[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2987-3013]
[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 journal clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1805) to prohibit civil liability actions from 
     being brought or continued 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. Under the previous order, the time between 
9:30 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. will be equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator McCain is not in the Chamber. We are 
ready to proceed on our side. I think we should do the time 
proportionately, so that it will be equal, proponents and opponents of 
the legislation, when going into a quorum call.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
time will be equally charged.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 2988]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2636

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona, [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Reed, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2636.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as a strong defender of law-abiding 
Americans' second amendments rights, today I join my colleagues, 
Senators Reed, DeWine, Lieberman, Chafee, and Dodd to offer a 
bipartisan compromise amendment to address what has become known as the 
gun show loophole.
  Currently an individual can walk into a gun show and purchase a 
firearm from either a federally licensed dealer or an unlicensed 
dealer. A background check is only performed on that individual if he 
or she buys a gun from a licensed dealer. There is no requirement--I 
repeat, no requirement--for a background check of any kind when 
purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed dealer. This is a very 
dangerous loophole in the law and we are doing a disservice to the 
American people if we allow it to remain open.
  This amendment would close this dangerous loophole in our gun safety 
laws in a way that is respectful of the rights of gunshop operators, 
gun show vendors, and gun show enthusiasts. It defines gun shows in a 
reasonable manner to cover only public events where at least 75 
firearms are offered for sale. It specifically exempts from regulation 
any private sale from the home, such as yard sales or estate sales. 
Additionally, it exempts sales between members of hunt clubs, an 
exception that I know is important to a number of our colleagues who 
represent hunting and sporting clubs that occasionally sell, trade, or 
raffle firearms between club members.
  The amendment would also create a new category of licensees who can 
become deputized to perform background checks for unlicensed sellers at 
gun shows. This licensee, who could even be a gun show employee, would 
enable any unlicensed vendor to conveniently have an instant background 
check performed when selling a firearm. In addition, this amendment 
would allow States to graduate to an even faster instant check once 
they have sufficiently automated the records necessary to ensure that a 
faster check does not sacrifice accuracy.
  Why do we need this amendment? Some might point to tragedies such as 
Columbine, but as horrific as the massacre at Columbine was, where 11 
young people needlessly lost their lives, that is not what drives the 
need to close the gun show loophole. We need this amendment because 
criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very 
obvious loophole in our gun safety laws. We need this amendment because 
our second amendment rights do not extend to criminals who violate our 
laws and terrorists who hate this country.
  We need this amendment because, according to the NRA, ``hundreds of 
thousands'' of unlicensed firearms sales occur at gun shows each year. 
We need this amendment because ATF has identified gun shows as the 
second leading source of firearms recovered from illegal gun 
trafficking investigations.
  We also need this amendment because my law-abiding constituents who 
attend gun shows in Arizona should not have to rub shoulders with the 
scum of the Earth who use this loophole to evade background checks to 
buy firearms to peddle to God knows who. We need this because every one 
of the 15 leading gun trafficking States in America has not taken 
action to close the gun show loophole. Conversely, 11 of the 15 States 
with the lowest level of interstate gun trafficking have taken action 
to close the gun show loophole.
  When discussing the topic of gun safety, I often hear my colleagues 
say things such as, let's enforce existing law before we make new ones. 
I completely agree and that is exactly what we are seeking to do today. 
We are seeking to strengthen existing laws by closing an enormous, 
dangerous loophole.
  I offer this amendment as one who counts himself as a strong 
supporter of the underlying legislation to protect the gun industry 
from frivolous lawsuits. I plan to vote for the underlying bill because 
it is fundamentally unfair to blame a firearms manufacturer when a 
criminal misuses a gun. But it is also unfair to the American people to 
knowingly leave open a gaping hole in our gun safety laws that 
criminals and terrorists can and do easily exploit.
  The last time the Senate considered similar legislation was in 1999, 
following the school shootings at Columbine High School. Two amendments 
were proposed to close the gun show loophole. One amendment received 51 
votes with then-Vice President Gore casting his deciding vote. I 
opposed that amendment because, frankly, I thought it defined gun shows 
too broadly, covering certain private sales from the home, at yard 
sales, estate sales, and between members of private hunt clubs, places 
that obviously are not gun shows.
  The second amendment which I supported also passed the Senate. 
Unfortunately, opponents of that amendment said it weakened the Brady 
law for licensed dealers and created new loopholes.
  Today we offer a compromise proposal that is a reasonable, 
responsible consensus. I urge this body not to let this opportunity 
slip by.
  Opponents of today's amendment will make several arguments. I would 
like to take a few moments to address them head on. It is important to 
point out that this amendment is a modification of the legislation we 
introduced last fall. This amendment contains none of the vendor 
notification requirements contained in that bill. The vender 
notification requirements in this amendment are the same as those that 
passed the Senate in 1999. Let me state that again for clarity. This 
amendment does not contain the vendor notification provisions contained 
in S. 1807. They are gone.
  We still hear that criminals don't obtain guns from gun shows and we 
will hear about a survey of State and Federal inmates conducted by the 
Justice Department showing that about 3 percent of prisoners obtained 
their guns from gun shows. Let me make a couple of points.
  First, the survey was conducted in 1997. The gun show loophole didn't 
exist until December of 1993, so any criminal in prison for more than 3 
years or any criminal who had a firearm for at least 3 years would not 
have had a reason to exploit this loophole.
  Second, let's be clear to quote ATF field agent Jeff Fulton: ``Crime 
guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' In fact, the 
ATF says gun shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in 
illegal trafficking investigations.
  Some opponents of this amendment will say that background checks take 
too long for weekend gun shows. That may have been the case in 1999, 
but today, thanks to the diligence of the Department of Justice, 91 
percent of criminal background checks are completed within several 
minutes and over 95 percent of background checks are completed within 2 
hours.
  For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant check has lived up to its 
name. For the 1 out of 20 checks that take more than 2 hours, these 
applicants are 20 times more likely to be unlawful than the rest of the 
applicants. Additionally, this amendment encourages States to improve 
their records, making them eligible for even faster background checks.
  I point out again that 91 percent of criminal background checks are 
completed within several minutes; 95 percent, within 2 hours.

[[Page 2989]]

  Opponents say the background check requirements would put gun shows 
out of business. That is not true. According to the Krause Gun/Knife 
Show Calendar, the definitive source of gun show information in the 
Nation, in 2003, the 17 States that have closed the gun show loophole 
have hosted, on average, more gun shows than the 33 States that have 
not closed the loophole.
  I repeat, the 17 States that have taken action to close the gun show 
loophole hosted, on average, 45 gun shows in 2003. The other 33 States, 
on average, 41 gun shows.
  I am a gun show supporter. Arizona is a big gun show State. This 
amendment will have zero effect on legitimate gun show businesses.
  This amendment has been endorsed by the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the Conference Of 
Mayors--the list goes on and on with those who have to deal with the 
results of guns obtained illegally.
  Let me say that the administration has said they want a ``clean 
bill.'' The administration has supported closing the gun show loophole 
but now they want a ``clean bill.'' Wink-wink, nod-nod. It is 
remarkable. It is remarkable. This loophole needs to be closed. The 
administration has had the position that it needs to be closed. We all 
know it needs to be closed.
  There were two State referendums in the 2002 election, in Colorado, 
not notoriously a liberal State, and Oregon, not notoriously a 
conservative State. Both of those ballot initiatives carried 
overwhelmingly when taken to the people instead of the incredible 
influence of the NRA over this process.
  I hope my friends will stand with the police chiefs and mayors and 
those who are required to enforce the law and vote for this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island has agreed to 
give 2 minutes to Senator Lautenberg, and on the time I control I will 
give him 2 minutes for a total of 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides 
who support this gun show loophole amendment.
  We have just heard Senator McCain make a case to close this loophole. 
There doesn't seem to be any reason on Earth that this loophole should 
exist. We are talking about allowing felons, criminals generally, and 
terrorists to buy guns without any identification. It is hard to 
understand why something such as this can occur.
  Back in 1999, I authored the original gun show loophole closure to 
require that sales at gun shows require the same background checks that 
licensed gun dealers are required to perform under the Brady law. The 
bill passed in 1999 after Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote to 
break a 50-50 vote on the measure. Unfortunately, those who want to buy 
guns--who might be criminals, and again terrorists--decided to kill 
this bill in conference. This loophole has continued to exist.
  I am sure the American people will not be able to understand in 
general what this loophole is about. Why do we want to protect the 
rights of those who would evade the law to get guns? As long as this 
loophole is around, our other gun laws mean virtually nothing. Does it 
matter if there are background checks by licensed gun dealers if the 
convicted felon can walk into a gun show and get a weapon with no 
questions asked? Right now, gun shows are cash and carry for firearms. 
Terrorists, criminals, and the mentally unstable can get anything they 
want at a gun show from one of these unlicensed dealers. It has to 
stop. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who want to see 
guns generally available under their interpretation of what the second 
amendment means would resist this. It is not understandable by any 
measure.
  We know the people who got the guns for the Columbine massacre got a 
weapon which was a measure of an assault weapon illegally from a 
nonlicensed dealer.
  When firearms are available to terrorists with instructions from 
their headquarters in Afghanistan to go to the United States; you can 
buy guns at a gun show; never tell who you are and never identify 
yourself, doesn't make any sense at all.
  I hope my colleagues will take a second look at this and say: OK, 
this one we have got to patch up. But we do not hear that from those 
who would defend this arcane and ridiculous process.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan 
amendment to close the gun show loophole.
  Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun safety measures. They 
want effective background checks for firearm purchases, whether the 
purchases take place at a gun store, a gun show, or any other large 
gathering.
  The gun show loophole allows firearms to be purchased illegally at 
gun shows--no questions asked. The result has been the sale of massive 
numbers of firearms to terrorists, criminals, juveniles, and other 
prohibited purchasers without background checks.
  In 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft appeared at an oversight hearing 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He held up an al-Qaida terrorist 
manual, to make the point that terrorists were being trained on ``how 
to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.''
  When I questioned the Attorney General at the hearing, I held up a 
different terrorist training manual entitled, ``How Can I Train Myself 
for Jihad,'' which had been found in a house in Afghanistan that 
November. As the manual stated:

       In other countries, e.g. some states of USA . . . it is 
     perfectly legal for members of the public to own certain 
     types of firearms. If you live in such a country, obtain an 
     assault rifle legally . . . learn how to use it properly and 
     go and practice in the areas allowed for such training.

  There is a long list of examples of terrorists exploiting weaknesses 
and loopholes in the Nation's gun laws. In 2000, a member of the 
terrorist group Hezbollah in the Middle East was convicted in Detroit 
on weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to 
Lebanon. He had bought many of those weapons at gun shows in Michigan.
  In 1999, only a lack of cash prevented two persons from purchasing a 
grenade launcher at a gun show, in a plot to blow up two large propane 
tanks in suburban Sacramento.
  Enough is enough. Since the atrocities of September 11, Congress has 
acted with strong bipartisan support to win the war on terrorism and 
protect the country from future attacks. We have improved the security 
of our airports and borders. We have strengthened our defenses against 
bioterrorism. We have given law enforcement new powers to investigate 
and prevent terrorism.
  Clearly, we need to strengthen our defenses against gun violence. The 
best way to start is by closing the gaping loopholes in our gun laws 
that allow rogue gun dealers to sell guns to criminals, terrorists, and 
other prohibited purchasers. According to the ATF, gun shows are now 
the second leading source of firearms confiscated in illegal gun 
trafficking investigations. Gun shows accounted for nearly 31 percent 
of the 84,000 guns illegally diverted during one 30-month period. Even 
the strongest opponents of gun control understand the need to confront 
this rampant law-breaking. Closing the gun show loophole will 
strengthen the safety and security of all Americans.
  This amendment will not shut down gun shows. It will not prevent gun 
enthusiasts and other lawful purchasers from buying and selling guns.
  Instead, it requires background checks to take place at any event 
where more than 75 guns are offered for sale. These checks can be 
conducted by licensed sellers or by gun show operators or their 
employees who have been certified by the Justice Department. This this 
certification option, background checks can be completed quickly and 
accurately.
  Since its enactment in 1994, the Brady law's background check system 
has truly become an ``instant'' check

[[Page 2990]]

system. According to the Attorney General, 91 percent of background 
checks are completed in 3 minutes or less. A 3-minute wait is not a 
significant inconvenience for a gun purchase. And 95 percent of all 
background checks are completed within 2 hours. The maximum amount a 
buyer can be forced to wait is 3 business days. Under this amendment, 
the period will be reduced to 24 hours for States with sufficiently 
automated background check records.
  I commend my colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Reed, Senator 
DeWine, and Senator Lieberman, for their leadership on this important 
issue, and I urge all my colleagues to do now what we should have done 
years ago. It is time to put the interest of law enforcement and public 
safety above the interests of the gun lobby. Let's close the gun show 
loophole, once and for all.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very proud to join Senators 
McCain, Reed, DeWine and our other cosponsors in proposing and 
supporting this critical amendment. Too often gun legislation has 
divided Members of Congress. This is a proposal that should not do 
that. This is a proposal that builds on common values we all share as 
Americans. As citizens of this great Republic, we all recognize that we 
have rights and we have responsibilities. Among our rights is the right 
to own guns. Among our responsibilities are the responsibilities to use 
those guns safely and to make sure that those who are neither law-
abiding nor peaceful are permitted access to deadly force.
  For several decades, our Nation has had a clear policy against 
allowing convicted felons to buy guns, because we know that mixing 
criminals and firearms far too often yields violent results. That same 
insight has caused us to agree that it causes too great a risk to 
society for a number of other groups of people to buy guns--those under 
felony indictments, who are fugitives from justice, who are subject to 
restraining orders and who are convicted spouse abusers.
  Through the Brady law, we established what seems like an obvious 
corollary to that policy a requirement that those selling guns first 
determine whether someone trying to buy a firearm isn't supposed to get 
one. The Brady law has been an enormous success. Since its enactment, 
background checks have stopped almost one million gun sales to those 
who by law aren't allowed to own guns. The majority of stopped sales 
involve convicted criminals or those under felony indictment. Stopping 
these nearly one million transactions has saved an untold number of our 
citizens from the violence, injury or death the sale of many of these 
guns would have brought.
  Importantly, this life-saving legislation has brought its benefits 
with the most minimal of impact on the law-abiding citizens who have 
the right to buy guns. Over 90 percent of background checks are 
completed immediately; 95 percent within 2 hours. In other words, the 
vast, vast majority of those seeking to buy guns suffer no 
inconvenience whatsoever from these virtually instant background 
checks. But, again, the benefits to the rest of us, to those who have 
been saved from the violence that could have resulted from just a 
fraction of those nearly one million sales stopped by the Brady law--
those benefits are incalculable.
  Unfortunately, the Brady law contained a loophole that has since been 
exploited to allow criminals and others who aren't legally allowed to 
buy guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns 
at gun shows. The problem is that Brady applies only to Federal 
Firearms Licensees, so-called FFLs--people who are in the business of 
selling guns. Brady explicitly exempts from the background check 
requirement anyone ``who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or 
purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or 
for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of 
firearms.'' As a result, any person selling guns as a hobby or only 
occasionally, whether at a gun show, flea market or elsewhere, need not 
obtain a Federal license and therefore has no obligation to conduct a 
background check. This means that any person wanting to avoid a 
background check can go to a gun show, find out which vendors are not 
FFLs, and buy a gun. This situation is dangerous not only because it 
allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, but 
also because--in contrast to FFLs--non-FFLs have no obligation to keep 
records of the transaction, thereby depriving law enforcement of the 
ability to trace the gun if it later turns up at a crime scene.
  Now I know that some argue that there is no gun show loophole, or 
that if there is one, it has little or no consequence. That's just 
wrong. But don't just believe me on this--listen to a report by the 
government agency charged with investigating gun trafficking. In June 
2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a report in 
which they stated: ``The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of 
secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals. . . . 
[G]unshows were associated with the diversion of approximately 26,000 
firearms.'' The report went on to describe an ATF review of gun show 
investigations, which it said:

     shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and 
     juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun 
     shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such 
     prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms 
     were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, 
     unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons 
     were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 
     percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were 
     illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in 
     subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more 
     than a third of the gun show investigations.

  Our amendment will change that. We will make sure that no one will be 
able to buy a gun at a gun show without it first being determined 
whether that person is a convicted felon, a spouse abuser or a member 
of one of the other categories of people we all agree should not be 
allowed to buy guns.
  Our bill does this, though, by respecting the rights of law-abiding 
gun owners and taking into account some of the concerns that were 
expressed about previous efforts to close this loophole. At the outset, 
let me emphasize that background checks at gun shows will be no more 
burdensome than those that so successfully and efficiently have been 
conducted over the past decade, with minimal intrusion on the rights of 
law abiding citizens. Again, over 90 percent of checks produce 
immediate answers and 95 percent yield results in under two hours. Just 
as importantly, there's nothing in the experience of those states that 
have already closed the gun show loophole to suggest that gun shows 
will suffer as a result of closing this dangerous loophole. According 
to the Americans for Gun Safety, gun shows are thriving in the States 
where background checks are required. Pennsylvania, which closed the 
loophole in 1995, hosts the second most gun shows of any State in the 
country. And of the top 5 gun show States, three Pennsylvania, Illinois 
and California--require background checks or a firearms ID card for gun 
purchases.
  But we understand the concerns some have expressed--that a bill 
closing the gun show loophole will somehow extend beyond gun shows into 
small private sales from someone's home or will create a barrier so 
high that gun shows won't be able to operate. We've made sure that 
won't happen. First, our bill has a simple definition of a gun show--an 
event where 75 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale--and we 
make clear that that definition doesn't include sales from a private 
collection by nonlicensed sellers out of their homes.
  Second, to respond to the argument that previous proposals made it 
too difficult for nonlicensed sellers to fulfill the background check 
requirement, our bill makes sure that nonlicensed sellers will have 
easy access to someone who can initiate background checks for them, by 
creating a new class of licensee whose sole purpose will be to initiate 
background checks at gun shows.
  Third, we have tried to respond to those who say that a three-day 
check is too long for gun shows, because those events only last a 
couple of days.

[[Page 2991]]

It is worth noting yet again that the length allowed for the check 
doesn't affect the overwhelming majority of gun purchasers, because 
over 90 percent of checks are completed almost instantly. But to allay 
the concerns that have been expressed, we have come up with a 
compromise that authorizes a State to move to a 24-hour check for 
nonlicensed dealers at gun shows when the State can prove that a 24-
hour check is feasible. A State can prove that by showing that 95 
percent of the records that would disqualify people in that State from 
buying guns are computerized and searchable by the NICS system. And, 
because of the particular need to keep guns out of the hands of spouse 
abusers, the bill specifically provides that a State must have 
computerized 95 percent of its domestic violence misdemeanor and 
restraining order records dating back 30 years before it is eligible to 
go to a 24-hour check at gun shows.
  Putting all of these provisions together, I frankly cannot understand 
why reasonable people would oppose this amendment. If we all agree that 
criminals, spouse abusers and the like shouldn't be able to buy guns, 
why in the world aren't we doing a very simple thing and saying that 
just like the person who sells at a gun store has to do a background 
check, the person who sells at a gun show does too. All this bill does 
is make sure that we have an effective means to implement something 
upon which there has been a national consensus for decades--that 
criminals and other people we all agree shouldn't own guns can't buy 
them.
  Now I know that there are many who argue that what we need to solve 
the gun violence problem are not new laws, but the enforcement of 
existing ones. I agree with part of that statement, and firmly support 
efforts to crack down on those who violate our gun laws. But I believe 
we must go farther than that, because we will never be able to enforce 
existing laws unless we close the loopholes in them that criminals 
exploit. And we all know that there is a big loophole in the provision 
saying that felons and spouse abusers aren't supposed to buy guns, and 
that is that criminals know that if they go to a gun show, they will be 
able to avoid the background check that was set up to keep them from 
getting guns.
  Gun crime remains a critical public safety problem. For too long, 
differences over finding a solution to that problem have unnecessarily 
divided the Congress, and the American people have been left to suffer 
the violent consequences. But the reality is that most of us agree on 
most of the critical questions. We agree that the laws on the books 
should be enforced, that the rights of law-abiding gun owners should be 
protected, and that convicted felons and spouse abusers shouldn't be 
able to get guns. Again, I believe law abiding citizens have every 
right to own guns, but we also all share in the responsibility of 
keeping our society safe and keeping guns out of the hands of those who 
shouldn't have them. This amendment would write those principles into 
law. I hope all of my colleagues support it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from California is now on the 
floor to offer her amendment. So we can expedite matters, under the 
unanimous consent agreement, the McCain-Reed amendment is to be set 
aside for the purposes of the introduction of an amendment by the 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2637

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Warner, Mr. Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Levin, Mr. Chafee, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reed, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2637.

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

  (Purpose: To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons 
                                  ban)

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

     SEC. 5. ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN REAUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004''.
       (b) 10-Year Extension of Assault Weapons Ban.--Section 
     110105 of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use 
     Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 110105. SUNSET PROVISION.

       ``This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle 
     are repealed September 13, 2014.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 
minutes to speak on the amendment. I ask the Chair to alert me when 5 
minutes have passed. I will then cede time to Senator Warner for 2 
minutes and to Senator Schumer for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, 
Clinton, Reed, Lautenberg, and Mikulski.
  This is an ad from this morning's Washington Post. It says:

       Senators, if police officers sat in your seats today, do 
     you think they'd vote to put Uzi's and AK-47's back on the 
     streets?

  That clearly is the question before the Senate this morning.
  It is going to be a very close vote. However, that is the issue. That 
will be the result, if this legislation is not reauthorized for another 
10 years.
  The legislation has the support of 77 percent of the American people, 
and 66 percent of gun owners. It does not remove a legal gun owner from 
his weapon, and it has reduced traces of assault weapons to crimes by 
two-thirds in the last 10 years. I stand by those figures.
  We believe the assault weapons legislation should be reauthorized. It 
was enacted in 1994 for 10 years. That 10 years is up on September 13.
  There is a broad coalition of organizations including every single 
law enforcement organization in this country supporting it, from the 
International Chiefs of Police to the Fraternal Order of Police, to 
virtually every civic group supporting reauthorization of this 
legislation.
  I very much hope the votes are present in the Senate this morning.
  Another interesting note is that on the one hand we are accused, 
well, it is just cosmetic; it doesn't work. If it is just cosmetic and 
it doesn't work, then why this enormous effort to prevent the bill from 
being reauthorized?
  Additionally, the legislation contains a written exemption by name 
for 670 weapons. So no one in the United States who legally possessed 
one of these assault weapons has had those assault weapons taken away. 
But what we believe is the legislation which stops the manufacture and 
the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons has been effective. It also 
stops the domestic manufacture of clips, drums, or strips of more than 
10 bullets. No hunter needs more than 10 bullets. No person for defense 
needs more.
  I am very hopeful this morning we will in a sense look to the law 
enforcement community and sustain a vote to reauthorize the assault 
weapons legislation for another 10 years.
  I now yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished senior Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. John Warner.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from 
California. I salute her leadership on this measure.
  I am very hopeful we can persuade the Senate this morning to continue 
this legislation.
  Might I say that when first introduced, it was somewhat different 
than what the President indicated he would support. At my request, the 
Senator conformed her bill so it is precisely the legislative measure 
to which the President of the United States has indicated he would lend 
his support.

[[Page 2992]]

  I could say many things about this bill. But in the time constraints 
we have, law enforcement was the pivotal decision which switched me 
from 10 years ago voting against this measure, to today not only 
standing here to vote for it but joining in the leadership of the 
Senator from California to get it passed. Law enforcement has shown it 
has reduced the use of these weapons in crime.
  My words pale in significance to the law enforcement officers from 
the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The sheriff of Amherst County, the chief of police of Blacksburg, the 
chief of police of the town of Vienna, the chief of police of 
Waynesboro, the acting chief of police of Fairfax County, the sheriff 
of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Roanoke, the chief of 
police of Virginia Beach, the chief of police of Chesapeake, the chief 
of police of Portsmouth, the sheriff of Roanoke City, the chief of 
police of Newport News, the chief of police of Winchester, the chief of 
police of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Arlington 
County, the chief of police of Staunton, the chief of police of Salem, 
the sheriff of Rockingham County, and the chief of police of Norfolk--
the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia. These law enforcement 
officers come forward to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The Senator has used 2 minutes of 
the time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for 
his leadership on this issue. We are delighted he is a major sponsor of 
this bill.
  Mr. President, inadvertently the name of the Senator from Illinois, 
Mr. Durbin, was left off the bill as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous 
consent it be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished 
Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Schumer is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I, too, salute both my colleagues for their superb 
leadership on this issue. This bill, the assault weapons ban, is 
hanging by a thread. There is no good reason on God's green Earth why. 
It has been a success in preventing crimes. It has not hurt a single 
law-abiding gun owner. Yet we are here today at the eleventh hour 
worrying and wondering whether this legislation will be renewed. If it 
is not renewed, it is a giant step backwards, I say to my colleagues.
  How can we take it in the light of 10 years of experience which shows 
how successful the legislation is? The number of guns, assault weapons, 
19 banned weapons, used in crimes has dramatically declined--by 300 
percent. The number of individuals who have been hurt by this--hunters, 
small busi-
nesspeople, homeowners who want to protect themselves by having a gun--
have not been hurt at all.
  These are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a whole lot of 
people quickly. They are not designed for hunting. They are not 
designed for self-defense of a homeowner or a store owner. The only 
reason we are here today is politics.
  I plead with our President--he has said he is for the legislation 
after the modification the good Senator from California made, so it is 
exactly the same as the bill we have had in effect--I plead to not just 
simply state once or twice he is for this. One phone call, Mr. 
President, can pass this bill. Please, we need this legislation. I urge 
my colleagues to reach into their consciences and pass it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this bipartisan 
amendment to continue the Federal ban on assault weapons. The ban is 
now scheduled to expire on September 13, 2004.
  The fact that this common-sense and necessary ban requires any debate 
at all shows how misplaced and misguided our priorities on domestic 
safety and security have become.
  Even before 9/11, renewal of the assault weapons ban should have been 
a no-brainer. After 9/11, to even consider letting the ban expire is 
absurd.
  Semi-automatic assault weapons are killing machines--nothing more, 
nothing less. They are intentionally designed to maximize their killing 
power by a rapid rate of fire. They are intended to be spray-fired from 
the hip, so that the killer can fire many rounds in rapid succession.
  Civilians have no need whatever for such military-style killing 
machines. They are of no use for hunting, unless the goal is to 
obliterate the duck or deer being hunted. They are unnecessary and 
impractical for self-defense, and they have no recreational value.
  The purpose of these weapons is to facilitate crime. By the late 
1980s, assault weapons had become the weapon of choice for drug 
traffickers, gangs, and other criminal organizations. Their high 
firepower and ability to penetrate body armor exposed the police 
officers to increased danger, and innocent bystanders were killed in 
indiscriminate assault-weapon shoot-outs in the streets.
  Assault weapons have been used in a series of massacres:
  In 1989, in an attack at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA, 
Patrick Purdy used an assault weapon to kill five small children and 
wound 29 others. Purdy fired off 106 rounds in less than two minutes.
  In 1993, two CIA employees were killed outside the entrance to CIA 
headquarters by a Pakistani national using an AK-47 assault rifle 
equipped with a 30-round magazine.
  Also in 1993, eight persons were killed and six others were wounded 
at a San Francisco law firm by an assailant using two assault pistols 
with 50-round magazines.
  That's the kind of world we'll return to if Congress allows the 
current ban on assault weapons to expire.
  In fact, the ban contributed to a dramatic decrease in violent crime 
in the 1990s. Many of us remember the dire ``juvenile superpredator'' 
predictions that were in vogue before that reduction took place. In 
1996, William Bennett and John Walters had written that America was a 
``ticking crime bomb,'' faced with the ``youngest, biggest, and baddest 
generation'' of juvenile offenders that our country had ever known.
  Fortunately, these predictions were wrong. From 1993 to 2001, arrest 
rates for violent juvenile crime declined by more than two-thirds. 
We're still enjoying the benefits of this low crime rate today.
  The decrease in crime is explained in large part by the sensible 
measures that Congress took on gun safety in the early 1990s, including 
the ban on assault weapons. In 1999, the National Center for Juvenile 
Justice concluded that all of the increase in homicides by juveniles 
between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s was firearm-related. The U.S. 
Surgeon General concluded that guns were responsible for both the 
epidemic in juvenile violence in the late 1980s and the decrease in 
violence after 1993. ``It is now clear,'' the Surgeon General wrote, 
``that the violence epidemic was caused largely by an upsurge in the 
use of firearms by young people. . . . Today's youth violence is less 
lethal, largely because of a decline in the use of firearms.''
  After Congress passed the assault weapons ban in 1994, fewer 
criminals used assault weapons to kill and commit other crimes. 
According to the National Institute of Justice, requests to trace 
assault weapons--one of the best indicators of gun use in crimes--
declined 20 percent in the first calendar year after the ban took 
effect. In 1995 and 1996, the number of assault weapons used in crime 
in Boston declined by 24 percent. In St. Louis, it declined by 29 
percent.
  With these proven results, why would anyone vote against 
reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban?
  It's no surprise that the law enforcement community strongly supports 
the ban. The amendment now before us is supported by: The International 
Association of Chiefs of Police; the National Association of Police 
Organizations; the National Organization of Black Police Officials; the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the Hispanic American 
Police Command Officers Association; the

[[Page 2993]]

American Probation and Parole Association; the United States Conference 
of Mayors; and countless other religious, public health, and domestic 
violence organizations.
  Congress needs to do more than renew the ban on assault weapons now 
in effect. We should make clear that the definition of assault weapons 
includes ``copycat'' guns made by the gun industry with devious 
cosmetic changes to evade the 1994 law. We should ban parts kits that 
can be bought through the mail and used to build assault weapons. We 
should regulate the transfer of ``grandfathered'' assault weapons and 
facilitate their tracing. We should ban high-capacity ammunition 
magazines, and prohibit juveniles from buying or possessing assault 
rifles and shotguns. Senator Lautenberg has introduced a bill that 
would do all of these things, and I commend him for his leadership.
  What we absolutely cannot do is let the current ban on assault 
weapons expire. Such a failure would drastically undermine the safety 
of our streets, neighborhoods, and schools, and strengthen the hand of 
terrorists and other criminals.
  We know that terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and 
loopholes in our gun laws. A terrorist training manual discovered by 
American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al Qaeda operatives to 
buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us. 
Terrorists are bent on exploiting weaknesses in our gun laws. Americans 
will be at much greater risk if Congress fails to renew the ban on 
assault weapons.
  We can't let that happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
essential protection against crime and terrorism.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I strongly support the extension of the 
assault weapons ban. I want to commend Senators Feinstein and Schumer 
for championing this important legislation for many years.
  We need to close a number of loopholes in the current assault weapons 
ban that have allowed gun manufacturers to make minor design changes to 
evade the law. One gun maker in my State has skirted the ban by 
replacing the prohibited flash suppressor on one of its assault weapons 
with non-prohibited muzzle breaks or compensators, which ironically 
reduce ``muzzle climb'' during rapid firing.
  The actual functional elements of this assault weapon, however, have 
remained the same. The gun still fires a high volume of bullets over a 
large area. Such loopholes need to be closed, and I am pleased to co-
sponsor legislation authored by Senator Launtenberg to further 
strengthen the existing assault weapons ban.
  The current assault weapons ban will expire in September. There are 
many powerful reasons why extending the assault weapons ban must be a 
top priority for the Congress this year.
  First, assault weapon bans do work. According to the Department of 
Justice, the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped 
by nearly two-thirds since 1995, the first year that the Federal ban 
went into effect.
  Between 1988 and 1991, assault weapons accounted for nearly 8 percent 
of guns used in crimes. In 1995, it plummeted to 3.6 percent. In 2002, 
it dropped even further to 1.2 percent. The ban on assault weapons is 
therefore clearly making a difference in reducing crime and saving 
lives.
  Second, assault weapons have a devastating impact on people's lives 
and on the safety of their communities. These aren't hunting weapons we 
are talking about. Nor are they for recreational or sporting use. We 
have heard it said before that one does not need an AK-47 or an Uzi for 
duck hunting.
  Quite simply, assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed 
with one purpose in mind--for slaughtering human beings over a wide 
area. They belong on a faraway battlefield, not on our Nation's 
streets. However one feels about the Second Amendment, assault weapons 
have no place in a civilized society.
  If assault weapons end up in the wrong hands, the results can be 
horrific. The increased firepower of these weapons has a particularly 
devastating impact on its victims, who often suffer multiple gunshot 
wounds and severe penetrating trauma. It often takes longer for victims 
to recover from such injuries, placing significant burdens on scarce 
medical resources.
  Law enforcement officers are particularly vulnerable to assault 
weapons fire, since they are on the front lines protecting our 
communities from those gangs, drug traffickers, and even terrorist 
groups who have made such firearms their weapons of choice. In the 
years leading up to the enactment of the Federal ban, assault weapons 
accounted for 8 percent of all guns traced to crime, although they 
comprised only 1 percent of privately owned guns in America.
  Even with the Federal ban in place over the last decade, assault 
weapons have been implicated in the death of one in five police 
officers killed in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001. It is no 
coincidence then that numerous law enforcement organizations, including 
groups devoted to protecting children's rights and stopping domestic 
violence, support extending the ban on these deadly weapons.
  In fact, it is really a matter of homeland security that these 
weapons must be taken out of the hands of criminals. A May 2003 
editorial in The San Antonio Express News had it right when it said 
that just as it is a priority for allied officials in Iraq to get AK-
47s out of the hands of Iraqi civilians, Congress shouldn't let such 
military-type weapons back on the streets of American cities by failing 
to extend the assault weapons ban. If terrorists can turn a jet 
aircraft into instruments to kill Americans, does anyone think they 
would hesitate for even one second to use an assault weapon for the 
same purposes?
  In addition to police officers being vulnerable to assault weapons, 
so are our children. These firearms were used to kill 5 children and 
wound 29 others in a Stockton, CA, schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 used 
in this incident held a staggering 75 bullets. A TEC-9 assault weapon 
was also used in the 1999 killing of a teacher, 12 students, and the 
wounding of more than 20 others at Columbine High School.
  Connecticut was the fourth State in the Nation to ban assault 
weapons, after California, New Jersey and Hawaii. The National Rifle 
Association challenged the ban in Connecticut State court and it was 
upheld as constitutional in 1994. Federal courts have upheld the 
constitutionality of the Federal ban on assault weapons as well. 
Extending the ban for another 10 years will save lives, prevent serious 
injuries and make our communities safer from the tragic consequences of 
gun violence. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  One more point, one of the most surprising things I have learned in 
this debate is that firearms, which are responsible for 29,000 deaths a 
year, are specifically exempt from regulation under the Consumer 
Product Safety Act.
  Section 3(a)(1)(E) of the Act exempts firearms and ammunitions from 
the definition of ``consumer products.'' This provision was inserted 
into the Act in 1972 at the behest of the gun lobby. As a result, guns 
are among the only consumer products, along with tobacco, exempt from 
Federal health and safety regulations.
  This fact is shocking. Even more shocking is the fact that firearms 
cause more deaths a year than the 15,000 consumer products regulated 
under the Act combined.
  Other potentially dangerous products--from cars to lawnmowers to 
household products to medicines--are regulated to protect the health of 
the American public. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt 
from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason 
enough why we cannot afford to grant the firearm industry legal 
immunity.
  Strangely enough, toy guns are more heavily regulated than real guns, 
despite the fact that toy guns do not kill or maim. There are over 140 
pages in the Code of Federal Regulations that apply to toys, but only 
one paragraph devoted to guns, and that paragraph exempts guns from the 
Consumer Product Safety Act.

[[Page 2994]]

  Under the Act, toy guns fall under the standard for toys. At least 
four types of Federal safety standards cover toys: if they have sharp 
edges and points, small parts, contain hazardous materials, and are 
flammable. The regulations even say that toy guns should have a bright 
orange tip at the end of the barrel to distinguish them from real guns.
  The lack of Federal health and safety regulations for guns has a 
number of serious consequences. It means that there is no way to recall 
defective firearms. Guns that are manufactured poorly and pose a 
serious threat to gun owners and the public would remain in 
circulation, with the government essentially unable to do anything 
about it.
  The lack of Federal regulation of firearms also means that there is 
no way to mandate the use of safety devices. And it means that there is 
no detailed data collection on deaths and injuries from guns.
  Gun violence has a devastating impact on people's lives and their 
communities. The fact that toy guns are regulated and real guns are not 
makes little sense, and I urge the Senate to eventually rectify it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 1 minute 10 
seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves her time and yields the 
floor.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent request, this 
amendment currently before the Senate, the Feinstein amendment, would 
be set aside for the purposes of the introduction by our leader, 
Senator Frist, of the DC gun ban repeal. That amendment will not be 
offered today, so we are now on full debate for the balance of time 
until votes start at 11:30 on the two issues before the Senate and the 
balance of the whole bill.
  Certainly, there are other amendments besides the assault weapons ban 
introduced by the Senator from California, the gun show loophole by 
Senators Reed and McCain. Also, we will have votes today, and it is 
critical for Senators who want to debate on armor piercing by Kennedy 
and the Frist-Craig alternative, also on conceal and carry, offered in 
behalf of Senator Ben Campbell, that some have debated.
  For a few moments, let me debate one general topic. The clock has 
started for all of us on the 2-hour balance of time equally divided 
between us on this issue.
  For a moment today, I will talk about attitudes of the American 
public as it relates to the second amendment in the Senate today. The 
Senator from New York talked about why we are at the eleventh hour 
debating the gun show loophole. We are because he and his colleagues 
introduced it, obviously, believing it was a timely topic to debate at 
a time when we have a very narrowly prescribed bill to deal with the 
legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in the manufacture of firearms. He 
has decided to add or attempt to add this to the bill. Our President 
has asked for a clean bill.
  Let me talk about where the American people are. Once again, we find 
ourselves in a political season. And once again, we find ourselves 
debating and arguing about gun ownership in America. The second 
amendment is clear. Many who are strong advocates of that amendment 
believe it is extremely clear.
  We have heard over the last several days Senators with honest 
differences of opinion take to the Senate floor and claim their vows to 
represent the folks back in their home States.
  Let's take a few minutes to look at some of the relevant research 
from respected polling from the firm Zogby International. Zogby 
recently surveyed 1,200 voters nationwide on firearms issues. As a 
conservative, I don't view Zogby as a conservative pollster; some call 
him middle of the road, some call him middle left. I guess what I am 
saying is Zogby and his polling are largely respected by many across 
the country. The Zogby International group, working with the John 
Goodwin Tower Center for political science at Southern Methodist 
University, looked at and decided to poll in a unique way. They said: 
Let's examine the difference between the George Bush States in 2000, 
the red States, and the Al Gore States, the blue States. For the 
balance of my comment, think red and think blue and remember that map 
we saw after the last Presidential election when the vast majority of 
America was red except for a few blue strips along the west coast line 
and the east coast line.
  Here were the questions asked of 1,200 voters--not citizens, voters; 
those who said they voted in the last election--as to the attitude of 
Americans on firearms. They asked: Do you agree or disagree that 
American firearm manufacturers that sell a legal product which is not 
defective--meaning a quality product used for the intent of its 
manufacture--should be allowed to be sued if a criminal used their 
product in a crime.
  What are the answers? The answers are, there were enough laws on the 
books. In the Bush States, 69 percent agreed they should not be sued; 
in the Gore States, 63 percent agreed they should not be sued and they 
ought not be sued; military people in those States, 70 percent; 
veterans, 71 percent; nonmilitary, on the average 66 percent. A very 
strong majority of the American people made it very clear. The answer 
came back loudly, from every demographic group opposed to these kinds 
of lawsuits.
  That is why we have S. 1805 before the Senate. American minds are 
made up. These are junk and frivolous lawsuits. They ought not be 
filed. They also said a manufacturer of a product ought to be held 
liable if that product is defective, if it malfunctions, and if that 
defectiveness or that malfunction might create an injury. That is 
exactly what we continue to allow to happen.
  Opposition in the Bush States on that issue, 74 percent; while 72 
percent of the voters in the Al Gore States voiced opposition. 
Interestingly, across the board those most strongly opposed to these 
lawsuits against the firearms industry are current members of the 
military and their family. Their opposition collectively measured at 83 
percent. This is not from a conservative right-wing pollster. This is 
from Zogby himself.
  When certain gun organizations heard about this, they called the 
Zogby polling group and asked, Are these valid? The answer from Zogby: 
Yes, we ran them again. We were not so sure, and we believe they are 
accurate and valid.
  Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes 
closer to your own opinion? Of course, those were the figures we showed 
in the first chart. There needs to be new and tougher gun law 
legislation to help fight against crime. That is what we are debating 
now in the Senate. That was question A: There are enough laws on the 
books. What is needed is better law enforcement of current laws 
regarding gun control, by a better than 2 to 1, 66 to 31.
  In essence, the American people are saying no new gun laws; we have 
plenty of them on the books. That is not about laws but going after 
criminals. That is common sense in America, and we never want to doubt 
the common sense of the average American when they are well informed 
about an issue or when they just suggest that somebody is playing 
politics with an issue and it really does not make any sense.
  Sixty-nine percent in the Bush States; 63 percent in the Gore States; 
and those numbers are extremely strong.
  So what are we saying? We are saying that moderates solidly favor 
better law enforcement--62 percent to 34 percent. They are saying: 
Leave the gun owner alone. Gun control laws do not work.
  Somehow, the American people have settled into understanding what 
most people understand, with common sense: If you do not use the laws 
to go after the criminal element in our country, if you try to blame 
their problem on somebody else or their malfunctioning in society, and 
you try to reach through and sue somebody else, the

[[Page 2995]]

American people are saying: No, we don't go there anymore and we won't 
tolerate that.
  Those are the issues at hand. That is the underlying purpose for why 
we are here today debating S. 1805. We think it is fundamental to the 
American people to allow them to speak and say: Enough is enough; 30-
plus lawsuits by municipalities or political jurisdictions, and 21 of 
them already thrown out of the courts. Our courts are now full of many 
of these. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in defense of 
law-abiding manufacturers and licensed firearms dealers. It is time we 
say, no, if that third party is trying to be held unaccountable by 
going after somebody else who is a law-abiding, legitimate citizen. 
Let's return to old, historic, fundamental tort law. It is the 
individual who is responsible for their actions, not someone else.
  I think we were all taught that as a child. If we were not taught 
that by our parents, then I guess I have to say shame on our parents 
because that is pretty fundamental. You are responsible for your 
actions. If you misact, you might be punished for it. In society, if 
you misuse a gun, you ought to be punished for it instead of trying to 
pass it on to somebody else who is a law-abiding citizen playing by the 
rules that society has laid down and of which our Constitution so 
clearly speaks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Most Senators have already made up their minds on how they are going 
to vote on the proposal by Senator McCain and Senator Reed on closing 
the gun show loophole. A few have not. What I would like to do is 
direct my comments to them.
  During my first term as Governor of Delaware, I remember a meeting I 
had with law enforcement officers who came to see me. They wanted to 
talk with me about something called the gun show loopholes.
  As they went through their explanation, I said: Do I understand 
correctly, that if I happen to be a licensed gun dealer at a gun show 
in my State, and let's say Senator Reed over here is an unlicensed gun 
dealer at the same gun show, that I have to do an instant background 
check on the folks who want to buy a weapon from me, and if they do not 
pass that instant background check, they can go over and buy the same 
weapon from my competitor?
  They said: That's right.
  For the life of me, at that time that made no sense, and for the life 
of me, it still does not make any sense.
  I mentioned yesterday on the floor that my dad, who is now deceased, 
was a gun collector. He had rifles and shotguns, a musket or two, 
pistols of all kinds. He would buy weapons from guys he would hunt 
with. They had an informal hunt club. He would buy weapons from 
relatives, members of our family. He might go to a yard sale in the 
neighborhood where they lived in Florida and buy a weapon. He ought to 
have been able to do that, and under the law, under this amendment that 
is offered today, he could still do those things, were he alive.
  Let me close with this: Technology is going to help us solve this 
problem. Technology can be a great way to solve this problem. Instant 
background checks make feasible what 10 years ago was not feasible and 
the right thing to do.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
from my time.
  I rise to support the McCain-Reed amendment and also the Feinstein 
amendment. I am a cosponsor, obviously, of both amendments.
  I wish to talk, for a moment, about the gun show loophole. It is 
clear and obvious to anyone--at least I believe it is--that we should 
not have two different standards at a public gun show. We should not 
have a situation where you can approach one seller who is a licensed 
firearms dealer and in that transaction have to undergo a background 
check, and then, 5 feet away, have an unlicensed seller and be able to 
purchase a weapon without any type of background check.
  These are public functions. Thousands of people stream through these 
gun shows. This is not a private sale where the seller and the buyer 
know each other, have an association to each other, and essentially do 
not need any kind of a background check. In order to prevent these gun 
shows from being exploited by criminals and terrorists, there has to be 
a common standard. Every transaction should be governed by a background 
check at a public gun show.
  We know these unlicensed dealers and these gun shows have been 
exploited by criminals. I have mentioned, over the course of the last 
several days of debate, numerous examples. Let me return to one.
  Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 
firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in 
Buffalo, NY.
  It is a very obvious scheme. You go to a place, if you are a felon or 
a criminal, that requires no background checks, that are publicly 
advertised, that are easily accessible, you buy the weapons, take them 
to another State that has very tough laws, and you sell them to 
criminals.
  One of these weapons was recovered in a homicide. It has been 
reported that Bostic purchased 45 firearms at one of these sales; his 
accomplices, 85 guns.
  These are the examples that will continue to take place unless we 
close this gun show loophole. Indeed, it is obvious to gun owners it 
should be closed. More than 80 percent of gun owners surveyed indicated 
they support closing the gun show loophole. President Bush repeatedly, 
in the campaign of 2000, said he was for closing the gun show loophole.
  The legislation that we present imposes no great burden on any 
participant at a gun show. Because of the National Instant Check 
System, 91 percent of these background checks are accomplished in less 
than 5 minutes; 95 percent are accomplished in less than 2 hours. The 
remaining checks reveal, in many cases, prohibitive purchases. That is 
the purpose of the check.
  I think we can do something logical that is supported by the broad 
majority of Americans, including gun owners, by closing this gun show 
loophole. I hope we can do it today.
  But let me, before I conclude, make a general comment on the 
underlying bill. We have heard the proponents of the bill talk a lot 
about responsibility, that we have all been taught as children that if 
we misuse a gun, we should be responsible for that.
  Well, the underlying legislation is a license for irresponsibility. 
The most salient example is Bull's Eye Shooter Supply gun store up in 
Washington State, the source of the weapons for the snipers who were 
plaguing this Washington metropolitan area.
  There, the individual gun dealer apparently let weapons lay around. 
He could not account for over 238 weapons. He did not inventory his 
weapons. That is what I call a misuse of a weapon. People were harmed 
by that misuse, but we are insulating that individual from any serious 
liability because there is no Federal law--and my colleagues on the 
other side are not likely to propose it--for strict control of the 
security of weapons.
  I am amazed about the statistics my colleague from Idaho cited about 
the military support for no new weapons, et cetera. I tell you what. I 
served for 12 years in the U.S. Army. If you told an Army officer there 
was someone with hundreds of weapons, unsecured, lying around, subject 
to being shoplifted by teenagers, they would be appalled. Because the 
first thing you learn in the military is that you better secure those 
weapons, you better lock them up, you better inventory them, and do all 
the things you have to do, not only to protect yourself but to ensure 
those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. This legislation, if

[[Page 2996]]

passed, will be a license for irresponsible behavior, unconstrained by 
any civil suit that could not only compensate the victims but suggest a 
higher level of care. So I hope that not only we support these 
amendments but look seriously at the underlying bill.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the gun show loophole bill now being 
introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Reed is before us for full 
debate at this moment. Let me talk for a few moments about this issue 
and what it is and what it is not, and what has been done and what has 
not been done.
  I believe some of the language used on the floor deserves to be 
clarified for the Members who might be looking in. The Senator from 
Rhode Island said yesterday that a good many States have already closed 
the loophole. I think he meant that 15 States have preexisting 
processes. Long before you go to a gun show, if in fact you are in the 
market to purchase a gun, you pick up a permit by which to purchase. 
States do backgrounds and have backgrounds and do that kind of thing.
  He did mention, though, North Carolina and spoke greatly about how 
North Carolina had closed the loophole, and then gun shows flourished. 
Well, numbers are not any different in the number of gun shows. North 
Carolina requires a handgun permit to purchase a handgun. So they do a 
check, a normal check, the kind you would normally do. You have to have 
that going in or coming out of a gun show to acquire from any activity, 
other than a one-on-one private sale. So to examine all of those 
issues, none of the States have the kind of regulatory structure that 
is being asked to be imposed on all gun shows in all States by the 
McCain-Reed gun show amendment. Clearly, what we have is an effort to 
create a blanket Federal policy across 1,000 gun shows, attended by 
millions of people annually, which is legal, responsible commerce.
  Well, it has also been argued that gun shows are now the venue by 
which terrorists acquire firearms. It is interesting that the reason 
they suggest that is because the terrorists who acquired a firearm 
through a gun show, or through a straw dealer who bought a firearm at a 
gun show, are arrested and in jail. Somehow the law must have worked. 
It did work because if you are an illegal alien in this country, you 
cannot acquire a firearm. If you are a felon, you cannot acquire a 
firearm. It catches up with you if you are a law breaker.
  In this instance, those they know of are three. There were three they 
can talk about. Does a purchase of three make the gun show venue a wide 
open market for terrorist activities? Absolutely not. It never has and 
it never will.
  What we know, what the statistics show from the Department of 
Justice, is that the reality would suggest there are possibly a couple 
of percentage points, 1.5, 2 percentage points, that we can actually 
understand as it relates to firearms obtained through gun shows, used 
in criminal activity.
  The Bureau of Justice Statistics is, I believe, by far the most 
reputable accumulator of this kind of information. They suggest that it 
has been a constant, all the way through, possibly about 1 percent. So 
that is the reality we deal with on this issue.
  Let me put forth another scenario. This is a question they cannot 
answer because they have set up a major, new tripwire for an 
individual.
  Let's say an individual goes to a gun show. He or she looks around 
and they find a particular gun in which they are interested. It is not 
being offered by a licensed Federal firearms dealer; it is being 
offered by a collector or an individual who bought a table and has two 
or three firearms to sell. He likes it. The dealer or the person says, 
take my card.
  So he takes his or her card and he goes home and talks to his spouse; 
the spouse says, you have enough guns, you don't need another gun. That 
conversation goes on for quite a while. Finally, they agree that maybe 
for the collection, or for whatever purpose this citizen would want to 
own that gun, that they will buy it. They call the fellow on the 
business card. The purchase goes about.
  Now, has that gun been purchased illegally? I do believe under the 
Reed-McCain amendment you have set up a major new tripwire for 
innocent, law-abiding citizens who, after the fact of a gun show, 
purchase the gun.
  It can be argued that it was outside the gun show, but the point of 
contact was inside the room, inside the organized gun show.
  What if 2 or 3 years later you realize that particular collector, who 
you met at the gun show and visited with and you saw his particular 
collection at the gun show, has that one firearm that you want to add 
to your collection? Does that point of contact, therefore, require, 
under Reed-McCain, a background check? I believe it is a phenomenally 
gray area and a critical area for an awful lot of law-abiding citizens 
who, once again, out of a desire to put up a law that doesn't work, 
when you create a Federal bureaucracy, you throw them into the middle 
of the bureaucracy when they in every way have been law-abiding 
citizens. I believe that is a phenomenal risk to place on our citizens, 
and that is exactly what we are doing--placing a risk on a citizen when 
we have never before said that this was a problem.
  The ATF did research a few years ago and found out that less than 2 
percent--1.7 percent--of firearms involved in criminal activity came 
from a gun show and they said, oh, there is a loophole. If there is a 
loophole in a gun show, there is one outside of a gun show. The laws 
that pertain to every citizen outside the gun show today pertain inside 
the gun show as well.
  Yet McCain-Reed says that is not good enough. This is a special 
activity--1,000 legal activities that go on across our Nation a year, 
and millions of people attend them not just to acquire a gun but to get 
information, to collect, do all kinds of things you do at normal shows.
  So our Federal Government is going to decide to regulate one more 
activity of commerce out there in the free marketplace. Why? To set up 
a charade that hasn't worked and won't work any differently than it has 
outside the gun show.
  Let's stay with the laws we have. Let's go after the criminal 
element. Let's keep S. 1805 a clean bill so we can get it to the 
President for his signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado. He has worked with us and has the concealed-carry bill we 
will be voting on later today.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, before I make some comments on the amendment, No. 
2623, which we discussed Thursday, listening to the Senator's comments 
about the so-called gun show loopholes and the point of contact, I 
might ask, what if a person goes to a gun show and sees something he 
might like and forgets about it and months later he sees it in a 
classified ad of a newspaper and buys it through the classified ad in 
the paper from the man who originally had it at a gun show the year 
before? Does that make the person liable who had the booth at a gun 
show? I think this amendment complicates things rather than answers 
things.
  Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator sees it clearly, as I see it. That has 
established a very big gray area. Of course, if that weapon fell into 
the hands of a criminal who misused it, and if that trace came back, 
that is a field day for a lawyer inside a court saying, you bet, that 
contact was made, that sale was initiated at a gun show, when the 
scenario could have been just as the Senator explained it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on amendment No. 2623 
of S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which was 
offered on my behalf by my colleague and friend Senator Craig from 
Idaho last Thursday.
  This amendment is based on a bill I worked on for a number of years. 
I am

[[Page 2997]]

pleased to say it has the broad bipartisan support of my colleagues. In 
fact, it has 67 cosponsors. It enjoys the support of numerous local law 
enforcement agencies, including the Fraternal Order of Police. I am 
delighted to have Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Reed joining me as 
original cosponsors of this amendment.
  I was particularly pleased that last Thursday, a second-degree 
amendment was adopted naming this bill to honor Steve Young, the 
recently retired president of the 300,000-member Fraternal Order of 
Police.
  This amendment, which is identical to my bill which was introduced as 
S. 253 and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in March 2003, 
would permit qualified former and current law enforcement officers who 
are employed by or retired from a local, State, or Federal law 
enforcement agency to carry concealed weapons across jurisdictions.
  A ``qualified law enforcement officer'' is any individual who has 
retired in good standing from service of a government agency as a law 
enforcement officer for a total of 15 years or more. The only exception 
is if the officer was separated from duty by a duty-related injury. 
Officers will be required to carry photographic identification issued 
by the agency for which they are or were employed. It is an extremely 
important measure.
  With specific regard to retired officers, this amendment requires 
them to meet annually and at their own expense the very same standards 
that active officers must meet in the State where they reside. Thus, 
there should be no question as to the qualifications of either active 
or retired officers.
  There are several important benefits to this amendment. First, the 
American public will undoubtedly be safer as off-duty and retired law 
enforcement officers are allowed to carry concealed weapons as they 
travel across jurisdictions. If enacted into law, the basic net effect 
will be thousands of additional police officers on the streets at zero 
taxpayer expense. Criminals and terrorists certainly will not be happy 
when this bill is passed. They would not be sure whether or not 
seemingly average citizens are actually off-duty or retired law 
enforcement officers who are armed, trained, and ready to deal with 
whatever situation may arise. I certainly believe that this type of 
knowledge should act as a major deterrent for anyone dumb enough to be 
contemplating crime.
  Now there may be some who question whether or not this is a States 
rights issue. Let me address that for a moment. In this instance, it is 
exactly the wide and vast variety of different State gun laws that make 
this type of Federal legislation necessary. The result is this amazing 
maze of different laws in the States and other jurisdictions which 
results in a paradox for officers, and sometimes places them in extreme 
jeopardy.
  Congress has the authority, under the ``full faith and credit'' 
clause of the Constitution, to extend full faith and credit to 
qualified active and retired officers who have met the criteria to 
carry firearms set by one State, and make those credentials applicable 
and recognized in the States and territories of the United States. My 
legislation maintains the State's power to set these requirements and 
determine whether or not an active or retired office is qualified to 
use the firearm, and it would only allow this vary narrow group of 
people to carry their firearms when traveling outside their immediate 
jurisdiction.
  In the most simplistic terms, it is like a driver's license. Each 
State issues their own version and gives their own test, yet although 
the standards may differ from State to State, all drivers can still 
cross lines, as they have been recognized and certified to operate a 
motor vehicle on public roadways.
  Congress has the authority to preempt state and local prohibitions on 
the carrying of concealed weapons and has done so in the past on the 
basis of employment for other professions.
  To do the same for law enforcement just makes good sense.
  This amendment will also help off-duty and retired law enforcement 
officers protect themselves and their families. All too often, after 
they are released from prison, violent criminals seek revenge against 
the law enforcement officers who helped lock them away. While at a 
minimum this legislation will even out the playing field for off-duty 
and retired law enforcement officers, I hope that it will go further 
and actually give them an advantage. This isn't a ``firearms issue''--
it is an officer safety issue. And without a doubt, on September 11, 
2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland security issue.
  This important law enforcement amendment is especially meaningful to 
me for a number of reasons. First of all, through 6 years of service as 
a deputy sheriff with Sacramento County, CA, I was able to get first-
hand experience with the challenges facing our Nation's law enforcement 
officers. While in that position, I personally patrolled the streets 
and encountered some dangerous characters. I also clearly learned that 
a law enforcement officer's job does not necessarily end when he or she 
is off duty since you never know when you may come face-to-face with 
violent criminals.
  Now is the time to clearly demonstrate the Senate's strong support 
for our Nation's men and women serving on the front lines of law 
enforcement. Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body 
of men and women who are sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. 
Unlike many other professions, a police officer is rarely ``off duty.'' 
When there is a threat to the peace or to public safety, officers are 
sworn to answer the call of duty. Officers who are traveling from one 
jurisdiction to another don't leave their instincts or training behind 
them, but without being able to carry their weapon, all of that 
training and knowledge is basically useless.
  This amendment will help officers protect themselves, their families, 
and their fellow Americans by harmonizing our Nation's conceal-carry 
laws for qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers.
  More now than ever before, we all realize Homeland Security is vital 
to protecting our Nation, and this amendment will enhance the ability 
of our valuable law enforcement officers to do their job--to protect 
and serve.
  One of the problems we have now, of course, is with multiple 
jurisdictions in multiple States. A good example is where I live in 
southwest Colorado, a law enforcement officer who lives, say, in 
Durango, only 30 miles from New Mexico, is duly authorized to carry a 
weapon on or off duty in Colorado. But if he goes to New Mexico, he is 
in violation if he has a concealed weapon. It seems to me we need some 
kind of blanket protection for law enforcement officers when they cross 
State lines.
  Also, there is another factor involved in this issue, and that is we 
are in a new kind of war, one in which the Geneva Convention rules of 
engagement and distinguishing between an armed soldier or armed 
opponent and an innocent child is simply no longer a consideration. 
``Kill all Americans'' seems to be the credo of terrorists, and because 
of that, American policemen, firemen, and EMTs have become frontline 
warriors.
  I know some question that this is a States rights issue. As I 
explained, there is a patchwork, a crazy quilt of different 
jurisdictions, and we need some kind of Federal recognition of that. 
Congress certainly has this authority under the full faith and credit 
clause of the Constitution to extend full faith and credit to qualified 
and active retired officers who have met the criteria to carry firearms 
set by one State and to make those credentials applicable and 
recognized in all States and territories in the United States.
  This legislation maintains State power to set these requirements and 
to determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified 
for continued use of a firearm. It would only allow, to a narrow group 
of people, the authority to carry firearms when traveling outside their 
immediate jurisdiction. I think this is very good. We have already done 
this in one case by allowing airline pilots to arm, and that bill

[[Page 2998]]

did pass and was incorporated in H.R. 5005, which is now a public law. 
So this is not the first time we have done this.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment when it comes up for 
a vote because I think it is going to be beneficial, not only to law 
enforcement officers, but certainly to people who rely on law 
enforcement officers who are off duty but still trained in the use of 
firearms and trained in the rule of law to protect us in this new kind 
of war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his 
excellent amendment and for his willingness to stand up and speak out 
on these critical issues.
  I now yield 10 minutes of my time to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senators Campbell, Leahy, Reid and I have 
offered as an amendment to S. 1805 the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2003'' which was favorably reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee with strong bi-partisan support during last session. This 
amendment, which permits qualified current and retired law enforcement 
officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction, will help 
protect the American public, our Nation's officers, and their families. 
I note that this bill has the overwhelming support of the Fraternal 
Order of Police and other law enforcement associations, which have 
vigorously worked in support of this measure.
   The amendment allows qualified law enforcement officers and retired 
officers to carry, with appropriate identification, a concealed firearm 
that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce 
regardless of State or local laws. Importantly, this legislation does 
not supersede any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or 
restrict the possession of firearms on private property or any State 
law that prohibits possession on State or local government properties, 
installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally, this amendment 
clearly defines what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' 
and ``qualified retired [or former] law enforcement officer'' to ensure 
that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly 
trained professionals.
   There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers 
currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police 
death in 1792, there have been more than 16,300 law enforcement 
officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,800 law enforcement 
officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of 
180 deaths per year. In 2001 alone, there were 232 police deaths, 
representing a 49 percent increase from the 156 officers who died in 
2000. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed while taking law 
enforcement action in an off-duty capacity.
   While a police officer may not remember the name and face of every 
criminal he or she has locked behind bars, criminals often have long 
and exacting memories. A law enforcement officer is a target in uniform 
and out; active or retired; on duty or off.
  Because law enforcement officers are, in reality, never ``off-duty,'' 
this amendment will not only provide law enforcement officers with a 
legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel 
interstate, it will also enhance the security of the American public. 
By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers 
to carry firearms, even when not on the clock, more trained law 
enforcement officers will be on the street to enforce the law and to 
respond to crises.
  The idea that a police officer is never really off-duty is not some 
abstract concept. Let me share a real life off-duty example. Not long 
ago in Arlington, TX, Bradley Merreighn, a serial bank robber, walked 
into a bank, pulled out and pointed a gun at a young woman employee of 
the bank and demanded the bank's money. Unbeknownst to Merreighn, off-
duty Arlington Police Sergeant John Gonzales was standing directly 
behind him with his two small children.
  Merrieghn took the bank's money from the young woman and left the 
bank. Sergeant Gonzales instinctively identified himself to the bank's 
employees as an off-duty police officer, asked the bank employees to 
watch his children and, although unarmed, followed Merrieghn as he fled 
from the bank.
  Sergeant Gonzales' police instincts were to try to tail Merrieghn to 
prevent him from hurting someone and to assist on duty police officers 
in apprehending him. Sergeant Gonzales commandeered a car outside the 
bank and followed Merrieghn. During the pursuit, Sergeant Gonzales 
fortunately avoided being shot and killed when Merrieghn unleashed a 
torrent of gunfire in an attempt to stop Sergeant Gonzales from 
following him. Ultimately, because of Sergeant Gonzales' instincts and 
efforts, other police officers were able to respond and, after a 
standoff, arrest Merrieghn before he harmed anyone.
  The FOP has shared with Members of this body another example of the 
need for this legislation. Two Maryland police officers and their 
families were camping in Harpers Ferry, WV. While packing up their 
campsite following a 3-day camping trip, a gunman opened fire on 
another camper, wounding him in the lower leg. Two police officers 
instinctively directed their families away from the scene and retrieved 
their firearms.
  They confronted the gunman with their weapons and ordered the gunman 
to the ground. After searching the gunman, the off-duty officers 
discovered that the man had several more live rounds for his shotgun in 
his possession. These officers held the gunman until West Virginia 
authorities could arrive. It was later discovered that the gunman had 
an extensive criminal history--including a murder conviction. The 
Jefferson County Sheriff's Department remarked that there was no way to 
know how many lives the off-duty officers saved that day.
  Although they were certainly heroes, they were also in violation of 
West Virginia law because they possessed firearms. These brave 
officers--who prevented a massacre that day, on their day off and 
outside of their jurisdiction--were not charged, but they were in 
technical violation of the law. No one can argue that allowing officers 
to carry firearms off-duty and outside of their jurisdiction did not 
save lives that day.
  These are but a few of the many examples of law enforcement officers 
acting on instinct to protect the public and thwart violent crime, even 
though they are not armed and face life threatening circumstances.
  We should adopt this amendment because this important piece of 
legislation will provide that extra layer of protection to current and 
retired law enforcement officers and their families who have ably 
served our communities across the country.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2637

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am compelled to speak out against 
continuing this assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein. An 
assault weapon is a military firearm which can be fired either 
automatically or semiautomatically with the flip of a switch. In other 
words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun, which is a gun already 
regulated by Federal law.
  The firearms covered by the so-called ``assault weapons'' laws are 
semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Some of these firearms 
are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically 
indistinguishable from any true traditional-looking deer rifle.
  According to the FBI, in 2001, nearly five times as many individuals 
were murdered at the hands of criminals wielding knives than were 
murdered by criminals using rifles. I might add, only a fraction of 
those rifles were the semiautomatic rifles that were banned by the so-
called assault weapons ban. What I think is most interesting and 
telling about this statistic is that the

[[Page 2999]]

proportion is nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago; that is, 
according to the FBI, in 1991, 3 years before the assault weapons ban 
passed, nearly five times as many murders were committed with knives 
than rifles--exactly the same proportion as exists today.
  The so-called assault weapons ban has succeeded in only one thing: 
law-abiding men and women, precisely because they abide by the law, 
were stripped of some of their second amendment rights. We cannot make 
the same mistake this body made 10 years ago.
  The number of murders committed with different weapons has decreased 
in all areas, proportionally, over the last 10 years. The suggestion 
that the assault weapons ban is responsible for this decrease is as 
preposterous as it is misleading. There is no more evidence that the 
ban on semiautomatic weapons has had a positive impact on crime than 
there is that the setting Sun is responsible for street lights turning 
on.
  The fact is, just as we feared 10 years ago, the only impact the ban 
on semiautomatic weapons has had has been on law-abiding citizens. I 
would like, therefore, to take a few minutes about how we ought to 
address gun violence. Instead of banning certain firearms for merely 
political reasons, we need to continue aggressively prosecuting 
criminals.
  Rather than focusing on crafting and enacting more laws that erode 
law-abiding citizens' constitutionally protected rights, we ought to 
channel our efforts towards enforcing our current laws and punishing 
those who choose to abuse those rights and commit crimes with guns.
  For example, President Bush has made a commitment to reduce gun crime 
by getting armed criminals off the streets through his initiative, 
Project Safe Neighborhoods. In contrast to the 10-year assault weapons 
ban and its ineffectiveness in combating gun violence is the 
overwhelming success of Project Safe Neighborhoods. Project Safe 
Neighborhoods, announced by the President and the Attorney General in 
2001, is a comprehensive strategy that brings together Federal, State, 
and local agencies to reduce violent crime in our communities.
  I might add that we have had a 68-percent reduction in violent crime 
since that came into being. And I might also add that the only way to 
keep this under control is to get tough on those who abuse the right to 
have guns and who abuse the use of guns.
  The President is on the right track. We do not need this particular 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will not accept it.
  This ought to be our approach. Not simply saying all guns of a 
certain appearance are banned. We must continue to vigorously pursue 
those who abuse the right to own a firearm--not stripping away law-
abiding individuals' rights to own and possess firearms. Especially 
when, other than their appearance, those firearms are no different than 
thousands of other firearms that are considered legitimate. In fact, in 
May of last year, I held a hearing for the purpose of determining the 
effectiveness of Project Safe Neighborhoods. The results are in, and 
they are impressive.
  The number of Federal firearms prosecutions has increased 
significantly every year under Project Safe Neighborhoods. 
Specifically, prosecutions have increased 68 percent in the past 3 
years. In 2003, the Department of Justice filed over 10,500 Federal 
firearms cases--the highest number ever recorded by the Department.
  Federal offenders are being sentenced to significant jail time. In 
2003, approximately 72 percent of offenders were sentenced to prison 
terms greater than 3 years.
  The per capita number of violent crimes involving firearms has 
dropped 14 percent since the start of the Bush administration. This has 
translated into an average of over 32,000 fewer gun crimes annually in 
each of the first 2 years of the Bush administration.
  There were nearly 130,000 fewer victims of gun crime in 2001-2002 
than in 1999-2000.
  The President has been and Congress should be making America's 
neighborhoods safer by vigorously enforcing gun laws and preventing and 
deterring gun crime. Arbitrarily taking guns away from law-abiding 
citizens does not assist the President in making the neighborhoods of 
America safer.
  Inthe course of the debate over gun liability my colleague, Senator 
Durbin, spoke of Korean-American victims in Illinois. Let me tell you 
about Korean-American victims in California.
  Many of the guns which current assault weapons bans are targeting--
including the Federal ban enacted in 1994--are the very guns with which 
the Korean-American merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 
Los Angeles riots. For those of you who may not recall the Los Angeles 
Riots, let me tell you about this tragedy. On April 29, 1992, African 
Americans, upset over the verdict in the Rodney King case, took to the 
streets of Korea Town in downtown Los Angeles. Although these innocent 
Korean-Americans had nothing to do with the police brutality inflicted 
upon Rodney King, their businesses were singled out. Calls for help 
came in to 911 by the hundreds. but citizens were informed that no 
assistance was available. Order had broken down. People were on their 
own.
  As a result of one night of violence, 55 people died, over 2,300 were 
injured and one billion dollars of property damage was sustained 
according to the Christian Science Monitor. Gunfire killed 35 people. 
Six died in arson fires. Attackers used sticks or boards to kill two 
people. Two other were stabbed to death. Six died in car accidents, two 
in hit-and-runs, and one person was strangled. The violence crossed 
racial and ethnic lines.
  Seventy-five percent of the businesses destroyed belonged to Korean 
Americans. Those Korean-American merchants who possessed assault 
weapons and used them to defend themselves, would likely have a 
different story about gun control laws and how they help victims. The 
Korean-American merchants would agree that when one is facing mob 
violence and the police are unable to respond, one may need a gun that 
shoots more than just six bullets or has a menacing appearance. A ban 
on large capacity semiautomatic firearms will only harm one's ability 
to defend himself and his family rather than deter crime.
   While most American spend little time thinking of what the police 
can do to protect them during times of domestic tranquility, there is 
no guarantee that this will always be the case. Citizens, like the 
police, have a right, and some would say a duty, to defend themselves 
and their families against deadly threats.
   The assault weapons ban is a measure entirely devoid of rational 
thought. It is not based upon compelling factual data or civil 
necessity, but of political strategy and the machinations of over-
reactive, quick-fix ideologues. This amendment addresses neither the 
problem nor the solution, when it comes to gun crime. And because the 
amendment serves only the political agenda of the few and not the 
convictions and rights of the many, I strongly oppose the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2636

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another issue I would like to talk about is 
the amendment sponsored by my colleague, Senator McCain, the so-called 
gun show loophole.
  Based on some of the arguments I hear made by Senator McCain and his 
cosponsors, it is apparent there are some misunderstandings about what 
gun shows are, how they operate, and existing applicable laws.
  Gun shows are large events that are open to the public. These events 
attract a broad range of people. They include collectors, hunters, 
target shooters, police officers, and those who serve in the Armed 
Forces.
  Gun shows are an opportunity for Americans--fathers and mothers and 
their sons and daughters--to pass along a family tradition. Exhibitors 
at these gun shows include gun dealers who are all federally licensed, 
as well as gun collectors, hunting guides, target shooting clubs, and 
vendors of books, clothing, hunting accessories, and so on.

[[Page 3000]]

  What Federal laws currently apply to gun shows? Contrary to popular 
opinion, there are no special exemptions for gun shows. Anyone who 
engages in the business of selling firearms must be licensed, 
regardless of where he or she does business.
  More specifically, there is simply no such thing as an unlicensed 
dealer. In fact, dealing in guns without a license is a Federal felony, 
punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a substantial fine. Congress 
authorized licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows 
in 1986 under the Firearms Owner Protection Act.
  So what happens when these dealers sell guns at gun shows? Have these 
dealers applied for and received Federal firearms licenses from the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives? The answer is a 
simple yes.
  Dealers are required by Federal law to conduct a criminal background 
check. They must conduct a check through the national instant check 
system at gun shows just as they would have had to do in any other 
location. So if we adopt this amendment, who will it affect? The answer 
is not surprisingly, but unfortunately ignored by the proponents of 
this amendment. The answer is it would affect law-abiding citizens who 
are out to hurt no one.
  It would drive out and shut down the gun collectors who buy and trade 
some of their guns at gun shows. They represent a fraction of the 
exhibitors at gun shows.
  Remember, gun collectors are not gun dealers and may not engage in 
the business of dealing firearms without a firearms license.
  I would like to touch on an issue that many Utahns and I find 
particularly troublesome. If we adopt this amendment, it will 
effectively create gun owner registration.
  I want to make sure my colleagues understand how this legislation, if 
it became law, would work. Under the amendment, special firearms event 
operators would have to verify the identity of all participating 
vendors and have those vendors sign a ledger saying they were there 
selling firearms, whether or not any of the vendors actually sold a 
firearm. This requirement is a modest improvement of the original bill, 
which, as introduced, would have required vendors to submit to the 
Attorney General the names of all vendors slated to participate in the 
Gun Show. Regardless of the slight change, it is clear what the 
sponsors of this amendment intend. That is, to track and register law 
abiding citizens who merely want to exercise their constitutionally 
protected Second Amendment rights.
  So suppose a private, law-abiding citizen enters a gun show hoping to 
sale or trade a firearm, but that person does not make a deal and 
leaves with his own firearm. This person, this private law-abiding 
citizen, would be on file and in a ledger forever as a special firearms 
event vendor, copies of the ledgers to be used for any future purpose.
  This amendment also purports to provide for instant background 
checks. Now, anyone who knows anything about the national instant 
criminal check system knows that they do not turn around such inquiries 
in 24 hours. In fact, currently, the national instant criminal check 
system has 3 days to turn around a request for a background check.
  The amendment before us provides that the wait may be reduced to 24 
hours if a State applies for the privilege of improving its records. 
With a 3-business-day period still allowed to check out-of-State 
records, a few large States will drag down the whole scheme for all 
transfers across the Nation.
  Again, what is the practical effect? Gun collectors who occasionally 
attend gun shows for a day or two on a weekend will be shut down 
because they will not be able to have the national instant criminal 
check system run the required check on a prospective buyer and make 
such a transaction in that day.
  There are two more important points that I think many of the Members 
in this body may have overlooked. First, in November of 2001, the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on imprisoned felons and 
where they obtained their firearms. Fewer than 1 percent obtained the 
guns they used to commit their crimes at gun shows. Of that 1 percent, 
only a fraction obtained weapons through collectors.
  What does this tell us? The idea that shutting down collectors at gun 
shows will affect crime in any appreciable way is dramatically 
overstated, if not preposterous.
  Criminals are getting their guns on the street or from the 
residential burglaries, but not from heavily police-attended gun shows.
  Second, and I want my colleagues to hear this: Law enforcement and 
Federal prosecutors continue to use gun shows to weed out corrupt gun 
dealers. In fact, Federal prosecutors stress to me that passing this 
amendment would serve only to drive those few who would unlawfully deal 
in firearms without a license into the black market, into the back 
alleyways, and into the hidden areas of our communities, making it 
nearly impossible to locate and prosecute such criminals.
  So not only will this amendment fail to address the true nature of 
the problem, but it will punish law-abiding collectors who choose to 
publicly trade their firearms.
  I submit that adopting this politically driven, knee-jerk amendment, 
which only injects partisanship into a bill that otherwise enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, will have two effects: One, it will shut down 
lawful gun collectors who attend and trade guns at gun shows; and two, 
if it has any effect on crime, it will affect it negatively by driving 
the few dealers who are unlawful into the black market where it is 
exorbitantly more difficult for them to be located and prosecuted.
  I urge my colleagues on other side of the aisle to re-examine their 
analysis, put politics aside, and reject this amendment.
  It will serve no purpose in pursuing our common goal of fighting 
crime, but instead will only hurt innocent law-abiding citizens.
  Let us not be distracted from the issue at hand.
  We have legislation before us that enjoys broad bipartisan support 
and that deserves our attention. That should be the focus of our 
efforts, not passage of this unwise amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for his comments and the work that he has done to keep the 
gun laws in this Nation clean, appropriate where necessary, and 
enforceable without the entrapment of law-abiding citizens. I thank him 
for that work, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I initially want to respond to some of the 
comments made by the Senator from Utah. I believe he read a legislative 
proposal that Senator McCain and I submitted last fall, not the 
amendment that is before us today because we specifically removed from 
the amendment today any requirement for the turning in of lists of 
vendors at gun shows to the Attorney General of the United States. That 
is not in this amendment.
  There is no requirement for unlicensed sellers to execute any 
paperwork. That requirement will be undertaken by a special licensee, 
presumably the gun show sponsor and operator, not the unlicensed gun 
dealer. Furthermore, there is no requirement to seek permission from 
the Attorney General or any Federal authority to conduct a gun show. So 
I think the comments of the Senator from Utah reflect not this 
amendment but previous proposals. This amendment has been specifically 
modified to make it as easy, as efficient, and as effective as possible 
to conduct these background checks.
  The Federal authorities have a 3-day period of time in which to 
execute a gun show background check, but, frankly, with the National 
Instant Criminal Background System, we all know the facts are clear. 
Ninety-one percent of these checks are accomplished in less than 5 
minutes; 95 percent in less than 2 hours. If the check

[[Page 3001]]

is not completed in 3 days, then the transaction goes through. That is 
just a backstop in case there is information that these Federal 
authorities cannot obtain.
  So, frankly, the suggestion that gun shows will be put out of 
business is quite wrong. Those places which have even tougher standards 
than those suggested by the McCain-Reed bill still have gun shows, and 
they are still highly popular and highly successful.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments about North Carolina. 
My comments generally talked about closing the gun show loophole. As he 
points out, North Carolina requires everyone who is buying a firearm at 
a gun show to have a North Carolina firearm permit, which is probably a 
more demanding standard than we are suggesting in our amendment, and we 
would not suggest that. That is a State prerogative. Technically, they 
do not require all the background checks on licensees and unlicensees, 
but they do in fact require any purchaser to have a permit. That is a 
very stringent standard.
  Now, there has also been some discussion today about the fact that 
this is going to cause tremendous chaos because what if someone saw a 
weapon at a gun show and then later called a private dealer. Well, that 
is why the amendment clearly defines activities that are not part of a 
gun show subject to this amendment.
  The language states:

     does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, 
     exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal 
     collection of that individual, at the private residence of 
     that individual, if the individual is not required to be 
     licensed under section 923 or 932.

  For example, if someone is a private collector, if they have some 
guns in their home and they are selling those weapons from their home, 
then they are not subject to this provision.
  It is as clear as we can make it to exempt the many people who are 
private collectors and the many people who, indeed, should not be 
subject to this license requirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Reid 
from Nevada, for the 2 minutes.
  In summary, this amendment that Senator McCain and I proposed is as 
sensible as I think one can ever fashion a law. When someone walks into 
a gun show with thousands of individuals, hundreds of booths, it makes 
no sense to the average person why one individual should require a 
background check and another does not have to conduct a background 
check in the sale of a firearm. It makes sense to have an even playing 
field.
  These are public events. It is virtually impossible for a seller at a 
major gun show to know the background of all the potential purchasers. 
We know these gun shows are exploited. This is not hypothetical. They 
are exploited by criminals. Goodness gracious, it makes perfect sense 
why they would be. It is a supermarket where a person can obtain 
firearms without any background check. It is like a neon sign that 
says: Come here if you are looking to get weapons and you cannot buy 
them legally.
  We know what happens. We also know because of the threat of 
terrorists that terrorists have looked at these gun shows as possible 
ways to obtain firearms. Frankly, I think the American public would 
demand, as they have in the past, anything we can do that would curtail 
access to dangerous weapons to terrorists.
  So I hope we support closing the gun show loophole. I also hope we 
support the assault weapons ban. Finally, I think we have to carefully 
look at the underlying legislation as a severe encroachment on hundreds 
and hundreds of years--indeed, many years--of common law tradition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 2 minutes.
  Mr. REED. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  This bill, which has been in place since 1994, held back on the 
availability of assault weapons, those holding more than 10 rounds in 
their cartridge holder.
  The assault weapons ban amendment would simply extend the current ban 
on these deadly weapons for another 10 years, with no other changes in 
current law. It is hard to understand why we would not go ahead and 
simply extend this. The President of the United States said at one 
point that this ban should continue to exist. Assault weapons are 
intended for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill as 
many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
  We should never forget that ill-fated day of April 20, 1999, in 
Littleton, CO, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold opened fire on 
teachers and fellow students at Columbine High School. They were armed 
with a TEC-DC9 assault weapon. When the shooting was over, 15 people, 
including the gunmen, were dead and 23 wounded. We can never forget the 
picture of those youngsters hanging out the window, pleading for help, 
pleading for safety, trying to protect themselves.
  These assault weapons have no place in a civilized society. According 
to FBI data, one in five law enforcement officers who were killed in 
the line of duty between 1998 and 2001 were killed with assault 
weapons.
  Even terrorists have identified our gun laws as a point of 
vulnerability. Found among the rubble at a terrorist training camp in 
Afghanistan was a manual called ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.'' 
The manual stipulates that terrorists living in the United States 
should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or 
variations.''
  It also advises would-be terrorists on how they should conduct 
themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and 
transport firearms. It defies logic to understand why it is that we 
have to protect those who want to have assault weapons.
  I was in the Army during the war. I carried a carbine. Assault 
weapons were available for those in the infantry--sometimes--so they 
could kill as many of the enemy as possible. Who is the enemy here?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield an additional minute to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, who would be the enemy in this case? 
More law enforcement officers? More kids in a school? More people in an 
office where a disgruntled employee took out his rage by pointing a 
rapid-fire weapon at fellow workers?
  No, this amendment makes all the sense in the world. Ban these 
weapons. Don't let them continue to be available in our society--
assault weapons, weapons of war.
  Why is it necessary to ensure that the rights of those who would 
carry that lethal a weapon be protected? I see no sense in it, and I 
hope my colleagues will take a second look. I hope those who support 
the gun immunity bill will take a second look and say: You know what, 
this is not a fight worth having. We don't need these weapons in our 
society, and we ought to continue this ban as it is.
  I would have preferred something stronger, and I think people here 
know that, but let's at least continue the ban as it exists, as the 
Senator from California presented it.
  I thank my colleague from Nevada and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, would you notify me when I have used 5 
minutes of my remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.

[[Page 3002]]


  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, why are we on the floor today debating a 
law, not debating a proposed law? We are debating this law because some 
years ago, when the Congress put it in place, they said, let's sunset 
it to force Congress to come back and look at it to see whether or not 
it worked. Because at that time there was a concern and somebody sought 
a political placebo to go home to their constituents and say, look what 
I did for you to protect you and therefore the world is safer. But many 
of us said, wait a moment, let's watch the law and see if it works. 
Let's put a sunset in it and come back and revisit it. That is what we 
are doing today.
  In September of 2004, the assault weapons ban expires and the great 
debate is whether we ought to extend it for another period of time or 
whether we should not. The rationale to extend it is based on the fact 
it worked.
  If it is a good law in place, it ought to be extended. I think the 
argument today is, fundamentally, did it or did it not work? That is 
the business of statistics and polling and data. The Senator from 
California, who offered the extension, used tracing data. I am using 
data that has been put forward by the Justice Department. Let's compare 
the two.
  I am not saying the Senator from California's data is wrong. What she 
presented to the Congress, and to the Senate, is an accurate 
presentation. But let's put it into the context of how it was intended 
to be used because I don't believe it was intended to be used for this 
debate.
  What is tracing data from BATF? This is a phrase to remember when you 
are talking about tracing data: Not all crime guns are traced--period. 
Not all gun traces are of crime weapons. Not all traces are of crime 
weapons.
  For example, if you get a search warrant and you go into a house and 
you find firearms and the police department wants to know from whence 
they came, you do a trace. Were they used in the commission of a crime? 
No. In other words, it is an intelligence-gathering piece of 
information for the law enforcement community.
  In 1994, in the passage of the assault weapon ban, there was this 
bubble of public interest because there was a lot of accusation out 
there that semiautos and assault weapons were the common weapon of the 
criminal. A lot of traces were done during that period of time. It 
tapered off over time. So if you argue it worked, the law worked--it 
didn't. It was simply reassessing the value of the trace at that time 
and the need to trace.
  Back to the same premise: Not all crime guns are traced and not all 
gun traces are of crime guns. It is an information-gathering tool by 
BATF.
  Let's turn to this statistic. Let's turn to the 2 percent of semi-
autos used in the commission of a crime pre-1991; same difference after 
the passage of the bill and the implementation of the bill.
  Where do my figures come from? My figures come from the Justice 
Department, from extensive surveys of criminals now in prison as to how 
they gained their gun, and through additional information and polling 
data; a different purpose and a different educational informational 
flow.
  The Senator from California, BATF, mine, the Justice Department--are 
they inaccurate? No. But, if you are really talking about a reason, a 
basis from which to extend the current law, and you look at this and 
some people stand on the floor and say, oh, you have to stop this 
because this is the weapon of choice of criminals and they are using it 
all the time, that simply is not true. Those facts do not bear out. 
That is not a valid basis from which to argue the extension of the 
semiauto ban.
  The Senator from California said ``all'' law enforcement--and she 
went through several. Many law enforcement groups have said: Extend it. 
Why? I guess it is logical. I will tell you one that didn't, though, 
the Western States Sheriffs' Association. The elected sheriffs of the 
Western States of this Nation, when the Brady Center brought them a 
resolution and said, here, we want you to pass this supporting the 
extension of the semiauto ban, they voted on it and voted it down by a 
very large margin.
  Why? They looked at the statistics and saw that this bill would have 
more to do with stopping law-abiding citizens from owning the gun of 
their choice and very little to do with the crime element.
  Let us return to the weapon that is the choice of the criminal. It is 
not packing around a rifle. Somehow they are just visible on the 
street. It is the handgun. It always has been the handgun. It is the 
choice, tragically enough, of most of the criminal element. Sure, there 
is a small percentage--less than 2 percent. Pictures have been shown 
graphically about the assault weapon and what it is.
  Well, what is a semiauto rifle? I went through that argument 
yesterday. A semiauto rifle, semiauto shotgun, a semiauto pistol is one 
that you pull shot by shot, trigger by trigger. You do not depress the 
trigger and rapid-fire your entire amount of ammunition within the 
weapon itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the Senator has 
used 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank you, Mr. President. I allot myself 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Machine guns: Fully automatic--the kind that is already 
banned. You can acquire them by permit from BATF to put in your 
collections, but you can't go to the street and buy them unless you buy 
them illegally and you buy them in the black market. You don't buy them 
at gun shows. That is the reality of what we are talking about.
  Where lies the burden of proof to renew or re-up a law that has 
restricted the ability of law-abiding citizens, created another 
tripwire, and denied them what is a legitimate ownership right in this 
country? Less than 2 percent. I believe those are fully verifiable 
statistics when we are examining this. That is why the House and many 
others have said, no, let's not go there. Let this law expire. It may 
have been necessary at the time largely for political purposes only. 
Many of us opposed it then, saying it wouldn't work and it wasn't 
necessary. It didn't work and it isn't necessary. That is the reality 
of what we are doing.
  Let us take this law from the books. Let us make sure we go after the 
criminal who misuses the gun--who uses a gun in the commission of a 
crime. That is where we get law enforcement. That is how we protect 
law-abiding citizens in this country and we don't thereby deny them 
their constitutional right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have 7 minutes under my control. It is my 
understanding that the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak for 2 
minutes. I yield the Senator from Arizona 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just for a minute put a practical 
face on the issue we are talking about this morning. These are just a 
few examples of the criminals who are exploiting this loophole.
  Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national, member of the terrorist group 
Hezbollah, arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms 
bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon; Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani 
national in this country on an expired visa who admitted to buying and 
selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida 
member who obtained a pilot's license and had photos of tall buildings 
in American cities and, though seemingly impoverished, purchased a 
time-share for a Lear jet. And Conor 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 into 
Ireland.
  We are talking about the ability of terrorists--the proven record of 
terrorists exploiting the gun show loophole for the purpose of 
obtaining weapons that could be used against the United States of 
America.

[[Page 3003]]

  This is a serious amendment and a serious issue. I want my colleagues 
to understand when voting on this amendment that there have already 
been cases where members of known terrorist organizations have 
exploited the gun show loophole and purchased weapons with which to 
eventually commit acts of terror against the United States of America. 
This is not an issue that should be in any way dismissed. There are 
many others.
  Mr. Thomas Timms was arrested October 2003 with 147 guns and 66,000 
rounds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, do I have time remaining on my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey. I would like to reserve the last 3 minutes for the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't know what we are talking about 
when I listen to the speeches. I hear it said that these aren't 
necessarily the guns of criminals.
  By the way, I asked the question whether the two kids who killed 
their classmates and others in Columbine High School, were they 
criminals before they started to shoot that gun? I don't think so. The 
question is, how does the gun get into their hands? It was an assault 
weapon, and we ought to ban these weapons. The President of the United 
States even said so.
  I heard reference to the fact there were organizations that said this 
ban should be removed. I want to talk about those who want to support 
the ban. For instance, the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's 
largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers; the 
International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the Major Cities Chiefs 
of Police; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the 
Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association--and the list 
goes on.
  Let us listen to what the people are saying. Who are we protecting? 
Are we protecting the average citizen? Are we protecting the worker who 
has a disgruntled fellow employee pull the trigger? I don't think so.
  We ought to continue this ban.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are within a short time of beginning 
three very critical votes today starting at 11:30 on three very 
important items.
  First, let me start with the underlying bill, S. 1805. The Statement 
of Administration Policy is to keep the bill clean. Don't add all of 
these other amendments to it. It is a clean, well-drafted, narrow 
provision that says we are going to exempt law-abiding gun 
manufacturers and dealers who play by the rules from third party suits 
of those who might take a law-abiding object and turn it into a 
criminal weapon; and that action should not be allowed to reach back 
through the court system and go after law-abiding gun manufacturers and 
licensed dealers.
  Product liability: Don't change that law. Standard tort law: Don't 
change that law. But we narrow and we define so that all of these new 
creative arguments that the trial bar is trying to bring up in the 30-
plus lawsuits they have brought don't fit anymore.
  It is plain and simple. We go back to old tort in this country that 
says the individual is responsible for their actions. The individual is 
responsible for their actions. That is the underlying premise of S. 
1805.
  Added to that, certainly the Senator from California will attempt to 
extend the assault weapon ban.
  A few moments ago I argued that there is no clear evidence, and the 
Justice Department's own statistics would argue that it really doesn't 
make a lot of sense.
  The Senator from Arizona talked about the gun show loophole and 
mentioned that it is now accessed by terrorists for their weapons of 
choice. He also didn't mention that all of those terrorists were 
arrested. Somehow the law worked. They were caught. They were illegal. 
They may have made the point of contact and they may have lied and they 
may have acquired a firearm which they could have acquired outside of a 
gun show, but they were caught. They were arrested. They were 
trafficking in guns. And darn it, that is illegal in this country. We 
have well established that.
  Do you create a whole new bureaucracy and a whole new hurdle over 
which the law-abiding citizen has to jump? I don't think so. I hope 
not. Or do you really create that gray area that I talked about 
earlier?
  What if I go to the gun show and see the gun I like, but it is a 
licensed dealer, it is a collector, and months later I have his card? I 
call him up and I say, I visited with you at the gun show. I have 
decided to buy your weapon, the firearm. I want to add it to my 
collection. I want to add it to my personal inventory.
  A legal action, it is today a legal action. If the gun show loophole 
bill passes, I think it is a phenomenally gray area. We set up another 
tripwire for the law-abiding citizen.
  The Senator from Arizona and I know how creative the trial bar is. 
Let's at least argue that they discussed it and that they avoided the 
background check at that time by buying it outside the gun show. The 
point of contact was the gun show. The point of contact for millions of 
Americans who legally buy firearms is the gun show, with 1,000 gun 
shows a year, millions of people attending them. So now we overlay that 
with the Federal bureaucracy.
  Yes, States do shape gun shows in their own likeness, and I don't 
object to that. Permits are required in some instances. Twelve States 
have done so. Have they plugged a loop hole? They have required that on 
all gun sales in their State, whether they are done inside of a gun 
show or outside of a gun show. Is that plugging a loophole or is that 
standardizing a law that fits that given State and the population of 
that State? That is 12 or 15, at the most. The rest have not. We had 
those kinds of requirements in the State of New York in 1911 and 
Congress did not speak to it. It was not called a loophole then. It was 
called a loophole only when the BATF, in their survey, said there might 
be a loophole through which some might be acquiring guns. One percent, 
2 percent, 20 percent--how about 1.7 percent? It was true before the 
law; it is now true after the law.
  Did the law work? In the case of assault weapons, it did not work. We 
have denied it before, but what the Senator is going to say, let's plug 
the loophole in the gun shows and then later on let's reach outside the 
gun shows and do the same thing, by gosh, that is called gun control. 
When the right of a free citizen to engage with his neighbor, which 
they have exempted now, and they have trimmed it down a bit--and I 
don't argue that--that is a new Federal law over all of our citizens. I 
question the need and I question the responsible act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me first indicate that this legislation 
already includes an amendment by Senator Boxer on child safety locks, 
so the bill is not clean.
  The question today is, Will we add additional sensible gun safety 
measures? One of them is the assault weapons ban. That is something 
that is entirely appropriate, one that has been supported by vast 
numbers of the American public, that we should continue.
  The idea we are suddenly going to open up, once again, access to 
assault weapons across this country is difficult to bear, particularly 
by police officers. That is why they are so committed to this extension 
of the assault weapons ban because they are the individuals who have to 
face these weapons on the street.
  There is another amendment which I cosponsored with Senator McCain 
that will close the gun show loophole. Senator McCain pointed out quite 
clearly

[[Page 3004]]

the terrorists who have already been identified as exploiting this 
loophole or attempting to exploit it. Indeed, I suspect there are 
others because the nature of terrorists is that they do not go around 
advertising themselves too much. The loophole is there. They know it is 
there. They will exploit it to our detriment. It is our responsibility 
to do everything we can to prohibit, preempt terrorists from attacking 
us within the United States.
  My colleague from Idaho conjured up this fear that this legislation 
is creeping gun control; this amendment will interfere with private 
sales. That is why the McCain-Reed amendment clearly specified that it 
does not apply to the sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from 
the personal collection of that individual at the private residence of 
that individual. That is a private transaction unaffected by this 
legislation.
  We know this loophole is being exploited. We know guns are going into 
the hands of criminal elements, perhaps terrorist elements, through the 
gun show, and we also know it makes no sense to anyone--forget 
legislative, forget advocates, the common person--to walk into a gun 
show and understand some people have to do background checks and others 
do not because those weapons are equally dangerous. The potential 
customers of these shows could be terrorists, could be criminals. We 
have to be responsible and reasonable. That is exactly what this 
amendment does.
  This amendment does not create any new Federal bureaucracy. It does 
not require a gun show operator to report vendors to the Attorney 
General. It does not require that the Attorney General approve a gun 
show. It places no administrative burden practically at all on an 
unlicensed vendor.
  Just remember, 5 years ago, two young men went into a high school and 
killed 13 people because they were able to exploit the gun show 
loophole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time from 11:15 
a.m. to 11:25 a.m. is under the control of the Democratic leader or his 
designee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate today can 
really be summed up in one word: Responsibility. I first started 
hunting with my cousins when I was a kid, and I still enjoy hunting 
today. I believe strongly in the second amendment. I believe in the 
right to bear arms as it has been interpreted in our country.
  But I also believe that with our rights come fundamental, commonsense 
responsibilities. The right to bear arms is a right that should be 
protected for law-abiding Americans who want to protect themselves and 
their families.
  There is, however, no right to place military-style assault weapons 
into the hands of terrorists and/or criminals who wish to cause 
American families harm. There is no right to have access to the weapons 
of war in the streets of America. For those who want to wield those 
weapons, we have a place for them. It is the U.S. military. And we 
welcome them.
  If we do not act today to continue the ban on these deadly weapons, 
then our families in America, our police officers in America, are more 
threatened than they ought to be. For 10 years, the assault weapons ban 
has stopped fugitives, rapists, and murderers from purchasing weapons 
such as AK-47s. And for 10 years, not one honest, responsible American 
has had their guns taken away because of this law.
  It is interesting that a few months ago I was actually hunting in 
Iowa with the sheriff and with some of his deputies. As we walked 
through a field with the dogs, hunting pheasant, he pointed out a house 
in back of me, a house they had raided only a few weeks earlier, where 
meth and crack were being sold. On the morning when they went in to 
arrest this alleged criminal, there was an assault weapon on the floor 
lying beside that individual.
  That sheriff and others across this country do not believe we should 
be selling these weapons or allowing them to be more easily available 
to criminals in our country. That is why gun owners across America 
support renewing the assault weapons ban. They support also closing the 
gun show loophole so that gun shows can continue uninterrupted without 
being magnets for criminals and/or terrorists who try to get around the 
law.
  If there is a gun show loophole, a terrorist could simply go to one 
State, go into the gun show, buy a gun without the kind of ground check 
normal in the process, leave that gun show, travel to another State, 
and engage in either criminal or terrorist activity or both.
  Let's be honest about what we are facing today. The opposition to 
this commonsense gun safety law is being driven by the powerful NRA 
special interest leadership and by lobbyists in Washington. I don't 
believe this is the voice of responsible gun owners across America.
  Gun owners in America want to defend their families, and I believe 
the NRA leadership is defending the indefensible. There is a gap 
between America's ``Field & Stream'' gun owners and the NRA's ``Soldier 
of Fortune'' leaders.
  When he ran for President in 2000, President Bush promised the 
American people he would work to renew the assault weapons ban. But 
now, under pressure, he is walking away from that commitment, as he has 
from so many other promises--from education, to the environment, to the 
economy. This President says he will sign this giveaway to the gun 
industry, but he is refusing to sign the assault weapons ban he told 
America he would support.
  I believe gun owners have a responsibility, and so does the President 
of the United States--a responsibility to keep his word, a 
responsibility to do what he says he will do, a responsibility to 
protect Americans from danger, and to provide for the common defense.
  There is a reason every major law enforcement and police group in 
America supports this ban. They know no police officer should ever have 
to face the prospect of being outgunned by the military-style assault 
weapons. No American citizen should have to live in fear of being 
gunned down by snipers, gang members, or even terrorists who wield 
assault weapons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there any time left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished leader.
  President Bush needs to tell America's police officers why he is not 
standing on their side.
  Today George Bush will celebrate the anniversary of the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, and I am glad the President joined 
us in that effort. But it will take more than a big, new bureaucracy to 
make America safer. Today airport screeners are being cut, air marshals 
are not getting trained, fire departments only have enough radios for 
about 50 percent of the firefighters, and almost two-thirds of our 
firehouses are shortchanged. The COPS funds have been eliminated in 
order to fund the President's tax cuts for the wealthiest few. By 
taking cops off our streets with one hand, and allowing military-style 
assault weapons back on them with the other, this President is 
jeopardizing the safety of our communities. It is wrong to do so, to 
pay for more tax breaks for billionaires and pay back more favors to a 
special interest lobbying group.
  Let me just say one word quickly about the overall issue of liability 
itself. I am not for, and I do not think any reasonable person is for, 
a gun manufacturer being held liable for a murder that takes place in 
the life of America, unfortunately too often. But what we do know is 
about 1.2 percent or so of gun dealers and wholesalers are responsible 
for about 57 percent of the weapons that wind up in the hands of 
criminals. There are many ``straw'' transactions that take place in 
situations where manufacturers know who the problem dealers are.

[[Page 3005]]

  To not have a wanton-and-reckless-conduct standard for liability is 
to avoid responsibility; it is to allow people to look the other way, 
as they have in the past, when we demand responsible actions in the 
communities of America.
  I believe American gun owners are right to act responsibly and to 
live by common sense, and I am proud to stand with those gun owners 
today. I hope President Bush, the NRA leadership, and other lobby 
groups will reverse course and join the millions of Americans who know 
gun rights and gun responsibilities are mainstream American values, and 
that is what we should vote for in the Senate.
  I thank the leader for the extra time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to speak today on the bill before 
us, S. 1805, and some of the amendments relating to firearms that have 
been offered to it.
  Listening to the debate on this issue, the American people might get 
the impression that there are just two sides to the gun debate: On one 
side are those who view the right to bear arms as absolute and oppose 
any proposals that could remotely be considered as restrictions on that 
right. On the other side are those who view gun use as an evil in our 
society that must be limited in any way possible. Sometimes the 
rhetoric gets turned up so high that reasoned analysis and debate is 
obscured. That is unfortunate.
  I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black 
and white issue, a matter of ``you're with us, or you're against us.'' 
Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful 
to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe 
that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning 
today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for 
lawful purposes--for hunting and sport and for self-protection. 
Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take 
action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that 
their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there 
are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not 
infringe on constitutional rights.
  I supported the Brady bill requiring background checks of gun 
purchasers. I have voted in favor of closing the gun show loophole that 
unacceptably increases the danger that a gun will fall into the hands 
of a criminal. And I support child safety locks and other measures to 
make firearms less dangerous to gun owners and their families. These 
are reasonable measures that do not infringe on the rights of law-
abiding citizens to own and use guns.
  On the other hand, I have long opposed banning handguns, requiring 
national gun registration, and restricting the rights of young adults 
to own guns even if they are well trained and operating under adult 
supervision. I believe that prohibiting certain types of weapons is 
problematic as well. Although I voted for the ban on certain kinds of 
semi-automatic weapons in 1994, I have come to believe that it is a 
largely arbitrary and symbolic measure. Citizens see it as a first step 
towards confiscating their firearms. I will, therefore, vote against 
its reauthorization.
  Finally, on the bill before us, I do not believe that granting 
special liability protection to the gun industry is necessary to 
protect the right to bear arms. There is no evidence that liability 
lawsuits threaten the existence of the gun industry in America. I 
believe it would be a mistake to impose a nationwide standard of tort 
liability on this industry that is more lenient than the standard that 
applies to the manufacturers or suppliers of any other product. The gun 
industry, like other industries, owes a duty to consumers of reasonable 
care, and juries of citizens are best able to define that standard as 
they do in tort cases of every imaginable type every day in this 
country. Giving sweeping liability protection will cut off the rights 
of those injured by negligence and set a very dangerous precedent for 
how Congress treats corporate wrongdoers. I will, therefore, vote 
against S. 1805.
  I realize that many have very strong feelings about gun issues. But I 
also believe that most Americans favor a moderate approach. That is the 
approach I intend to follow. My votes will not satisfy those on the 
extremes of this debate, but I believe they reflect the commonsense 
views of reasonable Americans who regret that this issue has become the 
subject of such overheated rhetoric.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make plain my strong 
opposition to the bill under consideration today, S. 1805, the 
``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' Let me state at the 
outset, I support the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and 
appropriately use firearms. But this bill has nothing to do with 
protecting those citizens' rights. Instead, this bill is about 
protecting rogue gun manufacturers that sell defective products and 
rogue gun dealers who turn a blind eye to suspicious sales and thefts.
  The shorthand title for the bill is accurate, the Gun Industry 
Immunity Act. I won't mince words, this bill gives an entire industry a 
free pass. In exchange for that free pass, hundreds of thousands of 
victims across the county will confront closed doors at the courthouse. 
While I recognize that the bill carves out a set of exceptions of 
permissible law suits, this is cold comfort. The exceptions are 
extremely narrow and do not provide reasonable opportunities for 
legitimate lawsuits to proceed. I am deeply troubled by the fact that 
this bill will stop pending and future civil lawsuits against the gun 
industry, including those filed in the wake of the DC Sniper shootings.
  As the American public well knows, prior to their killing spree, John 
Muhammad and Lee Malvo allegedly obtained a Bushmaster rifle from a 
store in Tacoma, Washington, the infamous Bull's Eye Shooter Supply 
Shop. This rifle was one of 238 weapons that disappeared from the 
store's inventory over a three year period. More than fifty of those 
same ``missing'' firearms turned up in crime traces. Civil suits have 
been filed against Bull's Eye alleging that the store was negligent by 
failing to keep track of its weapons, and against the gun manufacturer 
alleging that continuing to supply such dangerous weapons to a store 
that cannot maintain accurate track is also negligent conduct. But 
under today's bill, these allegations do not fit the narrow exceptions 
of permissible suits. Legal experts David Boies and Lloyd N. Cutler, as 
well as the Congressional Research Service, opine that these sniper 
suits will be dismissed immediately if the President signs the gun 
industry immunity act. In real terms this means that the snipers' 
victims, including Denise Johnson, widow of the Montgomery County bus 
driver Conrad Johnson, and the family of James ``Sonny'' Buchanan, who 
was gunned down while mowing the lawn, will have no remedies.
  Another lawsuit that will be derailed if the gun industry immunity 
bill passes is a 1999 case against a gun dealer who repeatedly supplied 
a so-called ``straw purchaser'' with handguns, one of which killed 9-
year old Nafis Jefferson in Philadelphia, PA. I was struck by what 
Nafis' mother said when advised that her lawsuit may be dismissed. She 
stated, ``Before this happened, I believed in the American dream. You 
work hard, you have a family, you have a good life. This--this has 
devastated me. I understand commerce, but there also has to be common 
sense.''
  Under the gun industry immunity bill it is quite likely that a 
pending suit filed by the families of two New Jersey police officers 
will be dismissed. The officers' families have sued the gun dealer who 
sold the gun used to shoot them, one of twelve guns the dealer sold in 
one transaction, in cash, in circumstances so suspicious that the 
dealer subsequently called to alert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms. Yet rather than having the careful consideration of the facts 
by judge and jury, today, Congress will decide that Mr. McGuire's and 
Mr. Lemongello's families cannot pursue any remedies in civil court.
  A family in Massachusetts will also be denied a right to sue should 
the Gun Industry Immunity Bill pass. Twenty-six year old Danny Guzman 
was killed

[[Page 3006]]

with a 9 mm Kahr Arms gun. The gun was one of a dozen taken from Kahr's 
unsecured factory, some by the manufacturer's own employee with a 
criminal record and history of drug abuse. The guns were taken before 
serial numbers had been stamped on them, making them very difficult to 
trace. Eventually, a young child found the gun used in Mr. Guzman's 
death behind an apartment building close to the scene of the shooting. 
A Massachusetts court found that the suit alleges valid negligence and 
public nuisance claims against the gun manufacturer and it is set for 
trial. Yet today's bill would deny Mr. Guzman's family their day in 
court.
  Some have characterized the lawsuits against the gun manufacturers 
and dealers as ``junk'' suits that are cluttering our court houses and 
bankrupting the industry and thus, justifying this extraordinary 
solution of blanket civil immunity. But our local, State and Federal 
judges and court personnel are no where to be found in this debate. No 
letters or reports document an inundation of firearm lawsuits plugging 
up the halls of justice. Furthermore, there is no evidence that our 
State and Federal courts cannot efficiently and effectively manage the 
pending forearm lawsuits. Indeed, the opposite is true. Look no further 
than a recently issued opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit in which the court addressed the certified question on 
whether state law created a duty to protect victims of handgun violence 
from injury caused by illegal gun trafficking. This Court wrote a 
careful and balanced opinion that fully addressed the issue. As a 
former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am well aware of the 
complicated and deliberate process courts follow to develop tort law. I 
am not persuaded that Congress should tread into these waters so 
adeptly managed by our nation's judges and juries.
  Gun manufacturers and dealers are not above the law. The gun industry 
Immunity bill is a radical and unprecedented attempt to undercut common 
tort law, usurp the responsibilities of judges and juries and most 
importantly, deny worthy victims of their day in court. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against S. 1805, and thank the distinguished Senator 
from Rhode Island for his hard work fighting this bill.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues, 
led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, to express the strongest 
opposition that I possibly can to the legislation before the Senate. I 
want to say, Mr. President, that enough is enough.
  In doing so I am proud to not only stand with many of my colleagues 
but many of my fellow Americans who are on the front lines trying to 
keep our communities safe, such as our chiefs of police, other law 
enforcement, and mayors from around the country, as well as the tens of 
thousands of victims of gun violence, including my friends Jim and 
Sarah Brady.
  Here in Washington, there is a lot of talk about responsibility and 
accountability. Yet, this legislation does just the opposite. It does 
nothing but shield irresponsible gun makers and gun sellers from 
accountability.
  Gun owners are asked to act responsibly and the vast majority of them 
do. Gun makers and gun sellers should be held to the same standard. And 
yet, the legislation before us--the gun immunity bill--says to gun 
makers and gun sellers that they don't need to meet the same standards 
as every as other business is required to meet, and that is to conduct 
one's business in a reasonable and non-negligent manner.
  No other industry has the kind of protection that the NRA is seeking 
on behalf the gun industry with respect to a relatively small number of 
lawsuits that have been filed or may be filed in the future. I simply 
cannot understand why the Congress would give this extraordinary and 
unprecedented liability protection to the gun industry.
  Mr. President, we must do all we can to defeat the gun immunity bill 
which, among many other things, will give legal protection to the gun 
dealer--Bull's Eye Shooter Supply--who armed the D.C. area snipers and 
will take away the right to sue from the victims. What an injustice to 
the DC sniper victims and the American people. What a real shame.
  Let me be clear, Mr. President. Despite protestations and suggestions 
to the contrary, this bill isn't about helping people. This bill is not 
about the rights of hunters.
  Not one single gun owner will be helped by this immunity legislation. 
This bill is also not about jobs. This is about serving the will of the 
gun industry first, and the interest of the American people a distant 
second.
  As noted by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Mayor Daley of Chicago, 
Mayor Kahn of Los Angeles, and Mayor King of Gary, in an op-ed in the 
New York Times opposing this bill, federal data from 2000 shows that a 
little more than 1 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all 
guns recovered in criminal investigations.
  Responsible gun sellers should be angry about this. They should 
demand action to clean up their industry. Yet, the legislation the 
Senate is considering now would say to the small group of irresponsible 
gun dealers, ``don't bother running a responsible business,'' and ``you 
are not responsible for your actions no matter how reckless or 
negligent they may be.''
  Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, let me clear up 
some other misinformation about how criminals get their guns. Many 
falsely believe that criminals and drug dealers steal most of their 
guns and that gun dealers are not responsible in any way for the vast 
majority of guns that end up being used in violent crime, that it is 
the fault of criminals. This is simply not true.
  In 1998, a Northwestern University study of records maintained by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms demonstrated that more 
criminals buy their guns new than steal them. Specifically, the ATF 
determined that while more than 11,000 of the weapons traced were 
stolen from licensed gun dealers or residences, almost four times as 
many--more than 40,000--were sold by licensed dealers. This number is 
astounding.
  Almost four times as many guns recovered from criminals by the ATF 
were gained through licensed traffickers and not through theft.
  This is an important point to note because if most guns used in 
crimes in our country are not stolen but in fact are purchased, 
manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition can greatly influence 
the degree to which guns flow get in the hands of criminals.
  Gun dealers hold an enormous and unparreled power over the supply of 
guns in America. While most gun dealers who wield this power act 
responsibly, the negligence and irresponsibility of a few bad seeds, 
like the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, are the cause of the 
problem. These bad gun dealers, the 1 percent of dealers who account 
for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations, need 
to be held accountable. Yet this bill removes that accountability.
  This legislation removes that accountability through section 3 of the 
bill, which precludes even the bringing of civil actions against gun 
manufacturers, gun dealers, distributors, sellers of ammunition, and 
even trade associations in any Federal or State court.
  By the way, the prohibition on commencing an action applies not just 
to individuals, but to states, local governments, and, incredibly, even 
the federal government.
  Section 3 also states that pending civil actions ``shall be 
immediately dismissed'' by the court in which the action was brought.
  This bill is particularly disturbing to me because it directly and 
significantly affects New Yorkers. Currently, the City of New York has 
a suit pending--initially commenced by Rudy Giuliani when he served as 
Mayor of New York. Given that bill proponents have argued that this 
legislation is needed to protect against frivolous lawsuits, are they 
suggesting that Rudy Giuliani would file such a lawsuit against the gun 
industry. I don't think so.
  It would be a shame if New York City's suit were to be dismissed 
because New York City--under the

[[Page 3007]]

Giuliani administration--filed suit to try and protect the health and 
safety of New Yorkers by getting the gun industry to change its 
practices.
  Indeed, a New York federal court has already found in another case 
that gun manufacturers improper sales and distribution practices 
contribute to the illegal gun market in NY State, and there is ample 
evidence, including a study conducted by the National Economic Research 
Associates, that if gun manufacturers and sellers change their 
practices and use care and act responsible in their selling practices, 
many fewer guns wind up in the hands of criminals and used in 
committing crimes.
  And the New York Police Department--the largest and one of the finest 
law enforcement agencies in the world--has had to expend enormous 
resources to control gun-trafficking. I don't want their work--none of 
us should want their work--to be conducted in vain by failing to hold 
accountable irresponsible gun dealers.
  As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said: ``The nation's 
law enforcement officials struggle every day against the scourge of gun 
crimes, and we look to Congress to assist us in that fight, not make 
our jobs harder. By providing broad immunity to the gun industry, this 
bill will endanger the very police officers who place their lives on 
the line to protect all Americans.''
  In addition to New York City, a small number of New Yorkers who have 
been severely injured because of the negligence of others have also 
commenced actions against certain gun manufactures and gun dealers. I 
am not going to prejudge the merits of these cases, but the bottom line 
is that they deserve their day in court. This law would deny them that 
basic right.
  One of these suits arose out of what has been referred to as the 
``Wendy's Massacre.''
  In May of 2001, two criminals armed with an allegedly illegally 
acquired semi-automatic pistol went into a Wendy's restaurant, ordered 
all of the employees into the basement, marched them single file into a 
walk-in refrigerator, duct taped their mouths, tied them up, covered 
their heads with plastic bags, and one by one, shot them execution 
style in the back of the head. These workers were brutally gunned down 
for a total of $2,400.
  One of those injured individuals fortunate enough to have survived 
the tragedy was Jaquione Johnson, who now has a suit pending against 
Bryco Arms. Johnson sustained serious injuries including brain damage 
and paralysis.
  Jaquione contends that the defendant's distribution practices 
created, contributed to, and maintained the illegal secondary gun 
market through which the handgun passed until it did its deadly work. 
This underground market, the complaint asserts, depended upon 
defendants' irresponsible business practices, such as multiple firearms 
sales and straw purchases.
  The complaint further asserts that because the gun dealers could gain 
significant revenue from illegal firearms sales, they failed to adopt 
basic policies and practices that would greatly decrease the number of 
guns reaching criminals despite the knowledge that it was reasonably 
foreseeable that individuals like the plaintiff and the public at large 
would be harmed.
  No one in the Wendy's case is arguing that the defendant gun 
manufacturer and dealer pulled the trigger that killed and maimed the 
Wendy's workers. Instead, the victim is simply seeking to be 
compensated for serious injuries that were caused by the negligence of 
another.
  If the defendants were not negligent in distributing the deadly 
weapon used here, they will not be held liable by the court. However, 
if the defendant gun dealers were negligent in their distribution of 
the guns and that negligence helped cause the plaintiff' harm, then 
they will be held accountable.
  A suit like Jacquoine's, despite what others would have you believe, 
is not frivolous. This is a meritorious suit that must be heard in our 
courts to ensure accountability.
  In fact, just a few weeks ago, on February 3, a Federal judge in New 
York denied the defendant's motion to dismiss Jaquione's suit, making 
clear that Jaquione claim is anything but frivolous. Yet, the NRA 
believes that it, by legislative fiat, should pre-ordain the result in 
Jaquione's case.
  This New York case and the case commenced by the City of New York 
under the Giuliani administration are not outliers. Gary, IN has a suit 
pending and the Supreme Court of Indiana has held that city had a valid 
legal claim. The Illinois Court of Appeals held similar with respect to 
a case brought by the city of Chicago. The bill before us, however, 
would override the decisions of these appellate State courts.
  Similarly, in New Mexico, a teenager who was shot in the face has 
brought suit against Bryco Arms alleging that the pistol's design was 
defective and unreasonably dangerous for its failure to incorporate 
safety devices like a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine 
disconnect safety that would prevent a pistol from being fired with the 
magazine removed.
  The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the suit stated a valid 
legal claim and should go to trial. Further, the court stated, 
``application of our tort law can be expected to enhance [gun] 
ownership by tending to increase the safety of guns.'' This legitimate 
and worthy claim would be in danger of dismissal if this bill is 
passed.
  There are a number of other suits just like the ones I have just 
mentioned and they are before our State and Federal courts. That 
Congress, rather than these courts, would make the decision by 
legislative fiat to dismiss these cases, regardless of the facts and 
the law, is extraordinary and unprecedented and a real shame. It should 
not be countenanced.
  The proponents of this legislation point to the exceptions contained 
in section 4 of the bill and have argued that the exceptions are 
sufficient to allow non-frivolous lawsuits to be maintained.
  First of all, despite all the talk of frivolous suits, the proponents 
point to not one court that has deemed any lawsuit brought in any 
federal or state court against a manufacturer or gun dealer as 
frivolous. The proponents of this special interest legislation cannot 
point to such a decision because there is none. No frivolous lawsuits 
have been filed. That assertion is simply devoid of merit.
  As to the purported exceptions in the bill, they are so narrowly 
crafted as to be illusory.
  The first exception provides that a lawsuit can be brought by the 
party ``directly harmed'' against a defendant who has been convicted of 
the crime of ``knowingly'' transferring a firearm ``knowing'' that the 
guns would be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking 
crime.
  In other words, this exception would not apply to a dealer who is 
extraordinarily reckless or negligent as to how it markets or sells its 
guns unless the dealer knew it was selling a gun to someone who would 
commit a violent crime.
  This is an extraordinarily high burden because it says that you can 
only sue a dealer if the dealer engaged in a criminal act--if the 
dealer is, in effect, an accomplice to a violent or drug trafficking 
crime.
  The second exception provides that an action may be brought ``against 
a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''
  ``Negligent entrustment'' is defined in the bill to mean ``the 
supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person 
when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product 
is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner 
involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or 
others.''
  In other words, according to the Congressional Research Service, this 
exception would appear to allow a suit to be maintained against an 
entity that supplied a firearm or ammunition to a person who, because 
of age, mental disability, intoxication, or violent propensity, seems 
likely to use the product in a dangerous manner.
  That may be all well and good, but I wondered why the crafters of the 
bill

[[Page 3008]]

went to the trouble of defining ``negligent entrustment,'' when such a 
cause of action is defined by state law.
  Well, it's because ``negligent entrustment'' has been defined in this 
legislation much more narrowly than how it has been defined by many 
states under state law.
  In fact, in the case brought by the victims of the DC snipers against 
Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state court held that 
``negligent entrustment'' also occurs when a firearms manufacturer 
sells firearms to a retail store that it ``knew or should have known . 
. . was operating its store in a reckless or incompetent manner, 
creating an unreasonable risk of harm.''
  Indeed, one of the allegations in the complaint brought by victims of 
the DC sniper against the manufacturer of the gun used by the DC 
snipers was that the manufacturer knew or should have known that the 
retailer--Bull's Eye--had a ``history of a large number of weapons for 
which it could not account.''
  The Washington state court found that if the plaintiff could prove 
this, then the manufacturer ``may be liable for plaintiff's injuries 
under the theory of negligent entrustment.'' The court, therefore, 
denied the defendant manufacturer's motion to dismiss.
  So the bottom line is that this supposed ``exception'' in the bill is 
not really an exception because it dramatically narrows the State law 
definition of negligent entrustment.
  To make matters even worse, the exception does not cover 
manufacturers; it only covers ``sellers,'' such as gun dealers. So even 
if there were a broader definition of negligent entrustment in this 
exception, it would still prohibit such a cause of action from ever 
being brought against a manufacturer. This is one of the major 
objections to the bill made by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
  Lastly, as to this second exception in section 4 of the bill, 
including ``negligence per se'' doesn't add much because the common law 
definition of ``negligence per se'' means that a person or entity is 
negligent per se, 1, if the party violated a state or federal statute; 
2, if it demonstrated that the person bringing the action was the 
member of the class of persons that the statute was intended to 
protect, and 3, that the party's injuries suffered were the kind that 
the statute was enacted to prevent.
  But the bottom line is that violation of a statute is required. 
That's not very much of an exception to the gun immunity's general 
provision that no civil action can be brought in any federal or state 
court and that all pending cases must be dismissed.
  There has been much discussion about the third exception because it 
was recently added to this legislation, but this exception, like the 
others in the bill, is extraordinarily narrow as to be almost 
meaningless.
  The third exception provides that an action may be brought in which a 
manufacturer or a seller of a gun violated state or federal law 
concerning the sale or marketing of guns or ammunition and the 
violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the harm for which 
relief is sought, including, 1, any case in which the manufacturer or 
seller knowingly made a false entry in, or failed to make an 
appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under federal or 
state law; 2, any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, 
abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious 
oral or written statement with respect to any material factor 
concerning the lawfulness of the sale; or 3, any case in which the 
manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with some to sell 
or otherwise dispose of a gun or ammunition, knowing, or having 
reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the gun or 
ammunition was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or 
ammunition under subsections (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18.
  I know this section has already been discussed at some length, but I 
want to underscore that two esteemed lawyers, Lloyd Cutler and David 
Boies, after reviewing this language extensively and the complaint 
filed by the DC sniper victims against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, 
stated that in two separate legal opinions that this suit could not be 
maintained under this exception and would have to be dismissed.
  The fourth exception is an action for breach of contract or warranty 
in the connection with the purchase of a gun.
  This exception is also of no moment, however, because as troubling 
and out of the mainstream as this legislation is, one would hope that 
the United States Congress would not seek to render null and void 
contracts and warranty agreements entered into between the sellers and 
purchasers of guns.
  The fifth and final exception to the general provision requiring the 
dismissal of pending cases and the prohibition on bringing any future 
cases is an exception for ``an action for physical injuries or property 
damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the 
product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably 
foreseeable.''
  ``Reasonably foreseeable'', however, is defined to exclude any 
criminal or unlawful misuse--violation of a statute, ordinance, or 
regulation--of a gun or ammunition, other than possessory offenses. 
What does this mean?
  Contrary to what some of my colleagues have said during this floor 
debate, it does not mean that all design or manufacturing defect cases 
can be brought or maintained.
  This is so for a number of reasons. First, the product would have to 
be used as intended. If there is a defect in the gun, for example, but 
an unintended use is that a child uses the gun and accidently maims or 
kills himself, this legislation would prevent the child or his parents 
from even filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer to seek recovery 
and, equally important, from trying to hold the manufacturer 
accountable so that the defect could be fixed and such injuries to 
other children could be prevented.
  This exception is also extraordinarily narrow in that even if there 
is a design or manufacturing defect and even if someone is harmed 
because of the defect, no recovery can even be sought if the gun was 
used in any criminal activity or misused in any way.
  I know I have taken a fair amount of time to talk about the 
exceptions contained in section 4 of this bill, but I felt it important 
because proponents of this legislation have constantly said ``look to 
section 4,'' suggesting that these exceptions will enable legitimate 
cases to be brought and/or maintained against negligent manufacturers 
and gun dealers.
  As I have laid out in great detail, the assertion made by the 
proponents of this legislation is unequivocally--simply--not true. And 
I want to make sure that the American people who are watching and 
listening to this debate understand that.
  I also want to take a moment to correct some other misstatements that 
have been statements in support of this bill.
  As noted above, one of the assertions is that there are thousands of 
frivolous lawsuits--including I guess the one filed by former New York 
Mayor Rudy Giuliani--that have been filed. Well, as we now know, that 
statement is simply not true because not one court has deemed any case 
filed to be frivolous.
  In fact, a respected senior Federal judge in New York, Judge Jack 
Weinstein, actually dismissed a case brought by the NAACP because he 
held that the NAACP wasn't the proper plaintiff. However, in his 178-
page ruling, Judge Weinstein found that gun manufacturer's improper 
sales and distribution practices contribute to the illegal gun market 
in New York State. His conclusion was based on previously unavailable 
data from the ATF and from the gun industry that established a 
connection between the gun industry's marketing practices and access to 
guns by criminals.
  He also found that the data demonstrated that a ``handful of `bad 
apple' retailers in the industry supply a disproportionate share of 
guns used in crimes.''
  Indeed, according to Robert Haas, the former Senior Vice President 
for marketing and sales for defendant Smith & Wesson, the gun industry 
knows that the criminal market is fueled by the industry's distribution 
practices, but does nothing.

[[Page 3009]]

  Haas has said: ``The company and the industry as a whole are fully 
aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of firearms.''
  ``The company and the industry are also aware that the black market 
in firearms is not simply the result of stolen guns but is due to the 
seepage of guns into the illicit market from multiple thousands of 
unsupervised federal firearms licensees. In spite of their knowledge, 
however, the industry's position has consistently been to take no 
independent action to insure responsible distribution practices.''
  This failure to take action is particularly disturbing because the 
problem can be fixed. If all gun manufacturers took reasonable measures 
in distributing their guns, then there would be significantly fewer 
guns in the hands of criminals.
  This is consistent with Judge Weinstein's finding that the data in 
the case before him showed that the handgun industry could have done 
something about these dealers, including implementing obvious common 
sense solutions such as data gathering and monitoring regulations, but 
chose not to do so.
  Another assertion by proponents of this legislation is that these 
lawsuits--less than 100 of them--are bankrupting the industry. Well, 
from what I can tell, the gun industry is doing anything but hurting. 
That's not my view, but the view of gun manufacturers that have filed 
reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Manufacturer after manufacturer has reported to the SEC that it is 
financially stable and that ``it is not probable and is unlikely that 
litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material 
adverse effect on the financial position of the Company.''
  Another claim made is that these suits are going to cause jobs to go 
overseas. Now, I would love it, and more important, the American people 
would greatly appreciate it, if instead of considering this bill, the 
Senate was seeking to address in a comprehensive way the more than 3 
million jobs lost in the past 3 years. But the Senate has chosen not to 
do so.
  I have worked hard to support the development of jobs in my state and 
appreciate that there are New Yorkers in my state who help to 
manufacture guns at Remington Arms.
  But the truth is that Remington Arms is not in financial trouble 
based on this litigation. Remington Arms produces long guns primarily 
and the vast majority of the victims of gun violence and crime are shot 
by hand guns, not long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Remington 
Arms does not need this protection; it is financially strong. Instead, 
it is the victims of gun violence that need protection from this 
legislation.
  In short, these suits are not about putting the gun industry out of 
business. They are about responsible business practices, they are about 
keeping the guns out of the wrong hands through responsible 
distribution practices.
  In fact, it is because of some of the lawsuits that have been filed 
that some gun manufacturers have improved their marketing and 
distribution practices.
  In March of 2000, for example, the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson 
reached a settlement with a number of government entities, including 
the State of New York.
  This settlement demonstrates why the gun immunity bill will actually 
make guns less safe.
  As part of the agreement, Smith & Wesson agreed to change the ways it 
distributes guns it manufacturers. It promised to sell only to 
authorized distributors and dealers who adhere to a stringent code of 
conduct and it agreed to terminate sales to any dealer who sells a 
disproportionate number of guns used in crime. The settlement makes us 
safer because it helps to ensure that guns won't end up in the hands of 
criminals.
  Smith & Wesson also agreed that their guns will be shipped with 
external safety locks, that all pistols will have a chamber loaded 
indicator, that new gun designs will include smart gun technology, and 
that all guns must pass performance tests to ensure safety and quality.
  These are reasonable agreements that all gun manufacturers should 
follow. They make guns safer for everyone, especially those who own and 
operate them, especially for the children of gun owners. This 
settlement demonstrates the great possibilities that exist to improve 
the safety of guns.
  This settlement underscores how much manufacturers and dealers can do 
to keep Americans safer without unduly affecting the bottom business 
line.
  If the bill before us becomes law, however, don't expect to see any 
similar settlements in the future. If gun makers cannot be held liable, 
they will have no incentive to enter into a settlement. If they cannot 
be held liable, gun makers will have absolutely no financial incentive 
to make their guns safer. Indeed, they will actually have a financial 
disincentive to develop new safety mechanisms and distribution 
practices.
  As a Senator from a State with millions of law abiding gun owners, I 
want guns to be as safe as possible. I want new safety features and 
improvements developed. And I want--we should all want--the victims who 
are injured or killed because of defective guns or bad marketing and 
sales practices to not have the courthouse doors slammed in their 
faces.
  Gun violence is a dangerous threat throughout our nation claiming the 
lives of thousands of people every year across America and New York 
State.
  In 2001, the number of deaths in the U.S. from firearms was 29,573. 
In addition, for every firearm fatality in the U.S., there are two non-
fatal firearm injuries.
  A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence estimates 
that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.
  In 1999, New Yorkers suffered 1,652 hospitalizations and 965 deaths 
at the hands of gun violence. 291 of those deaths were individuals 
below the age of 24.
  In 2000, there were 1,093 deaths in New York State from firearms.
  We should be talking about how we can reduce gun violence and prevent 
deaths of American men, women, and children, not how to slam the 
courthouse door shut to gun victims and while at the same time giving 
bad gun dealers blanket immunity from irresponsibly and negligent 
conduct.
  Although this very bad bill is currently before the U.S. Senate, all 
of my colleagues, including the bill's proponents, have an opportunity 
to help make our communities safer by supporting a number of amendments 
currently pending, including the amendment offered by Senators 
Feinstein, Warner, and Schumer that reauthorizes the assault weapons 
ban and the amendment offered by Senators McCain and Reed that seeks to 
close what has been called the ``gun show loophole.''
  I must say that it is astonishing to me that we even need to debate 
the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because there is no 
reasonable argument that can be made against it. People do not hunt 
with assault weapons. Instead, assault weapons are designed for one 
purpose and for one purpose only and that is to kill people.
  Extending and improving upon the assault weapons ban is essential 
because assault weapons are a clear threat to law enforcement. Assault 
weapons kill police officers.
  One in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is 
killed with an assault weapon. I would hope that everyone would agree 
that we need to put the interests of law enforcement officers far ahead 
of the interests of the NRA. If we are to remain true to our support 
for law enforcement officials, we need to extend and improve the 
assault weapons ban because it is our duty to protect those who risk 
their lives to protect us.
  In addition, a report released yesterday by the Brady Center to 
Prevent Gun Violence, ``On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal 
Assault Weapons Act,'' demonstrates that the assault weapons ban passed 
10 years ago has been working. The report shows that the assault 
weapons banned by name in the Act have declined substantially, 66

[[Page 3010]]

percent, as a percentage of overall crime gun traces since the assault 
weapons ban was enacted in 1994. The study concludes that the ban has 
contributed to a substantial reduction in the use of assault weapons in 
crime, despite the industry's efforts to evade the law through the sale 
of copycat guns.
  The assault weapons ban has been successful keeping these killing 
machines off our streets but it is set to expire later this year. To 
protect our law enforcement officials, to protect our safety, we cannot 
let this law expire. We must reauthorize the ban on assault weapons.
  We must also do all we can to close the ``gun show loophole'' because 
the loophole enables those who are otherwise prohibited from purchasing 
firearms under federal law to easily obtain guns.
  Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or 
possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers at gun shows because they 
know that they can simply put down their money and walk away with 
deadly weapons. Additionally, because these unlicensed sellers are not 
well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to 
sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show 
firearms that turn up at crime scenes. Gun shows are now the second 
leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking 
investigations.
  The gun show loopholes in our laws allow individuals otherwise 
prohibited from legally purchasing firearms to easily gain access to 
potentially deadly weapons. Both the City and State of New York have 
enacted laws regulating gun sales and the possession of guns within the 
City and State. Yet, because of the gun show loophole, these laws have 
been unable to stop guns from coming into New York. Expert studies by 
Dr. Howard Andrews of Columbia University show almost 90 percent of 
guns recovered at crime scenes in NY were purchased out state.
  If our background checks on gun purchases are going to have meaning 
and value, we must close the gun show loopholes and that is why I 
support the McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman amendment and I hope the 
entire Senate will do the same.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to implore my colleagues to examine 
the legislation before us that will give blanket immunity to bad gun 
manufacturers and dealers and to support the amendments designed to 
make our country safer.
  I can't even begin to imagine what this nation will be like at the 
end of this September if the assault weapons ban is not renewed, the 
gun show loophole is not closed, and the gun immunity bill becomes law.
  Unscrupulous and negligent gun manufacturers and dealers--both 
licensed and unlicensed--will be able to sell guns of all kinds, 
including assault weapons, and incredibly, no matter what happens, no 
matter how many Americans will be maimed and killed, they will be 
immune from liability.
  I implore my colleagues to do all we can to make sure that doesn't 
happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still 1 minute remaining of the 
minority's time.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11:35 is under the control 
of the majority leader or his designee.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I might ask the other side how they want to 
deal with their 1 minute remaining prior to my closing statement.
  Mr. REID. I yield it back.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been granted the time of the leader 
to close out this debate before we start votes at 11:35.
  I must tell you, I am honored by the presence of the Senator from 
Massachusetts today on the floor to debate this critical issue. I am 
honored we have lifted the gun debate, on a fundamentally important 
bill for the average American, to Presidential politics. So let's go to 
where the average American is, by a Zogby poll taken some months ago, 
and this is: The red States versus the blue States, the Bush States 
versus the Gore States, in 2000.
  When the average American, by the Zogby International polling group--
certainly no rightwing polling group--did their work with Southern 
Methodists, here is what they got. For the statement: ``There are 
enough laws on the books. What is needed is better law enforcement for 
current laws regarding gun control.''--69 percent in the Bush States 
agreed, 63 percent in the Gore States; for the military, the veterans, 
and the nonmilitary--all of them well above a majority of 50 percent. 
When it comes to the underlying bill, that number jumps into the 70s.
  Americans are fed up with the politics and the placebos to put a law 
on the books and somehow you have made the world safer. What they want 
is the cop on the beat arresting the bad guy or gal, and the courts not 
summarily putting them back on the streets. And when you use a gun in 
the commission of a crime, I suggest, and we suggest, and the American 
people suggest, you do the time. You don't plea-bargain them back to 
the streets out of a liberal court system.
  That is the reality. That is what is important about this underlying 
debate. I am proud we have elevated it to the stature it is today.
  I yield 5 minutes of my remaining time to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Craig.
  Mr. President, I want to address this bill generally but then close 
my comments on the so-called gun show loophole amendment.
  I believe there are those who benefit from the job-destroying lawsuit 
lottery in this country, and there are those who seek to restrict the 
rights of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for legitimate purposes.
  On the job-destroying lawsuit lottery, let me just mention one 
company in Texas, Maverick Arms, located in Eagle Pass, where 140 
dedicated people work to assemble Mossberg and Maverick guns, high-
quality firearms for shooting sports, military, and law enforcement 
communities. Maverick's ability to continue providing good jobs to the 
citizens of Texas is in jeopardy. It is in jeopardy because of junk 
lawsuits filed by trial lawyers, and the politicians who support their 
right to terrorize a legal employer providing a legal product, as 
opposed to focusing our efforts on the criminals and those who 
illegally use firearms who should be punished for doing so.
  I believe it is absolutely imperative that, rather than focusing on 
and punishing law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to 
provide for their families by engaging in a lawful enterprise and 
producing a legal product, we ought to focus our law enforcement 
efforts on the criminals. Indeed, we have found through programs such 
as Project Exile in Richmond, VA, and Texas Exile in my own State, we 
can have a real impact by punishing the convicted felons who illegally 
possess firearms and those who use firearms illegally to jeopardize our 
communities and threaten our communities, and that there is absolutely 
no benefit to be gained by passing additional laws, as the proponents 
of these amendments would do, that limit the rights of law-abiding 
citizens.
  I would like to just mention in closing why I believe we do need to 
expand the role of instant background checks to all commercial gun 
sales, no matter where they occur. But as well-intentioned as the 
amendments proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Reed and Senator 
Lieberman and others are, the so-called closing the gun show loophole 
bill--as well-intentioned as they are, I think it misses the mark. I 
would like to work with them to try to bring the instant background 
check to all commercial gun sales in this country.
  The problem is this amendment, as well-intentioned as it is, will 
have the effect, should there be a State attorney general who doesn't 
seek a 24-hour instant background check period, that there will be a 
default through a 3-day check period, which will essentially obliterate 
gun show sales.
  It is important to point out that, currently, everybody who is a 
dealer in firearms is subject to the Federal firearms license. Indeed, 
there is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. But what this amendment 
would seek to do would be to affect people who are not dealers in 
firearms, but are collectors,

[[Page 3011]]

people who engage in sales to friends and family and others, and these 
are. As long as they are lawful possessors of these firearms, I don't 
believe the full apparatus of the Federal Government ought to intrude 
on that ability to conduct a sale that is no threat to the people of 
this country.
  So S. 1706, which Senator Craig and others have cosponsored, which 
currently sits in the Judiciary Committee, I suggest is an appropriate 
vehicle. Senator McCain and others are cosponsors of that bill. I think 
it will ultimately accomplish the goal of this gun show amendment. I 
cannot support that amendment as it is written now, but I look forward 
to working with them to write a bill that would address the real 
problem, and that is a need for instant background checks across the 
board to make sure guns are not sold to common criminals, and make sure 
that we do not unnecessarily interfere with the rights of law-abiding 
citizens.
  With that, I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
debate and leadership on these issues. He has been a statewide law 
enforcement officer. He knows what laws are all about. He knows how the 
public reacts to them, and he knows that laws have to be enforced.
  We are minutes away from starting a very critical vote process on 
three amendments before we break for lunch. We will vote on the 
Feinstein, McCain, and Campbell amendments. There will be time allotted 
for each one as we get to them. In the minute that remains, I will say 
this has been a very positive debate. At the same time, I think there 
is a common sense and a reality that stacking up gun laws on the 
Federal books of the U.S. Code doesn't work, unless they are 
effectively enforced on the ground and the criminal element who may 
violate these laws knows there is a bite in the law; that somehow if 
they use a gun in the commission of a crime, they are going to do the 
time.
  Everywhere that principle has been applied, crime has gone down, the 
use of a gun by a criminal has gone down. There have been arguments 
about keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. They have not made 
their case because every example they use was a terrorist who had been 
arrested, stopped. The guns, strangely, were to be exported out of the 
country by the terrorist. So they placed themselves in double jeopardy. 
Now they are doing the time. Somehow, in that portion of the law it 
worked well. But the vote we are going to take is over whether to 
extend the law for another period of time that Congress said some years 
ago they wanted to look at. Therefore, we would sunset it and 
reconsider it. That is what we are doing and will do by a vote on the 
extension of the assault weapons ban, the extension of a law that 
hasn't worked.
  All of the statistics are in. The numbers have not changed. Is the 
assault weapon, or a weapon of similar appearance, misused on occasion? 
Yes, it is, but by less than 2 percent in participating in a crime. Is 
that a justification for, again, establishing a tripwire? The Senator 
from Massachusetts said you are going to unleash AK-47s back on the 
streets. Well, the law that bans them is still in place. It doesn't 
fall out with the assault weapons ban going away. That and the Uzi law 
are in place.
  Senators will now come to the Chamber for a vote in a few moments on 
these critical issues. I hope they have been engaged. The debate has 
been very civil over a very important part of what we do in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the first vote will be 15 minutes, and for 
the second two there is an order that they be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Also, there are 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided before each of the amendments. The first amendment is the 
Feinstein assault weapons amendment.
  Who yields time? If no one yields time, time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand we are about to vote on the 
Feinstein amendment. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I urge all 
colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would continue a 
ban on assault weapons that has been in place for 10 years. It has 
ensured that military weapons will not be on the streets of America, 
will not be used in crimes, will not be accessible to terrorists, which 
will not force our police officers to confront these weapons.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a continuation 
of present law. It is not a new law. I think the American public has 
come to understand this law and appreciate it and support it. I think 
they would urge its adoption and its continuation. Again, I urge a 
favorable vote on the Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to let the assault 
weapons ban die in peace. It expires in September of 2004. Statistics 
show it has not changed the method of operation of criminals in this 
country. The assault weapons or the definition to which we prescribe in 
the law is not a weapon of choice of the criminal on the streets of 
America. It has simply set up the tripwires for law-abiding citizens 
who may choose to have this type of gun in their collection. By 
definition, that means that gun doesn't get misused. The stolen weapon, 
the one trafficked in the black market, is the one that is misused. 
That is why I believe--and many colleagues agree with me--when you 
sunset a law, you do so for the purpose of reexamining it to see 
whether it is worthy of staying on the books of this country. It is 
not. It is time for it to go away. I ask my colleagues to vote no on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2637.
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2637) was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2636

  Mr. CRAIG. Following this is the debate on the gun show loophole. 
There are 2 minutes of debate and a 10-minute vote to follow. I wish my 
colleagues would cease conversation so they can hear the proponent of 
the amendment.

[[Page 3012]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. Will the 
Senators in the well please cease their conversations so we can 
continue with the debate. We will now proceed with debate on amendment 
No. 2636. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my 
colleagues, another critical vote is at hand.
  To my colleagues, envision a door. If you walk through the door, the 
Federal Government takes over. If you stay outside the door, the 
current laws are in authority. It is called the gun show loophole. We 
have an amendment here that puts a whole new tripwire in front of the 
law-abiding citizen. It does not go after the criminal element. We know 
less than 2 percent of guns that are used in the commission of a crime 
are gotten through a gun show. Most of them are obtained in the back 
streets.
  Let's talk about law enforcement and the argument about terrorists 
gaining their guns through gun shows. The reason they arrested the 
terrorists is the current laws work. There are 1,000 gun shows for law-
abiding citizens. Let's not create a Federal bureaucracy that will 
begin to govern and control what is the right of free commerce in this 
country. Let the current Federal law work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I remind my colleagues all reference to the Attorney 
General has been removed from this amendment. There is no Department of 
Justice oversight of the gun shows in this amendment.
  Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and a member of the terrorist 
group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle 
firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon.
  Muhammed Asrar, a Pakistani national, in this country on an expired 
visa, who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. 
Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who had obtained a pilot's 
license, had photos of tall buildings.
  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.
  They were arrested. How many were not arrested? This is the most 
curious logic I have ever heard. They were arrested. Who wasn't 
arrested? A loophole exists. If we are interested in the security of 
this Nation, we will close it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2636) was agreed to.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2623

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is amendment No. 2623, the 
Campbell-Leahy amendment. There are 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment has 67 cosponsors. I am 
proud to say Senator Leahy and Senator Reid of Nevada are original 
cosponsors.
  This is the No. 1 priority for the 300,000-member Fraternal Order of 
Police, and has been endorsed by literally every major police 
organization in the country, giving off-duty and retired policemen 
authority to carry concealed weapons interstate with proper training.
  We already have a similar law in place for airline pilots. Certainly 
law enforcement is kind of the front line of new defense in the war on 
terrorism as well as the work they do with traditional law enforcement.
  It defies common sense that trained policemen cannot carry interstate 
when we all know criminals and terrorists do outside of the law. I want 
to make sure we give America's policemen the same protection.
  I yield to Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senator Campbell and I have worked on this 
for some time. I serve in the Judiciary Committee where it passed 
nearly unanimously. Having served in law enforcement, I know what it is 
like.
  Our bipartisan amendment will establish national standards for law 
enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms so that they may 
respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional 
lines, as well as protect themselves and their families from vindictive 
criminals.
  I look forward to the Senate approving our bipartisan amendment today 
to make our communities safer and to better protect law enforcement 
officers and their families.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a 
cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators Campbell and Leahy, the 
Law Enforcement Safety Act. This legislation will take sensible steps 
to improve public safety by allowing trained active and retired law 
enforcement officers to carry their service weapons across State lines 
without needless bureaucratic hurdles.
  In my State of Washington, all law enforcement officers are permitted 
to carry concealed weapons, and many jurisdictions require officers to 
do so. In addition, all retired officers can obtain concealed weapons 
permits, and my State grants reciprocal privileges to any law 
enforcement officer visiting the State. This allows officers to 
continue to play a role in maintaining public safety wherever they may 
be. I believe that the successful example set by officers in my State 
shows that this legislation warrants the support of this body. I 
believe that this is solid policy and that extending a similar policy 
across the country will have beneficial public safety effects.
  I fully support aspects of this bill that are stronger than the 
current policy in my State: Requiring retired officers to maintain 
their firearms skills, and preserving local laws barring firearms in 
specific locations, like churches and schools.
  Police officers are entrusted by the public with an important 
responsibility. Since the events of September 11, we have placed new 
burdens of our Federal, local, and State officers. We have often done 
so without providing them the resources they need to do the job. This 
amendment is a step to correcting that oversight by allowing the people 
who are the most well-trained in

[[Page 3013]]

how and when to use firearms to avoid outdated restrictions on carrying 
and traveling with firearms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide 
additional support to our law enforcement officers across the country. 
I look forward to working with the amendments sponsors to ensure its 
adoption.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as we all know, law enforcement officers 
are never ``off duty.'' They are dedicated public servants who are 
sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is 
threatened. They need all the help that they can get.
  That is why I am so proud to cosponsor this bipartisan amendment to 
allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm 
if they meet the same state firearms training and qualifications as an 
active officer.
  Today, there is a complex patchwork of Federal, State, and local laws 
that govern whether current and retired law enforcement officers can 
carry concealed firearms. This patchwork approach is confusing and 
ineffective. This amendment will establish a measure of uniformity and 
consistency across the country.
  Over 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers serve in this country. In 
the last decade alone, more than 1,700 law enforcement officers have 
been killed in the line of duty. That's an average of 170 deaths per 
year. And, roughly 5 percent of these were killed while taking law 
enforcement action in an off-duty capacity.
  Even the death of one police officer is unacceptable. We can and must 
do more to protect them, and that is why I support this amendment. It 
will increase the ability of law enforcement officers to protect 
themselves, their families, and our communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am under no illusion what the outcome 
of this vote is going to be. But this is gun legislation run amok. This 
is demonstrating that the Senate is more interested in the profits of 
the gun industry than protecting the citizens.
  This legislation will override every mayor's decision that has ruled 
that they do not want concealable weapons in the bars and the churches 
or on the playgrounds of the schools of their district. This 
legislation will override every Governor's decision to protect local 
citizens by prohibiting concealable weapons in bars and churches and 
schoolyards across the country.
  The mayors have made the decision. The States have made the decision. 
Now in the Senate of the United States we say it does not make any 
difference if the local community is making a judgment to protect their 
local citizens; we know better in the Senate.
  I don't want to hear from the other side anymore about one size fits 
all. This is it. Override the States, override the local communities, 
that is what this does with concealable weapons which are deadly to the 
children and the people of this Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2623.
  Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Akaka
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Fitzgerald
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2623) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we will now adjourn for lunch. When we 
return at 2:15, we will have under consideration the Frist-Craig 
amendment on armor piercing, the Kennedy amendment on the armor-
piercing gun ban, and a Levin amendment to be tabled, and final 
passage. We will reconvene at 2:15.

                          ____________________