[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2936-2964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

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

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

  Pending:

       Hatch (for Campbell) amendment No. 2623, to amend title 18, 
     United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former 
     law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the 
     carrying of concealed handguns.
       Kennedy amendment No. 2619, to expand the definition of 
     armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General 
     to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of 
     projectiles against body armor.
       Craig (for Frist/Craig) amendment No. 2625, to regulate the 
     sale and possession of armor piercing ammunition.
       Levin amendment No. 2631, to exempt any civil action 
     against a person from the provisions of the bill if the gross 
     negligence or reckless conduct of the person proximately 
     caused death or injury.
       Warner amendment No. 2624, to improve patient access to 
     health care services and provide improved medical care by 
     reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on 
     the health care delivery system.
       Lautenberg amendment No. 2632, to require that certain 
     notifications occur whenever a query to the National Instant 
     Criminal Background Check System reveals that a person listed 
     in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File is 
     attempting to purchase a firearm.
       Lautenberg amendment No. 2633, to exempt lawsuits involving 
     injuries to children from the definition of qualified civil 
     liability action.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, the Senate will resume consideration 
of S. 1805, the gun liability bill. The unanimous consent agreement 
from Friday provides for approximately 4 hours of debate in relation to 
two proposed amendments that will be voted on tomorrow. The debate 
today will center around the gun show loophole amendment and the 
assault weapons ban amendment.
  I will manage time on our side during this period, so Senators are 
welcome to come to the floor to speak.
  Following the debate, at 4 p.m. today, Senator Bingaman will offer 
his amendment relating to definition. Under the order, that debate will 
go until 5 o'clock, at which time we will vote in relation to the 
Bingaman amendment. Therefore, the first vote of today's session will 
occur at 5 o'clock.
  The consent agreement governing the remaining consideration of the 
gun manufacturers' liability bill allows for further debate tomorrow 
morning prior to a series of stacked votes on a number of amendments. 
There will be as many as seven stacked votes, including final passage, 
in that series of votes, which will begin at 11:35 a.m. on Tuesday.
  Members can therefore expect final passage of S. 1805 tomorrow 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein will be managing the 
first hour of the debate today on assault weapons; and Senator Jack 
Reed from Rhode Island will be the manager of the second hour relating 
to gun show loopholes.
  Let me wish my colleagues a good afternoon.


                    The Budget For Veterans Affairs

  Mr. President, I want to talk, on my leader time, about an issue that 
will be the subject of a good deal of attention next week; and that is 
the budget, especially as it relates to our veterans.
  The budget this year has many reasons for concern for all of us. I 
will address many of those concerns at a later time. But I want to 
focus, this afternoon, if I can, on just one; that is, the budget for 
Veterans Affairs.
  The legislation before the Budget Committee would increase the 
Veterans Affairs budget by about 2 percent. Unfortunately, that 
represents about a $700 million increase in health care for veterans 
going from approximately $28.5 billion to $29.2 billion--a $700 million 
increase for veterans health.
  What is disturbing to me about that number is what one finds when you 
look at what it means a little more closely. What it means is that, for 
the first time, veterans themselves will be required to pay fees in 
excess of $1 billion for health care that they were promised. People 
probably cannot fully appreciate what that means--a billion-dollar fee 
requirement from veterans themselves for the first time. We have never, 
in all of history, had a requirement that veterans pay at this level--
$1 billion--for health care.
  For now, categories 7 and 8 will be charged $250 a year before they 
can walk in the door the first time. Their fees--which have been $7, 
and were $2 just a couple years ago--for prescription drugs now go up 
to $15. Their per-office doctor visits go from $15 to $20.
  So for the first time, veterans, in many cases, will be denied care, 
not because they do not need it but because they cannot afford it.
  When I was home over the last week or so, it was troubling to me how 
many veterans said: Senator Daschle, $250 may not seem like a lot to 
you, but there is no way I can pay $250. I just won't get care; or: I 
will try to find care at some clinic where it's free.
  It is so troubling to me that I would be hearing that from veterans 
who gave so much to their country, at a time when we are counting on 
our soldiers to do so much for us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now in 
Haiti. Time after time, we send our soldiers into harm's way. They come 
back now, having felt the brunt of that war, and we tell them we just 
can't afford to give them the care they need.
  This is only one of the issues that will be debated during the 
veterans budget. But I hope all of us--Republicans and Democrats 
alike--will be very careful before we commit to this new fee structure.
  Some of us have argued for a long time that it is now time for us to 
pass

[[Page 2937]]

what we call mandatory funding--to treat veterans health the way we 
treat Medicare, the way we treat Social Security--to recognize that we 
have an obligation, and it ought to be met.
  Mandatory funding is a bill that has been offered to authorize this 
new status in health care delivery, and I hope that our colleagues 
would consider it very carefully.
  What is all the more troubling is that there is also a provision in 
our veterans health care system that is very ironic, it seems to me, in 
so many ways. We actually require a veteran, after he has gone to a 
private physician and has been prescribed prescription medicine, to go 
to a VA doctor to have it verified. Sometimes the VA doctor requires 
additional physicals. But this duplicative process, this requirement 
for yet another VA physician review now costs the Veterans' 
Administration a billion dollars. So the irony is that now that we are 
asking veterans to pay for fees they cannot afford--now in excess of a 
billion dollars--we are actually spending a billion dollars we would 
not have to spend if we simply said we are going to trust the decisions 
made by those physicians in the first place. We tested it with 8,000 
veterans over the last couple years, and we found there was absolutely 
no problem associated with having this requirement that a VA doctor be 
consulted eliminated. We could save a billion dollars.
  I argue that billion dollars ought to come out of the fees required 
of our veterans. That alone would reduce some of the anxiety and 
extraordinary frustration so many of our veterans now experience. This, 
too, is a veterans budget matter that I hope we can address both in the 
Budget Committee, as well as on the floor of the Senate in the coming 
days as we debate the veterans budget.
  There are two other issues of budget connection and budget relevance 
that I think we ought to address. The next is the concurrent receipt 
problem. It is still remarkable to me in this day and age that we 
deduct disability compensation from retirement income for veterans. 
Those who gave the most are now required to pay the biggest financial 
sacrifice. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. We are told we 
cannot afford it, but those men and women could not afford to give up 
their jobs, sometimes their good health, to go into war either.
  Where there is a will, there is a way. We ought to be cognizant of 
the incredible disparity and extraordinary unfairness for every 
disabled American veteran today by this practice of deducting 
disability pay from retirement. Over the last couple of years, we have 
actually ultimately passed compromise legislation that would allow 
veterans who are at least 50-percent disabled from beginning to receive 
their full compensation for both disability and retirement. But it will 
be phased in over the next 10 years. A lot of veterans in South Dakota 
told me they will be gone before this legislation is fully phased in. 
So I hope we can also look at concurrent receipt.
  Let's eliminate the disability tax. Let's recognize that we owe these 
disabled veterans more than just lipservice. Let's recognize in this 
day and age, especially now as some are even required to pay fees, that 
this disparity, this unfairness, this embarrassment in our Veterans' 
Administration health delivery and compensation system has to be 
addressed.
  Finally, while the President pro tempore has been as sensitive to 
this issue as anybody in the Chamber, we still have a long way to go in 
providing TRICARE to all members of the Guard and Reserve. I was 
reminded, as I talked to another guardsman who has been permanently 
injured as a result of wounds incurred in Iraq, he has no health 
insurance. I worry about all of those veterans who come home, about the 
prospect of losing their health insurance not only for themselves but 
for their families. In this day and age, with the extraordinary role 
now played by the National Guard and the Reserve, we can't accept a 
double standard with regard to the way health care is provided. If we 
are forcing these young men and women into battle, if we are forcing 
them to endure the pain, suffering, anxiety, the loss of life and limb, 
we ought to at the very least provide them with the health insurance 
they have earned and they deserve.
  So we will be offering legislation once again to provide full funding 
for TRICARE health insurance for members of the Guard and Reserve. It 
is my hope that on a bipartisan basis, as we have done now on several 
occasions, we can pass it, enact it into law, and send a clear message 
that that double standard, too, will end in this Congress.
  Mr. President, there are a lot of issues relating to veterans that I 
hope will be provided the time, attention, and priority they deserve. 
We will have the first opportunity during the budget debate next week. 
I look forward to that debate and to the consideration of amendments to 
address many of these concerns. I am hopeful that on a bipartisan basis 
we can address them successfully.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
hours of debate, with 1 hour of the time controlled by the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain or his designee; 1 hour under the control of the 
Senator from California or her designee; 2 hours under the control of 
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, or his designee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if anybody wants to use part of their time, 
they have to get permission from Senator Feinstein. She is here to use 
her hour. Senator Reed will be the designee for Senator McCain. We have 
the offer of the amendment by Senator Bingaman for an hour, and then we 
will vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and 
Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, 
and Clinton, and also Senators Reid and Lautenberg, to offer an 
amendment which is identical to S. 2109, introduced early last week. 
This amendment will simply reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban. It 
is a straight reauthorization. There is nothing added to it.
  The present legislation sunsets on September 13 of this year. As you 
and others know, the President has said he will sign a straight 
reauthorization. This is it.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Warner, who I hope will be 
here shortly to speak for himself. I very much appreciate his 
cosponsorship of this legislation. When the legislation came before 
this Senate 10 years ago, Senator Warner didn't support it. Therefore, 
his reconsideration of that position is all important. I won't give 
reasons for it. I believe that is up to him. I believe both he and 
Senators DeWine and Schumer will be utilizing the hour of our time.
  I ask that the Chair inform me when 15 minutes of the hour has 
passed, if I might.
  The issue of assault weapons is near and dear to my heart. It is not 
about politics or polls or interest groups. In my view, it is about 
real people and real lives. It is about the ability of working men and 
women and children to be safe from disgruntled employees or schoolmates 
who show up one day at a law firm or school or a place of business and 
fire away until the room becomes filled with dead and wounded 
colleagues.
  Unfortunately, in this society, we are always going to have some 
people who are prone to grievance killing.
  It is my belief the assault weapon, the military-style semiautomatic 
assault weapon, has become the weapon of choice for grievance killers.
  It is about the ability of children to learn, play, and grow without 
the fear that someone such as Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris would show 
up at Columbine High School with assault weapons and fire until the 
school is literally littered with bodies--a dozen students and a 
teacher murdered, more than two dozen others injured.
  It is about making sure our law enforcement officers can safely go 
about their duties and return home to their families at the end of the 
day, instead of finding themselves confronted, such as Officer James 
Guelff found himself

[[Page 2938]]

in 1994, with assailants wearing body armor and firing from an arsenal 
of 2,000 rounds of ammunition and a cache of assault weapons.
  The officer was gunned down after 10 years of service, and it took 
150 police officers to equal the firepower of a gunman clad in Kevlar 
carrying assault weapons.
  I first raised this issue in 1993, when I was a new Senator. I was 
determined to try to pass the assault weapons legislation as an 
amendment to the crime bill. Members told me: Forget it; the gun owners 
around here have too much authority. We would never be able to enact 
assault weapons legislation. I was told the NRA was simply too strong. 
Senator Biden, then-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said it would be 
a good learning experience for me, and, in fact, it was.
  It was the will of the American people, it turns out, that was 
stronger than any lobbying organization, even the National Rifle 
Association. And today, 77 percent of the American people and 66 
percent of gun owners believe this legislation should be reauthorized.
  We got the bill passed, and America has been safer for it. In fact, 
the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes since this bill has 
passed has diminished by two-thirds. That is the fact. Assault weapons 
traced to crimes since the passage of this legislation have diminished 
by two-thirds. That is the good news.
  It is interesting, the NRA says: Oh, the ban doesn't work; it is just 
cosmetic; forget it. But the ban does work, and it was carefully put 
together. No gun owners have lost their weapon because of this 
legislation. No gun anywhere in America has been confiscated from a 
legal owner because of this ban. The sky did not fall. Life went on, 
but it went on with fewer grievance killings, fewer juveniles using 
them, fewer driveby shooters having access to the most dangerous of 
firearms.
  I want to talk about just a few of the guns we banned. The bill 
banned 19 specific assault weapons and then set up a physical 
characteristics test which, frankly, if given my way, I would toughen 
now. We have had more experience. We know gun manufacturers get around 
it. California has toughened the test and, basically, I would like to 
emulate that legislation. Clearly, the votes are not in this Chamber 
for it; certainly not in the other Chamber, and we probably would not 
be able to gain a Presidential signature. I probably used too 
optimistic a word by using ``probably.'' Let me say we would not be 
able to gain a Presidential signature.
  Let me speak for a moment about perhaps the most notorious assault 
weapon, the AK-47. This gun, developed in the former Soviet Union, is 
one of the most widely used military weapons in the world. It is not 
used to hunt, at least not to hunt animals. It is not well designed for 
home defense. Its ammunition can easily pierce walls and kill innocent 
bystanders. I will tell you what it is good for: the rapid killing of 
other people. How well I remember when an unstable drifter by the name 
of Patrick Purdy, with an assault weapon modeled after the AK-47, 
walked into a Stockton schoolyard in northern California. He lay on his 
belly, and he fired indiscriminately into the schoolyard. He fired 106 
rounds of ammunition. By the time he was done, 5 children were dead and 
29 were injured--five children dead because a of drifter who could gain 
one of the most powerful military weapons and use it against children.
  Each of these children had families. They had futures. One might have 
been a doctor one day, another a teacher, maybe even one a Senator, but 
they never got that chance. Their families did not see them grow up.
  Then there is the Uzi. The Uzi was designed for Israeli paratroopers 
in the 1950s. Again, this is not a weapon designed for hunting or self-
defense. This is a weapon of war. It can spray fire rapidly and with 
some accuracy and is used for raids, firefights, and, to put it simply, 
the killing of enemy soldiers in close combat.
  An easily concealed weapon of war that sprays fire can also be used 
against civilians, and so it was when James Huberty walked into a 
McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. He was able to kill 21 people and wound 
15 others. The McDonald's customers were simply in the wrong place at 
the wrong time. Had Huberty carried a revolver, who knows how many 
lives would have been saved. But with an Uzi, there is no ability to 
escape. With a big clip and a light trigger, nobody can get to you to 
disarm you before you have emptied the clip. The spray fire begins and 
the tragedy looms large. Again, a weapon of war falls into the hands of 
a grievance killer.
  The TEC-9. For me, these incidents really came to a head on July 1, 
1993, when a man by the name of Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 
California Street carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols.
  Let me show you what he looked like. He is dead in this picture. Look 
at this clip on this assault pistol. Look at the additional clips he 
was carrying in the bag. And look at the weapon in his hand.
  Ferri's gun--well, his guns--actually had special spring-loaded 
hellfire switches that allowed them to be fired, for all practical 
purposes, as fast as a machine gun. As a result, it did not take long 
for him to accomplish his task. Within minutes, he murdered eight 
people and six others were wounded.
  I just looked at a shot of a lovely blond woman on the floor in her 
office with three shots in her back and one in her shoulder. I have 
spoken to the survivors and families of these victims over the years, 
and I can tell you it is just plain heartbreaking.
  One such survivor was Michelle Scully. I will paraphrase what 
happened to her that day. Michelle and her husband John Scully--he was 
a lawyer in the firm--sought refuge in the nearest room, but the door 
did not have a lock. Michelle and John tried to block the door with a 
file cabinet, but they could not move it. Finally, he spread his 6-
foot-4 body over his wife as a shield as the gunman wordlessly opened 
the door and fired this gun over and over again.
  John was hit six times. His wife once. ``Michelle, I'm sorry,'' John 
Scully said a few minutes later, ``I am dying.''
  No one should have to go through this. No one should have to read 
about it in a newspaper. Nobody goes to work in the morning or says 
goodbye to their spouse expecting something like what happened at 101 
California Street.
  These were not soldiers or law enforcement officers. These were 
people doing everyday jobs in an everyday place. Because a person who 
had a bone to pick also had two assault pistols, eight lives were ended 
before the day was done.
  Now, my colleagues can tell me guns do not kill people, that people 
kill people. Of course, I have to agree with that, but when there is a 
nut or a man so inflamed that he is going to go out and exact vengeance 
and a weapon of war designed to kill large numbers in close combat is 
made available to him, when our Government enables this to happen, we 
fall down on the job because we are here to see that there are laws 
that protect people.
  In 1994, a man used a TEC-9 to kill three people in the Washington, 
DC, police headquarters. Those killed were two FBI agents and a veteran 
police sergeant. The shooter walked into the crowded building with a 
concealed weapon, one of the key factors in how dangerous these weapons 
can be because they either have collapsable shoulder mounts or they are 
easily concealed. He then proceeded unimpeded directly into a homicide 
squad office and began firing. This is what the TEC-9 can do. Again, we 
do not hear stories of TEC-9s being used to hunt deer. We do hear about 
tragedy after tragedy.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator has utilized 15 
minutes of her time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I appreciate that.
  In 1999, even after the assault weapons ban had been law for almost 5 
years, Dylan Klebold fired 55 shots from a TEC-DC9 at Columbine. The 
TEC-DC9, a gun manufactured before the ban took effect and thus 
grandfathered and legal, was obtained from a

[[Page 2939]]

gun show and then used to kill his fellow students.
  It is my hope that over time and the way the bill is structured, the 
availability of these guns will dry up because what the legislation 
does is prohibit the manufacture and the sale of these weapons, not the 
possession. When they do dry up, the Dylan Klebolds of the world can no 
longer have access to them.
  The supply of these guns is not going to dry up, however, if the 
assault weapons ban sunsets in September. We would be giving Intratec 
and other such companies a renewed license to manufacture these 
military guns and market them elsewhere across the Nation.
  We specifically exempted 670 rifles and shotguns from the legislation 
so anybody who said, oh, my gun is going to be taken, could be 
reassured and we could show them we did not, in fact, take their gun.
  Although it may be difficult to read, this is the listing of the 
hunting guns and other recreational weapons protected in the 
legislation. It goes on and on. The Weatherby Mark V Sport Rifle, the 
Savage Model 111BC heavy barrel varmint rifle, and all centerfire 
rifles that are single shot, drillings, combination guns; shotguns-auto 
loaders; shotguns-slide actions; shotguns-over/unders; centerfire 
rifles-auto loaders; centerfire rifles-lever and slide; centerfire 
rifles-bolt action; shotguns-side by sides, shotguns-bolt actions and 
single shots. Total, 670 hunting weapons.
  The reason I did this is I approached some Members of the Senate and 
said, what do they need to support legislation? And they said they 
needed assurance that hunting weapons are not covered. We provided that 
assurance. That assurance has worked and no one has lost a single 
weapon on this list.
  The list includes every conceivable weapon: shotgun, rifle, et 
cetera. It is designed to protect the ability of innocent gunowners to 
keep their hunting weapons and to keep their guns for self-defense. The 
list of protected guns and the 9 years of accounting of history behind 
the ban show that the National Rifle Association's hysterical claims of 
gun confiscation are simply not true.
  I will speak about support for this legislation. As my colleagues can 
see from the list behind me, countless organizations, civic and law 
enforcement, are asking that this assault weapons legislation be 
reauthorized. At the top of the list we have the largest law 
enforcement organization in the Nation, the Fraternal Order of Police. 
We have the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of 
Mayors, National Association of Counties, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, 
the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Education Association the 
NAACP, and the list goes on.
  By latest poll, more than three-fourths of the American people, even 
two-thirds of gunowners, support reauthorizing the assault weapons 
legislation. So the will of the people could not be more clear. The 
American people know that these guns should not, once again, be 
manufactured and imported into the United States.
  We saw in the Columbine shooting, the Long Island Railroad shooting, 
and so many others that high-capacity assault weapons can make those 
who wield them temporarily invincible because it is so difficult to get 
close to them to disarm them. So the fate of this bill is in this 
Senate.
  In April of last year Presidential White House spokesman Scott 
McClellan said of the assault weapons legislation:

       The President supports the current law, and he supports 
     reauthorization of the current law.

  That is what we are doing with this legislation, reauthorizing the 
current law, period.
  Now, I realize the President has expressed concern about amendments 
to the gun immunity bill that might delay its passage beyond this year, 
but the assault weapons legislation expires in less than 7 months and 
we cannot delay this bill beyond this year, either. I am hopeful that 
as people look back and they look at this terrible litany of events all 
across this Nation, in schoolyards, in businesses, in factories, in 
print shops, in law offices, wherever people congregate, they recognize 
that it is prudent to keep assault weapons off the streets of our 
American cities.
  As gangs move guns across State lines, they move assault weapons. So 
the ability to dry up this supply over time, the ability to prohibit 
their manufacture and their sale is what this legislation does.
  It has always puzzled me because the NRA says it is only cosmetic, it 
does not work, and I wonder, if it is only cosmetic why do they get so 
exercised about it? But it does work, because assault weapon gun traces 
to crimes have declined by two-thirds since this bill has passed. That 
is the proof. It has had an effect. That is why the NRA is calling 
offices today. That is why the NRA is asking Members not to vote for 
this: Because it has worked.
  I reserve the remainder of our time. I yield the floor. Mr. 
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the time that is running be 
equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. The first hour, of course, is allocated to the debate over 
the semiauto ban, so your request is against the semiauto ban and the 
total?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just this one.
  Mr. CRAIG. I object to that until I better understand it. I want to 
allocate my 2 hours reserved in the UC for this afternoon. Could the 
Senator explain?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There is a reason for it. We were told this would be 
later, at 3 o'clock, and then learned it would be 1 o'clock, and then 
it was noon. I was here so I could come down. Senator Warner, I 
believe, has not yet arrived, and would like to speak, as would Senator 
DeWine and Senator Schumer. It is a Monday. The time has essentially 
changed. So I would like to leave them time to be able to speak.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, might I ask we go into a quorum, only for 
the purpose of discussing this and better understanding it?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have no objection.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is able to do that. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida speaks--and 
neither the Senator from California nor I, who control time at this 
moment, object to that; it is my understanding he wants to speak on the 
crisis in Haiti--what I would like to consider is that we reconsider 
the unanimous consent from the Senator from California as it relates to 
time. Apparently there has been a misunderstanding on the part of some 
Senators, or their staff failed to inform them as to the time schedule 
that was agreed upon in the unanimous consent that was established to 
operate today.
  What is critical is a 5 o'clock vote on the Bingaman amendment and 
allocating necessary time for the Senators to speak to that prior to 
that vote, and for me to respond.
  I ask unanimous consent that time that is being used now, or that may 
not be used in quorum call, be taken equally from all sides and that 
that time be

[[Page 2940]]

extended after the vote, at 5 o'clock, for those who were not given the 
opportunity to speak on the assault weapons ban or the semiauto ban who 
are missing it at this time, so we can keep the Senate running.
  Mr. President, I will withhold that UC for a while. There is another 
Senator who has an amendment that is in position at this time who would 
have to concur. Why don't I withdraw my UC and yield the floor to the 
Senator from Florida for speaking on Haiti as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Florida?
  Mr. CRAIG. He would speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With the time now charged against anyone?
  Mr. CRAIG. Time charged on all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Time charged on all sides?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from Florida is recognized.


                                 Haiti

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, moment by moment things are 
unfolding down in the poverty-wracked, AIDS-infected, politically 
unstable island nation of Haiti. I have had quite a bit of commentary 
on this subject since I had sent a letter of February 10 to the 
President suggesting what should be done. Given the events that have 
unfolded over the weekend--the fact that Aristide has fled, the fact 
that the U.S. military is located there as a first wave of an 
international security force to try to establish order--I want to talk 
about the future of that island nation.
  Clearly, it is a nation that has been troubled for stability, 
political and economic. I think what is in the interests of Haiti, as 
well as the interests of the United States, is to stabilize that 
nation. It is a nation that has not been comfortable because of the 
scores of coups d'etat that have occurred over the 200-year history of 
that little country. It is a country where we only need to look 10 
years back to see that.
  When Aristide was elected President, a coup went in, removed him from 
power, and it took the U.S. military to come back in to put him back 
into power. The problem is that we didn't stay for the long haul. We 
didn't help Haiti pull itself up by its economic bootstraps. We didn't 
continue to help them understand if they had no history of democratic 
institutions that functioned well--to help them continue to improve 
their institutions so it would foster free and fair elections and 
people would respect the rule of law.
  That is why we are at this place. That is why I have taken this 
occasion to come and talk to my colleagues about what ought to happen 
in the future in Haiti.
  First, the Haitian people are an industrious people, and they are a 
proud people.
  I visited the city slum called Cite Soleil in the capital city of 
Port-au-Prince amidst enormous poverty and the most meager of material 
possessions. There is a huge drainage ditch running through this 
section of Port-au-Prince. It is an open garbage sewer. Yet as I walked 
into those little homes which many times only had a piece of corrugated 
tin across the top not even sealing the roof, I found those little 
homes so neatly kept with such pride. I found in the middle of that 
slum a little area no larger than half the size of a basketball court 
neatly swept and used as a soccer field. I found there were lots of 
Americans there trying to assist with education.
  One of our colleagues from this body, Senator DeWine of Ohio, has 
been to Haiti some 12 or 13 times. He contributes from his own pocket 
each year to some of the missions there and a Catholic priest who has a 
school--not only for the children but a school afterhours for the 
parents to come and learn what their children are learning so they will 
be in a position of encouraging their own children to have a chance to 
escape poverty by opening up their minds through education.
  I saw an extraordinary medical clinic, much of which is assisted by 
the United States, in the midst of all of that poverty and disease--
indeed AIDS as well. This medical clinic was like a beacon of light in 
the midst of darkness. It was well respected--even by the hooligans who 
are there. They respect that medical clinic as well.
  Our delegation talked to a Dr. Pap who has had tremendous success in 
bringing under control the surging numbers of AIDS infections. But when 
you start with a huge percentage of the population already infected 
with AIDS--indeed the highest degree of infection in the Western 
Hemisphere--then you have to start from a base that is already out of 
control.
  I saw industries that were once thriving suddenly, because those 
private enterprises could not get loans--by the way, what bank was to 
give loans to an area where it was so wracked with political and 
economic chaos? I saw the fact that our Government had basically not 
gone to bat for Haiti on international loans from the development 
banks; and that we were insisting that Haiti pay off arrears before it 
would get another loan. How was Haiti going to pay off any arrears? As 
a result, there were not the loans coming in to build the roads or, 
more importantly, to improve the existing roads and just to maintain 
them.
  As I went 50 miles north from Port-au-Prince on a road that only had 
a hard surface for 16 or maybe 17 miles, then there was nothing but 
potholes, and all the commerce running north and south in the island 
was attempting to go on that road.
  What can we learn about what to do for the future of Haiti? It is 
very clear to me. The United States had better be involved. We had 
better not have a hands-off policy as we have had over the course of 
the past 5 or 6 years. We had better be involved, because it not only 
affects Haitians but it affects the United States. Let me tell you how.
  In the midst of the Western Hemisphere with a country to be as 
poverty stricken as Haiti is, it is going to be ripe for insurrection 
and tumult. What happens when there is insurrection and tumult? It is 
ripe to attract the drug trade--which it already has in big-time 
numbers--and it is ripe to attract terrorists.
  When we start talking about what is in the interest of the United 
States, it had better be one conclusion: to help Haiti in the future. 
If there is hopelessness and despair with no way out and no jobs, what 
is going to happen? There is going to be a mass exodus from that island 
nation just as there was in the beginning of all of this political 
strife that occurred over the past few weeks.
  The Coast Guard has picked up over 700 people at sea. What is in the 
interest of the United States? The Coast Guard doesn't have to do that. 
But if people start fleeing in such huge numbers that they start 
overwhelming the coast of Florida, what does that do to our social 
system in Florida? What does that do to Immigration and Customs? What 
does that do in our ability to protect the homeland by securing our 
borders?
  Need I remind you that in a mass migration to the United States, is 
there not the opportunity for terrorists to slip into the country under 
the cover of that mass migration, not even to speak of the drug trade 
that would be entering our country?
  I appreciate the time in the midst of this gun debate. I thank the 
two Senators who are leading this debate for allowing me to come and 
pour out my heart. I am not looking to the past now. The past is past. 
Let us go forward. It is clearly in the interest of the United States 
and it is clearly in the interest of the Haitian people for the United 
States to take the lead economically and politically; for institutions 
to help them understand and develop. That should be an international 
effort outside of the Western Hemisphere.
  France has an interest and has already offered to help. We should 
work with all of the nations of the world that want to help this little 
poverty stricken nation. Then we will be doing what we should. We will 
be leading by an example--that what we preach, in fact, we are doing 
with our daily acts.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page 2941]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Who yields time? The distinguished 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we will not propound a unanimous consent 
request because time is burning on the clock equally. The unanimous 
consent agreement that brought us here this morning largely allocated 4 
hours of time between 1 and 4 p.m. to debate both the assault weapons 
ban and the gun show loophole argument.
  At 4 o'clock, Senator Bingaman will be here to offer his amendment 
and that will be debated. We will vote at 5 p.m. Following that, the 
Levin amendment will be debated. Of course, we can debate into the 
evening on either of those two issues, if Senators so wish. Feeling 
they may not have gained time this afternoon to do so, there is no 
restriction in that.
  For a few moments let me discuss the issue that is at hand, the 
effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban. In September of this year 
the law expires, so there is urgency on the part of those who believe 
it was an effective law to get it reinstated. I will argue in the next 
few moments it has made no difference and that statistics do 
demonstrate certain things, but statistics have to be placed in the 
right context of understanding how they were gained to show the 
ineffectiveness of this law and the ineffectiveness of the ban itself.
  Semiautos are not the weapon of choice in the commission of nearly 
all the crimes in this country.
  What is important is to understand where we are with S. 1805, the 
underlying bill and the ability to keep that bill as clean as possible 
so that it can get to the President's desk. The semiauto ban, the gun 
show loophole, and a variety of other issues could simply drag this 
bill down and deny substantial tort reform in an area that is narrow, 
that is specific, that is clean, that says to the American people: Yes, 
we are becoming responsible in denying the kinds of junk lawsuits that 
some push through the courts to legislate a public policy that they 
cannot effectively gain by bringing it to the Congress of the United 
States.
  That is why the administration has been clear in its statement of 
administrative policy. On S. 1805, the administration strongly supports 
the passage of this legislation. The administration urges the Senate to 
pass a clean bill in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this 
year. Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this 
year, in their opinion, is unacceptable. For myself, being the author 
of the amendment, I clearly agree with that.
  The manufacturers or sellers of a legal, nondefective product should 
not be held liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of that product 
by others.
  This is a continuation of the statement of administrative policy: The 
possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that 
is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes 
public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a 
basic constitutional right and civil liberty, sets a poor precedent for 
other lawful industries, will cause a loss of jobs and burden 
interstate and foreign commerce. S. 1805 would help curb frivolous 
litigation against a lawful American industry and the thousands of 
workers it employs and would help prevent abuse of the legal system.
  At the same time, the legislation would carefully preserve the rights 
of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions. 
These civil actions are enumerated in the bill and respect the 
traditional role of the States in our Federal system with regard to 
such actions.
  That is the statement from the administration as it relates to this 
legislation. It is important because they are asking for a clean bill.
  Listeners will hear me say time and time again over the course of 
today and tomorrow as we move to the vote on these amendments that are 
being debated today: Let's keep this bill clean. The legislative year 
is short. We have a bill that is supported now by a 2-to-1 vote margin 
in the Senate. This bill will pass this Senate by a fair margin. That 
expresses a bipartisan will of this Congress to get this bill to our 
President under the same context as the statement of administrative 
policy so spoke.
  Let's talk about the amendment at hand at this moment, the assault 
weapon or semiauto ban. I prefer to call it a semiauto ban, and during 
the course of the next few minutes you will see why. The word, 
``assault,'' is by itself an image-getter. It is a cosmetic word that 
defines for some a certain type of firearm, at the same time sometimes 
as a weapon, obviously sometimes as a collector's piece. What more 
clearly identifies the issue at hand is the mechanism of the gun 
itself, the firearm itself. For the next few moments I will speak to 
that.
  At the time this law was first enacted, most in Congress were very 
skeptical it would work. That is why there was a sunset provision 
included in the law. OK, if the law is able to accomplish this, let's 
see if, in fact, it can accomplish that. Let's make sure that Congress 
has an opportunity to revisit it, as we do quite often with laws we are 
not sure of, and therefore a sunset provision. The year is at hand, the 
sunset provision is such that this bill will expire. The results are 
in. These firearms are not, nor have they been generally--and I use the 
word ``generally''--used in crime. The restrictions imposed by this law 
make no sense and only create a burden on law-abiding citizens and 
businesses.
  It is my opinion we ought to let it expire. Again, it is another one 
of the bureaucratic hurdles we love to put in front of the law-abiding 
citizens of this country, knowing full well that the criminal on the 
ground does not play by the rules, and that in a civil society is the 
law. My arguments of the next few moments will show just that.
  There continues to be a tremendous amount of misinformation about the 
firearms banned by this law and what the ban has accomplished, so let 
me go through some of the facts. Semiautomatic firearms were first 
introduced more than a century ago. The first semiautomatic rifle was 
introduced in 1885, the first small pistol in 1890. The first 
semiautomatic gun, the Browning automatic 5, was patented in 1900. 
Theodore Roosevelt, our United States President from 1901 through 1909, 
hunted with a semiauto shotgun.
  Today, Americans own approximately 30 million semiautomatic rifles, 
pistols, and shotguns across the landscape of this great Nation, 
approximately 15 percent of privately owned firearms in the United 
States. About 15 percent of all firearms owned in the United States 
meet the definition of semiauto. What are they doing with these 
firearms? Semiauto rifles, including many defined as assault weapons--
again, a definition of a term based on how a given weapon appears by 
the 1994 Federal gun ban--are used for formal marksmanship, 
competition, recreational target shooting, and hunting. Semiauto 
shotguns are very widely used for hunting, as well as skeet, trap and 
sporting clay shooting.
  Many of us enjoy that sport and engage in it. Semiautomatic handguns 
are used in formal marksmanship competition, as well as for 
recreational shooting and hunting. Many semiautomatic firearms, 
including some affected by the Federal assault weapon law, are highly 
valued by gun collectors. They are also commonly kept and used, as 
witnesses testified during the hearings before the House of 
Representatives Subcommittee on Crime in 1995, for protection against 
crime and criminals.
  There is nothing intrinsically more dangerous about these firearms 
than others. In fact, they do less damage to a target than a shotgun 
does. Clearly, the shotgun, given the range, has by far the greater 
force. And they are functionally identical to thousands of other guns 
being used for legal purposes in this country today, functionally 
identical. Many people mistakenly believe these are machine guns which 
fire more than one bullet when the trigger is pulled. If someone was 
listening to this debate and they heard the words ``spraying a crowd,'' 
they would think of a fully automatic weapon. That is simply not the 
case, and I

[[Page 2942]]

think that fact needs to be clearly understood.
  On the contrary, semiauto firearms do not spray bullets. They fire 
one bullet per trigger pull. The mechanism simply ejects the shell and 
replaces it with another bullet, and you have to pull the trigger 
again. That is a semiauto. Let's remember that fully automatic machine 
guns have been banned since 1934. This Congress spoke to that in 1934.
  The Federal assault weapon law is set to expire, as I have said. It 
has prohibited the manufacture, since September 13, 1994, of a semiauto 
rifle equipped with a detachable magazine or two or more attachments, 
such as a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor, with similar guidelines 
imposed on handguns and shotguns. The manufacture of large ammunition 
magazines, holding more than 10 rounds, was also outlawed.
  Now we are beginning to get into what is, by those who understand it, 
viewed as an assault weapon. It is the physical attributes of two or 
more attachments, such as a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor.
  Assault weapons, large magazines manufactured before September 13, 
1994, are exempt from the law. Before September 13, 1994, manufacturers 
accelerated production to increase inventories available for sale 
later.
  After the law took effect, the BATF informed manufacturers that they 
could produce firearms identical to assault weapons but without one or 
more of the prohibited features. And that is a reality today. So again, 
when I use the word, ``cosmetic,'' there is a lot more truth to that 
than fiction. If it does not look this way, if it does not have this 
particular item on it, but it shoots identically and it has the same 
firepower, well, then it is legal.
  Also, new models of semiautomatics have been introduced, and the 
production of some previously discontinued models has resumed.
  The ban affects firearms never widely used in crime, according to a 
study conducted by Congress--the Urban Institute, Impact Evaluation of 
the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994.
  According to the FBI, rifles of any kind are used in only about 3 
percent of homicides--only about 3 percent of homicides.
  Here is an explanation of why a law-abiding gun owner would purchase 
one of these firearms. Now, I pulled it out of my files because I 
thought it was a good one because the Senator from California said: 
Well, these weapons are not for hunting purposes.
  Yes, some people do hunt with them. Does it mean you simply machine 
gun down a deer? No, it does not mean that at all. It is because it is 
a weapon of choice, largely because it is lighter than many hunting 
weapons, and it can be carried by a smaller person.
  In this instance, this person's name is Mary. She happens to be a 
licensed hunter in Idaho, and she happens to use a Colt AR-15. It is a 
semiauto that uses a 20-round clip. That is what she hunts her deer 
with. That is what she kills her deer with. So she and her boyfriend 
wrote us and sent a picture, saying: Look, what the semiauto ban of 
1994 does is it eliminates this kind of firearm, and, in essence, it 
eliminates the ability of a smaller person to go out into the brush to 
hunt deer and to recreate in that fashion.
  Now, the ban in 1994 did a couple of things. First of all, it named 
certain guns specifically. And I could go through that list of 
particular firearms that it actually named. Of course, the Senator from 
California is very well aware of that in crafting a specific list of 
firearms at that time. Some guns it only named by features.
  A semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has 
at least two of the following is included within the ban: a folding or 
telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath 
the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or 
threaded barrel, a grenade launcher. But, then again, of course, the 
National Firearms Act already outlaws those, so even if this law 
expires in September of this year, it still is going to be illegal to 
have a grenade launcher, as it should be, unless you are a bona fide 
collector and have been given the authority to collect for collection 
purposes.
  A semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine and has 
at least two of the following: again, an ammunition magazine that 
attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; a threaded barrel 
capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward 
handgrip, or silencer; a shroud that is attached to, or partially or 
completely encircles the barrel, and that permits the shooter to hold 
the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; a 
manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; 
and a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
  That is how technical this law has become.
  Here is another one: a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of 
the following: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that 
protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a fixed 
magazine in excess of five rounds, and an ability to accept a 
detachable magazine.
  But here is something that is important to understand. You know the 
old phrase, ``Let's make the record perfectly clear.'' I think it is 
appropriate.
  What were banned by other laws that will still be banned after this 
law expires? I think I heard reference to the popularity of the AK-47, 
a foreign rifle, and Uzis. Well, they were banned from importation in 
1989, under Federal firearms importation law--now 18 USC 925(d)(3). The 
use of gun parts to assemble the same guns in the United States was 
prohibited by the Unsoeld amendment in 1990. In 1993, the so-called 
assault pistols, like the Uzi pistol, were banned under the importation 
law. In February of 1994, revolving cylinder shotguns--I have heard the 
words used here, and they were commonly called ``Street Sweepers'' and 
``Striker-12s''--were banned under the National Firearms Act.
  So those will still be illegal firearms to traffic in, to commerce 
in. And as a result of that, it is important that we make the record 
perfectly clear that ownership of these prior to the passage of the law 
but after the passage of the law, these do not go away.
  Again, as I have said, after the assault weapons law expires, here is 
what will happen. American-made rifles, such as the AR-15, will once 
again be made in their original configurations. Private citizens will 
also, once again, be able to buy standard capacity ammunition--
magazines usually between 13- and 17-round capacity--instead of the 
arbitrarily reduced capacity 10-round magazines the law imposed, a 
change that will assist in defending themselves against criminals and 
for recreational purposes. In other words, what a difference a law 
makes.
  Well, in this instance, the difference the law made was it kept 
firearms of these type and by definition out of the hands of law-
abiding citizens. But if you are a criminal, if you want to deal in the 
back streets and in the black market, as most criminals do, then you 
are not going to walk in and try to buy one of these off the shelf. 
That is why criminals will have them, because you cannot acquire them 
off the shelf because it is illegal under the current law, and you 
would not be able to anyway if you were a criminal. It is the law-
abiding citizens who subject themselves to the laws, as they should.
  Now, is this statistic that I have in front of me accurate? The 
Senator from California had a chart a few moments ago that would 
indicate quite the difference. In fact, she showed a declining number 
in the statistics. This statistic is accurate. Bureau of Justice 
statistics, Department of Justice: Before the semiautomatic firearms 
ban, less than 2 percent of crimes in this country were semiauto. After 
the ban, 1997 and forward, less than 2 percent were. Same figure.
  How is it possible, then, that the Senator from California gets the 
statistic and the chart that shows the decline? I am not suggesting she 
misrepresents this chart, because I believe this chart to be accurate, 
and I believe it is accumulated in a nonbiased way.
  Let me try to talk about the use of and/or the misuse of what is 
known as tracing data. There is a problem when

[[Page 2943]]

using firearm commerce tracing reports justifying any assault weapon 
law. Let me try to walk you through this. Is this technical? It is a 
bit technical. But the CRS looked at it and they agree with this 
figure. That is the research service that we employ in a nonpartisan 
way to give us accurate facts and statistics about those items we 
debate on the floor.
  More than a decade ago, the CRS examined the firearms tracing system 
in the context of the assault weapon issue and determined that 
information derived from traces should not be used to determine how 
often any kind of guns--not just assaults or semiautos--were used by 
criminals. One of the key limitations of the tracing system is the fact 
most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, 
and most guns that are used to commit violent crimes are never traced. 
The tracing system was designed to collect statistics. The 
Congressional Research Service said this:

       Fire arms selected for tracing do not constitute a random 
     sample and cannot be considered representative of the large 
     universe of all firearms used by criminals or of any subset 
     of that universe.

  CRS also noted that:

       A law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for 
     any reason. No crime need be involved.

  It pointed out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and 
Explosives admitted:

       It is not possible to determine if traced firearms are 
     related to criminal activity.

  In other words, it is just a matter of gaining certain statistics on 
certain items.
  One problem with the tracing system in the context of assault weapons 
is that before the assault weapon law was enacted, traces on those guns 
were requested disproportionate to their use in crimes. That is because 
there was so much political interest in the guns at the time. It was 
the talk of the day, if you will. It was the placebo of action in 1994 
that gave us the political law we have today that still represents 
those figures, known as the assault weapons ban. That is why it was 
disproportionate. Why? Political interests, a lot of questions being 
asked.
  Certainly crimes that were committed using a semiauto or an assault 
weapon in this percentage of 2 percent or less were highly dramatized 
at the time. That is because there was, again, so much action today. A 
decade later, they constitute a smaller share of traces because there 
has been less interest in them and because other guns are now being 
traced more heavily. In other words, the decline in the Senator's 
chart, in my opinion, represents that shift in attitude and in 
attention, if in fact you use tracing data as a way to determine that 
semiautos/assault weapons are being used in the commission of the 
crime. That is the reason for this statistic from the Department of 
Justice.
  While they look at these kinds of statistics, they don't believe them 
valid. Because of the method by which they are collected, they are 
viewed as heavily inaccurate if used in certain contexts. To determine 
the extent to which assault weapons have been used in crimes, we have 
to look at State and local law enforcement agency reports on prime 
weapons. That is the Department of Justice's felony survey and the 
congressionally mandated study on the assault weapon law. They all show 
assault weapons have been used in only a very small percentage of 
violent crimes. That is the reason for that statistic.
  Well, getting technical about a technical issue is important. We can 
talk about all of the dramatics and the tragedies that happen when 
firearms are misused. We can talk about Columbine, and there are a lot 
of kinds of things that are, appropriately so, to emote the kind of 
emotion all of us feel and understand when these kinds of firearms are 
used improperly and illegally.
  But what happens when we start banning them, we have all learned, is 
that it is the law-abiding citizen who may own them and use them 
responsibly and who may be collecting them that is blocked by the law. 
The criminal is not.
  In this survey that the Department of Justice uses, they go out and 
survey criminals. They surveyed 14,000 of them locked up in prison and, 
as a result of that, that figure, along with a good many others, I 
think clearly demonstrates the dramatic and important side of this 
issue.
  Well, I will talk through the balance of the day on this issue. But I 
think it is important that we demonstrate in its appropriate context 
the information we are providing.
  In my opinion, based on CRS's studies, based on the Department of 
Justice studies, to say the assault weapons ban law has dramatically 
worked since 1994 is inappropriate. The reality is that it was less 
than 2 percent in 1991, and less than 2 percent after its passage in 
1997 and beyond. That statistic holds today, in my opinion, based on 
the sources that I quote, which I believe are valid and justifiable. 
There are a good many more statistics that I can talk about, and we 
will throughout the course of the day.
  Let me return to my initial argument. I think we have the opportunity 
to, in a very narrow and specific way, protect law-abiding people--gun 
manufacturers, licensed gun dealers who play by the rules that this 
Congress has laid down, and provide a quality product to Americans 
under their second amendment rights. But what we now see is a class of 
lawsuit out there that is designed for one reason: to control guns. It 
is a new form of gun control, because the gun control advocates of this 
country who continually came to Congress through the 1960s, 1970s, and 
1980s, saying we have to have gun control to save people's lives, found 
out that we read the statistics, we looked at the facts, and we said 
no. They decided they would go through the courts and they would begin 
to, by law or by action of the court, attempt to legislate those kinds 
of actions--in this case, by penalizing a law-abiding citizen for a 
third party action.
  Let me close with this thought. It happened to me once again this 
morning. I was on the phone to my State of Idaho in a radio interview. 
The interviewer said:

       Senator, we watch what you are doing on the floor of the 
     Senate. How is that any different from suggesting that--

  And he used the particular automobile, the Chevy truck. He said:

       How is what you are doing any different from suggesting if 
     a drunk driver uses a Chevy truck and runs over someone and 
     kills them, that Chevrolet is responsible for that third 
     party action?

  I said:

       Frankly, there is no difference. That is why it is 
     important that this Congress reinstate the historic tort law 
     as we understand it. Individuals are held responsible for 
     their actions. That is what the administration is asking us 
     to do.

  That is what we are doing in S. 1805. Let's not extend the assault 
weapon ban, add it to S. 1805 and risk a failure to pass this very 
important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I hope I will have an opportunity to 
rebut the distinguished Senator's comments. I find it very interesting 
that suddenly gun trace information is not acceptable information, but 
we can go out and do a survey of criminals, and that is an acceptable 
way of evaluating the success or failure of the assault weapons 
legislation. I don't buy it. In my view, tracing guns to crime is an 
appropriate way.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive 
summary of a new report out on ``Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal 
Civil Assaults Weapons Legislation.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       To evaluate the questions below, the Brady Center to 
     Prevent Gun Violence asked Crime Gun Solutions LLC to review 
     and analyze national crime gun trace data maintained by the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 
     This data represents guns nationwide that have been illegally 
     possessed, used in a crime, or suspected of being used in a 
     crime, thereafter recovered by law enforcement, and then 
     traced to learn about the sales history of the gun.

[[Page 2944]]

       Has the Federal Assault Weapons Act reduced the incidence 
     of assault weapons in crime?
       Yes. In the five year period (1990-1994) before enactment 
     of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in 
     the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF 
     conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, 
     these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF 
     has traced to crime--a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate. 
     Moreover, ATF trace data shows a steady year-by-year decline 
     in the percentage of assault weapons traced, suggesting that 
     the longer the statute has been in effect, the less available 
     these guns have become for criminal misuse. Indeed, the 
     absolute number of assault weapons traced has also declined.
       This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement 
     and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since 
     these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever 
     sold on the civilian market. For example, if the Act had not 
     been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make 
     up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the 
     Act's passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault 
     weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 
     years--an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced 
     to crime each year.
       Have industry efforts to evade the Act through ``copycat'' 
     assault weapons eliminated its positive effects?
       No. After the Assault Weapons Act was passed, gun 
     manufacturers sought to evade the ban by producing weapons 
     with minor changes or new model names. The Act was designed 
     to prevent this occurrence by defining assault weapons to 
     include ``copies or duplicates'' or the firearms listed in 
     the ban in any caliber, though this provision has never been 
     enforced. Yet, even if copycats of the federally banned guns 
     are considered, there has still been a 45% decline between 
     the pre-ban period (1990-1994) and the post-ban period (1995 
     and after) in the percentage of ATF crime gun traces 
     involving assault weapons and copycat models.
       The results of this study make it clear that the United 
     States Congress needs to renew the Federal Assault Weapons 
     Act. If the Act is not renewed, a decade of progress could be 
     lost and thousands of additional assault weapons are likely 
     to be used in crime in the future.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the presence 
of the Senator from Ohio and cede 10 minutes of time to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator 
Feinstein, for her great work in this area. I rise today in support of 
her amendment to reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban which is set 
to expire later this year. I thank her for her great leadership in this 
area.
  Since it took effect in 1994, the assault weapons ban has been an 
effective tool in curbing crime in this country. The assault weapons 
ban has made it more difficult for vicious criminals to get access to 
firearms that are designed really only to maximize the number of shots 
that can be fired and people killed in a short period of time. It is 
the only reason they exist, the only reason they are made. The ban has 
allowed us to keep these dangerous weapons out of the hands of 
dangerous criminals and has helped make our streets safer.
  Banning these weapons is smart law enforcement and it is good public 
policy. Continuing the ban is simply the right thing to do.
  I am not alone in this assessment. The assault weapons ban 
reauthorization has the support of the White House and also has the 
support of every major law enforcement organization in this country--
every single one. Furthermore, it has the support of the National 
League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops. This is for good reason.
  Prior to the 1994 ban, the Cox newspaper service conducted a survey 
using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. That 
study found that assault weapons were 20 times more likely to be used 
in a crime than a conventional firearm. This, therefore, is a question 
of public safety.
  It is to me disconcerting that we still hear complaints about 
extending the duration of the ban. One stated concern is the ban may 
somehow accidentally infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. 
For example, some people worry the ban may affect hunting or 
recreational rifles. The ban has been in effect for almost 10 years now 
and that has not been a problem so far.
  What is the compelling reason to repeal this law, because that is, in 
effect, what we would be doing if we do not extend it? What has been 
the problem? How many of us have heard from our hunters? How many of us 
have heard from people who want to use a firearm in a proper way to 
protect themselves or for recreation purposes, that this particular law 
is somehow infringing upon their rights? I do not think we have.
  This law will not be a problem in the future either because this 
legislation specifically provides protection of 670 different types of 
hunting and recreational rifles that are presently being manufactured. 
This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive. A gun does not have to 
be on the list to be protected.
  Furthermore, the ban does not just protect the right to purchase and 
use rifles. It also protects a wide range of guns because it only 
affects those weapons with no legitimate use.
  We know why American citizens buy guns. The most common answer to the 
question of why we buy a gun is protection, hunting, target shooting, 
and other legitimate reasons. These are very legitimate uses for 
legally acquired firearms. The firearms included in the assault weapons 
ban do not effectively serve any of these purposes.
  No legitimate gun owner need have a weapon such as the TEC-9 that has 
been talked about before. I will not take my colleagues' time to talk 
about this weapon, but it is not a legitimate weapon for anyone but a 
criminal who wants to see how quickly he can kill a large number of 
people.
  Probably the most important reason to have this ban, if we really 
want to analyze it, is that it limits the number of rounds in a clip to 
10. What significance does this have in regard to law enforcement? 
Maybe if I can go back to my days as a county prosecuting attorney and 
draw upon my conversations I had not just then but throughout the years 
with my friends in law enforcement, some of my police officer friends 
who I have known and continue to know and call my good friends, what is 
it people fear and police officers fear? One thing is someone comes in 
and they have a big clip, and they can just shoot, shoot, shoot, and 
shoot and nothing will stop them--15, 20, 30 rounds.
  What does this law do? It limits it to 10. That is an arbitrary 
figure. It could have been something different. We understand that. At 
least it limits it to 10. That makes some sense. Yes, someone could put 
the other clip in and continue on, but there is a period of time where 
they have to stop and do that. What law enforcement people tell us is 
that period of time, when you have a mass murderer who is intent on 
killing as many people as he or she can, is valuable, that period of 
time is significant from a law enforcement point of view and it maybe 
will save lives. In some cases, it will save lives.
  Law enforcement will be able to react in that period of time and 
lives will be saved and shots will not be able to be taken, and that 
criminal, that person who maybe is insane, will be stopped, disabled, 
or killed by law enforcement, by a bystander, by someone.
  That, from a law enforcement point of view, is the most effective 
part of this bill. In my opinion, at least, and in the opinion of many 
people in law enforcement with whom I have talked, that is the heart of 
this law we have today, and I think it is the heart of the Feinstein 
amendment. She is attempting to do something that is not revolutionary. 
All she is trying to do with this very modest amendment is to keep 
current law. Let me emphasize that. A vote for the Feinstein amendment 
is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to keep current law. I urge 
my colleagues to follow that law.
  The assault weapons ban prevents the manufacture of new high-capacity 
military style magazines for sale to the general public. Indeed, the 
guns we banned were designed to work in conjunction with these high-
capacity magazines. Many of them are able to hold 30 or 40 rounds in 
each magazine. That is 30 bullets that can be fired rapidly without 
ever reloading.

[[Page 2945]]

  This is far more ammunition than a hunter, sportsman, or individual 
concerned with self-protection needs in one magazine. This deadly 
combination of large clips and rapidly firing guns is not 
characteristic of recreational guns or guns used for personal 
protection. We all know that. Neither is a threaded barrel designed to 
accommodate a silencer, a feature that is much more useful to assassins 
and snipers than it is to a sportsman; or a bayonet mount that allows a 
knife to be attached to the front of a rifle; or a grenade launcher. 
Again, it was provided in this bill. Does a grenade launcher sound 
recreational?
  Under this provision, the Feinstein amendment, and under current law, 
we do not outlaw a gun unless it has two of these features. It has to 
have two of them. I think it is a pretty modest law, and a pretty 
modest amendment.
  The assault weapons ban does not outlaw a gun if it has one of these 
features. It only outlaws a gun with two or more of these features.
  These are dangerous weapons that do not belong on our streets. I urge 
my colleagues to talk, as I have, to law enforcement officers in their 
States. Talk to the mayors of their cities, talk to people who are on 
the front lines and who might potentially have to deal with these types 
of weapons if we do not reenact this law. They will say these weapons 
are a threat to law enforcement and to the general public. These 
weapons are not for hunting. They are not for self-defense. It is time 
to once again reauthorize this law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
comments and for his support. I very much appreciate it.
  One of the issues is that those States that have big cities see how 
these weapons are used, and in the big cities they are used by gangs. 
So the argument of the collector versus the argument of the majority 
who wants to be protected from these weapons is what we are talking 
about today.
  The distinguished Senator from Idaho referred to them as just 
semiautomatic firearms, really no different from other firearms. I do 
not see it that way at all. Many of these come with collapsable stocks. 
They come with 20-round clips. Two 30-round clips can be put together, 
and two banana clips, and have 60 rounds. The trigger can be adjusted 
so that with some of these weapons one can fire as many as, believe it 
or not, 30 bullets in 3 seconds. That cannot be done with a revolver 
and with most rifles.
  So these are different weapons, and those of us who support this 
legislation essentially believe they do not belong on our streets. No 
collector is stopped from collecting one of these weapons. A collector 
can still buy one of these weapons. What is stopped is the manufacture 
and sale of new weapons. The existing stock is still around.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during 
the quorum call the remaining time be equally divided between the two 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that time allocated to Senator McCain, 
cosponsor of the gun show amendment with myself, be given to me for 
such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are debating legislation that is a 
serious encroachment on the common law of negligence. It is a 
legislative proposal that, in my view, is audacious in its breadth and 
also something that is presumptuous, presumptuous in the fact that, at 
the heart of this legislation, any liability for a gun dealer or a 
manufacturer or a trade association would rest on a violation of a 
statute, a Federal or State statute. Of course that presumes we are 
wise enough and bright enough to provide a statutory answer to every 
question posed by life. And I don't think we are.
  That is, in effect, one of the reasons why the law of negligence 
arose. It was not a response to the fact that we have too many laws; it 
was a response to the fact we had laws that did not require a standard 
of care in every circumstance. This legislation presumes we will govern 
every conceivable item of conduct and if one of those items of conduct 
is violated, a statutory requirement, then liability will arise. That 
defies human experience.
  Again, that is why our system of law over centuries developed the 
notion that outside of laws there is another standard. That is the 
standard of reasonable conduct. That is a standard that says an 
individual should act in a way that does not reasonably lead to the 
injury of another.
  We are upsetting that totally with this legislation. One example of 
the deficiency of the current legislation that we have, the legislative 
framework, is the governance of gun shows. These are sales of weapons 
in public areas that take place in most jurisdictions of this country--
in many, many jurisdictions. We became aware of one of the glaring 
shortcomings of this legislative framework after the Columbine 
killings. There, two very disturbed young men were able to obtain a 
weapon through a gun show. They used this weapon and other weapons to 
go in to wreak havoc in Columbine High School: classmates dead, 
families shattered, a community in turmoil.
  At that point, this body moved very appropriately to try to close the 
gun show loophole. What is this gun show loophole? It is very simply 
stated. If you are a licensed Federal firearm dealer, then you must 
conduct a background check upon anyone who purchases a weapon from you. 
But if you are an unlicensed dealer, i.e. someone who does not engage 
in the sale of firearms, then there is no requirement that you conduct 
this background check. It turns out that at gun shows there are many 
licensed dealers but a significant number of unlicensed dealers.
  They come and sell their wares at that show. In fact, you can go up 
to one table at a gun show and ask about a weapon. A licensed dealer 
would presumably quote you a price and say, I also have to conduct a 
background check under Federal law. You can step 3 or 4 feet away to 
another table to an unlicensed dealer, someone who ``knows the 
business'' of selling weapons, where in fact you don't have to do a 
background check. He says, ``I don't have a license. This is the price 
I want for it.''
  It is not fair. It also allows for the distribution of this weapon 
into society in a way that can be harmful. The Columbine case is an 
example of that. Senator McCain and I are proposing legislation that 
will close this loophole.
  Again, back in 1999, in the wake of Columbine, Senator Lautenberg 
proposed legislation that passed this body. It was, unfortunately, 
stripped out of the legislation before it reached the desk of the 
President. We hope to offer an amendment tomorrow morning, and 
hopefully it will be agreed to.
  It is very important to have an active framework for the regulation 
of firearms in the country. It is important because in many cases we 
have avoided subjecting firearms to the regulation which is common for 
other goods that are sold in commerce. Firearms are exempt from 
consumer product safety laws that apply to virtually every other 
product in the country.

[[Page 2946]]

  I think it is important when we have public sales of firearms that we 
should have a situation in which every dealer is required to conduct a 
background check on the purchase.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reported to Congress in 
2000 that gun shows are a major source of gun trafficking, responsible 
for 26,000 illegal firearms sales during the 18-month period they 
studied these sales.
  That suggests to me this is an issue that must be dealt with and must 
be dealt with in this legislation. They have told us many of these 
purchases are by convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other 
prohibited purchasers who cannot obtain a weapon if they go to a 
licensed dealer and have a background check.
  At least three suspected terrorists that we know have also exploited 
the rules to acquire firearms, including one suspected member of al-
Qaida.
  Under Federal law, Federal firearms licensees are required to 
maintain careful records of their sales and, under the Brady Act, to 
check the purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System. However, as I explained, a person does not 
need a Federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does not apply, if 
the person is not ``engaged in a business'' of selling firearms 
pursuant to Federal law.
  These unlicensed sellers make up to one quarter or more of the 
sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in America each year. 
Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid 
Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy firearms at these 
gun shows. It stands to reason if you are a felon and you know the 
system and know that if you go to a licensed dealer you have to have a 
background check, where do you go? You go to someone who doesn't have 
to conduct a background check. In many cases, it is gun shows and 
unlicensed dealers.
  As I also mentioned, 5 years ago, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 
killed 13 people at Columbine with weapons purchased from an unlicensed 
seller at a gun show. The woman who purchased those guns on behalf of 
Harris and Klebold testified to the Colorado Legislature she would 
never have purchased the weapons had she been required to undergo a 
background check. Had we had those background checks in place, then we 
might have avoided a terrible tragedy at Columbine.
  We are united in this bipartisan legislation, Senator McCain and 
myself and other cosponsors, and we have brought together provisions 
from several previous gun show bills to make gun show transactions 
safer for all Americans. The amendment we will propose tomorrow will 
require Brady law background checks on all firearms transactions at any 
event where 75 or more guns are offered for sale. Three years after 
enactment, States could apply to the Attorney General of the United 
States for certification for a 24-hour background check for unlicensed 
sellers at gun shows. In order to be eligible for this 24-hour 
certification, a State would be required to have 95 percent of its 
disqualifying records automated and searchable under NICS, including 95 
percent of all domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining orders 
dating back 30 years.
  If a State can show their records are accessible through the system, 
if they are updated, if they cover the range not only of felony 
convictions and other criminal convictions but also domestic violence, 
misdemeanors, and restraining orders, then they could have a system in 
which an unlicensed dealer could have the check resolved in no more 
than 24 hours.
  Before certifying a State for this 24-hour background check, the 
Attorney General would be required to establish a toll-free telephone 
number to enable State and local courts to immediately notify the NIC 
system anytime a domestic violence restraining order is filed, and 
courts within a certified State would be required to use the telephone 
number immediately upon the filing of such an order to notify the NIC 
system.
  The bill also directs the Attorney General to work with States to 
encourage the development of computer systems that would allow courts 
to provide electronic records to NICS immediately. The Bureau of 
Justice Statistics would conduct an interim review of all certified 
States to ensure they continue to meet the conditions of the 24-hour 
background check and certification.
  The amendment Senator McCain and I will offer tomorrow differs in 
several respects from the legislation Senator McCain and I proposed 
last fall.
  First, gun show operators would not be required to notify the 
Attorney General of plans to hold a gun show. This provision was 
included in previous legislation, but it has been stricken from the 
amendment. Thus, there will be no requirement for a gun show operator 
to notify any Federal agency about plans to operate a gun show.
  Second, gun show operators would not be required to notify the 
Attorney General of vendors who sell firearms at gun shows. Again, this 
is a provision that has been dropped from previous legislation. The 
ledger of vendors at a gun show would be maintained at the permanent 
place of business of the gun show operator.
  Let me repeat that our amendment contains no requirement for gun show 
operators to notify any Federal agency about the names of firearms 
vendors at gun shows. Therefore, the amendment would not, as the NRA 
has claimed, in their words, create ``gun owner registration.'' It 
would not do that.
  Third, our amendment does not authorize the Department of Justice to 
draft regulations concerning how gun shows notify each gun show patron 
on the provisions of the law.
  Again, in previous editions of legislation, there was a requirement 
they would inform patrons about the provisions of the law. This 
legislation does not contain such a provision.
  The NRA has claimed, in keeping with their longstanding tradition of 
extreme rhetoric, our bill would create ``massive bureaucratic red 
tape'' and give a so-called ``antigun administration'' the power to 
``regulate gun shows out of business.'' That was never true to begin 
with. But the changes Senator McCain and I have made to our amendment 
should put these accusations to rest.
  The overriding purpose of our bill is to require background checks on 
all gun show sales in the most convenient manner possible for gun show 
operators, unlicensed sellers, and private citizens who seek to 
purchase firearms at gun shows.
  I have no doubt the gun lobby will continue to say this is an attempt 
to end gun shows. But the experience of States that have closed the gun 
show loophole proves otherwise.
  California, for example, requires not only background checks at gun 
shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales. Yet gun shows 
continue to thrive there.
  We are not trying to end gun shows. We are trying to end the free 
pass we are giving to terrorists and convicted felons that allows them 
to simply walk into a gun show, find an unlicensed fellow, buy whatever 
weapons they want, and walk out without a Brady background check.
  In overwhelming numbers, gun owners believe a background check should 
be required whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show. An October 2003 
poll found 85 percent of gun owners support closing the gun show 
loophole, that 83 percent of those who have attended gun shows support 
closing the loophole as well.
  The people of Colorado--one of several States--confirmed this 
widespread support after Columbine when they approved a ballot 
initiative to close the gun show loophole. President George Bush said 
repeatedly during the 2000 campaign he supported legislation to require 
background checks at gun shows.
  We hope tomorrow this amendment will be adopted so the President can 
sign a bill which he has indicated clearly and repeatedly throughout 
the 2000 campaign that he supports. I urge my colleagues to support the 
McCain-Reed amendment so we can finally close the loophole in every 
State and make sure that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other 
prohibited

[[Page 2947]]

persons do not use gun shows to purchase firearms without the 
background check.
  There has been some discussion and rebuttal by those who say this is 
unnecessary because this is not an opportunity for felons to obtain 
weapons. In fact, the NRA maintains there is no gun show loophole. What 
is the truth? Under Federal law, licensed dealers must do background 
checks at gun shows, but unlicensed dealers do not. Thus, at thousands 
of gun shows each year, a licensed firearm dealer must conduct a 
background check, while 2 feet away an unlicensed dealer is able to 
sell a weapon without a check. That suggests strongly--it would defy 
common sense otherwise--that if you are looking to get a weapon and you 
are prohibited from having one, where would you go? Right to the 
unlicensed dealer, right to that loophole. Put the money on the table 
and take the weapon and walk out, no questions asked.
  According to the NRA, they suggest hundreds of thousands of guns are 
sold each year at gun shows without these background checks--that is 
their own statement--hundreds of thousands of guns not subject to 
background checks.
  It is not fair. I have talked to my colleagues from States that have 
quite a few gun shows and they simply say, what sense does it make that 
someone who walks into a Target or a Wal-Mart to buy a weapon has to 
undergo a Federal firearms check and they can just walk across the 
street to some type of gun show and get one without a background check. 
That is not fair. It is not an even playing field. It is a loophole. We 
hope we can close that loophole tomorrow.
  The NRA says if we adopt this legislation we will put gun shows out 
of business. That is not true, either. Seventeen States have closed the 
gun show loophole on their own. According to the Krause Gun/Knife Show 
Calendar, which bills itself as the complete guide for anyone who 
attends or displays at gun shows, States which closed the loophole 
hosted more gun shows each year than States which have left this 
loophole open: an average of 45 gun shows per year in the 17 States 
which have closed the loophole compared to 41 in the other 33 States.
  The NRA also says lengthy background checks take too long for weekend 
gun shows. But thanks to improvements made by the NIC system, National 
Instant Recovery background system, 91 percent of the background checks 
take less than 5 minutes; 95 percent take less than 2 hours to 
complete. For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant checking is truly 
instant, within minutes, and no more than 2 hours. Of the remaining 5 
percent that take longer than 2 hours, about one-third of these result 
in a denial because they have found information indicating the 
individual is prohibited from purchasing a weapon.
  Also, as indicated, our amendment gives the State the opportunity to 
qualify for a 24-hour background check for unlicensed sellers at gun 
shows if it has automated 95 percent of its background check records. 
These checks can be made, they will be made, they are being made 
without inhibiting gun shows on behalf of licensed dealers who sell at 
the shows. The idea that requiring unlicensed dealers to get a 
background check would disrupt gun shows is, in my view, completely 
unsubstantiated.
  The NRA says criminals do not buy guns from gun shows. The truth is, 
crime guns do come from gun shows and it has been documented. That is 
according to ATF Special Agent Jeff Fulton. In a comprehensive ATF 
report on illegal guns, they found gun shows were the second leading 
source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking operations.
  The NRA says also the Department of Justice survey of prison inmates 
found only 2 percent of prisoners obtained their firearms from the gun 
shows and flea markets. The 1997 survey at the NRA sites admits an 
obvious flaw: The gun show loophole did not exist until the Brady law 
passed at the end of 1993, requiring background checks by licensed 
dealers. Thus, any criminal imprisoned before 1994, or inmate who 
acquired a firearm before 1994, could go to a gun store without having 
to undergo any type of background check. The survey they rely upon is 
invalid.
  We have several recent examples of gun show loopholes being exploited 
by criminals. Thomas Timms was arrested last October with 147 guns, 
60,000 rounds of ammunition, a submachine gun, a 20 millimeter antitank 
rifle, a 12-gauge ``street sweeper'' and a rocket launcher. According 
to Federal agents, he had been selling large quantities of weapons at 
Georgia gun shows that were used in crimes in Washington, DC, New York, 
and Georgia.
  Caesar Gaglio was arrested in September after selling 11 guns to 
undercover agents and was among 5 unlicensed sellers caught with 572 
guns in an undercover sting that encompassed gun shows in Oklahoma, 
Kentucky, and Kansas.
  John Loveall and eight others were arrested in June for selling 
firearms to felons or people under indictment at Tennessee gun shows. 
They were arrested with 500 guns in their possession. In the words of 
the Federal attorney, this is 500 guns that will not wind up in the 
hands of criminals to use, to rob, or to shoot or murder citizens of 
Memphis or anywhere else in the western district of western Tennessee.
  Tommy Holmes pleaded guilty in October for being part of a 
trafficking scheme that included a known felon buying scores of guns at 
Alabama gun shows to sell on the streets of Chicago. Fifteen of the 
firearms have been recovered in the course of criminal investigations 
or at crime scenes.
  Bud Varnadore was sentenced to prison in November for trafficking in 
firearms at Tennessee gun shows. He was caught in a sting that 
identified 23 other suspicious sellers and recovered over 1,600 
firearms. Tennessee is a ``source State'' of guns for criminals, 
through unlicensed dealers, according to AFT Special Agent James 
Cavanaugh.
  Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 
firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in 
Buffalo, NY. At least one was recovered in a homicide. In one instance, 
Bostic purchased 45 firearms and his accomplice purchased 85 guns. ``We 
are still finding guns that have been used in crimes and tracing them 
back to him,'' said Buffalo Police Lieutenant Amy Marracino.
  Viktor Mascak was arrested on 56 counts of trafficking in firearms at 
Washington State gun shows. At least five of Mascak's guns were 
recovered in crimes, including one that was carried into Hanford Middle 
School by a 13-year-old.
  Billy Gage and Lowell Ronald Wilson, a felon, were arrested at the 
Seagoville flea market outside of Dallas with 2 machine guns, 91 
handguns, and 49 rifles. They were apprehended after a 9 millimeter 
pistol they sold to a felon was used to murder Garland County Police 
Officer Michael Moore.
  This is quite a record of criminals exploiting gun shows and 
exploiting the current loophole. If we do not close it, there will be 
more to add to this infamous list.
  The NRA says supporters of closing the gun show loophole are 
shamefully exploiting terrorism to make their case. The truth is, we 
know three cases where suspected terrorists exploited the gun show 
loophole. Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and member of the 
terrorist group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted of attempting to 
smuggle firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon.
  Muhammed Nasrar, a Pakistani national in the country on an expired 
visa, admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. 
Nasrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who obtained a pilot's license, 
had photos of tall buildings of American cities, and, though seemingly 
impoverished, attempted to purchase a time share for a Lear jet.
  Connor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, 
spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private 
dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle to Ireland.
  The National Rifle Association says also the McCain-Reed amendment 
creates gun owner registration. Not correct.
  The truth: Special firearms event licensees, those who are certified 
to perform background checks for unlicensed

[[Page 2948]]

firearms vendors at gun shows, are required to keep the same records as 
federally licensed firearms dealers, no more or no less. Unless one 
argues that buying a firearm from a licensed dealer constitutes gun 
owner registration, then one cannot argue this amendment constitutes 
gun owner registration.
  The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment requires gun show operators to 
register all firearm vendor names to the Federal Government.
  The truth: The amendment does not require this. Gun show operators 
are not required to submit a list of vendors to the Federal Government. 
Gun show operators are only required to maintain their own paper 
records of those who sell firearms at gun shows.
  The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment requires registration of gun 
shows.
  The truth: The amendment does not require gun show operators to 
register or notify the Federal Government about the scheduling of any 
gun shows. A gun show notification requirement in our bill has not been 
included in this amendment. We struck it. The Federal Government has no 
role in approving or denying gun shows from operating in any way.
  The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment allows harassment of gun show 
organizers and vendors.
  The truth: Federal authorities will have no more inspection authority 
over gun show operators than they have now with licensed firearms 
dealers. There is no new inspection authority over any vendors in this 
amendment.
  The NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment creates massive 
bureaucratic redtape.
  The truth: This amendment is remarkably redtape free. There are no 
new paperwork requirements for unlicensed sellers. The Federal 
Government has no role in approving or disapproving gun show events. 
Gun shows are under no obligation to notify Federal authorities about 
their intent to hold an event.
  The NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment turns casual 
conversations into gun show sales.
  Not true. The amendment clearly defines a firearms transaction as 
``the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of a firearm.''
  The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment's 24-hour maximum allowable 
background check is a smokescreen.
  It is not. If a State wants to place a 24-hour limit on the length of 
background checks at gun shows, it may do so once that State has its 
background check records in order and automated. If a State chooses not 
to limit the length of background checks below the current 3 business 
days, it does not have to.
  The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment makes no improvements to 
instant check.
  The truth: Legislation to improve instant check has been introduced 
separately by Senators Schumer, Craig, Hatch, and Kennedy. I am proud 
to be both a cosponsor of the legislation and a longtime supporter of 
the National Criminal History Improvement Program to help States get 
more of their disqualifying records into the system.
  NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment gives no priority to gun show 
background checks.
  That is because it is not necessary. The NIC System currently 
operates from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. 7 days a week and 364 days a year. That 
is why 91 percent of background checks are completed in minutes, and 95 
percent are completed within 2 hours. The remaining 5 percent are 20 
times more likely to turn up an illegal buyer than the rest of the 
checks. There is no need to put gun show checks in front of other 
background checks the NICS processes nationwide every day because the 
system is working very efficiently.
  These are some of the refutations of the amendment Senator McCain and 
I are offering, but none of them hold any weight. This is an amendment 
that will close the gun show loophole without materially affecting the 
operation of gun shows or the conduct of unlicensed gun dealers, but it 
will attempt to prevent some of the rogues, whom I described, from 
getting access to weapons.
  Once again, there is a great discussion on this floor almost every 
moment of the principles of law, the principles we espouse. But a lot 
of what we do must be common sense. I ask my colleagues, and also the 
people listening, to think about it. If you were a felon, or if you 
were a terrorist, and you were aware, as so many of them are, that you 
could go to a gun show, find unlicensed dealers and buy a weapon--some 
of them extremely dangerous weapons--without any questions asked, where 
would you go? You would go right there.
  All the principles of law, all the principles of legal theory, have 
to respond to that commonsense insight. The McCain-Reed amendment seeks 
to make a commonsense response to this glaring omission, to close the 
loophole, to require anyone purchasing a weapon at a gun show must go 
through a background check, and to do so in a way that we do not 
inhibit gun shows and we do not impose undue requirements on both the 
operator of the gun show or those dealers, both licensed and 
unlicensed, who may attend.
  I mentioned before discussion of the terrorist connection. It seems 
to me that after 9/11, when we attempted to strike an extraordinarily 
strong posture against any form of terrorism--where this body, in 
virtual unanimity, passed the PATRIOT Act, which empowers the Federal 
Government to take unusually strong steps with respect to individual 
privacy and individual protections--to now suddenly allow this loophole 
to exist that may be exploited by terrorists, seems to me astounding.
  If we can have thousands of people at airports screening bags against 
terrorist threats, why can't we simply pass a gun show loophole 
amendment that will close a source of weapons that has been exploited 
in the past by terrorists?
  I mentioned three cases in particular. I would like to elaborate, if 
I may.
  The first is Ali Boumelhem, a known terrorist, connected to 
Hezbollah. He is currently serving prison time for attempting to 
smuggle guns into Lebanon. He was discovered by an informant. As a 
result of this information, Federal law enforcement agents trailed him, 
observed him, and saw him go to a gun show in Michigan. He purchased a 
weapon. He also involved his brother as a straw buyer, to purchase 
another weapon. He was caught after attempting to smuggle the weapons 
out of this country to Beirut.
  It is important to note, because there has been some suggestion that 
he never actually purchased a weapon at these shows, that he always 
used straw purchasers to purchase them. As a result, it would foil our 
amendment, the McCain-Reed amendment.
  But in a sworn affidavit, dated November 6, 2000, ATF Special Agent 
Cheryl Crockett testified agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task 
Force had Boumelhem under surveillance on October 29, 2000, when he 
went to the Grand Rapids Gun and Knife Show. One agent particularly, 
Edwin Edmunds, observed Boumelhem approach a table and examine an M-16 
rifle upper receiver--that is, the receiver, barrel, carrying handle, 
and handguards. This configuration is a firearm under Federal law.
  Boumelhem walked away, but then returned minutes later with a wad of 
cash, which he exchanged for the M-16. He was seen leaving the gun show 
with a plastic bag that, in the language of the agent, ``comports with 
the size and shape of an M-16 receiver.''
  Mr. Boumelhem himself purchased a weapon at a gun show. Had the 
McCain-Reed amendment been in effect, the individual would have been 
required to have conducted a background check of Mr. Boumelhem, and he 
would have been denied the right to buy that weapon because he had 
already been convicted in California of an offense that would 
disqualify him to purchase such a weapon.
  Mr. Boumelhem was involved in a conspiracy not only to purchase 
weapons on his own behalf but to enlist others to purchase these 
weapons and to ship these weapons back to Beirut. In fact, he was 
finally arrested after a Federal agent searched an auto park's cargo 
container on a ship bound for

[[Page 2949]]

Lebanon. They found weapons and other materiel. He was attempting to 
flee the country, apparently, when he was arrested by the Federal 
agent. He had a one-way ticket to Beirut. It appeared he was not making 
just a business stop but, indeed, was trying to flee the country.
  Our Federal agents also had witnesses and informants who had seen 
Boumelhem in Lebanon with, in their words, AK-47s, M-16s, explosives, 
grenade launchers, grenades, rocket launchers, and rockets in his 
possession. The press reported the FBI has a video tape apparently 
showing Ali Boumelhem firing automatic weapons in Lebanon and 
acknowledging he is a member of Hezbollah.
  This is the charge--someone who, under observation by Federal agents, 
used the gun show loophole to acquire an M-16. He was engaged in 
significant conspiracy with others before to exploit gun shows or other 
means. His brother said Ali Boumelhem was a frequent gun show attendee. 
In his own words, he said his brother said he went to ``gun shows 
everywhere. Gun shows everywhere here, almost every week. If it's not 
Mt. Clemens, it's in Taylor.''
  Both of them were searching out gun shows all through Michigan. This 
individual qualifies as a terrorist. He would have been denied the 
right to purchase this firearm had the Reed-McCain legislation been in 
effect.
  There are others, too, who have been indicated as terrorists and have 
been involved in these details. One other is the case of Muhammad 
Asrar. Mr. Asrar is an illegal Pakistani immigrant who has pleaded 
guilty to weapons and immigration charges. At a presentencing hearing, 
the Government sought an ``upward departure'' from the sentencing 
guidelines because of Asrar's ``intent and demonstration of violent and 
terrorist motives.'' Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal 
grand jury on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaida. The Government 
has revealed that he was stockpiling guns he had illegally bought and 
sold at Texas gun shows. Asrar had also obtained a pilot's license, 
collected pictures of tall buildings in the U.S., and tried to purchase 
a timeshare in a Lear jet.
  Asrar was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9 mm 
ammunition. As an illegal alien, it was illegal for Asrar to buy or 
possess guns or ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration 
charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988. He has 
admitted to having bought and sold guns at gun shows. Asrar told 
authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun 
shows over the last 7 years. These included a copy of a Sten submachine 
gun, Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle. None of 
the guns were in his possession when he was arrested on September 17.
  In addition to the ammunition, authorities also found pictures of the 
tall buildings, as I indicated, and also pictures of the guns that he 
said he at one time purchased and had in his possession. He told the 
authorities he bought and sold guns at gun shows.
  It appears he was stockpiling these weapons. The fact is, he had at 
least 16 guns, and possibly as many as 30 guns. He was arrested on 
September 11 when an informant had indicated he was behaving 
suspiciously. The informant indicated that Asrar had asked him whether 
or not he could help Asrar smuggle a foreign national across the border 
from Mexico, and if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him 
during his travels, and if he would mail letters for him from 
Pennsylvania.
  Now, the Government is presently developing cases against this 
individual based on a theory that he is involved in terrorist activity. 
As I said, in a presentencing motions hearing, the Government indicated 
that it is conducting this further investigation. In their words, ``We 
are asking for upward departure based on his intent and demonstration 
of violent and terrorist motives.'' This is the text of the open 
session in court:

       . . . will testify that he, there's numerous gun 
     transactions, there's more than what's in the presentencing 
     report.

  This is the Federal attorney:

       The presentencing report contains most of the ones that are 
     more well defined, but there's other witnesses who are a 
     little bit more vague, but they describe more gun 
     transactions, or gun incidents I should call them, not gun 
     transactions necessarily. But also the presentencing report 
     contains incidents where he's trying to buy explosives. 
     There's also the--on September 8, Your Honor, he rented a 
     car. He drove to Houston, Texas; he returned the car on the 
     11th. He met with well-known persons of middle eastern 
     descent there in Houston. He has obtained a flying, a pilot's 
     license. Although he was apparently completely broke, he was 
     trying to purchase a timeshare in a Lear jet. He requested a 
     person who was traveling to the East Coast to take pictures 
     of tall buildings for him and send them to his brother. 
     There's an incident, Your Honor, where approximately a year 
     before the defendant was arrested, persons had been calling 
     in to local authorities saying he had been involved in gun 
     transactions and the ATF went with, I believe it was the 
     TABC, or some alcohol-related agency, and they went to search 
     his property, and about a year before he was arrested. And 
     they found no guns. When we began interviewing people after 
     he was arrested, we looked into one, Mr. Robert Fang, who's 
     an admitted friend of Mr. Asrar, who says, who referred back 
     to that incident a year earlier and said that Mr. Asrar 
     brought him a case of guns, a case of guns, I believe it was 
     5 to 7 guns, somewhere in there, and said, ``Please hold 
     these for me. My place is about to get searched by agents. 
     Please keep these for me so they won't find them.''

  Mr. President, you have someone who is behaving extremely 
suspiciously, is illegally in this country, who has apparent ties to 
terrorist organizations--at least enough to ask the Federal authorities 
to ask in a presentencing that he be treated as such. Of his own 
admission, he frequented gun shows, and bought and sold guns. Again, I 
think this is a strong case for closure of the gun show loophole.
  Briefly, before I yield the floor, I will mention the case of Conor 
Claxton. Mr. Claxton is an admitted member of the Irish Republican 
Army. He came to the United States--specifically Florida--because he 
was looking to develop an arsenal of weapons to ship back to Ireland. 
He testified that the IRA chose Florida because ``we don't have gun 
shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.'' He 
told the FBI it is common knowledge that obtaining weapons in the 
United States is easy.
  Now, Mr. Claxton was involved in, apparently, using about $100,000 to 
assemble an arsenal for the IRA. The Irish authorities recovered 46 
handguns in 1999 and more than 600 rounds of ammunition hidden inside 
23 packages containing toys, computers, and other goods to be shipped 
from the cabal of the IRA in the United States.
  Claxton usually used a straw purchaser, a naturalized American 
citizen, Siobhan Browne, who is also his girlfriend. She acquired many 
of these guns. But it appears, also, because Browne indicated that 
Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi and fully 
automatic weapons in sales from private dealers.'' So there is strong 
evidence to suggest that Claxton himself was engaged in the acquisition 
directly of firearms for the purpose of arming IRA members in Northern 
Ireland.
  Now, Mr. Claxton was ultimately charged and he was convicted along 
with two codefendants on the gun smuggling charge of which he was 
accused. He is currently serving a 56-month sentence.
  Despite his admission that he was a member of the IRA, he was 
acquitted of the charges of terrorism and conspiracy to maim and 
murder. That seems to be a technicality. According to the Good Friday 
accord negotiations, the IRA had been dropped from the Federal 
Government's ``Dirty 30,'' the list of officially recognized terrorist 
organizations. If the IRA had stayed on this list, his conviction would 
be automatic. Because of that delisting, however, Federal authorities 
had to show that the weapons had been smuggled ``with the specific 
intent to murder or maim.''
  A specific intent offense requires a level of proof that is 
significant. Even though they failed in this level of proof, Mr. 
Claxton's contact and his own admission of the involvement with the IRA 
strongly suggests that he, too, was involved in terrorist activities.
  We have a situation in which, because of the gun show loophole, there 
is mounting evidence that criminals

[[Page 2950]]

have access to weapons and indeed terrorists have access to these 
weapons. The amendment Senator McCain and I will propose will close 
this gun show loophole without unduly burdening gun show operators. It 
will also not interfere with the operation of unlicensed gun dealers.
  I have suggested, by pointing out specific incidents, a situation 
where individuals have used the gun show loophole. Let me say in 
conclusion that the vast majority of individuals participating in these 
gun shows, licensed and unlicensed dealers, are law-abiding individuals 
who have no intent to defeat the law. But as long as we have such a 
low, virtually nonexistent threshold, there will be a few--and there 
certainly will probably be more--criminals and terrorists who will seek 
to avoid the responsibilities under the gun laws.
  I think it is entirely appropriate to pass this legislation to close 
this gun show loophole and to ensure simply that at a gun show everyone 
is treated the same--licensed dealers and unlicensed dealers--and that 
everyone knows the rules. Gun shows now will require a background 
check.
  I retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just heard an explanation as to why 
we ought to change a law on gun commerce in this country. It has 
largely been touted as a loophole. My contention this afternoon and my 
contention has always been that there is not a loophole because if 
there is one, it exists outside of gun shows if it exists inside of gun 
shows.
  Gun shows are, in fact, a mirror image of gun commerce in this 
country. An individual can sell a gun without a federally licensed 
firearm permit to do so, but if he or she is in the business of selling 
guns, then they have to have that license.
  It is also true in gun shows. When you walk through the door of a gun 
show, the law has not changed nor does it change. But under the McCain-
Reed amendment, they are suggesting it should change and that this 
particular cloistered environment of a gun show ought to be something 
new and different.
  We have heard the explanation. Let me attempt to set the record 
straight this afternoon because it is important we understand that an 
attempt is being made to set a whole new tranche of Federal regulations 
against what has historically been U.S. commerce that was legal and 
law-abiding.
  Gun shows grew out of the firearms collectors associations that were 
formed as part of this country's commerce in legitimate firearms in the 
early 20th century. Those associations remain active today and some 
became national and even international organizations and some sponsor 
gun shows.
  Commercial gun shows first appeared largely after World War II. They 
are large, well-advertised public events in convention centers and 
similar facilities. Annually, some 4 million people attend gun shows. 
Four million people attend these kinds of efforts in gun commerce.
  Behind me is a picture of a typical gun show. I have attended 
numerous of them over the years. You will see all kinds of displays, 
from educational material to actual firearms.
  Gun shows provide an opportunity for people interested in gun 
selecting and in the shooting sports to examine and learn about many 
different types of firearms, as well as to buy and to sell or to trade 
guns, ammunition, and related materials. Notice I said ``to buy and to 
sell or to trade guns, ammunition, and related materials.'' Right now 
if you are buying and selling and moving guns and ammunition and 
related material for your living and you are in the commerce of 
firearms, you have to be a federally licensed firearm dealer. But if 
you are a collector, if you are an individual and you do not commerce 
in guns, you do not make your living by doing commerce in guns, you do 
not have to be federally licensed. But you could still go to a gun 
show, you could still rent a table, and you could sell an occasional 
firearm.
  Why? Because the law outside is the same law today that is inside, 
and the Reed-McCain amendment would say: Oh, no, we have now 
established for you the raw example of the unique thing that goes on at 
a gun show and, therefore, it ought to be licensed. What they fail to 
say is, but in the back streets of America where there are gun 
traffickers and black market dealers, we would really like to license 
them, too, but, of course, they are criminals and you cannot get them 
licensed, and they won't play by the rules.
  To suggest that guns are sometimes sold at a gun show that might 
enter into a criminal act, I am not going to stand here and deny that 
because guns that are bought from legitimate licensed firearm dealers, 
bought by a straw person are finding their way into misuse for criminal 
purposes. That is the reality of the world in which we live, but that 
is not the norm.
  Finally, at the end of all of this debate, Senator Reed acknowledged 
that a very large majority of those who attend gun shows are law-
abiding, honest citizens who go there for all the right purposes. But 
he is suggesting that we have to have this one little special dot on 
the legal map because it is uniquely different from everything that 
goes on outside of a gun show.
  If you want to traffic in guns, you can set up across the street from 
a gun show, and yet his law would not pertain to that person. If they 
happen to be standing out there and open the trunk of their car and try 
to persuade people who come in and out of a gun show that they ought to 
buy from them, isn't that somehow a misconception of reality? I think 
it is.
  Gun shows are also important venues for those interested in the 
general ownership of guns and the general manufacture of them. Gun 
rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows and distribute 
literature. Attendees share information to work together to protect 
what I believe is their constitutionally mandated right in this country 
to have fair, open access to firearms. Therefore, gun shows are an 
important part of what we in this country call the political process.
  Free speech under the first amendment--I know in going to gun shows, 
a lot of dialog ensues between those who are attending. Why? Because 
they are advocates; because they are collectors; because they are vocal 
in their constitutional rights.
  It is estimated that more than 1,000 commercial gun shows are held 
each year in this country. A typical gun show will have approximately 
300 exhibitors offering items for sale and educational display. The 
paid public attendance at an average gun show can be estimated at about 
4,000 people. Generally, gun shows are held in a 2- or 3-day timeframe 
over a weekend. Larger shows attract exhibitors and patrons from 
hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
  Gun shows today are regulated by State law in relation to gathering 
and commerce and by local ordinances as is appropriate for all large 
gatherings that cities would want to know about and have registered.
  Let us talk about statistics. I think I can, by what I just said, 
establish the long tradition of gun shows in this country, some 1,000 
of them starting in the early part of this century, largely following 
World War II.
  In the mid-eighties, the National Institutes of Justice sponsored a 
study of how convicted felons in 12 States obtained their guns. One of 
its findings was that gun shows were such a tiny source of crime guns 
that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure. That was 
in the eighties.
  In 1997, the National Institutes of Justice report called ``Homicide 
in 8 U.S. Cities'' actually covered more than homicides, which put the 
number of crime guns from gun shows at or around 2 percent by that 
statistic.
  In 2000, a BJS study of Federal firearms offenders, 1992 through 
1998, found that 1.7 percent of Federal prison inmates obtained their 
guns from gun shows; in other words, a statistic that will show up, but 
a very minor one in reality of the total misuse of firearms in our 
country.
  The most recent study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
November 2001, found that less than 1 percent of crimes committed 
involving the use of

[[Page 2951]]

firearms utilized guns obtained at gun shows, including sales by fully 
licensed firearm dealers at gun shows; in other words, those who were 
doing background checks.
  This was the largest study of its kind based on an investigation of 
18,000 convicted felons. According to these reports, most criminals get 
guns from theft, burglary, black market, friends, or family.
  The one inconsistent study is misleading. In January of 1999, the 
Justice and Treasury Departments published the result of a study on gun 
shows, Brady checks, and crime gun traces, concluding that nonlicensee 
firearm sales at gun shows contributed to trafficking in crime guns, 
the use of firearms in drug crimes and crimes of violence. The study, 
based upon an examination of 314 ATF criminal investigations, 
recommended additional legislation to deal with so-called loopholes. 
That is where the word began to appear in 1999.
  However, the study does not show that occasional gun sales by one-
time sellers at gun shows significantly contributed to illegal 
trafficking. They made the argument, but they did not make their case. 
The majority, 54 percent, of investigations involved unlicensed persons 
who were actually dealing in firearms without the required Federal 
dealer license, which is a felony and may be prosecuted under the law.
  What they found out is that when it did happen, it was happening by 
those who were already trafficking in guns. The reason they found out 
is they were able to arrest them because they were already violators of 
the law. The Federal firearms laws were at work, and that is how we got 
the statistics because we used the laws to investigate and apprehend 
the bad guys.
  Twenty-three percent of the investigations involved violations of 
existing law by Federal licensees; for example, illegal sales to straw 
purchasers, persons with clean backgrounds who acquired firearms for 
the actual purchasers. Even the Reed-McCain bill would not screen out a 
straw man. Somebody with a clean record could acquire a firearm for 
someone else, complete the sale, take it out, and hand it off. Does 
this great new loophole plugger solve it? Not at all. That hole cannot 
be plugged when somebody lies and they happen to have a clean 
background.
  In 23 percent of the cases where they are now citing examples, folks 
simply lied. They did not tell the truth, and if one does not tell the 
truth and they have a clean background and the NICS system cannot pick 
it up, then that person is legitimate in the eyes of the law and in the 
eyes of a licensed firearm dealer.
  The point is, in all of these crimes, under current law they were 
apprehended, and the vast majority of them are just that.
  Now we hear a new argument: Terrorists and terrorism, and somehow the 
terrorists who are going to create havoc on the American public are 
going to go to a gun show, and he cited one buying an M-16--only that 
was not to do damage here, it was to do damage outside the country--and 
therefore we ought to put new restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
  All I can say is, the great havoc that was wreaked on this country on 
9/11 by terrorists was not by a gun purchased at a gun show. For the 
terrorists, the weapon of choice that did so much damage to our country 
happened to be a jet airliner and not an M-16 that was due to be 
exported.
  Senator Reed speaks the truth because these terrorists we now find, 
who are apprehended and behind bars, were arrested because they were 
operating illegally under current law in many instances. If someone 
lied about their background, they cannot be found, but if they are 
illegal and undocumented in this country, it is a violation to go to a 
gun show and buy a gun. So one deals with an individual purchase and 
not a licensed dealer. That is so rare and so minuscule that if Senator 
Reed thinks that hole can be plugged by sticking one's finger in it, 
they are simply diverted to the street where they know they can acquire 
a gun, but the price is probably going to be a lot more.
  All of that is the tragic environment in which we live, but what is 
important to say about the so-called ``loophole'' is, if one walks into 
a gun show and only in there a loophole exists, they can walk out of 
the gun show and it does not exist because they are not proposing to 
change current law where all commerce in firearms must be background 
checked.
  Any individual citizen in this country can sell a firearm they own to 
his or her neighbor, and they do not have to do a background check--nor 
should they. But if they are legitimate, or if they are commercing or 
making their living in firearms, they are going to have to get a 
license and they are going to have to do a background check. That is 
the law, and that is the way it ought to be.
  So, again, this is a political placebo for a problem that so rarely--
I say rarely--exists, and it does rarely exist.
  I listened very carefully to all of those he listed whom we found out 
to be violators of law. That is why he could list them, because they 
were already arrested under current Federal firearms laws, and that is 
why many of them are doing time.
  So the answer to the problem is to stack a new law on top of law-
abiding citizens at a thousand gun shows, and for the Federal 
Government to step into the business of regulating commerce in this 
area saying that in some way it might protect the average citizen.
  Again, I point to the picture behind me. There is the average gun 
show in America. Nearly 4,000 people attend each one, and there are 
over 1,000 of them. Does the loophole exist? Well, when we look at the 
statistics from the report that bore the name of the loophole that they 
are now using, we find out those statistics just do not hold up; that 
what happened at a gun show can happen outside a gun show.
  The reality is, one simply cannot make the holes in the sieve tight 
enough to stop everybody. Tighten it as we will, every time we do we 
step much harder on the private law-abiding citizen than we do the 
criminal or terrorist element in the world because they know they can 
play outside the law because the rest of us are required to play inside 
the law. That is the reality of any law, whether it be a gun law or 
anything else. We know that.
  That is the history of law. That is the history of those who choose 
to play outside of it and break the law, and the gun show loophole will 
do nothing to change that. It will simply divert the commerce outside 
the building instead of inside the building, if someone chooses to 
operate illegally or outside the law.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. May I inquire how much time is allocated to each individual 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island controls 9 
minutes. The Senator from----
  Mr. WARNER. May I ask that the parliamentary inquiry be done outside 
the time constraint? I pose this inquiry to our distinguished floor 
leader, the Senator from Idaho. I am reading from the Record of the 
Senate on Thursday of last week when the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho said the following:

       I am sure there are some Members on both sides who might 
     have amendments that were not listed to be considered for 
     votes today and/or Tuesday. What I would ask them to do is to 
     come to the Chamber and talk to Senator Reed and myself to 
     see if we might work those out. Certainly, we are happy to 
     take a look at them. There may be an opportunity late Tuesday 
     and possibly Friday to offer additional amendments. The 
     unanimous consent request does not preclude any Member from 
     doing that.

  I wrote the distinguished majority leader a letter on November 18 
last year indicating that I wanted to offer an amendment on this bill, 
and I received back a reply from Mr. Schiappa, who had the authority to 
address this, that said it has been noted. So I have tried to 
diligently follow the rules and procedures by which to bring up an 
amendment. On Friday morning----

[[Page 2952]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, I need to find 
out who yields time.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the parliamentary inquiry be 
addressed by the Chair outside the time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, we have a time problem. 
That is, at 4 o'clock we go off these two amendments that have been 
offered, and we go to Senator Bingaman. And we have a 5 o'clock 
deadline in which there will be a vote on the Bingaman amendment. So 
any time you use now, you are eating somebody's time because of the 
fixed times we have set before us.
  I will not object to your inquiry at the moment but understand you 
cannot effectively allocate yourself time without changing the 
underlying unanimous consent, which I do not want to allow to happen 
for the sake of the 5 o'clock vote and the debate on the Bingaman 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Then if I could quickly ask the distinguished floor 
leaders----
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me yield the distinguished Senator 2 minutes of time 
for the purposes of this question.
  Mr. WARNER. I see my colleague from Michigan. He, likewise, offered 
an amendment on Friday morning. My understanding is his is the pending 
amendment following the Bingaman vote; is that correct?
  Mr. CRAIG. I believe that is the unanimous consent; that is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Could I then ask unanimous consent my amendment, also 
offered on Friday morning in good faith, pursuant to the instructions 
you laid down, be the pending amendment following that?
  Mr. CRAIG. Following?
  Mr. WARNER. Following the Senator from Michigan?
  Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, following the amendment of 
the Senator from Michigan?
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct, whatever disposition the Senator makes 
on that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. First of all, we have a UC. I will not object to that 
request.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LEVIN. I would make inquiry.
  Mr. REED. May I make a point? All of this would be subject to the 
underlying unanimous consent that all amendments also are withdrawn 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator speak up a bit?
  Mr. REED. I understand that under the controlling unanimous consent 
that all amendments are withdrawn tomorrow morning. So if your 
amendment was in order after Senator Levin, I think both amendments 
technically at this point would be withdrawn tomorrow morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I would do everything I can 
reasonably do to obtain disposition of my amendment before 8 o'clock or 
whatever time it is tomorrow morning. So I ask the Senator from 
Virginia as to whether his unanimous consent request is that his 
amendment be in order following the disposition of my amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is how I so stated my UC.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the UC is that following the disposition of the Levin 
amendment the amendment of the Senator from Virginia would then be the 
pending amendment, I would have no objection to that, providing that is 
the way it is presented.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I hear no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection----
  Mr. REED. Reserving my right once more to object again, the 
understanding, of course, is that all of these amendments are withdrawn 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object now, Mr. President, that 
assumes they have not been disposed of prior to tomorrow morning or 
according to some modification of the pending unanimous consent 
agreement. I am not willing to agree that my amendment will still be 
pending tomorrow at that hour, nor am I willing to agree that we could 
not work out some modification of the unanimous consent agreement, 
which is now pending, to allow for the disposition of my amendment at 
some point before or after that appointed hour tomorrow morning.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, with that discussion I understand the 
unanimous consent is still operative? Until I understand clearly where 
we are, so that none of this language in any way undererodes the 
underlying unanimous consent, which means that all amendments that 
might be up but have not yet been disposed of by the opening of 
business on Tuesday morning fall, I would have to object at this point 
because that underlying agreement cannot be eroded.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I am not trying to seek in 
any way by my UC to modify that request. It is simply that I be 
considered after the disposition of the Levin amendment. It is a very 
simple procedural request.
  Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senator from Virginia for an inquiry.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I 
think we clarified among ourselves the parliamentary situation of this 
matter. I therefore ask, at the conclusion of the disposition of the 
Levin amendment, whatever that may be, is the amendment by the Senator 
from Virginia in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I thank my 
colleagues.
  I rise today in support of the Feinstein/Warner amendment to 
reauthorize the assault weapons ban.
  Signed into law in 1994, the assault weapons ban placed a 10-year 
prohibition on the domestic manufacture, transfer, or possession of 
semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer and possession of high 
capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. 
Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 
13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in 
America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the 
hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.
  For a number of years, President Bush has indicated that he supports 
renewing the assault weapons ban for another decade. Although his 
administration has not presented a bill to date, it recently reiterated 
his support for the renewal. Consequently, we introduced a bill, S. 
2109, that achieves his goal: extending the law, without any changes, 
for another 10 years.
  The Feinstein/Warner amendment that we debate today is the exact text 
of S. 2109.
  Some in the Senate, myself included, opposed the ban a decade ago, 
fearing it would do little to reduce crime, and could threaten the 
Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners and hunters.
  However, a decade of experience has provided us with key facts. The 
assault weapons ban has made our communities safer. Recent Department 
of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in 
crimes has declined measurably--by 65 percent in one analysis--since 
the measure took effect.
  Moreover, it is clear that the assault weapons ban has in no way 
challenged legitimate gun-owners' rights. Let me state, without 
hesitation, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens 
who responsibly keep their

[[Page 2953]]

guns. As a gun-owner myself, I have long been a supporter of the Second 
Amendment. I remember well the day my father gave me my first gun, and 
I have spent most of my life around guns, both with antiques and in 
hunting.
  The assault weapons ban only bans a small percentage of all weapons--
those military-style assault weapons, that have no hunting or sporting 
purpose, and that are just used to create mass destruction.
  Furthermore, our world has changed dramatically from 10 years ago. 
September 11, 2001, has taught us many lessons; among them that 
terrorism lurks in our own cities and communities. Given the current 
world situation, it defies logic to let a good law expire, and in so 
doing let suicidal terrorists and others simply walk up to a counter 
and buy these weapons for potential attacks.
  It is for these reasons that my thinking on the assault weapons ban 
has evolved over the last 10 years, and for these reasons that I join 
with Senator Feinstein in sponsoring legislation to extend the assault 
weapons ban another 10 years.
  Not only does President Bush support the continuation of these 
protections; men and women of law enforcement across the Nation join 
him, because, being on the front lines, they know it makes communities 
safer. I note that several sheriffs and chiefs of police, all across 
Virginia, have written to me indicating their support for reauthorizing 
the assault weapons ban, as has the Virginia State Lodge of the 
Fraternal Order of Police.
  Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always 
tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe 
that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given 
me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States 
Senate.
  I know that reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is the right thing 
to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, could I once again determine how much time 
is available to all the participants?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 9 minutes; 
the Senator from California, 6 minutes; the Senator from Idaho, 37 
minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:35 
Senator Schumer be recognized for 5 minutes, from the time of Senator 
Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I listened quite attentively to my 
colleague, the Senator from Idaho, talk about gun shows and the need or 
lack of necessity to close the gun show loophole. It struck me there is 
something quite a bit different between a private sale and a sale 
through a gun show. Again, not the law but the logic. Most private 
sales involve people who know each other. In fact, for a home sale you 
invite the person into the home to offer them the sale of a weapon. It 
is quite different from a gun show, as the picture indicated. These are 
huge events. These are supermarkets for firearms. No individual has the 
knowledge of the perhaps hundreds or even thousands of people who might 
come up to them and offer to purchase a weapon. In that case, the very 
particular specialized case of a gun show, the need for a background 
check seems obvious. That is why we insist that Federal licensed 
firearms dealers conduct such a check.
  To argue that this is some aberration, that this gun show loophole 
amendment we are proposing somehow turns the law on its head, is 
completely wrong. Again, here is a situation where these unlicensed 
sellers have very little, if any, knowledge of the thousands of people 
who come up to them, which of those people is a terrorist or a criminal 
seeking to exploit the gun law. That is what has happened. These 
individuals I referred to have been captured and prosecuted. But there 
are, I am sure, many others who avoid capture and prosecution.
  There are those today in this situation. Anyone could. Anyone 
listening today--I hope they don't take this as direction or guidance--
but understanding that, they could walk up to an unlicensed dealer, 
find an unlicensed dealer and ask to purchase a weapon and do that.
  Again, the cases seem compelling. Nigel Bostic and two accomplices 
were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows. Here is a 
team of people systematically using gun shows to acquire 239 weapons 
which they then sold to criminals in Buffalo, NY. One was recovered in 
a homicide. I don't know how many others were involved. That is just 
one example, and there are more examples than this.
  It seems to me this makes obvious sense that we cannot have a 
situation where there are two standards, for a licensed dealer and for 
an unlicensed dealer at the same place, in a public setting, in a place 
that is advertising the sale of guns. This is not a situation where you 
are at home or you have a weapon in your garage that you would like to 
sell to someone who came by. You have a friend. You were talking at the 
local doughnut shop and discovered that you and your friend have an 
interest in common, firearms, and you decide: Come back to my place; 
I'll show you a weapon.
  That is not a gun show, and our amendment does not reach those 
activities.
  It is clear, it is logical, it is consistent, it is fair, and it sets 
a common standard.
  This amendment will not disrupt gun shows. California has a statute 
that not only requires background checks at all sales but a 10-day 
waiting period for gun shows, and they still have gun shows. In fact, I 
am told their gun shows are quite popular and quite successful. This 
amendment is about common sense. It is about dealing with problems 
which we know exist--Columbine showed us that--and the arrest of 
criminals who are engaged in conspiracies to exploit the gun show 
loophole. We have evidence of terrorists--real terrorists--who are 
aware of this who have tried to use it.
  I don't think we can be so sanguine as to say we know how terrorists 
will attack us, that they will always choose an airline or they will 
always choose explosives. They will choose the way that is most 
disruptive to our life and which will cause the most damage. That could 
involve in some way, shape, or form exploiting the gun show loophole.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor, retaining the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we know a great deal about gun shows. We 
know thousands of Americans go there each year--law-abiding citizens 
who are collectors, who are avid sportsmen, hunters, and target 
shooters. They go for information. They go to access collections of 
libraries of gun manuals. Many people who respect firearms and collect 
them like to have the manuals on how they were manufactured, and the 
ballistics of particular firearms. All of those are available at gun 
shows.
  What is most important is to try to plug a loophole which I argue 
clearly does not exist today, or it exists outside of gun shows, 
because we are all operating under the same law whether you are inside 
the door of a gun show or outside the door of a gun show.

[[Page 2954]]

  Senator Reed mentioned three terrorists and talked about how they had 
used a gun show. They were apprehended, they were prosecuted, and they 
were convicted under existing law. Did they break the law? Yes. That is 
how they were apprehended and convicted. It appears the law is working 
and working quite well at this moment. In fact, we are more aware today 
of terrorist activity and undocumented people in our country's 
activities than we ever were before, and it took a tragic event to 
cause that to happen.
  I received the amendment about 3 hours ago, and I did not have a 
chance to look at it in detail as it relates to the original amendment 
introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Reed. I must say considerable 
change has been made. Of course, the Senator admitted that. But there 
is a great deal left in the bill which I think dramatically alters the 
nature of gun shows and the bureaucracy and the Federal involvement in 
the law-abiding commerce of firearms that we are not talking about.
  The McCain-Reed 24-hour wait is in fact a smokescreen. The bill 
provides the wait may be reduced to 24 hours if a State applies for the 
privilege of improving its records after the fact, after it happened. 
In other words, if it happened and when it happened, then only may 
accommodate, but with no real incentive for States or the Federal 
Government to improve records even though we are pushing hard to make 
that happen. It is a complicated and expensive process. There is no 
reason to think the 24-hour check would ever be achieved. Even if a 
State did switch to 24 hours, the change is strictly optional and could 
be reserved for an anti-gun State government--well, you know in this 
instance you are going to get the irregular application of the McCain-
Reed law if it were to become law.
  With a 3 business-day period still allowed to check out-of-State 
records, a few large States could drag down the whole scheme for all 
transfers across the country. In other words, the Federal bureaucracy 
reigns supreme against a legitimate action of commerce that today is 
regulated only by Federal law as it relates to licensed dealers 
specific to their action and only those who make their living 
commercing in a law-abiding way in firearms.
  The McCain-Reed amendment makes no instant check improvements, unlike 
S. 890, and the Senator referenced that. The bill provides no funding 
to criminal upgrades. Hopefully, we can get that accomplished in the 
near future. I am certainly in favor of that--the carrot and the 
stick--to make States comply so the NICS background check is 
legitimate, is effective, and certainly has within its recordkeeping 
the range of violations of law that makes an individual ineligible for 
acquiring a firearm.
  McCain-Reed gives no priority to gun shows. Remember, we are talking 
about a weekend event. Yet if the system were active, there is no 
priority to move that check to the front of the list to make it happen 
in those areas where there might be a question--and there oftentimes 
are. It does not mean a person is a violator of the law or has within 
his or her background something, but there possibly is a triggering 
that needs further investigation.
  Does this offer the priority? No, we know it does not. Sometimes law-
abiding citizens travel hundreds of miles, if not thousands of miles, 
to some of these gun show events, some of the larger ones in the 
country, and to not be able to transact their commerce and leave with 
reasonable time involved just does not make a lot of sense. They can do 
it outside the door of the gun show; they cannot do it inside the door 
of the gun show. Today, how you act is legal based on your adherence to 
law. That transaction can occur inside or outside the door of the gun 
show.
  Most importantly, McCain-Reed ignores the real problem. Multiple 
government studies have proven that gun shows are not the source of 
crime. But because there was once a crime report that mentioned the 
word ``loophole,'' all the romance of that word, somehow out there they 
can catch the ear of the American public suggesting that here is a hole 
that all types of criminals and terrorists are getting through to gain 
access to firearms.
  The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports in ``Firearm Use By 
Offenders Found'' that less than 1 percent of U.S. crime guns come from 
gun shows. The 2001 study was based on an interview of 18,000 prison 
inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the Government 
under legitimate polling and informational-gathering terms.
  That is a pretty significant figure, 1 percent--a significant figure 
if you want to compare that to establishing a whole new bureaucracy and 
controlling over 1,000 legitimate gun shows on an annual basis.
  The Bureau of Justice Statistics study is consistent with a previous 
study. The 2000 study, ``Federal Firearm Offenders,'' as reported in 
1992 and 1998, found that 1.7 percent of Federal prison inmates 
obtained their guns from a gun show.
  Similarly, the National Institute of Justice, 1997 study, ``Homicides 
In Eight United States Cities'' reported less than 2 percent. All of 
the studies are hovering in that 1 to 1\1/2\ percent range on the 
average. Those are the realities of what we are dealing with.
  We are today trying to drag down a very important law in this country 
or the very important effort to change law in this country to protect 
legitimate commerce and legitimate manufacturers and those who are 
licensed gun dealers by cluttering up, in my words, S. 1805 in a way 
that might drag it down.
  The McCain-Reed bill, S. 1807, masquerades as reform, imposing 
bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows without 
fixing real problems on the national instant background check.
  The Senator deserves credit. We have worked together to try to make 
those improvements. I want a background check. I want no law-abiding 
citizen to be blocked from acquiring a gun or making it difficult to 
do. For those who have in their background those kinds of records that 
violate the law, we want to check them and keep them out of the 
business of owning a gun.
  Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 
1999 that is based on the new compromise bill like its parent, S. 890 
fails to address gun shows most significant concern and would create, 
again, massive liability for gun show promoters who would likely drive 
gun shows into extinction.
  The rhetoric is one thing. No, we are not out to close gun shows. The 
practical application is another. Gun show promoters who play by all 
the rules, if you have substantially put them at risk by liability, 
they will step back. Again, you close another door for the legitimate 
citizen who would attempt to acquire a firearm in a logical way.
  McCain-Reed creates massive bureaucratic redtape. That is reasonable 
to assume. Certainly the author of the amendment can say one thing, the 
ATF in its administration and the regulations that would be written 
would be quite another.
  McCain-Reed turns what can oftentimes be a casual conversation into a 
gun show sale. Let me give an example. If you are a gun show active 
participant, you go, attend, you like to walk around and look at the 
displays; you see a firearm you like. But you decide not to buy it at 
that time. But you know a given dealer has it, or an individual in this 
case, because a dealer--you would obviously be protected by the Federal 
law and the need for a background check. This is an exhibitor, a 
collector, who is not required by law to adhere to that standard.
  Some weeks later you have convinced your wife that maybe that is 
really the firearm you ought to own and you pick up the phone and call 
him because you took their business card and you buy the weapon. Is 
that a transaction of a gun show? I don't think it is clear in the 
McCain-Reed amendment. Is that person, by that telephone call, in 
violation of the law? He may not be, but if the person who owns the gun 
says, great, I will sell it to you, come over and pick it up, or I will 
arrive at a point in time where we can meet and exchange the necessary 
purchase to do so, are they in violation of the law? I don't know. This 
unenforceable system makes it arguable whether that is the kind of 
thing that would happen.

[[Page 2955]]

  Those are some of the preliminary questions I have at first glance at 
this amendment that we saw several hours ago which is different from 
what has been originally produced over the years that certainly would 
have created substantial bureaucratic redtape. At the same time, there 
is a simple premise here that we ought not ignore. We are now setting 
gun shows apart as a separate and unique form of commerce for law-
abiding citizens in the exercise of their second amendment rights. All 
that can go on inside the door of the gun show can go on outside the 
door of the gun show.
  So if that is the basis of the argument that step one is to control 
the inside, I have to believe the desire is step two sometime down the 
road, to work aggressively to control the outside. That is why I and 
others who believe in our constitutional rights and our second 
amendment rights believe the current laws that are on the books are 
adequate to effectively police the legitimate and legal commerce of 
firearms in our country. That is why I hope Senators will vote this 
amendment down. We want to keep S. 1805 clean.
  The President and the administrative policy statement urged us to 
keep this bill clean so it can become law this year instead of simply 
fall because the goal of those who are gun control advocates in the 
Senate would load it up in a way that it would be too heavy to move 
back through the Senate and back through the House or through a 
conference.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum if all time can 
be taken equally from both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I make a parliamentary inquiry and ask how 
much time is remaining for the various parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 3\1/2\ 
minutes; the Senator from California, 5\1/2\ minutes; the Senator from 
Idaho, 19 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, just very briefly, I would like to respond 
to two points that the Senator from Idaho made. One is the suggestion 
that the Federal study of the felons indicates a very low number of 
people who have used gun shows to get weapons.
  I would be very curious to study State prisons because it is in the 
State prisons you find more people who are convicted of crimes such as 
homicides and armed robberies and burglaries. Federal laws usually 
encompass more white-collar criminals, although there are a significant 
number of criminals in jail under Federal drug trafficking charges.
  But I think the studies we have seen suggest, very strongly--and the 
ATF has suggested very strongly--that gun shows are a source of a 
significant number of weapons.
  I also point out, in response to the Senator from Idaho, the 
suggestion that this is going to disrupt gun shows, create very 
difficult matters of interpretation so that individuals will be so 
confused that gun shows will wither on the vine, I think that could not 
be further from the truth.
  Let me point out that States have already stepped up and passed 
legislation to close this loophole, to require everyone who is selling 
weapons at a gun show--regardless of their license status--to involve a 
background check on a potential purchaser.
  In North Carolina, in 2003, there were 76 gun shows. I am told, 
actually, North Carolina is ahead of the rest of the country in 
developing their data system for instant checks. So there is one 
example where a State has closed a gun show loophole, but gun shows 
continue to thrive. In fact, North Carolina has the distinction of 
having the most gun shows in the year 2003, from our records. I am 
sorry, Wisconsin had 88. So they eclipsed them. And Florida had 111. 
But North Carolina is among the top 10, at least.
  I think that is an example to demonstrate this will not undermine gun 
shows. It will not impose undue burdens on individuals, people who wish 
to sell weapons and people who wish, honestly and legally, to acquire 
them. So I believe this amendment is compelled by the evidence we have 
seen.
  Now, the Senator from Idaho has indicated the law has worked. It 
certainly did not work for that police officer in Garland, TX, who was 
killed by a weapon that apparently flowed through people exploiting the 
gun show loophole. And it certainly did not work for the 13 children at 
Columbine High School.
  I think we can make it work. I think we can make it work if we adopt 
the Reed-McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged proportionately to all 
sides.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, time is running on both sides, and 
running out rapidly, because at 4 o'clock Senator Bingaman will have 
the floor for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  So I want to make some concluding remarks, at least for today, as it 
relates to the gun show loophole amendment.
  I think, clearly, we have established that there are well over 1,000 
gun shows commercially in this country that are registered and abide by 
the law, some 300 exhibitors on the average, and some 4,000 people who 
attend each show on a regular basis. And the law that is currently on 
the books outside of the gun show is appropriately and legally and 
necessarily on the books inside the gun show.
  So how does the word ``loophole'' appear? Well, it appeared out of a 
special study that said, yes, rarely but on occasion--those are my 
words, not the study's words--does somebody get a gun out of a gun show 
that is used by them or someone else in the commission of a crime. And 
the answer is, yes, around 1 percent. Oh, therefore, there must be a 
loophole.
  Well, there is a loophole, and it is also outside of a gun show, if 
you want to argue it from that standpoint. It is called the back 
streets and the alleys and the car trunks and the drug traffickers who 
deal in this illicit commerce for not good will, but for profit. 
Usually many acquire their firearms who then use them in the commission 
of a crime in another way.
  Here is our problem with any kind of failure to do instant check. 
That is, the 3-day waiting period is still in place. We know that. Gun 
shows, by their own activity, are a 2-day event. If you drive 100 miles 
or 200 or 300 miles to a show, you want to buy a gun that day. You want 
an instant background check. There is a waiting period involved in 
normal commerce--I should put it this way: the Lautenberg amendment 
allowed a 3-day waiting period, the same as current law. That is the 
only uniqueness I know to a gun show. It is like a flea market, from 
the standpoint that you go there to buy, not to look and think and buy 
later. You need instant capability to say yes or no. You are legitimate 
in that commerce. We are working hard to get there with federally 
licensed firearm dealers.
  Also, I argue those who are collectors and casual dealers at gun 
shows should not be tied to that law because they are not involved in 
major commerce. Those are some of the complications involved in this 
type of restriction.
  Then the last argument I place is a great frustration. Much of what 
we do is impulse buying. But, then again, much of what we do isn't 
impulse buying. If you are buying a $200 or $300 or $400 or $500 item, 
sometimes you have to go home and talk to somebody else about that kind 
of acquisition. So if you do and days later you call the individual who 
may not be--well, if he or she isn't a dealer, they are not required to 
comply with the background check, but are very legitimate and honest.
  The question is, if their amendment were law, would you in fact be 
causing that person to violate the law or forcing that individual to 
find a way to do a background check when they were the collector or the 
casual seller of a

[[Page 2956]]

particular firearm? Those are, I believe, legitimate questions that 
speak to the complication and frustration of stepping into a commerce 
in which there are no Federal regulations today, other than existing 
Federal law that governs the sale of firearms by licensed dealers.
  Those are our concerns. Once again, I appeal to my colleagues to turn 
down this amendment with a no vote, to keep S. 1805 clean, so we can 
get it to the President's desk, hoping it will become law.
  I understand Senator Cornyn is on his way to the floor and hopes to 
speak for a few moments on this issue. We hope he will be able to get 
here before 4 o'clock when our time runs out on this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I am informed Senator Schumer will not be 
arriving to the floor. Since there was a unanimous consent that 
allocated 5 minutes to him from Senator Feinstein's time, I ask 
unanimous consent I be given any time remaining of Senator Feinstein 
and Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. How much time will that be?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, one of the factual points that has to be 
stressed again and again is the national criminal background check 
system is very efficient and rapid. Ninety-one percent of background 
checks take less than 5 minutes, so 91 percent of the checks involved 
in the sale under our amendment, by an unlicensed dealer, would be 
expedited in a matter of minutes--less than 5 minutes. And 95 percent 
of these checks take less than 2 hours. This is not a burden that is 
going to undermine the ability of a licensed or unlicensed dealer to 
operate at a gun show, or for a gun show to operate at all.
  The evidence before us suggests that in States which have not only 
instant checks on all sales but also background checks, and sometimes 
even waiting periods, gun shows continue to operate. Again, this is not 
going to cause an undue burden on individuals who want to acquire a 
weapon.
  The other factor I think has to be pointed out again is surveys of 
gun owners overwhelmingly support the idea of a background check 
applying to all sales at these shows. In a recent survey, 83 percent of 
gun owners said it makes sense. Again, the public nature of a gun 
show--the inability for an individual to screen his customers is quite 
different than a private sale or a transfer of a weapon between family 
members, and quite different than the transfer of weapons among people 
in a hunt club.
  That is all protected in our amendment, because there is knowledge 
who you are dealing with. Here, you could have literally hundreds of 
thousands of people come to your booth, look at a weapon, and say I 
would like to buy. If there is no background check, how does that 
conscientious seller know if he is dealing with a criminal?
  That is why I think the overwhelming number of gun owners and 
attendees at gun shows suggests this amendment would be helpful, not 
hurtful. And I agree. I urge my colleagues, when we lay the amendment 
down tomorrow and when we vote, to support this amendment. It provides 
a commonsense approach to ensuring there is an even and level playing 
field so everybody who is participating in a gun show on both sides of 
the transaction knows there will be a background check. I think it is 
particularly important because we already have evidence of individuals 
who are criminals who have exploited this loophole, and terrorists--
three we know by name--and, frankly, they are not in the business of 
broadcasting their names. They understood the loophole, sought to 
exploit it and indeed, in some cases, they were successful--momentarily 
successful.
  We owe it to the safety of the public to ensure this gun show 
loophole is closed. The McCain-Reed amendment will do that. I urge my 
colleagues to support it tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand my colleague has reserved 
the balance of the time to be granted to both Senators Feinstein and 
McCain.
  Mr. REED. No. Senator Schumer will not be here. I asked to be given 
the remaining time to allocate to anybody who may come to speak.
  Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 11 minutes, 50 
seconds. The Senator from Rhode Island, 45 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Madam President.
  ``Momentarily,'' but they were caught. That is how my colleague just 
referred to those three terrorists he highlighted as a major reason to 
establish a new bureaucratic hurdle for law-abiding citizens. How were 
they caught? They violated the law. They violated the current law that 
governs the sale of firearms, that controls, or hopefully controls, 
illegal aliens from acquiring firearms, and all the rest of it. That is 
a recordable fact.
  Did they acquire the firearms at a gun show? Maybe they did. Were 
they caught? Yes. Does it mean the loophole stops that, that the sieve 
is so tight nothing falls through? I don't think it means that. If the 
desire is there to acquire the gun, then they simply stand at the door. 
The person or persons involved, if they are not licensed federally 
regulated firearms dealers, can step outside and, in a different 
transaction, sell that weapon. That is the tragedy today of any 
commerce, especially by those seeking to acquire illegally and seeking 
to do harm with that which they acquire--whether it be explosives or a 
firearm of any kind. So walk into a gun show and say I would really be 
interested in selling that firearm. But if you would meet me outside 
somewhere, maybe I could buy it. I would hope 100 percent of those who 
are registered would never do that and 99.9 percent of them won't 
because they are law-abiding citizens and would not. If there is a 
loophole, there is another one, and that is the reality of what we are 
trying to deal with.
  Finally, let us understand that we have been able to reduce crime 
rates in this country and we have been able to save lives in this 
country when we said if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you 
do the time. No questions asked. You are not plea-bargained back to the 
street. You are not granted leniency. If you use the gun, you do the 
time.
  Time and again where that principle has been used, commission of a 
crime with the use of a firearm drops dramatically. The fellow who was 
robbing the 7-Eleven stores in Richmond with a baseball bat and caught 
was asked by the authorities why he didn't use a gun. He said: Because 
if I did, they would have put me in prison. Because in Richmond they 
were absolute in the prosecution of the law. So he chose another weapon 
to intimidate the operator of a 7-Eleven store.
  Does the law work? You bet it works if it is enforced. We are finding 
out all new kinds of things about terrorists, and the reason we are 
tragically finding them out is because we were lax in our country. Gun 
shows are not the chosen venue by which the terrorist element acquires 
lethalness, and we know that to be a fact. We know less than 1 percent, 
or around that figure, of firearms that might be sold at gun shows 
somehow find their way into criminal activity. Oh, and that is a reason 
to set up a whole new Federal bureaucracy, a brand new hurdle over 
which we ask the law-biding citizens to adhere? I think not.
  The wonderful thing about law-abiding citizens is they obey the law. 
Sometimes they are very frustrated by it, but they obey the law. Thank 
goodness most of the citizens in our country believe so strongly in 
obeying the law.
  All of the examples, I believe, Senator Reed has given and the reason 
he can report on them is because the examples are of people who broke 
the law, were apprehended by the law, and did the time or were 
convicted and are serving time. That is the reality of what we are 
about.

[[Page 2957]]

  I am one of the coauthors of the NICS Instant Background Check 
System, and I am going to push to get it as accurate as we possibly 
can, and we ought to apply that to all federally licensed firearm 
commerce. But to suggest to the individual, whether they are inside the 
gun show or outside the gun show, that if you are not in the business 
of selling a firearm, you, too, must comply, I don't think that is the 
case. I hope my colleagues will agree with me.
  May I ask how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the Senator from Texas having arrived, I 
say to him I have 6 minutes left in the allocated time under the 
unanimous consent agreement and would be happy to yield to the Senator 
for the use of that time.
  I yield to the Senator from Texas all but 30 seconds of my remaining 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is it the Chair's understanding this amendment 
is just to be submitted?
  Mr. CORNYN. To clarify, I send an amendment to the desk to be filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be received.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this amendment is the gun owner privacy 
protection amendment. This amendment actually will not change the laws 
that currently exist, but it will continue a temporary provision that 
was included in the omnibus appropriations bill that will otherwise 
expire at the end of this fiscal year.
  I believe when it comes to protecting the American people, the 
instant background checks that are required upon the sale of firearms 
are a very important part of protecting the public. Principally, I 
believe it is important because it does, on a near instantaneous basis, 
determine who can legally purchase a firearm and who cannot. Indeed, it 
is a Federal crime for a convicted felon, or some other person who 
cannot legally possess a firearm, to purchase one and, conversely, for 
the retailer to sell it. This provides an instantaneous piece of 
essential information when it comes to compliance with the law.
  Of course, we know the primary threat, in terms of public safety, 
comes from when career criminals illegally use firearms to commit 
crimes, which they do typically from the time they get up in the 
morning until the time they go to bed at night.
  This would provide for the continuation of this privacy protection 
that was contained in the omnibus appropriations bill.
  It is specific. What this would require is 24 hours after a sale 
takes place to a lawful gun owner--that is, there is no reason to limit 
or otherwise be concerned about the legality of that sale; it is as if 
the gun were sold to you, me, Senator Reed, or Senator Craig--that it 
would be required to be destroyed. The purpose of this, of course, is 
to determine the sale takes place to somebody who can legally purchase 
the gun and is no threat to the public safety.
  The purpose of the instant background check is not--I repeat not--for 
the Government to maintain a permanent record of who owns firearms. 
That invasion of personal privacy is not justified by any sound public 
policy of which I am aware, and I think it would be altogether 
appropriate for those records of instant background checks to lawful 
purchasers be destroyed, as is currently the law, after no more than 24 
hours.
  I emphasize this does not change the requirement that dealers must 
keep records of all firearms sales. Under current law, these records 
must be retained for up to 20 years to help trace firearms purchases, 
and dealers must still comply with all Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives trace requests in the course of a criminal 
investigation.
  Finally, for any instant background check that reveals a potential 
sale to an unlawful purchaser, those records would be retained, as they 
are under current law, and they would not be subject to destruction 
after 24 hours.
  I submit to my colleagues this would be altogether an appropriate way 
of protecting the privacy of gun owners of an important corollary to 
the instant background checks which I believe have protected the 
American people from felons and others who cannot legally purchase or 
even possess firearms, which is the policy of the current law.
  I yield back the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for what I 
think is a very sensible and responsible amendment as he proposed it. I 
wish it could become part of S. 1805. It will not have that opportunity 
at this time. I do believe in protecting law-abiding citizens and not 
allowing our Federal Government to develop a paper trail of the kind 
that has no value other than to know what a private law-abiding citizen 
may own in relation to a firearm.
  These records ought to be destroyed, as the Senator clearly spelled 
out, in a 24-hour period. That is what is important about it. We are 
not going to be able to get to this particular segment of the issue at 
this time. I hope we will have the opportunity to do so.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Just very quickly because I have very little time, this 
amendment does not create a new Federal bureaucracy. The national 
instant criminal background check system exists. We simply are applying 
it to unlicensed dealers at gun shows.
  Second, I have heard much this afternoon about the law working. It 
has worked occasionally to punish terrorists and criminals who have 
used violence and weapons, but it has not worked as effectively to 
prevent harm to people who have been killed, the most obvious and most 
notable, 13 young people at Columbine High School. The Reed-McCain, 
McCain-Reed amendment can help prevent, we hope, this violence that so 
often strikes our communities.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Levin amendment is currently pending.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2635

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] for himself and 
     Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 2635.

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

     (Purpose: To modify the definition of reasonably foreseeable)

       On page 9, strike lines 1 and 2, and insert the following:

     product, when used as intended or when used in a manner that 
     is reasonably foreseeable, provided that the term 
     ``reasonably foreseeable'' means the reasonable anticipation 
     that harm or injury is likely to result.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, my amendment would correct one of the 
most obvious problems with S. 1805. In fact, what it would do is to 
amend S. 1805 so that the bill would do more of what its proponents 
claim they want to do.
  The proponents of S. 1805 say its purpose is to bar frivolous or junk 
lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers. They define these 
frivolous suits as situations in which the manufacturer and the dealer 
have done nothing wrong, but situations where although they have done 
nothing wrong

[[Page 2958]]

they are being sued when a perfectly good gun, but in a perfectly legal 
manner, is misused by a criminal to cause damage that neither the 
manufacturer nor the dealer intended or could have foreseen.
  I have some sympathy with that concern. In my view, there ought to be 
some protections against frivolous cases, but S. 1805 bars much more 
than frivolous cases. It also bars cases where the injury is caused by 
an act or omission of the manufacturer or dealer where the gun was 
defectively designed or manufactured and where that defective design or 
manufacture was what caused the injury.
  The National Rifle Association has distributed a statement opposing 
my amendment. In that statement they say that S. 1805 does not prohibit 
reasonable suits in product defect cases where the firearm or 
ammunition is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
  That statement is blatantly false. S. 1805 says a person can bring a 
suit for injury caused by a defective product if the injury is 
reasonably foreseeable, but then it goes on to say it is only 
reasonable to foresee injuries that occur when in all other respects 
the gun is used in a lawful manner. In other words, we should not 
expect a manufacturer of a gun to anticipate that anyone would ever be 
injured from the use of that gun while some other law might be 
violated.
  This is contrary to common sense. It is analogous to saying that a 
car manufacturer could only be held liable for a defective steering 
system in the car if the driver were in all other respects obeying all 
traffic laws when the injury occurred. If the driver happened to be 
speeding or had an expired license, then suit for the defective 
steering system would be barred. That means all suits against the 
manufacturer/dealer, not just by the driver of the car but by anyone 
else who was injured, a pedestrian or a passenger in the car, would be 
barred if we were to apply the same logic that we are applying in this 
bill to automobile manufacturers as well.
  Let me explain a real-life situation where this problem occurred in 
my home State and in our largest city of Albuquerque. In 1993, there 
were three teenage boys, 14, 15 and 16, who were hanging out together 
at the house of the parents of the 14-year-old. Sean Smith was his 
name. They decided to go out for something to eat, and while they were 
out they were approached in a parking lot to see if they would be 
willing to buy a gun along with some ammunition for that gun, and the 
price quoted to them was $40.
  The 15-year-old in the group, whose name was Michael, examined the 
gun's chamber and saw that it was empty. He took the ammunition 
magazine and he inserted it in the gun since it was being offered as 
part of the package deal. He inserted it in the gun and he bought the 
whole thing. Then they went back to Sean's house to continue to waste 
time.
  At the house, Michael took the magazine back out of the gun and they 
continued to pass the gun around while they were doing various other 
things. All three of these teenagers thought the gun was unloaded since 
the magazine had been taken out of the gun again.
  While they were passing this gun around, one of the boys, as he later 
said, stupidly pulled the trigger and accidentally shot Sean, the 
youngest of these three teenagers, who was talking on the telephone 
across the room. A bullet hit him in the mouth. It seriously injured 
him.
  Sean and his parents filed suit against the manufacturer and 
distributor, claiming that the gun was defectively designed in that 
there was no warning that the gun might still be loaded even though the 
magazine had been removed and there was no safety device on the gun to 
prevent it from being fired when the magazine had been removed.
  The trial judge dismissed the case, but the New Mexico Court of 
Appeals said the case should have been allowed to proceed, and they 
reinstated the case. In doing so, they made a very key distinction. In 
their opinion, they said:

       This is not a case where the plaintiffs are arguing that 
     this gun was per se defective and capable of being misused. 
     This is a case where the plaintiffs are saying that the 
     design of a gun was defective and that the designers and 
     manufacturers should have foreseen that an accident like this 
     could happen.

  The court said that the jury should have been allowed to determine 
whether this kind of injury was foreseeable with a gun designed in this 
way.
  If S. 1805, as it currently exists on the Senate floor, is enacted 
without my amendment, this suit by Sean Smith and his parents will be 
banned, and similar suits will be banned.
  This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of the Congressional 
Research Service. In a memorandum to me last week, they stated that for 
this case to avoid the bar that is imposed by S. 1805, the plaintiffs 
would have to show two things. No. 1, they would have to persuade a 
jury that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, but second, they would 
have to show that in no other respect was the misuse of the weapon 
either criminal or unlawful.
  The Congressional Research Service concludes that there is a New 
Mexico criminal statute prohibiting the negligent use of a deadly 
weapon, and that this statute was violated here so that in their view 
the suit would be barred under the language of S. 1805.
  The truth is, in virtually every State in this country there is a 
criminal statute prohibiting the negligent use of a deadly weapon. So 
what S. 1805 is saying is, if a person is injured by the negligent use 
of a gun, then the Congress is declaring that the designer, 
manufacturer, and dealer cannot be sued even if the injury was the 
result of the negligence of that designer, manufacturer, or dealer.
  Congress is saying that regardless of the facts of the case, we in 
Congress are deciding that all such injuries are not reasonably 
foreseeable by those potential defendants.
  I said that this conclusion contradicts all common sense. Let me also 
point out in addition to that the tort laws of our States say you can 
sue people for injuries they suffer if the injuries were caused by the 
negligence of the person you are suing and the person should have 
reasonably foreseen those injuries would occur. This is also black 
letter law, well recognized by the American Law Institute in their 
restatement of torts, their Second Restatement of Torts, which I think 
is universally recognized as an accurate statement of the law in this 
country.
  In section 302(a) of that restatement of torts, the ALI, the American 
Law Institute, says:

       An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor 
     realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable 
     risk of harm to another through the negligent or reckless 
     conduct of another or a third person.

  Then, in 302(b), they go on to say:

       An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor 
     realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable 
     risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other or a 
     third person which is intended to cause harm, even though 
     such conduct is criminal.

  S. 1805 redefines what is reasonably foreseeable for companies that 
are in this particular business--this particular business being the 
designing, the manufacturing, and the selling of guns. It says that we 
may want to require auto manufacturers to foresee that producing a 
defective steering system could injure people, even people who are 
riding in cars where the driver is violating another law, but we will 
not require that gun manufacturers foresee that producing a defective 
gun may injure people unless, in all other respects, there are no laws 
being violated.
  So my amendment is very simple. It states gun manufacturers should be 
held to the same standard of care as other manufacturers are; that is, 
auto manufacturers, lawnmower manufacturers, manufacturers of toasters. 
It defines ``reasonably foreseeable'' the way it is universally defined 
in the tort law. That is the reasonable anticipation that harm or 
injury is likely to result.
  We should not be passing a law to shield gun manufacturers from the 
standard of care that all other manufacturers are required to meet. As 
written, S. 1805 carves out special protection for a special interest 
group. This

[[Page 2959]]

is not the equal justice under law that we all give speeches about on 
the Senate floor. This is not fair to the victims of gun violence and 
gun accidents, such as Sean Smith and his family in Albuquerque. When 
an injury such as this occurs, they should have some redress in the 
courts. Without my amendment, they will not. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand Senator Sessions will be to 
the floor momentarily to join with me in debating the Bingaman 
amendment. But for the moment let me suggest that the Bingaman 
amendment would modify very clearly the definition of ``reasonably 
foreseeable'' in product defect cases in such a way that would 
undermine, clearly, the purpose of S. 1805 and undo the Daschle 
amendment, the very corrections that the minority leader thought were 
necessary to be made and to which I and others agreed.
  Rather than leave criminal and unlawful misuse out of the definition 
of reasonably foreseeable use, like S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment, 
the amendment of Senator Bingaman would define the term ``reasonably 
foreseeable'' in product defect cases to mean the reasonable 
anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result.
  S. 1805 exempts product defect cases from qualified civil liability 
actions. The bill, in other words, allows actions for physical injuries 
or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or 
manufacture of the product when the product is used as intended or in a 
manner that is reasonably foreseeable. As it relates to product defect 
cases, the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' does not include any 
criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than 
possessory offenses.
  The Daschle amendment simply made a technical change by including 
this definition of reasonably foreseeable in the section on product 
defect cases.
  In other words, current product liability law still pertains. S. 1805 
does not erase this. The substance, however, remains the same as I have 
said. That is, both S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment make clear that 
criminal and unlawful misuse of a qualified product is not included in 
use that is reasonably foreseeable.
  Tort law has long recognized the principle that criminal acts and 
others are not foreseeable, that a person can generally assume others 
will obey the law. As one authoritative treatise stated:

       There is normally much less reason to anticipate acts on 
     the part of others which are those which are merely 
     negligent, and this is all the more true where, as is usually 
     the case, such acts are criminal.

  Under all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any 
reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed under 
the assumption that others will obey the criminal law.
  A Maryland court, in the case of Valentine v. On Target, quoted this 
when it ruled that a victim of a criminal shooting could not sue a 
gunshop for a murder committed by a gun stolen from the dealer's 
display case.
  Again, here, as in product defect cases, the criminal and unlawful 
misuse of a product is not included in the definition of reasonably 
foreseeable.
  Senator Bingaman's amendment, by including this language, would 
strike these longstanding principles of tort law and, as lawmakers, it 
is important to recognize these principles of law in S. 1805, and that 
is exactly what we do. Although the legislation does not prohibit 
reasonable suit in product defect cases where a firearm or ammunition 
is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, there is also no open door 
for antigun activist lawyers to claim that firearms are defective 
products just because they can be used in crime. For this reason I 
certainly urge that my colleagues oppose the Bingaman amendment. In 
fact, it strikes to the very heart of that which Senator Daschle and I 
proposed in a very bipartisan way, to make this legislation as broadly 
acceptable as it is.
  The case that the Senator is referring to, no matter how sympathetic, 
still involves a violation of the law for something such as negligent 
homicide or the negligent handling of a weapon. Again, criminal or 
unlawful behavior is not foreseeable. This is established in 
longstanding principles of tort law, as I said, and here, in product 
defect cases, these principles similarly apply.
  The Senator's amendment again would strike language, as I said, from 
S. 1805, that clearly restates what we believe to be current law and an 
important part of the law.
  The practical effect of this definition is that it would bar many 
valid product liability suits involving accidental shootings.
  For example, in Smith v. Bryco, as he mentioned, a 15-year-old 
unintentionally shot his friend when he pulled the trigger of an 
illegally purchased handgun after removing the magazine. He thought the 
gun would not fire without the magazine and did not realize that a 
bullet may remain in the chamber. His parents sued the manufacturer 
under strict product liability and negligence theories asserting that 
the handgun should have incorporated a warning, chamber-loading 
indicator, or a magazine-out safety. Under S. 1805, cases like this one 
would likely be dismissed because they involve some violation of law--
certainly in this case--other than a possessory offense such as 
negligent homicide, negligent handling of a weapon, or similar offense.
  Those are the fundamental issues. I certainly urge my colleagues to 
oppose the Bingaman amendment.
  We will vote on this amendment at 5 o'clock. I hope others might come 
to the floor for purposes of debate on this amendment.
  I see Senator Sessions entering the Chamber now and he wished time on 
this important amendment.
  Let me also repeat that clearly part of the Bingaman amendment goes 
to the very heart of the definition as it relates to ``reasonably 
foreseeable'' in the law. We think that is critically important. That 
is why Senator Daschle and I teamed to make sure this law was, as I 
expressed it to be on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday of last week, a 
very narrow approach toward dealing with the kinds of junk or frivolous 
lawsuits we have seen filed now well over 30 times across this country 
in which law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers have spent hundreds 
of millions of dollars defending themselves, only to have, in most 
instances, these cases thrown out of court. We would hope as they enter 
the courthouse door and the arguments are placed that the judge, based 
on S. 1805, can make reasonable decisions as to whether this case ought 
to go forward or whether it meets the definition of what we are 
proposing.
  May I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes 17 seconds. The Senator 
from New Mexico has just under 18 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his 
leadership on this issue. We really do need to deal with the question 
of excessive lawsuits in America and try to restore the classical 
understanding about fault and who is at fault and who ought to be 
responsible when bad things happen. The legal system has never 
understood that somebody has to pay every time somebody is hurt. What 
the legal system has always contemplated is that people who do wrong 
get sued, not the people who do right. People who are responsible for 
the activity are the ones who are subject to the lawsuit--not the 
person who is the victim of the activity.
  I just had a number of doctors from Alabama in my office. They feel 
so strongly that lawsuits are driving up the cost of their doing 
business and their insurance rates. Every time we come in with a 
proposal to constrict that and reduce it, we have all kinds of 
complaints at the margin about this or that would be wrong and how it 
could be harmful.
  As a young law student in Alabama, we had courses on common law 
pleadings. I think Massachusetts and Alabama were the last two in the 
Nation

[[Page 2960]]

that still had that. You had to plead with specificity in replevin and 
trover and trespass. It goes back to the English days. You had to say 
exactly what your cause of action was and why you were entitled to 
relief. If you did not state it properly, the judge threw it out before 
trial. It became so complex that it was abused. So we went to the more 
common law pleading like every other State had done. But I think we 
have gone too far the other way.
  I want to share this story that was in Saturday's Washington Times 
about an incident that occurred in Maryland. The story is as follows:

       Sometime after closing on Friday night, March 16, and 
     Saturday night, March 17, 2001, thieves broke into Back River 
     Supply's Glyndon plant, owned by the Geckle brothers. They 
     made off with equipment, including saws, a laser and a fax 
     machine. Most ominously, they took a gun.
       Matt and Tony called the police and filled out the 
     requisite reports. On March 18, they tried to install a 
     security camera, but could not get it to work. Matt (who told 
     the Baltimore Sun he was worried that the burglars would 
     steal the company computers, which were needed to operate the 
     plant) decided that he would stay over on Sunday night to 
     drive off the burglars if they decided to come back for a 
     third evening in a row. Tony reluctantly agreed, and the pair 
     brought their rifles with them.
       Early on the morning of March 19, the burglars returned. 
     Tony, armed and standing guard, ordered them to stop, but 
     says the intruders ran toward him in the darkness.

  He fired and killed one of the burglars. No criminal charges were 
brought. That should have been the end of it. Unfortunately, the 
Steinbach estate has now filed a lawsuit demanding $13 million from 
Geckles and Back River Supply company. The lawsuit contends that the 4-
year-old child of the criminal has suffered because of his father's 
death.
  One of our Senators--Friday, I believe it was--in carrying on the 
debate here talked about a circumstance in which someone stole a weapon 
from a gun dealer and went out and committed a crime with it and said 
that something was wrong if we would keep the victim of this criminal 
act from suing this gun dealer. But in these circumstances, the gun 
dealer is a victim of a crime.
  How did we get to the point where we are suing criminal victims 
instead of the person who sold the gun and committed a criminal act? 
What are we doing having burglars suing people who are defending their 
property? This is contrary to the rule of law on which our American 
Republic was founded. It is contrary to the Anglo law that we inherited 
from England. It is contrary to our traditions. Somebody said: Well, 
police officers might want to sue a gun dealer or a gun manufacturer if 
a criminal got a gun and shot one of them and that we ought not to stop 
that. But I don't know police officers who want to sue the gun 
manufacturer when a criminal shoots them. They carry on their hip a gun 
made by a gun manufacturer every day.
  This bill, to its credit, is moving forward. Our amendment, which was 
agreed to, will allow officers not on active duty to carry guns so they 
can be available to help defend American citizens if they come upon 
someone in trouble from a criminal act.
  I guess what I want to emphasize--and I express my appreciation to 
Senator Craig and others who have brought this liability bill--is they 
are not doing something wrong. They are changing the law as it has 
historically been. They are dealing with a situation in which a group 
of activist attorneys or a group of activist politicians--sometimes 
mayors, sometimes DAs--are filing lawsuits in jurisdictions that are 
less friendly to guns than other jurisdictions. They are seeking 
million-dollar verdicts against perfectly innocent manufacturers who 
have complied with the law, who have done everything the Federal 
Government has said they should, has sent the guns down to a dealer who 
has a whole complex series of rules that he must comply with before 
selling a gun. And if a person does that, they still want to sue 
because of an intervening criminal act.
  I have dealt with this, as I said on the Senate floor the other day, 
in defense of a lawsuit. Under the law, a person is not expected to 
foresee and, therefore, be liable for an intervening criminal act. It 
is just not right. But if a gun dealer has a gun and sells it loaded, 
and it goes off and injures somebody, he should be sued. If a gun 
manufacturer produces a gun that blows up and knocks somebody's eye 
out, they ought to be sued. But if the gun performs according to its 
manufacturer's requirement, and a criminal uses it to harm somebody, 
then they should not be sued. That has always been the law.
  I do not know where we have gotten to this idea that we are going to 
politicize the law to the extent that we are to go against lawfully and 
regulated businesses. Another Senator in the debate said if we cannot 
pass it, somebody has to stand up and do something about these guns. If 
it is not done by the legislature, we ought to let them do it by 
lawsuits.
  That is the very definition of activism. We are the people elected to 
pass gun laws. We have had a lot of debate on that. People have 
disagreements about where we should draw the line, about what is legal 
or illegal. That is the way it should be. We are accountable to the 
people. If we do something wrong, we can be voted out of office. It is 
in a lot of political campaigns on both sides, what a Senator or 
Congressman did with regard to gun rights in America. That is what we 
are paid for.
  To have a judge who is elected to decide lawsuits or a mayor in some 
city that is hostile to guns twist the law around to carry out a 
political agenda that affects the whole United States and changes the 
law in that fashion, not voted for by elected representatives, is not 
good policy.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho. We had many, many examples of these 
kinds of lawsuits that are unwise, not sound as a matter of public 
policy. This legislation fundamentally is designed to deal with that 
and to say that we are not going to have frivolous lawsuits brought. We 
are not going to have individuals who comply with the law in this 
highly regulated environment and do what they are supposed to do, 
comply with the Government regulations, have them sued because of what 
a criminal did. It does not make sense, not correct.
  I wanted to share those remarks, and I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. From what the Senator has said, he is on my side and 
should support my amendment.
  Where a gun is designed and manufactured in such a way that a person 
would be misled in believing it was unloaded when, in fact, it was 
still loaded, and a teenager got ahold of that gun and accidentally 
shot his friend, would the Senator agree under those circumstances that 
the designer or manufacturer of that gun could be held liable if the 
jury found that the injury that resulted was reasonably foreseeable?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say to my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, 
who has grown up with guns as I have, the first principle of a firearm 
is you assume it is loaded. Yet you have to be very knowledgeable of 
that fact.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield additional time to the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the dealer handed a customer a gun that was loaded, 
perhaps that dealer could be held liable. I think probably they should. 
The dealer should have checked before they handed it to them. But I 
don't think you want a circumstance where you say a gun that does not 
clearly show whether or not it is loaded creates a liability. We have 
never had that before.
  I have never had a gun that I know of that shows clearly whether it 
is loaded or not. You have to open it up to see if it is loaded.
  My time has expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. If the Senator will respond on my time, in this case, 
the gun in question, a pistol these kids bought, and when they bought 
it they looked in the barrel--he was 15 years old--he looked in the 
chamber, saw there was no bullet in there, he got the magazine and put 
it in because he was

[[Page 2961]]

buying a magazine along with the gun. They went back home and he took 
the magazine out and they were passing it around. He assumed when he 
took the magazine out the bullets also all came out. They all assumed 
that, these three boys.
  Now, in fact, they were wrong. One of these bullets had stayed in the 
chamber and then there was the accidental shooting of one of the boys.
  The parents of this boy who was shot went to court and said, either 
you should have had some kind of warning that having a magazine out did 
not mean the gun was unloaded or you should have a safety which 
provided if the magazine was out you could not pull the trigger, one of 
the two.
  The issue before our court in New Mexico was, shouldn't the jury be 
able to decide that; should the jury be able to decide whether the 
injury that resulted here was reasonably foreseeable. But does the 
Senator think in that circumstance it is appropriate for the jury to 
make a decision?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I say this to the Senator. The Senator has to 
understand, and everybody does who deals with a firearm, you have to be 
careful. You cannot assume because you put a clip, a magazine, in it 
and take it out that a cartridge has not been put in the chamber.
  You want the manufacturer of this gun to be liable for the action of 
one of those kids with regard to another one who was reckless or 
negligent?
  That is what I am saying. I am not saying the other person who 
handled the gun in an unsafe manner should not be liable if they did. 
But I don't think the manufacturer should be liable for that.
  Of course drawing these lines, as the Senator knows because he is 
skilled and knowledgeable in these matters, is difficult, but having a 
clear line about what we are going to allow in this country under 
classical rules of law is what we ought to strive for more. I think 
your amendment is just chipping away and pushing further in this 
instance about which you feel strongly.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator for his response.
  Madam President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 14 minutes and 10 minutes 29 seconds 
on the other side.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let my respond to a few points the 
Senator from Idaho made, and also the Senator from Alabama.
  The first point that the Senator made that I will respond to is the 
Senator from Idaho said the bill as it now stands represents 
longstanding principles to tort law. The quote he gave us was from 
Prosser and Keeton's Treatise on the Law of Torts. All who have been to 
law school know that Prosser on torts is the accepted authority. The 
quote he gave was: An actor may proceed upon the assumption that others 
will obey criminal law.
  What he failed to say, if you go on in that same paragraph, that: A 
defendant may still be held liable for not taking precautions for 
foreseeable, intentional, or criminal acts which the defendant might 
reasonably anticipate.
  The case I have been focused on was not a criminal act in the 
traditional sense. This was an accident. This 15-year-old boy did not 
intend to shoot his friend who was sitting across the room talking on 
the telephone. He did shoot him. He shot him in the mouth. It was 
accidental. But because our State legislature and virtually every State 
legislature in the country has said that the negligent use of a deadly 
weapon is a crime, then essentially they have said negligence is the 
same as criminal activity in this instance.
  The position which the Senator from Idaho is taking is that since 
negligence is the same as criminal activity, we are determining as a 
matter of law here--if we pass this law without my amendment, we are 
determining as a minority of law that it is not reasonable to assume 
that any teenager with a gun might act in a negligent fashion.
  I don't know how many in Congress have had teenagers in their house 
but that is just not a commonsense, reasonable position to take. We all 
know that at times kids act negligently. Grownups act negligently. 
Everyone does at times.
  The question is not whether the person acts negligently but whether 
an innocent person who was in that room at the time that negligent 
activity occurred should be barred from suing for a defective product.
  Now, the Senator from Alabama says he would not allow suits against a 
manufacturer because, in his view, this was not something which would 
justify that. That should be decided by a jury. That is exactly what 
our court of appeals in New Mexico said. That is the law of the State 
of New Mexico. This bill is going to override that. This bill is going 
to say, it does not matter what your juries think, we in the Congress 
are saying these guns are not defective, even if the design of the gun 
results in this type of an injury.
  The Senator from Alabama said the people who do wrong are the ones 
who should get sued. I agree with that. That is exactly what my 
amendment tries to provide. It says let's make a determination as to 
whether the designer and the manufacturer of this gun did something 
wrong when they designed it and manufactured it; and, if so, let's 
allow them to be held liable.
  That is exactly what we do in the case of automobile manufacturers. 
That is exactly what we do in the case of lawnmower manufacturers. It 
is exactly what we do in the case of manufacturers of every other item 
that we have in our country.
  We are saying, in this bill, look, we are going to hold gun 
manufacturers to a lower standard than everybody else. I do not 
understand why it is in the public interest for us to hold gun 
manufacturers to a lower standard of care than everybody else who 
manufacturers anything in our country. That does not compute with me.
  I think, clearly, the better course is to allow the State law of New 
Mexico and of most States to prevail, to allow the courts to use 
traditional principles for what is foreseeable to determine who will be 
held liable. In fact, in this case, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico 
was right. This case should have been allowed to proceed--should still 
be allowed to proceed, I would say, because this case has still not 
been completed. This case will be barred, if we pass this legislation, 
and the Smith family--Sean Smith and his parents--will be denied 
recovery, not because Sean was acting negligently, because he was not, 
because his 15-year-old friend was acting negligently. And the New 
Mexico Legislature has said that the negligent use of a deadly weapon 
is, in fact, a crime.
  So I think my amendment is a small change in the underlying bill 
which would dramatically improve it, in my opinion, and would cause it 
to still deal with the frivolous cases that the Senator from Idaho and 
the Senator from Alabama and all are worried about.
  I am not trying to protect frivolous cases. There is all this 
reference to how we have activist attorneys going after innocent 
manufacturers. That was what the Senator from Alabama said. Frankly, I 
do not doubt that there are some innocent manufacturers. I do not doubt 
there are some activist lawyers. In this case, we had a lawyer 
representing a family that had been injured, through no fault of their 
own, and they have a right to go to court. That is all I think we 
should maintain.
  So I hope my amendment will be agreed to and that all Senators will 
support it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let' see. Madam President, I have 10 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield 5 of those minutes to the Senator 
from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for 
allowing me to do something I have traditionally done every year I have 
been in the Senate, actually taking a tradition that Senator John Tower 
started. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business to 
read the letter from William Barret Travis from the

[[Page 2962]]

Alamo at the time they were under siege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            The Letter of William Barret Travis At The Alamo

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, at the Alamo, in San Antonio, 184 
Texas rebels, led by William Barret Travis, made their stand against 
Santa Ana's vastly superior Mexican army. On the second day of the 
siege, February 24, 1836, Travis called for reinforcements with this 
heroic message.
  Just to put this in context, the war for independence from Mexico was 
being fought through the last several months and would eventually end 
because of the valiant stand at the Alamo, at the battle of San 
Jacinto. These 184 men were looking at what they thought were 6,000 
Mexican soldiers marching on them. They were asking for reinforcements.
  They did not get those reinforcements, but they, nevertheless, fought 
to the last death. They held them for so long that it gave Sam Houston 
time to then get his troops lined up and to form the line on which they 
would take their stand; and that was near Houston, TX. It was the 
battle of San Jacinto.
  But this letter was dated February 24, 1836:

       Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a 
     thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana--I have 
     sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours 
     and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender 
     at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the 
     sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with 
     a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the 
     wall--I shall never surrender or retreat.
       Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism 
     and of everything dear to the American character, to come to 
     our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving 
     reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or 
     four thousand in four or five days. If this call is 
     neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as 
     possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due 
     to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death--
     William Barret Travis, Lt. Col., Commander.

  So, Madam President, this is something that is celebrated in Texas on 
March 2 of every year. That is the date of the signing of the Texas 
Declaration of Independence from Mexico.
  My great-great-grandfather signed that declaration of independence, 
along with the first two Senators who eventually served Texas when, 10 
years after it won its independence and had become a nation, then 
joined the United States as a State. And the first two Senators were 
Sam Houston and Thomas Jefferson Rusk. I hold the Rusk seat. He was the 
secretary of war and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence 
alongside my great-great-grandfather. They were both delegates from my 
mother's hometown of Nacogdoches, TX.
  So, Madam President, I thank you. And I certainly thank the Senator 
from Idaho for allowing me to keep this tradition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thought it was important that the 
Senator from Texas be allowed to keep the tradition. My only 
observation is, if that fight had occurred under modern law, and with 
gun control advocates, it would not have been a gun fight; it would 
have been a knife fight.
  But I do thank my colleague. That was an awfully important part of 
Texas history that became American history.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Bingaman 
amendment. I would just note, if I could, my understanding is this 
amendment would clarify that the manufacturer or the seller of a 
firearm would still be liable for the foreseeable injuries to a 
consumer who purchases a firearm, just like the producer of a toaster 
or a lawnmower or car seats or any other product, for that matter.
  I also want to take a moment to speak on behalf of an amendment that 
is going to be offered and probably voted on tomorrow; and that is, 
with respect to gun shows, an effort, on the part of Senators McCain 
and Reed to close what many of us believe is a loophole.
  By way of full disclosure, this past weekend I have been working with 
my youngest son, who is an eighth grader in a school back in Delaware. 
In school, he has a genealogy project. He has to not only tell his life 
story, but he has to tell the story of both sides of his family--his 
parents' ancestors--all the way back to North Carolina and Germany, and 
places like that.
  One of things we came across, in looking through the genealogy, is 
that about 150 years ago, one of the things that was going on in the 
Carper family, in West Virginia, was the development of something 
called the Carper rifle.
  It turned out to be a firearm that bears my family's name and was 
thought to be a weapon people were anxious to have a long time ago. In 
fact, we still trade a few from time to time. My dad was a big hunter 
and fisherman. I also like to fish and take my boys. My sons are Boy 
Scouts and they are being introduced to weapons as they go through 
their training. Occasionally, we will do some trap shooting. I remember 
my dad being a gun collector, too. I remember visiting him and my mom 
in Florida where they had lived for some time. I remember looking at 
his gun collection. He had enough for a small army in their home in 
Seminole, FL. He had rifles, shotguns, and even a musket or two, and 
handguns as well. He used to say, with some humor, if anybody tried to 
break into this house, it would be the last time they tried to do it. 
All I know is nobody tried to break into their house.
  My dad also liked people. He was a claims adjuster for Nationwide 
Insurance Company. In the course of his work, he worked with troopers, 
police, law enforcement officers. He had a great affection for them and 
the work they did. I am like my father in some ways and different in 
some ways. We share an affection for the outdoors and also for people. 
We have a strong respect for the second amendment of the Constitution, 
believing people ought to have a right to bear arms and own arms.
  We have a situation in Delaware, as in about 30-some other States, 
where folks can go to a gun show--and people are not able to buy guns 
under Delaware law. But you can show up at a licensed dealer and they 
call in to the State Bureau of Investigation, and in a minute or two 
they will know whether you are eligible to buy a gun.
  That same person can go to a gun show in my State and if they deal 
with a licensed dealer, within a couple of minutes, they know whether 
the person may or may not buy a weapon. If not, they are told you 
cannot buy a weapon. Yet somebody can go as far from me as to the 
reporter right here, who is not a licensed dealer, and that same person 
who cannot purchase a gun in my State will purchase a gun. It happens 
in my State and in dozens of other States around America.
  My law enforcement officers want to see a change. They want to see it 
stopped. All of our major law enforcement agencies in Delaware, from 
Dover, to Wilmington, to Newcastle, would like to see that loophole 
closed. Tomorrow when we vote on the gun show loophole amendment from 
Senators McCain and Reed, I plan to vote for it. It is good, 
commonsense legislation. I hope it will carry the day tomorrow when we 
vote.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico for allowing me to have this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
from 9:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. tomorrow be equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees; provided further, that the time from 
11:15 to 11:25 a.m. be under the control of the Democratic leader or 
his designee, and the time from 11:25 to 11:35 a.m. be under the 
control of the majority leader or his designee.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will not object to this. But everybody 
within the sound of my voice should understand these times will not be 
changed tomorrow. We are working under very tight time deadlines. For 
anybody who wants an extra minute here or there, or

[[Page 2963]]

to have a vote later, there will be objection and that will not happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid for reinforcing the 
UC and the time constraints we are under tomorrow as we vote on several 
key amendments.
  How much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes 16 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair.
  Let me say I don't question the sincerity or the desire with which 
the Senator from New Mexico comes to the floor to offer his amendment. 
I must tell you I think he is rewriting current law to fit a situation 
in his State, or attempting to do so. What we have always said here is 
individuals are responsible for their acts, not a third party or, in 
this case, the third party is responsible and not the gun manufacturer. 
It is my understanding all three of these young people were minors; 
they acquired the gun off the street. You have heard the Senator from 
Alabama talk about the knowledge of handling a firearm and the tragic 
mistake some make when they assume it is empty. Any of us who have ever 
taken a course in firearms knows that, first and foremost, that is the 
one assumption you never make. That gun has to be presumed to be loaded 
until you yourself establish by visual contact it is not.
  The Bingaman amendment would modify the definition of reasonably 
foreseeable in product defect cases in such a way it would undermine 
clearly the purpose of S. 1805 and undo the Daschle amendment we worked 
in compromise and balance to bring. Rather than leave criminal and 
unlawful misuse out of the definition of reasonably foreseeable use, 
like S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment does, the Bingaman amendment 
would define the term reasonably foreseeable in product defect cases to 
mean the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to 
result.
  We don't think that is how this argument ought to be approached. 
Again, there is this great desire in our country that somehow the 
individual cannot be held responsible, that somehow it was somebody 
else's fault. The case the Senator speaks of is, without question, 
tragic. That I don't dispute, and my heart goes out to the families in 
those kinds of incidents, where young people become involved in the 
misuse of a firearm and it takes someone's life or injures them. We 
hope that does not happen.
  Again, we have to go back to the underlying principle of 
responsibility, and in the case of well and long-established court law, 
it is the individual who is responsible, and if their act causes 
injury, they are responsible. Certainly, that is the intent and the 
very narrow character of S. 1805.
  There are lawsuits filed for the purpose of changing public policy in 
our country or simply, if you will, draining down the resources of a 
company that someone believes should not be in business, even though 
historically we have said that is a law-abiding, responsible business 
to be in in our country. In this case, it is a business that was spoken 
to by our Founding Fathers in the second amendment.
  We think those who play by the Federal rules, whether they be a 
manufacturer or a dealer, ought to be exempt from these kinds of 
lawsuits, unless under product liability and other law they clearly are 
in violation. But the third party is the one who takes the action, 
causes the crime that is the criminal act. Why do we want to reach back 
through the courts and go after the law-abiding individual or company? 
That is the issue at hand. I know the Senator speaks to a specific 
version of that, but at the same time that is the reality with which we 
deal here.
  I hope my colleagues, when we vote at 5 or soon after that, will 
object to the Bingaman amendment in support of a clean S. 1805.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes, 18 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, to me, this amendment is a question of 
whether we are going to hold gun manufacturers and designers and 
dealers to the same standards we hold all other manufacturers in this 
country. Or are we instead going to pass a law that says, look, 
everybody else has to be held to a high standard, but if you are 
designing, manufacturing, or selling a gun, you can forget about that 
high standard; you have a much lower standard. That is exactly what 
this bill does without my amendment. It holds manufacturers to a much 
lower standard.
  I don't think that is the best public policy. I think we are making a 
major mistake in this regard. In this circumstance, the case I have 
talked about for the last hour, where you have three teenagers, one of 
whom acts negligently and another of whom is injured as a result of 
that, there is no doubt that 15-year-old who acted negligently should 
be subject to liability for what he did. I am not suggesting he should 
not be subject to liability. All I am saying is a good argument can be 
made that if this gun had been properly designed, there would have been 
some warning the gun still was loaded or could be loaded even though 
the magazine was out, or there would be some safety mechanism on the 
gun to keep it from being fired when the magazine was out. In either 
case, this injury would have been avoided.
  All I am saying is that under New Mexico law, as our courts have 
interpreted New Mexico law, an American has a right to go to a jury and 
argue that this injury was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer 
and, therefore, the manufacturer should be liable for the damage that 
was done by this defectively designed gun.
  I believe we ought to maintain that ability. This bill, S. 1805, 
undercuts that ability and basically bars those lawsuits. That would be 
a big mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment I have offered. I 
believe it would dramatically improve this legislation and actually 
bring it into line with traditional tort law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2635.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Boxer), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

[[Page 2964]]



                                NAYS--59

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Corzine
     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 2635) was rejected.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, S. 1805, which we are in the midst of 
debating, is good legislation and I am a cosponsor of this bill. It 
will help curb frivolous litigation against a lawful American industry 
and the thousands of workers it employs. Imagine if General Motors were 
to be held liable for every accident caused by a reckless or drunk 
driver. Likewise, businesses legally engaged in manufacturing, 
importing or selling firearms should not be liable for the harm caused 
by people who use that firearm in an unsafe or criminal manner. This 
legislation does carefully preserve the right of individuals to have 
their day in court with civil liability actions for injury or danger 
caused by negligence or defective product, a standard in product 
liability law.
  Adding amendments such as an extension of the assault weapons ban 
threatens the chances of this important legislation ever becoming law. 
This bill is too important to be saddled with ``poison pill'' 
amendments.
  Four years ago, in the midst of the 2000 election, I said that my 
goal in fighting criminals was to enforce, not repeal, existing laws. 
And, indeed, in Virginia we have seen that incarcerating violent felons 
is the best crime reduction policy. I would support reauthorization of 
the assault weapons ban in its current form if this legislation had 
proven effective in reducing violent crime. I have reviewed the 
thoughtful claims and extensive assertions of proponents and opponents 
of this law. I have concluded, after a review of the evidence, that 
this symbolic ban of 19 firearms chosen for cosmetic reasons is a 
meaningless, toothless law that has virtually no impact on crime. I 
have decided, therefore, to vote against extension of the assault 
weapons ban.
  Police reports and Federal felon surveys have consistently shown that 
so-called assault weapons are used in only 1 to 2 percent of violent 
crimes. Crime victim surveys indicate the figure is only one-quarter of 
1 percent, 0.25. Murders with knives, clubs and hands outnumber those 
with assault weapons by over 20-to-1.
  Put another way, notwithstanding this 10-year ban of 19 firearms, 
criminals continue to commit criminal acts, they just do so with other 
weapons; with other guns, knives or objects.
  The simple fact is that the assault weapons ban only attacks the 
cosmetic features of a gun, banning some guns even though they function 
exactly the same as hundreds of other semi-automatic firearms.
  It is also worth noting that we are not talking about the fully 
automatic firearms or machine guns that many Americans view as assault 
weapons--the Uzi and the AK-47--they were already banned by previous 
laws. Nor are we talking about any firearms that are readily or easily 
converted to fully automatic firearms. Sale of such firearms is already 
banned under current federal law.
  I recently watched a CNN interview that showed an individual firing a 
gun that was banned under the 1994 law and a gun that is readily 
available today. Both guns produced the same results with the same 
impact. The only difference is that one had a different type of grip, 
stock or bayonet lock than the other. Therefore, the banning of these 
accessories is purely cosmetic. The focus should be on criminals not 
guns, and it should be on programs that work, like Project Exile and 
the Abolition of Parole.
  I am also concerned that by reauthorizing this gun ban legislation, 
it will serve as a platform inviting added restrictions on Second 
Amendment rights. The current law, then, only makes sense if the 
ultimate goal it is to ban more and more guns in the future, something 
I cannot support. This can be seen in several proposals and amendments 
now before Congress to expand the current assault weapons ban proposals 
that permanently ban a large number of guns that citizens lawfully use 
for competition, hunting or self-defense. I have a long and consistent 
record of supporting the rights of Virginians and Americans to protect 
their families and themselves, and I am committed to protecting those 
rights of law-abiding American citizens.

                          ____________________