line at the 
Department of Motor Vehicles to get a license or to take the test in a 
long while. So if the President wants to license handguns like cars, 
then he is talking about issuing licenses to take a firearm out in 
public because it would be against the Constitution to require a 
license to buy one, so he must be talking about taking a license out to 
take a gun out in public. Well, we already do that. It is called 
concealed carry permits. Thirty States already say you can get a 
license to carry a gun in public, and it is called a concealed carry. 
The State of Vermont doesn't require a license at all.
  I regret to inform you, President Bill Clinton, that what you are 
talking about is something I don't think you understand. No State 
requires a person to have a driver's license to purchase a car, nor 
should this Federal Government ever require a free citizen in our 
country the need to have a license to purchase a gun.
  Mr. President, are you then talking about a national concealed carry 
law? That is probably a pretty good idea. For those who want to carry 
in public, you could say you have to have a certain safety record and 
safety standard and experience and all of those kinds of things if you 
want--not to own, now, but to carry openly in public. I think that is 
what the President is not talking about at all.
  My time is up and there are a good many other facts to be dealt with. 
In States that have concealed carry, crime drops; when the criminal 
element knows that the citizen out there is armed for his or her self-
protection, for the protection of their private property and their 
personal rights and their person itself.
  Extensive study has also shown that when states begin issuing 
concealed carry permits, murders drop by about 8 percent, rapes fall by 
5 percent and aggravated assaults drop by 7 percent.

[[Page 657]]

  Moreover, as economist John Lott notes, states that began issuing 
nondiscretionary permits between 1977 and 1992 ``virtually eliminated 
mass public shootings after four or five years.''
  Why does crime fall when citizens' right to bear arms is protected? 
Because there is nothing a criminal fears more than a citizen who can 
defend himself.
  The President's comments were, of course, a plug for the Vice 
President, who has been talking for some time about regulating guns 
like cars.
  I wonder if that's really what either of them wants. In the words of 
second amendment scholar David Kopel, ``if Gore follows through on his 
promise to treat guns like cars, he will oversee the most massive 
decontrol of firearms in America since 1868, when the 14th Amendment 
abolished Southern states' Black Codes, which prohibited freedmen from 
owning guns.''
  Preserving and strengthening the second amendment would suit most 
Americans just fine. I hope that's really what the President and Vice 
President want. But I suspect it isn't. And I worry that if word gets 
out, some poor White House speechwriter is going to lose his job.
  These are issues we will debate at length on the floor of the Senate 
over the coming months. I thought it was important to come to the floor 
to begin to understand, to begin to explain so the American people can 
more clearly understand the kind of irrational approach this 
administration is currently proposing and certainly the less than 
legitimate record they have in the area of law enforcement when it 
comes to the use of a firearm.
  I thank my colleague from Wyoming for taking out this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Wyoming for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership in 
defense of the second amendment, as well as my colleague from the State 
of Idaho, who has been a long-time advocate of the second amendment.
  I regret I have to stand up here again with my colleagues and defend 
the second amendment because we should not have to do that. I am 
honored to do it, but it is one of our amendments. It is No. 2 in the 
Constitution.
  I find myself wondering why so many of our colleagues come here over 
and over again to try to take second amendment rights away. The right 
to keep and bear arms is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. 
You can't pick and choose which amendment you support in the 
Constitution, nor should you pick and choose what paragraph you support 
in the Constitution. If it is in the Constitution, we ought to abide by 
it and honor it.
  The framers knew it, and that is why they placed the second amendment 
right up there at No. 2 in the Bill of Rights. They did not want the 
Federal Government to interfere with this basic right. It was part of 
the Bill of Rights for the people, and it was No. 2.
  I get a kick out of listening to so many of our colleagues on the 
other side of the issue who, in their eloquence, can knock the second 
amendment down. It is interesting, though, when we hear from the folks 
who were actually on the scene when the second amendment was written, 
folks such as Samuel Adams, who said:

       Among the natural rights of the colonists are these--first, 
     the right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property; 
     together with the right to defend them in the best manner 
     they can.

  Basically talking about the right to bear arms. John Adams:

       Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual 
     discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of 
     tyranny or private self-defense.

  These are the founders. Patrick Henry:

       Guard with jealous attention the public liberty . . . The 
     great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able 
     may have a gun.

  Thomas Jefferson:

       The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to 
     keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect 
     themselves against tyranny in government.

  This is important business we are talking about. This was a basic 
right. Noah Webster:

       Before a standing army can rule, the people must be 
     disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The 
     Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust by the sword 
     because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a 
     force superior to any band of regular troops.

  Richard Henry Lee:

       To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of 
     the people always possess arms.

  With all due respect to my colleagues who speak on this issue in 
opposition to the second amendment, I don't think they are as eloquent 
or as knowledgeable, and I know they weren't there. These guys knew 
what they were talking about because they wrote it. So let's not talk 
about revisiting the Constitution and being politically correct and 
changing things we can't change.
  These are the giants in history, the people who were there on the 
scene. Yet, in the past year or so on this floor, I and many of my 
colleagues hear over and over again: gun control, gun control, gun 
control. Some of it is enacted, which infringes on the second amendment 
of millions of law-abiding Americans. You cannot trample on the 
Constitution of the United States and stand up there and take that oath 
and say you are going to defend it. It is simply inconsistent.
  Despite what history and the second amendment tell us, some keep 
trying to come up with new and inventive ways to subvert that 
Constitution. I don't hear any of these people coming down and saying 
we are going to eliminate the first amendment, but I do hear them 
saying we ought to eliminate the second amendment.
  The gun control provisions in the juvenile justice bill that were 
spurred on by the tragedy at Columbine used that tragedy, frankly. 
There were already 20,000 existing gun laws when that happened, but the 
killings were not stopped. Do we think more gun laws are going to stop 
something such as that from happening?
  There was a recent amendment to stop gun manufacturers from declaring 
bankruptcy. Down the line they come, time after time again, singling 
out one legal product for discrimination: guns. No other lawful 
industry is treated so unfairly. Fortunately, my colleagues voted 
overwhelmingly to reject that amendment.
  The Clinton administration said it will file a Federal lawsuit 
against gun manufacturers. Here is an article from the Washington 
Post--it is interesting coming from the Washington Post--reporting how 
two State courts dismissed lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I ask 
unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, December 1999]

         Firearms Makers Win Dismissal of Lawsuits in 2 States

       In back-to-back victories for the firearms industry, judges 
     in two states have dismissed lawsuits against gun 
     manufacturers and dealers.
       A state judge in Florida tossed out a suit by Miami-Dade 
     County yesterday, three days after a Connecticut state judge 
     dismissed a similar lawsuit brought by the mayor and city of 
     Bridgeport.
       The two lawsuits mirror other suits filed by municipalities 
     that allege that guns have created a public nuisance, 
     threatening residents' health and safety, and that gun 
     manufacturers, like polluters, should have to pay for the 
     cleanup.
       But in their separate decisions, the judges in Connecticut 
     and Florida reached the same conclusion: The governments lack 
     legal standing to sue.
       ``The plaintiffs have no statutory or common-law basis to 
     recoup their expenditures,'' ruled the judge in Bridgeport. 
     ``Public nuisance does not apply to the design, manufacture, 
     and distribution of a lawful product,'' said the Florida 
     judge.
       The mayors of Bridgeport and of Miami-Dade County sued the 
     firearms industry, claiming negligence, product liability and 
     public nuisance. Those mayors said that the industry was 
     responsible for the illegal flow of handguns into their 
     areas.
       The mayors want to recover gun violence costs for police, 
     fire and emergency services. Bridgeport further sued to 
     recover money lost from depressed property values and 
     businesses that moved out of the city.
       Bridgeport and Miami-Dade are among 29 cities and 
     counties--including Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles--
     suing more than

[[Page 658]]

     two dozen gun makers. In October, an Ohio judge threw out a 
     similar lawsuit filed by the city of Cincinnati.
       In one setback for the firearms industry, a state court 
     judge in Georgia earlier had ruled that Atlanta could pursue 
     its negligence claims against gun makers.
       Last week, President Clinton said his administration is 
     thinking about filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of the 3 
     million people living in public housing. Clinton's move was 
     an attempt to force the industry into negotiations to settle 
     the municipalities' lawsuits.
       Anne Kimball, a Chicago lawyer representing Smith & Wesson 
     Corp. and other gun makers, said the judges saw that the 
     actions of criminals cannot be controlled by the firearms 
     industry. ``There is no quarrel that everyone is concerned 
     about violence . . . The question is what to do about it. But 
     these lawsuits are wrong,'' she said.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. They are basically saying they are going 
to throw these suits out. That is the gist of it. They are not 
constitutional. The courts recognize that. The judges said they were 
completely lacking any legal basis.
  Now the President wants to license and register all guns, like 
automobiles, as my colleague from Idaho referred to. The last time I 
checked, there wasn't a constitutional right to drive. Does anybody 
know about that? I don't think they knew what a car was when the 
Constitution was written. There is no comparison between the two 
issues. I never heard anything from the Founding Fathers about the 
right to wagons or horses during that time. I never heard Patrick Henry 
say: Give me mobility or give me death. He said: Give me liberty or 
give me death. That is because driving a car is a privilege, not a 
right. It is a privilege. Gun owners would love to have guns treated as 
cars, with no background checks, no waiting periods, no age limit; it 
might be a good thing.
  Tyranny isn't always obvious. It isn't always about killing and 
communism and all that. Tyranny can be much more subtle, piecemeal, 
gradual--like violating our oath of office and voting against our 
constitutional rights. It happens all the time in this place. History 
will judge us for it; it will judge us on the basis of how many times 
we stood here after having taken the oath of office and then having 
ignored that oath.
  The second amendment guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed. If you are for gun control--and you have a 
right to be--then you are against the Constitution of the United 
States. Change the amendment if you think you can do it. But don't keep 
passing gun control legislation time after time after time. That is 
what we are doing in these proposals and laws. We are doing it quietly, 
without violence, and with an air of respectability, which is what 
troubles me--as if it is right to do it here because it is on the floor 
of the Senate.
  We are violating the constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding 
American citizens across the country, and any way you slice it that is 
still tyranny. That is why I am proud to stand here, as I have done 
many times--and I will do it every day, if I have to, until the last 
day I am in the Senate--in defense of the second amendment. I am 
pleased and proud to support the second amendment.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the other Senator from New Hampshire will 
be here shortly. I thank my friends for talking about the issue. I 
think it is one that is clearly important to many of us. It is 
constitutional. It is right. It is something we all support. It is 
something, however, we don't want to constantly have before us as each 
new issue comes up. This can be brought up as an amendment or as a way 
of stalling going on to other things. I appreciate very much the 
opportunity to do this.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________