Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004

Mr. President, we are now on S. 1805. Last night, Senator Reed and I worked into the evening with our colleagues and leadership on both sides to craft a unanimous consent that now governs us through late next Tuesday. It establishes a variety of amendments that will be voted on over the course of today. Some will be offered and set aside to be voted on on Tuesday. On Tuesday, other key amendments will be voted on and then final passage.

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

I said very early on yesterday that we wanted an open, robust debate on this issue. Clearly, 75 Members of this Senate, in a very bipartisan way, said let's get on with it, with the cloture vote yesterday. We spent the day then fashioning an agreement that brings us to where we are this morning. I believe it is possible Senator Daschle will be in the Chamber in a few moments to offer a perfecting amendment, then Senator Boxer will have an amendment on gunlocks.

I believe the agreement that is in front of us gives us something that oftentimes is very hard to achieve in the Senate, and that is a procedure and a final passage locked into an agreement. While Senator Reed and I worked late into the evening, as I mentioned, to allow that to happen, and all sides gave a little in it, what I think we have in front of us is just that, an agreement that allows a variety of Senators, who have been prominent in this debate on both sides of the issue, to offer their amendments and to have a vote.

The timelines are very limited. We are not going to filibuster in any of this. It is clear that when there are 20-, 30- and 60-minute time limits to be shared equally, it does shape and limit the debate in a way that many of us would like to see.

Certainly on Tuesday, key votes are going to be the McCain-Reed gun show loophole and Senator Feinstein's gun ban, or assault weapon ban as it is argued. Those clearly will be the dominant issues on one side. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, conceal/carry will be another one voted on on that day, and possibly debate. I will debate that along with Senator Campbell today. It is on the list to accomplish today. Possibly we will also have another amendment to be voted on on Tuesday which deals with Washington, DC, and some of the gun laws that free and law-abiding citizens have to cope with in this city.

That is the character of what we have been able to put together. Senator Reed, the manager on the other side, is now in the Chamber. I yield the floor for any comments he would wish to make. Timewise, we hope Senator Daschle can make it to the Chamber to offer his amendment, but if he cannot, at this moment I see no reason Senator Boxer could not proceed with her amendment.

Mr. President, we expect a second-degree amendment to be here to modify and perfect the Boxer amendment.

I want to speak about the Boxer amendment because I in no way discredit--I guess the best way to say it--fail to recognize the same kind of concerns Senator Boxer has expressed. She is correct. The Senate has expressed its will on this issue in the past. But let me bring you up to date about what the gun industry is doing now. Clearly, the gun industry is responding very quickly to new technologies and what is available to make sure firearms are safe, if you will, from the curiosity of a child and a child who might misuse it. Tragically enough, when children find a firearm, there is great curiosity.

There are organizations out there that have worked awfully hard to educate firearms owners and parents about the reality of a gun placed in a home in an unsafe environment, or not locked behind a door, or in a situation where a child can't gain access to it. That is simply critical in the responsible ownership and handling of a gun.

Ninety percent of new guns in the United States are already sold with a safe storage device. The Senator from California is right, the devices vary, but so do guns and so do the conformation and structure of guns. It will be very difficult to suggest that one size fits all.

The industry, with its engineers and its technology and its computers, is devising trigger locks and safety devices that fit the particular firearm. This is done through a voluntary program with the firearms industry. Tremendous numbers of gunshops today--responsible, federally registered gunshops--are providing free of charge a trigger lock or a safety device as the weapon is sold. Many States and locales, such as Texas, have distributed safety devices free of charge, either in cooperation with the firearms industry or on their own initiative.

Trigger locks are mechanical devices. Like all mechanical devices they can fail if they are not well designed, and if their owners are not instructed on how to use them properly. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently tested 32 types of gunlocks and found 30 could be opened without a key. That is why, clearly, uniformity is necessary. The Senator spoke to that uniformity. But quality gun manufacturers in this country are already providing safety devices which are critical and necessary.

What I am trying to suggest is these devices are not a panacea that reduces all accidents. Clearly, if we can get most handguns in America in safe and responsible hands and in homes with safety devices or locked in a safe or locked in a device where a child cannot gain access, that is going to reduce the kinds of tragic accidents that occur when a small child in a curious way finds the gun that may not have been placed in a safe place by a parent.

Gunlocks are designed to address what I believe is a narrow range of threats. At the same time, when a child's life is lost, how tragic it is, and all of us understand that. Of course, then it makes tremendous news and the world wonders why this is happening. The reason it happens is because in many instances there was a parent who was less than responsible, who really didn't lock that gun up.

At the same time, let's also recognize the phenomenal complication involved. Sometimes guns are placed in locations in homes for security and for safety, and easy access is critically important if that gun is to be used for the purpose of personal and property safety depending on the area in which a family lives or an individual lives.

At the same time, that does not deny the responsibility that is important. Gunlocks address that narrow range of threats. Clearly, they will deter the casual curiosity of a small child far more readily than it will deter what I say is the committed thief or the person bent on murder and mayhem. Some suggest a gunlock means a thief in the house will not steal the gun. Wrong. That simply is not the case. It simply means the thief will take the gun, take it out, knock the gunlock off, have it cut off, take it away so they can have access to a stolen firearm. That is the reality of thieves stealing guns.

This narrow range we are talking about and that we want to make sure stays is to deter that casual curiosity of the small child. The firearms industry is already trying to develop standards to improve these devices. The industry has sought the creation of an industry standard for gun safety locks through the American National Standards Institute. The ANSI review process is well underway. In other words, because the gun industry is a responsible industry, they are well out in front of us already on legislation. No, there aren't absolute mandatory requirements across the Nation. But recognizing the reality and the tragedy that occurs on occasion, we want to make sure, and the industry certainly wants to make sure, that they are well out in front of it.

In a few moments we will have a second-degree perfecting amendment to deal with this issue. I will reserve the remainder of my time until that amendment is here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we are on the Daschle amendment which I support. The minority leader has expressed the value of that amendment to the underlying bill, S. 1805. I will be very brief about it. We can have a vote on it and immediately move back to the Boxer amendment.

I am happy to.

I do not see that need.

Madam President, when Senator Daschle and I began to visit about the issue of liability to gun manufacturers and responsible licensed gun dealers, we wanted to make sure it was as narrow as I expressed yesterday that it would be. Senator Daschle came up with some ideas that would strike the ``knowing and willing'' in the preceding sentences, potentially increasing the likelihood that this exception in the general immunity afforded under the law would be applicable in any given case.

That is what we did. They are two very distinct provisions. I discussed them last night. I will not go into them today for the record. But we handed that work over to the Congressional Research Service. What they have said is this: Applying these changes to the scenarios at issue--and those relate both to manufacturers and gun sales--it appears the amendment could have the effect of making it more likely that this exception to immunity would be applicable in certain facts, as established.

In other words, we truly have clarified the immunity provision. It is every bit as narrow as we said it was, that all current Federal laws pertaining to the mismanagement, mishandling, the criminal actions that are in violation of a Federal firearm license or that are in violation of a manufacturers responsibility are adhered to.

I believe the amendment is a good one. It perfects and improves S. 1805. I encourage its passage.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I do not object to that request, Madam President.

Madam President, I am glad the Senator from Wisconsin has stepped forward to offer a second-degree amendment. It clarifies the nature of damages in civil immunity language. It defines the inoperable in the immunity language. It reduces the penalty violation but sets a good one--a $2,500 civil fine. Revocation may be a bit harsh, but there is a small clarification in the Rules of Evidence. It takes effect 180 days after enactment.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier in the debate--and I will discuss this later after this amendment is accepted--nearly all manufacturers today comply with this very point as guns leave the factory. So the industry is moving rapidly toward compliance.

With that, I think we are prepared to vote on the second degree.

Madam President, I will take some of those minutes to speak to the Boxer amendment, as amended. I do oppose this amendment and here are some very simple facts why.

I have already talked about the industry itself moving rapidly in a voluntary way toward compliance. Clearly, the bill has been improved by the Senator from Wisconsin, but let me suggest this to all of us because I think we understand it in rather simple terms. The home is a private place and for the first time the long arm of Government will reach into the private place and suggest to the average American how they will store an object in that private place.

I am not arguing about the care, the emotion, the concern, and the reality, not that at all. I understand that. But I do not believe that Government ought to be telling the average citizen how they store objects within their home.

We are hearing about the tragedies of children losing their life by the misuse of a firearm. I think the Senator from Wisconsin mentioned suicides. My guess is, trigger locks do nothing to suicides. The great tragedy of a suicide is that a teenager thinks it out, and if they think it out they are probably going to find the key to the trigger lock or they will know where it is as a teenager and that will not stop that tragedy. That is an emotional situation that none of us quite understand sometimes why teenagers resort to that kind of action and violence.

I will talk about the home environment and what is going on in the home environment. Since 1930, accidental deaths by firearms in the home have declined 62 percent. Firearms are now involved in only 1.5 percent of accidental fatalities nationwide within the home. Here is the tragedy: Deaths caused to children by motor vehicle accidents is 47 percent; a child falling down in the home, deaths 15 percent; poisoning, 10 percent; drowning, 4 percent; fire, 8 percent; suffocation on small objects going down the throat of a small child, 3 percent. More children suffocate by an object lodging in their throat than by finding an improperly stored handgun. Now, those are the facts, as we know them. Those facts

come from the National Safety Council, the National Center for Health Statistics.

Again, I do not dispute the emotion or the concern or the care that the Senator from California has on this issue, but I do dispute the right of the Federal Government to enter the home and tell the average citizen they have to comply with mandatory storage laws that exist with penalties. I believe that is unnecessary in a free society.

I believe safety and responsibility is always necessary, and the industry is rapidly moving in that direction. Ninety percent are in compliance with the fundamental principles of the law itself.

This is the thing that concerns me most: Most States already provide penalties for reckless endangerment under which an adult found grossly negligent in the storage of a firearm under certain circumstances can be prosecuted for a felony offense. Universal mandatory storage requirements are counterproductive. That is going at the individual, instead of allowing the long arm of the law to come into the home. Clearly, that is the way it ought to be.

We know that no one-size-fits-all requirement can possibly meet the needs of all gun owners, and that is what is being suggested. We have already seen the industry involve science and technology to try to deal with this issue, and they are trying to develop those kinds of standards that work.

I have already mentioned that the National Safety Council tested 32 types of gunlocks and found that 30 of them could be opened without a key. While the industry is rushing to get there, what we are needing, and the industry is now doing it, is standardization.

In any emergency, and now we are talking about oftentimes why a gun is in a home, a trigger lock can handicap a person who needs a gun for protection. While the industry is trying to make them applicable so they can be accessed within seconds or minutes in case the burglar is breaking into the home, the reality is that if the gun is locked away in a safe it is ineffective as a use for personal protection in an unsafe environment. Those are the kinds of concerns I think all of us have as we talk about these kinds of issues and as we tick away at the right of the private gun owner to manage what I believe is a constitutional right in this country.

I will give a little bit of history and then I will close. In 1936, British police began adding the following requirements for firearms certificates: Firearms and ammunition to which this certificate relates must at all times, when not in actual use, be stored in safe and secure places. That was 1936. What has transpired in British law until today is that if one wants to own a gun and they get a certificate to own a gun, the British police come into their home and ask where they are going to store it. They look at where it is going to be stored and if the gun owner does not have a lockbox or if they do not have a safe, they do not own a gun.

Will that ever happen in this country? I would hope not. I hope Americans would rebel about the reality of the police entering their home to tell them what to do as it relates to storing an object in the home, especially an object that we believe is a constitutional right. That is the issue at hand.

Again, I am not going to argue with the reason or the logic that the Senator from California has expressed. States are moving now, and I think in some ways responsibly, to encourage, educate, and train. The industry is moving in that direction. To establish a Federal requirement that says this is the way one is going to do it in their home--I believe in a fundamental right of privacy--this is a breach of that right and an entry into the home with the long arm of Federal law. I do not think we ought to go there.

I hope Senators will join with me in opposing this amendment as amended by the Kohl amendment. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time in relation to a vote on this issue.

I accept that if I have an additional 1 minute to close after the Senator from California.

Following that, I would like a moment for a quorum call.

I thank the Senator for that. I yield the floor to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I will be brief. I don't question the sincerity of the Senator from California. I recognize what she is attempting to do.

The industry is rushing. It is at near 90 percent compliance today. We want firearms to be as safe as possible in this country.

Let me close with this. Firearms are involved in 1.5 percent of the accidents within a home that involve a child; motor vehicles and children: 47 percent of the deaths of young children are caused by motor vehicles; falling, 15 percent; poisoning, 10 percent; drowning, 4 percent; fire, 3 percent; objects ingested and lodged in the throat in which they suffocate, 3 percent.

As tragic as all of this is, it is a very small number. We are now working aggressively to resolve that. The industry has developed standards. I don't believe these penalties are necessary. I don't believe this approach of uniformity and Federal mandate is necessary. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have the Campbell concealed-carry bill. We are minutes away from being ready to offer that so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I believe that.

Yes. I see no reason why the Senator could not speak. How long does the Senator intend to speak?

Mr. President, before I turn the time over to the Senator from Ohio, let me only say to the Senator from Connecticut, go back and read section 4 of the bill.

He is a very eloquent Senator, but at the same time this is a very narrow provision. It says if that manufacturer in a State or if a licensed gun dealer violates the law, they are in trouble. You bet we make it to the courthouse. We make it in front of the judge and the judge hears the arguments.

Let me also refer to one of the Senator's concerned constituents, the president of Local 376 of the UAW, who has lost over 600 jobs in the Savage Arms Factory because they have had to spend millions of dollars defending themselves on frivolous lawsuits. So that is a problem.

I will not yield. To a question, I will respond.

No.

I have the floor. I would be happy to provide the letter to the Senator. I referred to the Senator as an eloquent spokesman and I ask the Senator to read section 4 of the bill.

I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio who is a cosponsor of this legislation.

I have the floor and I have already yielded.

I allocated him time.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Connecticut from my time. I do not want

him to feel I have impugned his good name in any sense.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I can now yield a block of time.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, may I ask how much time our side has remaining?

Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak at this time?

I thank the Senator for that consideration. If he doesn't mind, I would defer our allocation of 10 minutes of time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I understand I have 1 minute.

The legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. What this means is that active and retired police officers will be able to carry their firearms virtually anywhere in the U.S. without having to worry about violating any local or State gun laws.

The bill is noncontroversial and enjoys wide, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate bill, S. 253, passed the Judiciary Committee in March 2003 on an 18 to 1 vote. The bill has 67 cosponsors, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and every other member of the Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, a former law enforcement officer, is offering the amendment along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Member Patrick J. Leahy, and Minority Whip Harry Reid.

The House bill, H.R. 218, has 286 cosponsors. In addition to a House majority, the bill has a majority of both the full Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee of jurisdiction. In 1999, the House passed a nearly identical measure as an amendment to another bill by an overwhelming 372 to 53 majority.

This isn't a ``firearms issue''--it is an officer safety issue. And, on 11 September 2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland security issue.

Law enforcement officers need this bill--it is the number one issue among rank-and-file officers today. Policy officers are frequently finding that they, and their families, are the targets of vindictive criminals. A police officer may not remember all the faces of all the criminals he or she has put behind bars, but every one of those criminals will. This legislation gives all police officers the means to legally protect themselves and their loved ones--even if off-duty or retired.

Public safety and homeland security would benefit immensely from this bill becoming law. Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body of men and women sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. Unlike other professions, a police officer is rarely ``off-duty.'' When there is a threat to the peace or public safety, the police officer is sworn to answer the call of duty. Officers who are traveling from one jurisdiction to another do not leave their instincts or training behind, but without their weapon, that knowledge and training is rendered virtually useless. These bills will provide the means for law enforcement officers to enforce the law and keep the peace--enabling them to put to use that training and answer the call to duty when the need arises. Without a weapon, the law enforcement officer is like a rescue diver without diving gear; all the right training and talent to lend to an emergency situation, but without the equipment needed to make that training of any use. Given the ongoing threat of terrorist activity against U.S. citizens, it just makes sense to give our first line of defense the tools they need in a first responder situation. Perhaps the strongest endorsement we can make is that thousands of violent criminals and terrorists will hate to see it pass.

This is not a States' rights issue and the bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that it conforms to the U.S. Constitution and the precepts of Federalism. 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 law enforcement officers who have met the criteria to carry firearms set by one State, and make those credentials applicable and recognized in all States and territories in these United States. States and localities issue firearms to their police officers and set their own requirements for their officers in training and qualifying in the use of these weapons. This legislation maintains the States' power to set these requirements and determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified in the use of the firearm, and would allow only this narrow universe of persons to carry their firearms when traveling outside their jurisdiction. We believe this is similar to the States' issuance of drivers' licenses--the standards may differ slightly from State to State, but all States recognize that the drivers have been certified to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.

All 50 States require their officers to receive many hours--the average is 48--of firearms training before they leave the academy. Before receiving their appointment, law enforcement officers must meet certain score requirements in order to qualify with their weapon, the average being about 76 percent. No officer with a score below the 70th percentile is considered qualified with his weapon.

Most States require their officers to requalify with their weapons on a regular basis. Individual agencies may require their officers to qualify more frequently, but they must meet the State's minimum, which ranges from annually to every 5 years.

How Do Retired Officers Qualify: In order to carry under this legislation, a retired law enforcement officer would have to qualify with his firearm at his own expense every 12 months and meet the qualifications as an active duty officer in his State of residence. For example, a New Jersey police officer that retires to North Carolina must qualify annually at his own expense and meet the same standards that an active duty officer in North Carolina must meet.

Many Federal law enforcement officers currently have the authority to carry their firearms. Training and qualification for Federal law enforcement officers is not so dissimilar to that of State and local law enforcement officers. There have been no issues of concern with Federal officers carrying in all jurisdiction, why would there be for State and local law enforcement officers?

There is Congressional precedent on this issue. Congress has previously acted to force States to recognize permits to carry issued by other States on the basis of employment in other instances. In June 1993, the Senate and House approved and passed a law, PL 103-55, mandating reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to armored car company crew members among States. Congress amended the act in 1998, PL 105-78, providing that the licenses must be renewed every 2 years. This precedent allows armored car guards--who do not have nearly the same level of training and qualifications as law enforcement officers--to receive a license to carry a firearm in one State and forces other States to recognize its validity.

Airline pilots can obtain the authority law enforcement officers are seeking. In addition to armored car guards, Congress passed a law exempts airline pilots who participate in the ``Federal flight deck officer'' from Federal and State law with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. Note that this authority is not limited just to the cockpit--but also while the pilots are on the ground and off-duty.

Congress has the authority to preempt State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons and has in the past granted a certain class of persons--based on the nature of their employment and their value in an emergency situation--the authority to carry firearms in all jurisdictions. To do the same for law enforcement just makes good sense.

On the last weekend in June, FOP members from Maryland Lodge No. 70 were packing up their campsite following a 3-day camping trip with their families in Harpers Ferry. That Sunday afternoon, after many of the officers and their families had left, a gunman opened fire on another camper, wounding him in the lower leg. Detective Timothy Utzig and Officer Andrew Albach reacted quickly, instructing their families to leave the scene, while they retrieved their firearms and confronted the man. The gunman, yelling incoherently, eventually obeyed the officers' orders to lie down on the ground. After searching him, they discovered that the man had several more live rounds for his shotgun in his possession. Detective Utzig and Officer Albach held the man until West Virginia authorities could arrive. It was discovered later that the gunman had an extensive criminal history--including a murder conviction.

Sergeant Sam Harmon of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department said, ``There's no telling how many lives those men saved Sunday afternoon. These guys are my heroes for life.''

They were certainly heroes, but they were also in violation of West Virginia

State law because they possessed firearms. These brave officers--who stopped a gunman's rampage on their day off, outside of their own jurisdiction--were not charged, but their action placed themselves in legal jeopardy, as well as physical. Had they complied with State law that Sunday, they or their families could have been victims. This is just one example of how public safety could be served if this bill were made law.

In 1991, off-duty Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Johnson was vacationing in Phoenix, Arizona. He witnessed a man knock an elderly female to the ground, take her purse, and run. He immediately gave chase, without stopping to think that he was unarmed because he could not legally carry a firearm in Arizona. He caught the thief after a mile-long foot chase, and fought to subdue him. Had the criminal been armed, Officer Johnson would surely have been killed. Now retired, Officer Johnson had to go through a great deal of trouble in his own State of Minnesota to get a concealed carry weapon permit as it is up to each individual chief whether or not to issue. When he moved into a different jurisdiction, he had to get a judge to intercede because the chief of police in his new locality initially refused to issue him a permit.

Off-duty and retired officers are often targeted for attack by vengeful criminals. Off-duty police officer Tim Brauer was having dinner with his family in an Oklahoma City restaurant, outside his jurisdiction. While in the restroom, he was attacked by a man he had previously arrested. At the time, Oklahoma State law permitted off duty law enforcement officers to carry their firearms only within their home jurisdiction. In obeying the law and leaving his firearm at home while out with his family, he was left vulnerable to his attacker. Officer Brauer suffered severe injuries, but he lived and his family was not harmed. Oklahoma law now permits officers to carry throughout the State.

Officer Shynelle Marie Mason, a 2-year veteran with the Detroit, Michigan Police Department, was shot and killed on July 14, 2000, by a man she had previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. She encountered the man while off-duty; he confronted her and shot her several times in the chest. Though she was not on the clock, her death was considered a ``line of duty'' death and her name appears on the Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.

Retired New York State Supreme Court Police Officer William Kirchoff, a 17-year law enforcement veteran who was forced into retirement in 1989 as a direct result of an injury received when he was assaulted on the job, was the target of a contract assault/attempted murder. Tony Mattino, a career criminal with a long rap sheet for illegal possession of firearms and drugs was arrested and charged with assaulting Officer Kirchoff's 15-year-old daughter. Mattino was convicted for the assault and, prior to sentencing, threatened Officer Kirchoff. On February 21, 1998, he made good on his pledge. A pizza delivery man arrived at the officer's home. Officer Kirchoff had not placed any delivery order, and would not allow the man inside his home. He did offer the delivery man the use of his cordless phone--at which point he was attacked. the man, wielding a metal baseball bat, forced his way into the house, striking Officer Kirchoff more than 10 times. His 10 year-old-son was in the home at the time of the attack. The officer was unarmed and had no firearms on his person or property. Ultimately, Officer Kirchoff was able to drive off his attacker, who remains at large to this day. Mattino is also currently free on probation. Since the attack, Officer Kirchoff has a license to carry in New York and six other States.

Detective Donald Miller, a 10-year veteran with the New Bern Police Department in North Carolina was off-duty on December 23, 2001. He and his wife had just completed a visit to their newborn child in the hospital when the detective observed a man driving recklessly through the hospital parking lot. He confronted the man, who drew a handgun and fired--striking Miller in the head. Detective Miller, father of two, died 2 days later on Christmas Day. Though he was not on the clock, his death was considered a ``line of duty'' death and his name appears of the Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.

Officer Dominick J. Infantes, Jr., a 7-year veteran with the New Jersey City Police Department, was attacked by two men wielding a pipe on July 4, 2001. He died 2 days later from severe head injuries. Infantes was off-duty when he asked two men to stop setting off fireworks near playing children. He identified himself as a police officer, but the two killers did not believe him because Infantes did not have a gun. Though he was not on the clock, his death was considered a ``line of duty'' death and his name appears of the Wall of Remembrance at Judiciary Square in Washington, DC.

In 2000, off-duty Las Vegas Police Officer Dennis Devitte, a 20-year veteran was relaxing at a local sports bar when the establishment was attacked by three armed assailants. Two of the men opened fire on the crowd, hitting a man in a wheelchair. Officer Devitte did not hesitate--he pulled his tiny .25-caliber gun and, knowing he would have to get very close to make sure he hit his target, charged a man firing a .40-caliber semiautomatic. Officer Devitte got within one foot of the man, fired and killed the gunman--but not before he was shot eight times. The remaining two gunmen fled. All six civilians wounded in the assault recovered. One witness described Officer Devitte's action as ``the most courageous thing I've ever seen.'' Officer Devitte lost six units of blood, his gun hand was badly damaged and his knee had to be entirely reconstructed with bones taken from a cadaver. And yet, he was back on the job 6 months later. For his incredibly heroic actions, Officer Devitte was selected as the ``Police Officer of the Year'' by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and Parade magazine.

On the 4th of July, 1999, off-duty Police Officer Alfredo Rodriguez of the Nassau County, NY Police Department was driving to Norwich, CT with his wife and four children when he observed a Norwich Police Officer attempt to arrest a highly intoxicated man running in and out of traffic. A second man attacked the Norwich officer from behind and attempted to take his firearm. Officer Rodriguez, although unarmed, pulled over, left his family and rushed to the aid of the officer. He was able to free the Norwich officer from a chokehold and disarm the attacker, who had successfully gotten the Norwich officer's firearm. The two officers restrained the initial suspect and battled the second until additional uniformed Norwich officers arrived. Officer Rodriguez was awarded Nassau County's Medal of Distinguished Service for his actions, which undoubtedly saved the life of Norwich Police Officer Peter Camp.

In July 1995, recently Retired Police Chief John Diventer of the Hanover, NJ, Police Department was with his family visiting his family's grave plot in Newark, when he observed several robbers attack two elderly women and steal their purses. He attempted to intervene, and was shot and killed, At the time of the chief's murder, retired police officers were not authorized to carry firearms in New Jersey. This incident prompted a change in New Jersey law, which now permits retired officers to carry throughout the State.

In closing, let me say about the amendment that is before us, concealed-carry, 67 Members of this Senate, Democrats and Republicans, believe this is a necessary and appropriate amendment to S. 1805. We believe it is. We think it is important that it be adopted, and that we extend these law-abiding, well-trained and schooled law enforcement officers and retirees this opportunity and privilege.

With that, Mr. President, my time has expired. I understand we will now lay this amendment aside, to be voted on Tuesday next, and by the order of the unanimous consent agreement we arrived at last night, Senator Kennedy is now to have the floor to offer one of his amendments to be debated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have heard over the last few minutes what might appear, at first listening, to be alarming facts, figures, and statistics, but we all know that in any good debate the devil is in the details, and in the details of the Kennedy amendment are some hidden secrets that must be brought out so we can understand them.

Let me, first and foremost, read into the Record a letter from the president of the Fraternal Order of Police. The Senator has talked about cop-killer bullets and protecting cops on the beat, those who wear soft body armor. This is what Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, says in a letter to me that he has copied to Senator Frist, Senator Daschle, and to Senator Kennedy:

I am writing to advise you of our strong opposition to an

amendment Senator Kennedy intends to offer later today----

In relation to the underlying amendment.

Senator Kennedy will certainly present his amendment as an

``officer safety issue''----

And that is exactly what we have heard over the last good number of minutes----

to get dangerous ``cop-killer'' bullets----

And he talks about how dangerous they are off the shelf.

Regardless of its presentation, the amendment's actual aim

and effect would be to expand the definition of ``armor-

piercing'' to include ammunition based, not on any threat to

law enforcement officers, but on a manufacturer's marketing

strategy.

I do believe we saw that language on the Web site that he quoted--a strategy, a rhetorical expression as it relates to an encouragement to buy a given type of ammunition.

He goes on to say:

The truth of the matter is that only one law enforcement

officer has been killed by a round fired from a handgun which

penetrated his soft-body armor--and in that single instance,

it was the body armor that failed to provide the expected

ballistic protection, not because the round was ``armor

piercing.''

It is our view that no expansion or revision of the current

law is needed to protect law enforcement officers. To put it

simply, this is not a genuine officer safety issue. If it

were, Senator Kennedy would not be offering his amendment to

a bill he strongly opposes and is working to defeat.

It sounds as if not only is the president of the Fraternal Order of Police talking about the facts, he is talking about some reasonable logic.

He goes on to say:

The real officer safety issue is the adoption of----

The amendment we just set aside----

the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act.

That amendment deals with carrying a concealed weapon, to which I believe the Senator spoke in opposition, which would exempt active and retired law enforcement officers from local prohibitions for the right to carry concealed firearms.

Mr. Canterbury goes on:

The Kennedy amendment was considered and defeated by the

Senate Judiciary Committee in March of 2003 on a 10-6 vote.

We believe that it should be rejected again.

On behalf of more than 311,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I thank you for taking our views on this

issue into consideration.

Here is the president of the National Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police saying that the Kennedy amendment is not what it is. What he is, in fact, saying is that the current armor-piercing, cop- killing bullet law in place is the kind of adequate protection they need.

I have made that letter available to all of our colleagues as we debate this issue.

What will the Kennedy amendment do? I think it is important for us to understand in reality the impact of expanding this kind of definition and understanding.

What it does--and I don't know that the Senator intends this purpose--is that it begins to eliminate ammunition that is used in a legitimate way for hunting. He is right, Bambi doesn't wear body armor. Bambi doesn't need to wear body armor. But in the legal sportsmen's industry and in hunting, here are some very common rifles: 30.30 Winchester, 30.06 Springfield, 308 Winchester, 300 Savage, 7 mm Remington, 270 Winchester, 257 Roberts, 253 Winchester, and 223 Remington, just to name a few. We believe based on our interpretation of the amendment that this kind of ammunition is eliminated.

What we also know is that there is ammunition out there used with a rifle

that can pierce body armor. That is a fact. But the ammunition we are talking about that is traditionally known as the cop-killer bullet that is now outlawed in this country has nothing to do with the rifle. It had everything to do with the pistol, that weapon of choice by criminals in our country, and we know why.

Criminals do not walk down the street with a 30.06 over their shoulder. Somehow there is the visible factor that denies them the use of that rifle. They use handguns. They conceal them. They hide them on their person. They carry them in a package or in a carrying type of valise. They do not carry rifles. Yet the Senator's amendment goes directly at the hunting sports; it goes directly at hunting ammunition. This is why at the appropriate time when we have concluded the debate on the Senator's amendment, I will offer an alternative amendment under the unanimous consent agreement that we think reflects what ought to be done in relation to what the Senator is offering.

Let me also add that the most extensive study on this issue pursuant to a congressional mandate to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was a BATF draft report provided in 1997 to those individuals and organizations that had assisted in a BATF study of the issue of armor-piercing ammunition.

That study mandated, in response to President Clinton's repeated call, for a ban on bullets capable of penetrating soft body armor. Those Presidential statements rightfully concerned many in Congress who were aware that a performance-based ban, and that is what the Senator is offering, would outlaw the majority of rifle ammunition used for hunting and target shooting worldwide. That is just what I have spoken to. If that is the Senator's intent, then I wish he would address that. Clearly that is what we believe one begins to enter into when they deal with a performance-based standard. The 1997 study took an intelligent and honest approach to examining how best to protect the lives of law enforcement officers, recognizing the reality that between 1985 and 1994 no officer in the United States who was wearing a bullet-resistant vest died as a result of any round of ammunition having been fired from a handgun penetrating that officer's armor causing the primary lethal injuries.

The study instead focused on how to improve police training, both in teaching officers how to defeat snatches by criminals and to encourage officers to wear vests routinely. Legislatively, the 1997 study rightfully concluded that to prohibit any of these commonly used pistol, rifle, shotgun cartridges because they might defeat a level 1 bullet-resistant vest would create an unreasonable burden on the legitimate consumer of such cartridges.

Combined with the availability of sensible, defensive strategies, the existence of laws restricting the common availability of armor-piercing ammunition was clearly working to protect law enforcement officers, and no attempt to discard the existing law, in my opinion and many others, should be undertaken.

At the same time, because the existing laws are working, no additional legislation is necessary or required, certainly that that deals with performance-based standards, because one goes directly at ammunition used in target practice and in hunting. We do not believe, and I would hope the Senator from Massachusetts would agree, that is what we would intend to do.

In conclusion, what I am saying is the current law is adequate. This is not perfecting language. This is language to try to defeat the underlying bill, S. 1805. Obviously, the Senator has spoken openly against that. This is in no way a bill that improves the underlying bill itself and we think very questionably does it improve any existing Federal law. What it begins to do is what the sporting community and the legitimate owners of firearms have always been fearful of, that if the handgun or the rifle could not be controlled, the ammunition would be targeted and certain classes of ammunition would begin to be controlled and outlawed, and that is exactly what Senator Kennedy is attempting to do with this amendment.

I think it is obvious by my statement I will strongly oppose this, but I will offer--or I should say the majority leader will offer--an amendment finalizing the debate on Senator Kennedy's amendment that we think if there is reason to fine-tune the existing law, then we will offer that fine-tuning to make it extremely punitive for anyone who might use armor-piercing bullets that would strike a law enforcement officer in our country, or anyone else for that matter, that would result in injury or death.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?

Let me respond to the Senator's inquiry. I don't disagree with him. I think it is important we do have some limited time to discuss the difference between his amendment and what will be known as the Frist-Craig amendment that will be offered in a few moments. That is important.

I think we have all heard the Senator from Massachusetts very clearly. He said he wants to ban assault weapons and rifle ammunition. What he didn't say, or what he will not say, is that the standards he establishes in his legislation, performance-based standards, ban what is currently on-the-shelf hunting ammunition. Does the hunting ammunition in a high-powered rifle have the ability to penetrate soft body armor? Yes, it does.

Does it have the ability to penetrate other soft armor? Yes, it does. Is it used for that purpose? No. It is rarely ever found used for that purpose.

We have a choice. Clearly it is against the law when it is used for that purpose and we all know that and we ought to go at those people who use legitimate firearms in illegal ways instead of trying to eliminate the firearm or, in this case, the ammunition. But, of course, we know, and all of America's hunters know, they could have a 30.06 in their gun safe, they could have a 30.30 in their gun safe, they could have a .308 in their gun safe, they could have a .270 in their gun safe, and if they didn't have the ammunition for it, it would be a marvelous historic relic of America's past. Is that what the Senator from Massachusetts wants?

He says not. But we all know what performance-based standards do. When you establish a band through that, that is what you accomplish. The fact is, virtually all hunting and target rifle ammunition is capable of penetrating soft body armor. That is a reality. So by his definition does that go off the market? I believe it does. That is why I think it is unnecessary. That is why the President of the Fraternal Order of Police said the Kennedy amendment is to kill the underlying amendment or to make it dramatically of less value, and that he and 311,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police disagree.

Probably a good many of them are hunters, and they recognize more than anybody else because they are probably pretty talented people when it comes to understanding ballistics. When it comes to understanding ammunition, they probably know a great deal more about it than Senator Kennedy or this Senator, Mr. Craig.

They say no, it isn't necessary. The current law that the Senator speaks to, that he is proud of--and he should be--is adequate. It does protect. It has removed armor-piercing bullets of the handgun type.

Now we step into a whole new arena. Historically, those who want to control firearms in this country have always said: Oh, no, it is only the handgun we are after because it is the handgun that is most often used in the commission of a crime. It is the handgun we want to take out of circulation and away from the citizens of this country. Leave the long gun alone. We are all for sportsmen. We are all for hunters. We like guns. They are good guns. Those are bad guns.

What the amendment of the Senator is suggesting is--he may not say they are bad guns, but he says their ammunition is bad. And if you take their ammunition away, then as I said earlier, these kinds of hunting rifles will become a marvelous museum piece and a relic of our historic past. I don't believe a majority of the Senate will go there. I hope the amendment I will soon offer will provide ample reason to say, yes, we are going to get tough on anybody who uses an armor-piercing bullet of any kind that is capable of penetrating a vest, soft body armor. That is what we ought to be about, instead of using the language and not the definition--and using the language and not the reality--and using performance-based bans to eliminate a very large category of hunting ammunition and other types of ammunition used for target practice and professionally in this country.

I strongly oppose and will encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, we have possibly one other Senator wishing to come to speak. Let me check on that. If that is not true, I see no reason we couldn't reserve the remainder of our time or move on to another amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask at this moment that the Senator not yield time. I have a few moments remaining on my time. I am going to ask for a very short period of time to go into a quorum call at which time we will come out of it and offer the Frist-Craig amendment. I don't need to debate that for any length of time. That is in the order of the unanimous consent. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, those two then will be set aside to be voted on Tuesday next.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

How much time remains on the current amendment, the Kennedy amendment?

I am prepared to yield back if the Senator is, and I will offer the first Craig amendment and speak for a few short minutes on that and then move on.

I yield back my time.

It is my understanding that the Kennedy amendment will now be set aside to be voted on Tuesday next.

I send to the desk the Frist-Craig amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has a copy of this straightforward amendment that strengthens the current armor-piercing bullet law. It does a couple of things.

It says the Attorney General shall commission a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible and what impact it would have on sporting and hunting endeavors. It includes within the issues to be studied variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or the

centerfired rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount of powder used to propel the projectile. The Attorney General shall deliver such report to the chairman and the ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee within 2 years of the date of the enactment of this legislation.

This became the core of the debate between the Senator from Massachusetts and myself. What does ``performance-based standards'' mean, and how do they impact legitimate sporting and hunting ammunition?

Also, insert as new, 18 USC, 924:

(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is

otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other

provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to

any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a

crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for

an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or

dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be

prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries

armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such

crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in

addition to the punishment provided for such crime of

violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction [under title

18 USC 924]--

``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less

than 15 years;

``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section

1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of

imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in

section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''

What are we doing? We are adding real teeth to current law. We are saying to the criminal element and the drug trafficking element in our country, if you use armor-piercing ammunition in your firearm and it maims or kills a law enforcement officer, we will put you away for life.

That is what we are going to do. We do not tolerate it. We never have. The current law serves effectively, but if there is a sentence, then let's toughen it, let's strengthen it, let's give stronger positions to the law enforcement community of this country.

That is the crux of the bill. It is straightforward. It is simple. We think it offers what certainly all of us want to see and what the law enforcement community of this country needs.

I hope the Frist-Craig amendment will be accepted. It is a straightforward amendment. If the Senator would make himself available, we can conclude this debate, set this amendment aside, and move to the next amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is in the Chamber. In his absence, I offered the Frist-Craig amendment and spoke briefly to it as a true strengthening of current armor-piercing bullet legislation, to suggest very directly to the criminal element and the drug trafficking element in our country: If you use armor-piercing bullets and it wounds or takes the life of a law enforcement officer, we will put you away for life. I think that is about as clear and direct as we can become with the already strong prohibition that is in place for armor-piercing bullets that would be used in handguns.

With that, I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Massachusetts, his legislation goes at long guns, rifles, and their ammunition. What I did not say, with him coming back into the Chamber, is we do direct the Attorney General to look at, over a period of time, 2 years--no later than that--and report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which the Senator serves, a study to see whether what the Senator is proposing in his amendment wipes from the shelves of this country the kind of hunting ammunition we believe it will, and that certainly a good many others do.

I am not insensitive to what the Senator is saying, but I am saying, let's get the facts. We do not want to wipe out half the hunting or two-thirds of the hunting ammunition and the target ammunition in this country. That is legitimate. It is law abiding. Does it get misused? Yes. Does some of it have armor-piercing capability, to some extent? Yes.

Certainly this is what our intent is. In the meantime, let's toughen the law. Let's send the message to the criminal element in our country that armor-piercing ammunition is flat off limits or you pay a phenomenal price for it.

Is it a deterrent? The Senator from Massachusetts would suggest it is not. In most instances, we find good, tough law enforcement, and a reality known by those who would commit crimes with this kind of ammunition in this country, does serve as a deterrent. That is the intent of the amendment. We believe it is a good amendment.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time if the Senator believes he has adequately covered this issue.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I too am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time.

Let me conclude my comments by saying, it is not the role of the Attorney General of the United States to determine what can or cannot be used in this country as forms of ammunition. It is our job, if we are going to do it. And we should not do it. The marketplace has done it. The Senator has shaped legislation that has controlled types of it, and that has been supported.

I do not think we need to get as arbitrary as some Attorneys General can be and have been in the past as it relates to what their vision is versus what we believe ought to be illegal or legal in this country.

Our job is to make it the law. That is what we are about here at this moment. But it is important that we establish parameters and understandings clearly to determine the kinds of tests that are performance based in what they do to what is now currently legal ammunition in this country.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time, and ask that the Frist-Craig amendment be set aside to be considered on Tuesday next.

I believe the next item under our unanimous consent is to move to Senator Cantwell for her amendment for an unemployment insurance extension.

Mr. President, I am trying to find out how we are going to proceed. I have seen the agreement. I am just trying to understand the order. We have the concealed weapons amendment and then the cop killer bullets. I thought we had a time limit on those. I am trying to find out.

I understand we will have an hour. It will be an hour equally divided. I will have 30 minutes. I would be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut so he can make his comments, and we can move the process along. If it is agreeable with the managers, that is certainly agreeable with me.

I would be happy to yield another minute to the Senator from Connecticut so he may respond.

I thank the Senator. I saw the Senator from Alabama. I had planned to be here as well, but I would be glad to follow the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I ask the Chair to notify me when 15 minutes are up.

I hope we are not going to hear in the Senate more about States rights and the importance of local communities making local judgments; they are in touch with the local people; they know best what is in the interests of the protection of a local community; or that a State knows more than a Federal Government about how to protect its citizens.

Those arguments are out the window with the proposed amendment to the underlying legislation. The amendment we are talking about gives active-duty and retired police officers the right to carry any firearm on duty or off duty, notwithstanding any State or local gun safety laws, even if the officers' own department rules prohibit the carrying of such concealed firearms.

I know this is hoping too much, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will restrain themselves from making the argument we always hear in the Senate from the other side, pointing over here that the Federal Government always knows best.

There is a lot of knowledge at the local and State level. Let's respect that. That is thrown right out the window with this amendment. This amendment is overriding gun safety laws that are decided by the people in local communities, overriding State laws, overriding them pointblank no matter what the State has said. We are talking about concealable weapons that will be able to be carried by police officers or retired officers, as well.

It is opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Let me explain why. This amendment is a serious step in the wrong direction. It will undermine the safety of our communities and the safety of police officers by broadly overriding the State and local gun safety laws. It will also nullify the ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms. Because of the substantial danger the amendment poses to police officers and communities, it is vigorously opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

There is no precedent for what the supporters of this amendment intend to accomplish. Congress has never passed a law giving current and former State and local employees the right to carry weapons in violation of controlling State and local laws. Congress has never passed a law interfering with the ability of State and local police chiefs to regulate their own officers carrying of firearms. Do we understand what this does? Congress has never passed a law interfering with the ability of the States or local police chiefs to regulate their own police officers carrying firearms. This amendment does. This overrides it.

Today, each State has the authority to decide what kind of concealed- carry law, if any, best fits the needs of the community. Each State makes its own judgment about whether private citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons or whether on-duty or off-duty or retired police officers should be included or exempted in any prohibition. There is no evidence that States or local governments have failed to consider the interests and needs of law enforcement officers. No case has been made.

Consider, for example, the New Jersey law. In 1995, retired police chief John Deventer was shot and killed while heroically trying to stop a robbery. This incident prompted New Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry handguns under a number

of different conditions. In drafting this law, the New Jersey Legislature made a deliberate effort to balance the safety of police officers with the safety of the public at large by including a number of important safeguards that are not contained in this amendment.

For example, New Jersey law is limited to handguns. This amendment is not. As long as the police officer is qualified to carry one type of gun, he can carry any type of gun, any type of concealable weapon. New Jersey law is limited to handguns. This amendment is not. New Jersey law has a maximum age of 70. This amendment does not. Under New Jersey law, retired police officers must file renewal applications yearly. There is no application process here. Under New Jersey, retirees must list all their guns. No such record is required under this amendment. New Jersey gives police departments discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is provided under this amendment.

By enacting this amendment, Congress will be gutting all of the safeguards contained in the New Jersey statute as well as the judgment of other States that have considered this issue.

The sponsors of this amendment have presented no evidence that States and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide these important issues for themselves. They have offered no explanation why Congress is better suited than States, cities, and towns to decide how best to protect police officers, schoolchildren, churchgoers, and other members of their communities.

Congress should bolster, not undermine, the efforts of States and local communities to protect their citizens from gun violence. In many States, cities, and towns, special places--churches, schools, bars, government offices, hospitals--are singled out as deserving special protection from the threat of gun violence.

Michigan is a State that prohibits concealed firearms in schools, sports arenas, bars, churches, and hospitals. Georgia law allows active and retired police officers to carry firearms in publicly owned buildings but not in churches, sports arenas, or places where alcohol is sold. Kentucky prohibits carrying concealed weapons in bars and schools. South Carolina prohibits concealed firearms in churches and hospitals.

This amendment will override most such safe harbor laws at the State level. It will override laws that categorically prohibit guns in churches and in other houses of worship since only laws that permit private entities to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms on their property will remain in force. In most States, churches are not currently required to post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.

This amendment will also override laws that prohibit concealed weapons in places where alcohol is served. This amendment will override State laws and local laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons in places where alcohol is served.

Surely it is responsible for a State to prohibit people from bringing guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when liquor and firearms are together. It is no wonder that in the House of Representatives, Chairman Sensenbrenner has described this legislation as an affront to State sovereignty on the Constitution.

At the local level, this amendment overrides all gun safety laws without exception. In the 1990s, Boston, New York, and other cities made great strides in fighting against crime precisely because they were able to pass laws that address the factors that led to violence, including the prevalence of firearms in inner cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has said, the best decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level.

We saw extraordinary progress in my own State of Massachusetts. We went for 18 months without a homicide. We have strict gun laws in Massachusetts. We have very strict gun laws in the city of Boston. This legislation will override it. Not all of the progress was made just because of the laws, but it was a combination of a variety of different events a few years ago. Tragically, we have seen an increase in homicide with the deterioration of the economy in the recent months and years.

By overriding all local gun safety laws, this amendment will undermine the ability of cities to fight crime. It will indiscriminately abrogate safe harbor laws in Boston, New York City, Cincinnati, Columbus, Chicago, Kansas City, and many other towns.

Congress has no business overriding the judgment of States and local governments in deciding where concealed weapons should be prohibited. Supporters have argued this amendment is needed because of the complex patchwork of Federal, State, and local concealed-carry laws which prevents officers from protecting themselves and their families from vindictive criminals. They have distributed lists of officers or prison guards who were killed while off duty or in retirement. The stories of these slain men and women are tragic, and their killers deserve to be severely punished. But none--none--of these incidents involved officers who were killed outside their home State. They do not demonstrate a need for a Federal override of State and local gun safety laws.

To the contrary, as New Jersey's response to the tragic shooting of Chief Deventer shows, States and local governments are best equipped to implement policies, regulations, and laws that protect the safety of their own law enforcement officers, and also protect the public at large.

The supporters have also argued by authorizing officers to carry guns across State lines, in violation of whatever State and local gun safety laws would otherwise apply, they will be able to effectively respond to crimes and terrorist attacks. They apparently envisage a nationwide unregulated police force, consisting of retired officers and off-duty officers who are armed while on vacation or traveling outside their home jurisdictions.

Allowing off-duty or retired officers with concealed weapons to go into other jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for police officers and civilians. As the executive director of the IACP has explained:

One of the reasons that this legislation is especially

troubling to our nation's law enforcement executives is that

it could in fact threaten the safety of police officers by

creating tragic situations where officers from other

jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local officers.

Police departments throughout the nation train their officers

to respond as a team to dangerous situations. This teamwork

requires months of training to develop and provides the

officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will

respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an

armed, unknown officer, who has received different training

and is operating under different assumptions, can turn an

already dangerous situation deadly.

This amendment neither promotes consistent training policies among different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions under which officers may use their firearms. The idea that more crimes will be prevented when more concealed weapons are carried by untrained and unregulated out-of-State off-duty and retired officers is pure fiction.

It is important to note that in giving off-duty and retired police officers broad authority to nullify State and local gun safety laws, the amendment is not limited to the carrying of officers' authorized weapons. In most police departments, officers may seek authorization to carry a range of weapons. If an officer wants to carry a weapon other than his service weapon--typically, a 9 millimeter semiautomatic pistol--he must prove he is qualified before the department will authorize him to carry it. To become qualified, the officer must demonstrate he can handle that weapon safely.

Rather than limiting its provisions to authorized weapons, this amendment provides as long as an officer at some point received authorization to carry a particular kind of firearm, such as his service weapon, he can carry, concealed, any other kind of firearm while off duty or retired, even if he never received authorization from his own police department to carry that other weapon.

In the 107th Congress, I introduced an amendment in committee providing an off-duty or retired officer could carry a concealed firearm only if he had been authorized to carry that firearm by the agency he works for, or if he had been so authorized at the time of his retirement. That amendment was rejected by an evenly divided vote, 9 to 9. Thus, the legislation now before us will give off-

duty and retired officers carte blanche to carry concealed shotguns, sniper rifles, or other weapons their own police departments have not authorized them to carry. Its failure to limit this privilege to authorized police weapons--or even to handguns, as New Jersey law provides--will further undermine the safety of American communities.

Serious safety problems are also raised by the amendment's override of gun-safety laws for retired officers, a category that is defined to include anyone who has served in a law enforcement capacity for 15 years ``in the aggregate'' before retiring or resigning and taking a different job. There is no requirement that a retiree demonstrate a special need for a firearm. While the amendment provides that an officer must have technically left law enforcement in ``good standing,'' it is well known that sub-par government employees are routinely released from their positions without a formal finding of misconduct. The amendment does not draw a distinction between officers who served ably and those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good standing'' while under investigation for domestic violence, racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder of their lives. As the International Association of Chiefs of Police has observed:

This legislation fails to take into account those officers

who have retired under threat of disciplinary action or

dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to the

level of ``mental instability.'' Officers who retire or quit

just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still

be eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency

in good standing. Even a police officer who retires with

exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or

other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a

concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police

management structure that identifies such problems in current

officers.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the amendment is its potential to undermine the effective and safe functioning of police departments throughout the country. It removes the ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms. Police chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own officers from carrying certain weapons on duty or off duty.

Section 2 of the amendment provides that regardless of ``any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,'' any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer and who carries a photo ID will be authorized to carry any firearm. In a variety of contexts, including the Federal preemption of State law, courts have interpreted the term ``law'' to include agency rules and regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled this term specifically includes contractual obligations between employers and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated by State and local police departments.

As I discussed, there is no requirement in the amendment that active-duty officers be authorized to carry each firearm that they wish to carry concealed. In other words, once an officer qualifies to carry a service weapon, he will have the right under this amendment to carry any gun, on duty or off duty--even if doing so violates his own police department's rules.

Thus, if Congress enacts this legislation, police chiefs will be stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, for example, that they cannot bring guns into bars while off duty; that they cannot carry their service weapons on vacation; or that they cannot carry certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns on the job.

As the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated in a letter to the Judiciary Committee, ``under the provisions of [this legislation], police chiefs and local governments would lose the authority to regulate what type of firearms the officers they employ can carry even while they are on duty.''

As a result, the legislation would effectively eliminate

the ability of a police department to establish rules

restricting the ability of officers to carry only department-

authorized firearms while on duty. The prospect of officers

carrying unauthorized firearms while on duty is very

troubling to the IACP for several reasons.

First, an unauthorized weapon is unlikely to meet

departmental standards. This in turn means that the officer

will not have received approved departmental training in its

use, and will not have qualified with the weapon under

departmental regulations. Carrying an unauthorized weapon

thus presents a risk of injury to the officer, fellow

officers, and citizens, for the weapon itself may be unsafe

or otherwise unsuitable for police use, and the officer may

not be sufficiently proficient with its use to avoid adverse

consequences.

In addition to the risk of injury involved, the carrying of

unauthorized weapons is a major source of police civil

liability in the U.S. today. An officer who fires an

unauthorized weapon in the line of duty risks civil liability

for the officer and for the department, even though the

shooting may have been otherwise legally justified. A number

of civil-suit plaintiffs have contended that the mere fact

that the weapon that caused the plaintiff's injury was

unauthorized is, in itself, sufficient legal grounds for a

finding of liability.

For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that this amendment ``has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the safety of our communities and our officers.''

Law enforcement executives face extremely difficult challenges today. As crime rates have started to rise again and new concerns about domestic security have emerged, police chiefs are forced to do more with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to cut back on funding for law enforcement. The administration has tried its best to eliminate federal funding for such critical programs as the COPS Universal-Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program.

The last thing Congress should do now is enact legislation that expands the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of firearms and to maintain discipline. By denying police chiefs the right to run their own departments, the amendment would deal a severe blow to common sense and public safety.

Each State and local government should be allowed to make its own judgment as to whether citizens and out-of-State visitors may carry concealed weapons, and whether active or retired law enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any prohibition.

This amendment will unnecessarily damage the efforts of States and local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. It will also expose States and local governments to unnecessary liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain discipline and control within their own departments.

The Nation will be better served if the Senate puts this misguided legislation aside and turns its attention to measures we know will reduce crime and enhance the safety of police officers and all Americans.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, the bottom line on this--we are going to have a chance to vote on this next Tuesday--is this is an action by Congress to override State-considered legislation and local legislation on how to protect their local communities. Some States have made the judgment that they do not believe they ought to permit concealed weapons in bars and churches and other public places, such as in schools, because they do not want to have the proliferation of guns in schools, they do not want to have the proliferation of guns in bars, they do not believe concealed weapons ought to be in churches. The States and local communities have made that judgment in order to protect their local communities. But somehow we are deciding here in the Senate, on the basis of about an hour and 20 minutes of debate on this, that we are going to override the common good sense of States and local governments and say: We know best. If you are a police officer or retired officer, you can carry that concealed weapon, even though you are not trained to be able to use it or authorized to use it, into the bars, schools, and churches of this country. That makes no sense and is a contradiction of what the States and local communities do.

How much further do we have to go to kowtow to the National Rifle Association?

Mr. President, I understand we have a half an hour; is that correct?

I yield myself 15 minutes.

I believe the amendment is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I mentioned that there had been a homicide in Massachusetts recently, over 18 months. It was juvenile homicide. I ask that the Record be so corrected.

As we all know too well, the debate about gun violence has often been aggressive and polarizing with anti-gun violence advocates on one side of the debate, pro-gun advocates on the other. There are deep divisions in the country on the issue of gun safety, and the current debate on the gun immunity bill has thus far only served to highlight those divisions.

I believe, however, that there are still some principles on which we can all agree. One principle is that we should do everything we can to protect the lives and safety of police officers who are working to protect our streets, schools, and communities.

The amendment I am offering today is intended to close the existing loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets. Police officers depend on body armor for their lives. Body armor has saved thousands of police officers from death or serious injury by firearm assault. Most police officers who serve large jurisdictions wear armor at all times when on duty. Nevertheless, even with body armor, too many police officers remain vulnerable to gun violence.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, every year between 50 and 80 police officers are feloniously killed in the line of duty. In 2002, firearms were used in 51 of the 56 murders of police officers. In those shootings, 34 of the officers were wearing body armor at the time of their deaths. From 1992 to 2002, at least 20 police officers were killed after bullets penetrated their armor vests and entered their upper torso.

Some gun organizations have argued that cop-killer bullets are a myth. The families of these slain police officers know better. In fact, we know that armor-piercing ammunition is not a myth because it is openly and notoriously marketed and sold by gun dealers.

I direct my colleagues' attention to the Web site of Hi-Vel, Incorporated, a self-described exotic products distributor and manufacturer in Delta, UT. You can access its online catalog on the Internet right now. Hi-Vel's catalog lists an entry for armor-piercing ammunition. On that page you will find a listing for armor-piercing bullets that can penetrate metal objects. The bullets are available in packages of 10 for $9.95 each. Hi-Vel carries armor-piercing bullets for both the .223 caliber rifles such as the Bushmaster sniper rifle used in the Washington area attacks in October 2002, and the 7.62 caliber assault weapons. Over the past 10 years, these two caliber weapons were responsible for the deaths of 14 of the 20 law enforcement officers killed by ammunition that penetrated body armor.

In a recent report, the ATF identified three, .223 and the 7.62 caliber rifles, as the ones most frequently encountered by police officers. These high-capacity rifles, the ATF wrote, pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel particles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers.

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600- pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check. There is no Federal minimum age of possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, by Internet, and there is

no Federal requirement that dealers retain sales records.

In 1999, investigators for the General Accounting Office went undercover to assess the availability of .50 caliber armor-piercing ammunition. Purchasing cop-killer bullets, it turned out, is only slightly more difficult than buying a lottery ticket or a gallon of milk. Dealers in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia informed the investigators that the purchase of these kinds of ammunition is subject to no Federal, State, or local restrictions. Dealers in Alaska, Nebraska, and Oregon who advertised over the Internet told an undercover agent that he could buy the ammunition in a matter of minutes, even after he said he wanted the bullets shipped to Washington, DC, and needed them to pierce an armored limousine or theoretically take down a helicopter. Talk about homeland security.

In a single year, over 100,000 rounds of military surplus armor- piercing ammunition were sold to civilians in the United States. In addition, the gun manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, recently introduced a powerful new revolver, the .500 magnum, 4\1/2\ pounds, 15 inches long, that clearly has the capability of piercing body armor using ammunition allowed under the current law.

The publication, Gun Week, reviewed the new weapon with enthusiasm: ``Behold the magic, feel the power,'' it wrote.

Many of our leaders will buy the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum

for the same reason that Edmund Hillary climbed Mt. Everest:

Because it is there.

Current Federal law bans certain armor-piercing ammunition for handguns. It establishes a content-based standard. It covers ammunition that is, first of all, constructed from tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium, copper, or depleted uranium or, secondly, larger than .22 caliber with a jacket that weighs no more than 25 percent of the total weight of the bullet.

However, there are no restrictions on ammunition that may be manufactured from other materials but can still penetrate body armor. Even more important, there are no restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition used in rifles and assault weapons. Armor-piercing ammunition has no purpose other than penetrating bulletproof vests. It is of no use for hunting or self-defense. Such armor-piercing ammunition has no place in our society--none.

Armor-piercing bullets that sidestep the Federal ban, such as that advertised on Hi-Vel's Web site, put the lives of American citizens and those sworn to defend American citizens in jeopardy every single day. We know the terrorists are now exploiting the weaknesses and loopholes in our gun laws. The terrorists training manual discovered by American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2001 advised al-Qaida operatives to buy assault weapons in the United States and use them against us.

Terrorists are bent on exploiting weaknesses in our gun laws. Just think of what a terrorist could do with a sniper rifle and only a moderate supply of armor-piercing ammunition.

My amendment amends the Federal ban on cop-killer bullets to include a performance standard and extends the ban on centerfire rifles, which include the sniper rifles and assault weapons responsible for the deaths of 17 police officers whose body armor was penetrated by this ammunition.

My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability. That is it--designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, such as armor-piercing ammunition that is now advertised on the Hi-Vel Web site.

Bullets that are designed or marketed to be armor piercing have no place in our society. Ducks, deer, and other wildlife do not wear body armor. Police officers do. We should not let another day pass without plugging the loopholes in the Federal law that bans cop-killer bullets.

This is an issue on which mainstream gun owners and gun safety advocates can agree. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. President, I read through the copy of the Fraternal Order of Police. As the Senator pointed out, the truth of the matter is only one law enforcement officer has been killed by a round fired from a handgun. We are not talking about ammunition in a handgun. We are talking about assault weapons and rifles, and I am talking about the FBI. Let's look at what the FBI says.

From 1992 to 2002, 20 law enforcement officers have been killed. Seventeen out of the 20 were killed with a rifle. That is what this amendment is about.

The Senator referred to the earlier bill we had on the law. I am the author of that. It took 5 years to get that passed. Five years it was opposed by the NRA. I do not doubt it probably is going to take 5 years to do something about armor-piercing bullets that can shoot through body armor, through a limousine, or bring down a helicopter. That is what we are talking about, 17 of the fatal shootings.

I ask unanimous consent that tables 10 and 36 of a document entitled ``Law Enforcement Officers Feloniously Killed by Firearms'' be printed in the Record.

Seventeen of the fatal shootings were done by .223, .762, or 30.30 caliber rifles. Armor-piercing ammunition for these caliber rifles is widely advertised and available, and there are no restrictions at all on the deadly ammunition.

My amendment will not apply to the ammunition routinely used in the hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it covers only the ammunition that is designed to market bullets having armor- piercing capability. If that definition is not satisfactory to the Senator from Idaho, work with me over the weekend to get the right language that stops this, and he and I will offer a unanimous consent to be able to vote on that on the Senate floor. The Senator knows what we are driving at, the kind of armor-piercing bullets that can penetrate the vests our law enforcement officers are going to wear.

I know the Fraternal Order feels we are trying to slow this bill down. With all respect to them, I have been the author of the armor- piercing bullets for 20 years. I have put it on this. I will put it on something else. They will support us. The Senator from Idaho will support it. We will put it on the next bill that comes down here. They know that is not the issue.

As I have pointed out, we are talking about the kind that is being advertised on the Web site. Here it is for everyone to see. What in the world is the possible justification for armor-piercing ammunition being sold in the United States of America today when we have threats in terms of homeland security, and we are advertising armor-piercing bullets out of rifles and assault weapons that can penetrate armor and penetrate helicopters ought to be permitted in the United States of America? The Senator has not given an answer for it. I have not heard a good answer for it.

How does this infringe on the hunters in our country? What do we need an armor-piercing bullet for to go out and hunt deer? What is the reason for that? I still have not received any answer.

Oh, it is difficult to define. This is open to a lot of different interpretations. We do not quite know what this will cover.

We will work that out. We will work that out. That is not a good enough excuse. We are talking about the lives and deaths of these police officers, their families. We will be back again year after year. Make no mistake about it, this amendment is not going away. We are going to come back year after year, and those who are going to vote against it will have the opportunity to go back and explain it to the families of those brave law enforcement officers who are killed.

What is the justification for permitting that? What possible justification is there for permitting that? There is absolutely none.

This is the discussion the General Accounting Office had. It is a GAO study, which I will put in the Record. The whole section III of it is only 2\1/2\ pages. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

This is the part I want to read. They had discussions with different dealers, and we can go through some of those, but listen to what the Oregon dealer said. He was confident the ammunition could take a helicopter down. This is the agent from the GAO:

Right. And then, if I theoretically wanted to use these

rounds--

Armor-piercing ammunition of this type--

to take down an aircraft, say either a helicopter or

something like that, I should be able to take a helicopter

down, shouldn't I?

Dealer: Yeah, they're not armored. They're not armored to a

point that it would stop. . . .

Then it continues. These are the discussions with the dealers. They talk about how they can penetrate the armor plating on automobiles and how they can bring down helicopters, and we are talking about continuing to let them be sold unregulated in this country, over 100,000 rounds for it, and the result of which is we are seeing brave police officers wearing those armor-piercing vests killed.

What is the possible justification? Why are we so intimidated by the National Rifle Association that we are not willing to deal with armor- piercing bullets? That is it. That is it. We haven't heard the argument--and I would welcome it--how these kinds of bullets are necessary for hunting. I would love to hear that argument.

Oh, we need these. I remember when we first offered legislation on the cop-killer bullets in the Judiciary Committee we heard they are necessary because we want to be humane to the deer, and those bullets go on and kill the deer rather than wound it. That is what we heard. Cop-killer bullets. That was the answer we heard for 5 years before we finally got that passed.

I remember the time it passed. It was with the help and support of, actually, the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Strom Thurmond. I remember it very clearly because I could not understand why we could not make progress. Now we know, with the new technology in this area, as we have seen in other areas, exactly what is happening. It is putting these police officers more and more at risk. That is why we are attempting to do this.

We hear from the Senator he is going to offer some kind of other substitute. Why not do the real thing? What are we going to have, armor-piercing bullets ``lite''? So instead of 20 officers being killed there will only be 8? 12? Why not do the whole job? That is what this amendment will do. It will do something.

When this amendment is eventually accepted, and it eventually will be, they will be able to look on page 40, the list of the law enforcement officers killed from armor-piercing bullets, and it will be empty because we will have done something that will be meaningful. But I tell you, we are going to come back every single year. We are going to have the FBI, and those numbers are going to continue to go up and up, as they are going up, according to the FBI report, with no justification whatsoever for including these provisions.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

If the Senator would like to agree, I would just as soon have each of us have a little time before we vote. I know the leadership has it tight, and I know it has been difficult to work, but I would rather take 3 or 4 minutes before we vote on Monday. But I don't know whether that is possible. I don't like to ask consent here. I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this, but I think we probably would have more involved in it later on.

I am instructed by the floor staff we will have a very brief time prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I just want to remind the Senate what we have just heard. It is a wonderful technique. I don't disparage my friend from Idaho, and he is my friend. But that is to misrepresent what the amendment does and then to differ with it.

I have been here several years and I know that technique. It is one that I have used once in a while.

People ought to understand, when we are talking about life and death, we ought to be willing to at least deal with the facts.

The facts are as described in the amendment about what the definition would be in terms of the armor-piercing bullets. That talks about a projectile for centerfire rifles designed or marketed as having an armor-piercing capability that the Attorney General determined pursuant to the section 926(d) to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber, period.

Armor-piercing bullets--as my good friend says, wants to eliminate all ammunition for these weapons and, therefore, they will just be relics on the shelves of time.

This is what it is; it is written into the amendment: a projectile for centerfire rifles designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability that the Attorney General determines--not the Senator from Massachusetts, not the Senator from Idaho--but the one that has the capability to more likely penetrate body armor.

That is what we are talking about--penetrating body armor that law enforcement officers wear and which stands between their life and their death.

That is what this amendment does. We have already seen and sadly reviewed the statistics that are out there now about the brave officers who have already been killed. We will have an opportunity to do something about that on Tuesday next. Let us not fail to do so.

Over the weekend, if there is language that is necessary to ensure that particular purpose can be achieved with more effective language, let me give the assurance to the Senator from Idaho and others interested who take that position that we are more than glad to work that out.

We will not compromise on dealing with the fundamental issue; and that is armor-piercing bullets penetrating those vests or put at risk the lives of brave officers today and in the future.

I withhold the remainder of my time. I saw the Senator from the State of Washington who I believe is ready to move ahead. I will either yield back my time or retain my time.

Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment because it does nothing to protect our law enforcement officers from armor- piercing bullets. All it does say, as I understand it, is if law enforcement officers are killed, under the current law the penalties are going to be greater, including even in the death penalty.

My amendment says, let's stop the armor-piercing bullets now to save lives. Let's be proactive and prevent the loss of lives. The Senator from Idaho says, well, after they are killed we are going to penalize these people more. My amendment would effectively save lives because we would effectively prohibit the kind of armor-piercing bullets from being sold or available to those who want to do our law enforcement personnel harm.

So it just misses the point, the idea that we are going to do something after that police officer is killed. That will not do anything about these numbers I mention. We have just seen 20 officers killed over the last 10 years, and 17 of them by armor-piercing bullets. That is what they were killed by; and that is what my amendment is focused on. The Senator's amendment will do nothing about preventing that kind of activity. I appreciate his efforts in trying to do something, but this fails the mark.

I withhold my time.

No. I just want to respond.

If I may, Mr. President, I yield myself time.

Let me remind my colleagues that armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States of America. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well. Anyone over the age of 18 may purchase this ammunition without a background check, and there is no Federal minimum age for possession. Purchases may be made over the counter, by mail order, by fax, or by Internet, and there is no Federal requirement that dealers retain sale records.

It is this current lawlessness that jeopardizes the safety of police officers. It is this failure of the existing law that has led to 20 fatal shootings of police officers, and will lead to many more unless Congress acts, not studies--acts, not studies.

The facts are well established. The FBI statistics do not lie. We do not need another study. We do not need another report. All we need to do is adopt the underlying legislation that gives the Attorney General the authority and the power to ensure the kind of armor-piercing bullets that are being used, that pierce the armor and kill our law enforcement officials, will be prohibited from use today.

As I outlined in my amendment: ``a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines . . .''--not the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Massachusetts--``to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''

We either have a problem or we do not. I believe we do. Certainly the families of those brave officers who died believe we do--their families and those police departments. We have an opportunity to do this on next Tuesday. I

hope the Craig amendment will be defeated and that the amendment I offered will be accepted.

I am prepared to yield back the remainder of time if the Senator is.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Will the Chair let me know when 3\1/2\ minutes has passed?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for being our leader on this issue about concern for the unemployed. She has, along with our colleagues, on over 12 different occasions challenged the Senate to try to do the constructive and positive thing, in terms of the unemployed in this country.

I listened to my friend from Nevada. I wonder what world he is living in. It probably is the world of the President of the United States. First, he gave us the State of the Union and said the economy is wonderful and getting better. Then he made a speech on the State of the economy and said everything is just rosy-posy. Then he spoke to the National Governors Association just this last 2 days ago and said everything is just fine; everything is doing well.

Here I have three of this week's magazines talking about what is happening. ``Jobs Going Abroad.'' What is happening? ``New Jobs Migration.'' What is happening? ``Will America still be able to be a strong economy?'' This is what is happening in the world. And we have silence by this body.

Look at this chart. Thirteen million children are going hungry every day in America, 3 million more Americans are living in poverty than 3 years ago, and 90,000 workers are losing their unemployed compensation every single week. That is the real America.

What we know is what has happened to real people in America. These are the administration's own figures. This is the Department of Labor. In 2000, the average family earned $44,000; now it is down to $42,000-- a near $1,500 reduction. That is what is happening.

We have a real need out there. Everyone who travels the country understands it, except the Republicans.

You have $15 billion in that fund. The Senator from Nevada says we have $4 billion that the States have. He knows as well as I they are restricted from using it because of Federal law. There is $15 billion out there. These are hard-working, decent Americans trying to pay a mortgage, trying to put food on the table, trying to take care of their children, and we are here saying, no, no, no; we are not going to give them the help and the assistance, the lifeline. They paid over a lifetime of working hard into this country. They paid into this fund. They are entitled to it. What is the reason for not providing this? What is the reason for not providing it? That is what the amendment

of the Senator from the State of Washington will do. It will give them a lifeline for the next 13 weeks so they will be able to keep their families together, have a sense of dignity, have a sense of pride, have a sense of optimism in their future and their family's future. We ought to be about the business of passing that and I hope we do this afternoon.

I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am going to reclaim 30 seconds, if I can.

I will just take the time to read from this letter. I have a score, but this one says it all. It is from Tim O'Neal of Lexington, MA.

I strongly urge your immediate action to support and to implement supplemental federal funding of unemployment benefits. I have been unemployed for approximately 18 months, though I'm a Vietnam veteran with a baccalaureate in chemistry, a recent JD, and more than 20 years of computer industry experience.

Here you have in the paper today, number of mass layoffs rose sharply in January. More than 2,400 employees across the country reported laying off 50 or more workers in January, the third highest number of so-called mass layoffs since the Government began tracking them a decade ago. That is in today's Washington Post. There is the need.

Senator Cantwell has the answer.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Boxer amendment be set aside temporarily.

And then I ask consent that I be recognized to offer an amendment, and I send my amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I acknowledge, again, as I did yesterday, the partnership that I have had especially with Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, and others in the Senate. I express my gratitude to Senator Craig and my appreciation for his efforts at accommodating many of the concerns we have had as we address this bill.

I intend to support this bill, in part because of the acknowledgement of the need to address some of these concerns, as we do with this amendment.

The amendment we are offering right now strikes a balance between the need for the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers and dealers. That balance is critical. We recognize the vast majority of gun owners and manufacturers and sellers are honest and decent people who obey the law and ought to be recognized for their honesty and the contributions they make to our economy.

The firearm industry is an important source of jobs, not only in those States where those jobs actually are dedicated to the manufacture of firearms but to all other States where not only the manufacture but the sale and distribution of those products are so much a part of our economic base.

But we should not invalidate the legitimate claims from being heard in court when those claims have a basis in fact--cases involving kids, cases involving defective products, cases involving gun dealers or manufacturers who broke the law.

So our concern was, as originally drafted, the legislation adversely impacted many of these cases. That is why I went to Senator Craig and Senator Baucus and others and expressed the hope that we could address some of these issues and concerns in a way that would accommodate a solution. And that is what I believe this amendment does.

We have worked in a bipartisan manner. I would hope this legislation could certainly be supported in a bipartisan manner. It goes a long way to balancing what are the rights of victims as well as the needs of the gun industry.

Our amendment makes several key changes in the legislation that was originally offered. It ensures the cases in which Federal or State laws have been broken can move forward. There was some lack of clarity with regard to that particular need. It restores the basic product liability standards so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, the victim's loved ones can still hold accountable those responsible. It includes a provision to remove immunity from dealers who sell to straw purchasers; that is, purchasers who have no interest in buying the gun for themselves but passing on the gun, selling the gun to somebody who should not have it. Finally, it ensures that only trade associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling firearms would be covered.

I think all of these changes--and many more; there are eight specific changes--do a great deal to enhance the bill, to make it a better, stronger bill and, at the same time, address the concerns that many of us have had. It strives to preserve the long-term vitality of an important American industry, one that is very important to people in the West and Midwest, in particular, but all over the country. It protects the rights and safety of the American public.

So I am very appreciative of the effort that has gone into this amendment. This took a lot of time, a lot of negotiation. Obviously, the subtleties in some of the language has more than a subtle impact ultimately on how legislation is interpreted and how laws are ultimately enforced. We think this amendment takes us a long way in addressing the needs of both our manufacturers as well as those who are concerned for safety on the streets and in our neighborhoods today.

Madam President, I might just take a moment, if I could, prior to relinquishing the floor, to talk about another matter. I appreciate the accommodation of my colleagues in so doing.

America's Unfulfilled Treaty Obligations to Native Americans

Madam President, all week long, tribal leaders from Indian nations throughout America have been in Washington for the winter conference of the National Congress of American Indians.

They include leaders from the Great Sioux Nation of South Dakota, and many others. Democratic Senators just met with many of these leaders; and some are in the gallery now, listening to these words. I am honored by their presence.

South Dakotans are very proud of our State's tribal heritage. Some of the greatest leaders South Dakota has ever produced were Native Americans. They include Crazy Horse, the legendary warrior-leader; a man of extraordinary nobility, the great Lakota spiritual leader, Sitting Bull.

Sitting Bull helped lead his people in defense of their lands. When it became clear that defeat was inevitable, he helped lead his people's efforts to secure a fair and just peace.

In negotiating the treaty under which the Lakota ceded their lands, Sitting Bull asked representatives of this Government: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.''

More than a century later, the tribal leaders who have come to Washington this week are asking us to do the same thing: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.''

Last July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report that has already become a landmark. It is entitled ``A Quiet Crisis.'' It documents the harsh realities of life in Indian country today. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

We cannot undo the damage caused by more than a century of neglect and broken promises in 1 year or even one decade. But we must make honoring our trust obligations under those treaties we signed a real priority now. And we must take steps this year to address two of the most urgent obligations of Native Americans.

The first of these obligations is the need to find a just and fair settlement of the Indian trust dispute. Partly because so many American Indians live on remote reservations, not many Americans understand what the Indian trust fund dispute is about. It stretches back to the 1880s, when the U.S. Government broke up large tracts of Indian land into small parcels, which it then allotted to individual Indians and tribes.

The Government, acting as a ``trustee,'' took control of the Indian lands and established individual accounts for the land owners. The Government was supposed to manage the lands for account holders. It would negotiate sales or leases of land, and any revenues generated from oil drilling, mining, grazing, timber harvesting--or any other use of the land--was to be distributed to the account holders and their heirs. But that is not what happened.

The Indian trust fund has been so badly mismanaged for so long by administrations of both political parties that today no one knows how much money the trust fund should contain. Estimates of how much is owed to individual account holders range from a low of $10 billion to more than $100 billion.

The people who are being hurt by this mismanagement are some of the poorest people in America. Many live in houses that are little more than shacks, with no heat, no electricity, and no phones. Many of them are elderly. They have been waiting their whole lives for money that belongs to them--money that our Government is holding and refuses to account for.

Ten years ago, Congress passed legislation requiring the Department of the Interior to make a full and accurate historical accounting of all trust assets and obligations. Seven years ago, a banker named Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, sued the Department to force it to comply with our order.

Last fall, a Federal judge finally agreed. It seemed that was going to be the beginning of the end of the trust fund dispute, and it was now finally within reach.

Then, shockingly, the administration and leadership in Congress on the other side, behind closed doors, added language to the 2004 Interior appropriations conference report ordering the Interior Department actually to ignore and defy the judge's ruling. Clearly unconstitutional, it violates the separation of powers and due process protections.

It has become increasingly clear that this administration's interest is in limiting the Government's financial exposure rather than seeking a just settlement of the trust dispute. Despite its obligations to consult with the tribes, the Interior Department is now trying to push through its own plan to reorganize the Indian trust.

Tribal leaders have not been consulted. Deep skepticism and opposition in Indian country continues to exist.

Earlier this month, the administration sent Congress its budget for next year. It now makes deep cuts in every program affecting Indians, except one. There is a 50-percent increase for the Department's trust reorganization plan.

The BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, divides America into 13 regions. Yesterday, congressional and tribal leaders held a ``summit'' on trust reform. At that summit, the tribal representatives to BIA in all 13 regions pleaded with Congress to slow the Department's unilateral reorganization of the trust.

No trust reorganization plan can succeed without the involvement, support, and leadership of the tribes. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in trust reform. Three things are essential.

First, we need a new round of comprehensive public hearings. This week, Senator Ben Nigthorse Campbell announced that the Indian Affairs Committee would hold hearings. I thank him.

Second, congressional meddling in the Cobell litigation must end. The ``midnight rider'' putting court orders on hold must not be extended; courts must be allowed to do their job. Last year Senators McCain, Johnson, Inouye and I introduced a bill, the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments, requiring the Interior Department to conduct an historical accounting for all trust assets.

Third and finally, the Federal Government should start budgeting for an eventual solution. Money in those accounts belongs to Indians, and the Government cannot continue to hold it. Last year, In introduced the Indian Payment Trust Equity Act. It would create a $10 billion fund to begin making payments to trust holders who have received an objective accounting of their trust assets.

Somehow, the Federal Government must put its money where its mouth is and begin making trust holders whole. The complexity of the challenge cannot be used as an excuse to continue denying account holders what is rightfully theirs.

Another injustice that must end is the chronic underfunding of the Indian Health Service. The report last summer by the Civil Rights Commission, and another by the Centers for Disease Control, show that Native Americans live sicker and die younger than other Americans as a result of inadequate health care. The Indian Health Service budget accounts for one-half of 1 percent of 1 percent of the Department of Health and Human Services budget. The health system with the sickest people and the greatest needs get the smallest increases.

Last week, I held health care ``town hall meetings'' on Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. We expected 200; we got 700. I heard horrific, heartbreaking stories. People talked about losing parents, children, and spouses because health care wasn't available. Some people had waited months to see an IHS doctor. Finally, they couldn't take the pain any longer. They went to a non-IHS hospital, and they ended up with hospital bill they couldn't pay, so they lost their good credit rating as well as their good name.

It is unacceptable that the Federal Government spends twice as much on health care for Federal prisoners as it does for Indian children and families.

It is immoral that sick people are turned away every day from IHS hospitals and clinics in this country unless

they are in immediate danger of losing life or limb.

``Life or limb'' is not a figure of speech. It is an actual standard for care, and it is a national disgrace.

Last March, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $2.9 billion in order to fully fund one part of the IHS budget. Unfortunately, every Republican Senator voted against it. They offered an amendment with $292 million, one-tenth of the amount we proposed. It was inadequate, but we accepted it, only to find when we went to conference, the Republicans killed their own amendment in conference. We tried repeatedly last year to increase funding by $2.9 billion, and we will do so again this year.

More than a century ago, our Government signed treaties with the Indian nations promising to provide them and their descendants three things forever: health care, education, and housing. The Federal Government must now keep its promise and provide these benefits which the Indian people have already paid for in full with their lands.

Tribal leaders are in Washington this week asking once again that we live up to our ideals.

Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Executive Summary

The federal government has a long-established special

relationship with Native Americans characterized by their

status as governmentally independent entities, dependent on

the United States for support and protection. In exchange for

land and in compensation for forced removal from their

original homelands, the government promised through laws,

treaties, and pledges to support and protect Native

Americans. However, funding for programs associated with

those promises has fallen short, and Native peoples continue

to suffer the consequences of a discriminatory history.

Federal efforts to raise Native American living conditions to

the standards of others have long been in motion, but Native

Americans still suffer higher rates of poverty, poor

educational achievement, substandard housing, and higher

rates of disease and illness. Native Americans continue to

rank at or near the bottom of nearly every social, health,

and economic indicator.

Small in numbers and relatively poor, Native Americans

often have had a difficult time ensuring fair and equal

treatment on their own. Unfortunately, relying on the

goodwill of the nation to honor its obligation to Native

Americans clearly has not resulted in desired outcomes. Its

small size and geographic apartness from the rest of American

society induces some to designate the Native American

population the ``invisible minority.'' To many, the

government's promises to Native Americans go largely

unfulfilled. Thus, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,

through this report, gives voice to a quiet crisis.

Over the last 10 years, federal funding for Native American

programs has increased significantly. However, this has not

been nearly enough to compensate for a decline in spending

power, which had been evident for decades before that, nor to

overcome a long and sad history of neglect and

discrimination. Thus, there persists a large deficit in

funding Native American programs that needs to be paid to

eliminate the backlog of unmet Native American needs, an

essential predicate to raising their standards of living to

that of other Americans. Native Americans living on tribal

lands do not have access to the same services and programs

available to other Americans, even though the government has

a binding trust obligation to provide them.

In preparing this report, the Commission reviewed the

budgets of the six federal agencies with the largest

expenditures on Native American programs and conducted an

extensive literature review.

department of the interior

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), within DOI, bears the

primary responsibility for providing the 562 federally

recognized Native American tribes with federal services. The

Congressional Research Service found that between 1975 and

2000, funding for BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee

declined by $6 million yearly when adjusted for inflation.

BIA's mismanagement of Individual Indian Money trust

accounts has denied Native Americans financial resources that

could be applied toward basic needs that BIA programs fail to

provide. Insufficient program funding resulted in $7.4

billion in unmet needs among Native Americans in 2000. Of

this amount, a shortfall in tribal priority allocations

(TPA), which provides such basic services as child welfare

and adult vocational training, alone totaled $2.8 billion

that year. Over the last few decades, Congress has minimally

increased TPA funding. Unmet needs are also evident in school

construction. In December 2002, the deferred maintenance

backlog of BIA schools was estimated at $507 million and

increasing at an annual rate of $56.5 million due to

inflation and natural aging and deterioration of school

buildings. BIA and its programs play a pivotal role in the

lives of Native Americans, but mismanagement and lack of

funding have undercut the agency's ability to improve

living conditions in Native communities.

Department of Health and Human Services

Native Americans have a lower life expectancy than any

other racial/ethnic group and higher rates of many diseases,

including diabetes, tuberculosis, and alcoholism. Yet, health

facilities are frequently inaccessible and medically

obsolete, and preventive care and specialty services are not

readily available. Most Native Americans do not have private

health insurance and thus rely exclusively on the Indian

Health Service (IHS) for health care. The federal government

spends less per capita on Native American health care than on

any other group for which it has this responsibility,

including Medicaid recipients, prisoners, veterans, and

military personnel. Annually, IHS spends 60 percent less on

its beneficiaries than the average per person health care

expenditure nationwide.

The IHS, although the largest source of federal spending

for Native Americans, constitutes only 0.5 percent of the

entire HHS budget. Moreover, it makes up a smaller proportion

of HHS' discretionary budget today than five years ago. By

most accounts, IHS has done well to work within its resource

limitations. However, the agency currently operates with an

estimated 59 percent of the amount necessary to stem the

crisis. If funded sufficiently, IHS could provide more money

to needs such as contract care, urban health programs, health

facility construction and renovation, and sanitation

services.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

The availability of safe, sanitary housing in Indian

Country is significantly less than the need. Over-crowding

and its effects are a persistent problem. Furthermore,

existing housing structures are substandard: approximately 40

percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate,

and one in five reservation homes lacks complete plumbing.

Native Americans also have less access to home-ownership

resources, due to limited access to credit, land ownership

restrictions, geographic isolation, and harsh environmental

conditions that make construction difficult and expensive.

While HUD has made efforts to improve housing, lack of

funding has hindered progress. Funding for Native American

programs at HUD increased only slightly over the years (8.8

percent), significantly less than the agency as a whole (62

percent). After controlling for inflation, HUD's Native

American programs actually lost spending power. The tribal

housing loan guarantee program lost nearly 70 percent of its

purchasing power over the last four years, and the Native

American Housing Block Grant has lost funding for three years

in a row. Given the unique housing challenges Native

Americans face, greater and immediate federal financial

support is needed.

Housing needs on reservations and tribal lands cannot be

met with the same interventions that HUD uses to meet rental

housing or homeownership goals in the suburbs or inner

cities. Innovation and a more comprehensive approach are

needed, and the government's trust responsibility to provide

housing to Native Americans must be fully factored into these

efforts.

Department of Justice

All three components of law enforcement--policing, justice,

and corrections--are substandard in Indian Country compared

with the rest of the nation. Native Americans are twice as

likely as any other racial/ethnic group to be the victims of

crime. Yet, per capita spending on law enforcement in

Native American communities is roughly 60 percent of the

national average. Correctional facilities in Indian

Country are also more overcrowded than even the most

crowded state and federal prisons. In addition, Native

Americans have long held that tribal court systems have

not been funded sufficiently or consistently, and hence,

are not equal to other court systems.

Law enforcement professionals concede that the dire

situation in Indian Country is understated. While DOJ should

be commended for its stated intention to meet its obligations

to Native Americans, promising projects have suffered from

inconsistent or discontinued funding. Native American law

enforcement funding increased almost 85 percent between 1998

and 2003, but the amount allocated was so small to begin with

that its proportion to the department's total budget hardly

changed. Native American programs make up roughly 1 percent

of the agency's total budget. A downward trend in funding has

begun that, if continued, will severely compromise public

safety in Native communities.

Additionally, many Native Americans have lost faith in the

justice system, in part due to perceived bias. Many attribute

disproportionately high incarceration rates to unfair

treatment by the criminal justice system, including racial

profiling, disparities in prosecution, and lack of access to

legal representation. Solving these problems is vital to

restoring public safety and justice in Indian Country.

department of education

As a group, Native American students are not afforded

educational opportunities equal to other American students.

They routinely face deteriorating school facilities,

underpaid teachers, weak curricula, discriminatory treatment,

outdated learning tools, and

cultural isolation. As a result, achievement gaps persist

with Native American students scoring lower than any other

racial/ethnic group in basic levels of reading, math, and

history. Native American students are also more likely to

drop out. The lack of educational opportunities in Native

communities extends to postsecondary and vocational programs.

Special Programs for Indian Adults has not been funded since

1995, and vocational rehabilitation programs are too poorly

funded to meet the abundant need. Although 14 applications

for such programs were submitted in 2001, only five tribal

organizations received funding. Tribal colleges and

universities receive 60 percent less federal funding per

student than other public community colleges.

The federal government has sole responsibility for

providing education to these students--an obligation it is

failing to meet. Funding for DOEd's Office of Indian

Education (OIE) has remained a relatively small portion of

the department's total discretionary budget (ranging from 0.2

to 0.3 percent) between 1998 and 2003. OIE funding has

undergone several reductions over the last few decades and,

in may years, its budget has failed to account for inflation.

At no time during the period under review in this report have

all OIE subprograms been funded.

department of agriculture

The USDA is largely responsible for rural development and

farm and business supplements in rural communities. Native

Americans rely on such programs to foster conditions that

encourage and sustain economic investments. However,

insufficient funding has limited the success of development

programs and perpetuated unstable economies. Poor economic

conditions have resulted in food shortages and hunger. Native

Americans are more than twice as likely as the general

population to face hunger and food insecurity at any given

time. The inaccessibility of food and economic development

programs compromises their usefulness. By its failure to

make programs accessible to Native Americans, the federal

government has denied them the opportunity to receive

benefits routinely available to other citizens.

USDA's set-aside for the Rural Community Advancement

Program fluctuated between 2000 and 2003. The 2004 budget

proposes to reduce funding by more than 18.2 percent from

2003. The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

(FDPIR) lost funding when accounting for inflation (2.8

percent) between 1999 and 2003, reducing available food

resources. FDPIR alone is not meeting the food assistance

needs of Native Americans since many participants are also

enrolled in other food assistance programs. The continuously

high rates of hunger and poverty in Native communities are

the strongest evidence that existing funds are not enough.

conclusion

In short, the Commission finds evidence of a crisis in the

persistence and growth of unmet needs. The conditions in

Indian Country could be greatly relieved if the federal

government honored its commitment to funding, paid greater

attention to building basic infrastructure in Indian Country,

and promoted self-determination among tribes.

The Commission further finds that the federal government

fails to keep accurate and comprehensive records of its

expenditures on Native American programs. There is no uniform

reporting requirement for Native American program fundings,

and because agencies self-report their expenditures,

available information varies across agencies, rendering

monitoring of federal spending difficult.

While some agencies are more proficient at managing funds

and addressing the needs of Native Americans than others, the

government's failure is systemic. The Commission identified

several areas of jurisdictional overlap, inadequate

collaboration, and a lack of articulation among agencies. The

result is inefficiency, service delay, and wasted resources.

Fragmented funding and lack of coordination not only

complicate the application and distribution processes, but

also dilute the benefit potential of the funds.

In this study, the Commission has provided new information

and analyses in the hope of stimulating resolve and action to

address unmet needs in Indian Country. Converting data and

analyses into effective government action plans requires

commitment and determination to honor the promises of laws

and treaties. Toward that end, the Commission offers 11

recommendations, which if fully implemented will yield (1) a

thorough and precise calculation of unmet needs in Indian

Country; (2) increased efficiency and effectiveness in the

delivery of services through goal setting, strategic

planning, implementation, coordination, and measurement of

outcomes; (3) perennial adequate funding; and (4) advancement

of Indian nations toward the goal of independence and self-

goverance.

Failure to act will signify that this country's agreements

with Native people, and other legal rights to which they are

entitled, are little more than empty promises. Focused

federal attention and resolve to remedy the quiet crises

occurring in Indian Country, embodied in these

recommendations and the results that flow from them, would

signal a decisive moment in this nation's history. That

moment would constitute America's rededication to live up to

its trust responsibility for its Native people. Only through

sustained systemic commitment and action will this federal

responsibility be realized.

Recommendations

1. The Native American crisis should be addressed with the

urgency it demands. The administration should establish a

bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level

of accountability in the government, with representatives

including elected officials, members of Congress, officials

from each Federal agency that funds programs in Indian

Country, tribes, and Native American advocacy organizations.

The action group should be charged with analyzing the current

system, developing solutions, and implementing positive

change.

2. All agencies that distribute funds for Native American

programs should be required to regularly assess unmet needs,

including gaps in service delivery, for both urban and rural

Native individuals. Agencies should establish benchmarks for

the elevation of Native American living conditions to those

of other Americans. Agencies should document Native American

participation in programs and catalog initiatives.

3. Agencies should replicate IHS' Federal Disparity Index

assessment for tracking disparities in services and needs.

Tribal organizations and Native American advocacy groups

should be consulted when agencies develop measures. The

results of such examinations should be used to prepare budget

estimates, prioritize spending, and assess the status of

programs. Congress should require and review unmet needs

analyses annually as a component of each agency's budget

justification.

4. All Federal agencies that administer Native American

programs should be required to set aside money for

infrastructure building that will benefit all. Such a fund

should be jointly managed by the BIA, representatives from

each contributing agency, and a coalition of tribal leaders.

The contributing agencies should develop memoranda of

understanding and other formal coordination mechanisms that

outline precisely how the money will be spent.

5. Federal agencies should avoid implementing across-the-

board budget cuts when the effect on already underfunded

Native American programs is so severe. Agencies must prepare

budgets that account for the proportionality of Native

American funding.

6. Native American programs should be situated within the

Federal agencies that have the requisite expertise, but

agencies should continually improve processes for

redistributing funds to other agencies or tribal governments.

Funds for a common purpose should be consolidated within a

single agency so there is less overlap and clearer

accountability.

7. To the extent possible, programs for Native Americans

should be managed and controlled by Native Americans.

Distribution of funds to tribes should be closely monitored

by the source agencies to ensure that funds are used as

directed in a manner developed in consultation with Native

Americans and tribal governments.

8. Federal appropriations must compensate for costs that

are unique to tribes, such as those required to build

necessary infrastructure, those associated with geographic

remoteness, and those required for training and technical

assistance. The unique needs of non-reservation and urban

Native Americans must also be assessed, and adequate funding

must be provided for programs to serve these individuals.

9. Congress should request an analysis of spending

patterns of every Federal agency that supports Native

American programs, either by the U.S. General Accounting

Office or the Congressional Research Service. In addition, an

independent external contractor should audit fund management

of all Federal agencies distributing Native American

appropriations.

10. Each agency should have one central office responsible

for oversight and management of Indian funds, and which

prepares budgets and analyses that can be compared and

aggregated across agencies.

11. The Office of Management and Budget should develop

governmentwide, uniform standards for tracking and reporting

spending on Native American programs. Agencies should be

required to include justifications for each Native American

project in annual budget requests, as well as justifications

for the discontinuation of such programs. They should also be

required to maintain comprehensive spending logs for Indian

programs, including actual grant disbursements, numbers of

beneficiaries, and unfunded programs.

[Disturbance in the galleries.]

May I inquire of the managers of the bill, if there are a few minutes before you get to this, I would like to take a few minutes and speak on the underlying bill.

I see my colleague from Massachusetts. Ten minutes.

I will yield for purposes of having the amendment proposed.

Are you going to take 30 minutes? I would like to be able to be heard.

If I may proceed and then finish in a few minutes.

I think I still have the floor.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, for being very gracious in providing me a few minutes to address the underlying bill. I know we are going to debate the amendment on concealed weapons, but I wish to share with my colleagues my views on this legislation.

I cannot see any amendment that can be offered to this legislation that is going to convince this Senator that the underlying bill deserves support. I am stunned, in many ways, that we are even suggesting this legislation. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if I were to come to the Chamber and offer a similar amendment that would exclude any other industry in the country from the exposure of potential liability for wrongdoing.

In my State, I represent more gun manufacturers than any other Member of this body. I also represent probably more insurance companies and more pharmaceutical companies in the State of Connecticut than almost any other State in the country. As strongly as I support the people who work in these businesses and respect what they do, the idea that we would take an entire industry and remove it from the potential of liability is rather breathtaking to me in this day and age.

I am a great advocate of tort reform, as many of my colleagues know. I authored the securities litigation reform bill and wrote the uniform standards litigation bill. I am now working on class action reform. But the idea that we would take an entire industry and give it immunity from wrongdoing, I think, is rather stunning to this Member.

I wish to share with my colleagues some general thoughts. I know there are amendments going to be offered on assault weapons and a variety of other proposals, but I want to put my colleagues on notice. I do not think we can offer any amendment to this bill that will outweigh the harm done by the underlying proposal and the precedent we are setting in this body. We are taking an industry and saying: No matter what you do, no matter how much harm you may cause, you never have to worry about being held liable and accountable for your actions. In this day and age, that this body would so overwhelmingly endorse an idea such as this is breathtaking.

I wish to take a few minutes to say why it is so outrageous. I want to add, with all the matters we should be addressing with the limited time in this session, with the thousands of people losing their jobs today, we have nothing to say about outsourcing. When we have 44 million Americans without health insurance, we have nothing to say about those issues. We are drowning in budget deficits and trade deficits. We have the worst job deficit since the Great Depression. Poverty is increasing, and this Chamber has nothing to say on those issues except we are now going to take one group of manufacturers and say: Don't worry about anything, you don't have to ever be held accountable for your wrongdoing.

This legislation, in my view, is bad policy for a number of reasons. First, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on reducing the rate of gun violence in our Nation. In fact, this bill ignores the devastating toll firearm violence continues to have on the country.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were nearly 29,000 deaths in the United States from firearms in the year 2001 alone--29,000 deaths. That is, of course, 10 times the number of lives that were tragically lost on September 11 at the World Trade Center, here in Washington, and in Pennsylvania. In fact, one year of gun violence in America nearly equals the number of Americans who died in the Korean war and almost half the Americans lost in the entire Vietnam conflict.

The numbers are staggering. These numbers exceed by a huge margin the number of firearm-related deaths on a per-capita basis in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France.

Among those individuals most affected by gun violence are children. It is not just an incident such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 or inner-city neighborhood shootings that should make us realize that children are among the most vulnerable to gun violence. Children are also killed or injured by firearms because their parents did not store their guns properly, and the kids used them for horseplay.

It is no coincidence then that firearms are the second leading death among young Americans ages 19 and under. Approximately 2,700 children under the age of 19 are killed each year as a result of gun violence or improper use of guns.

The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is already 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Let me repeat that. The firearm death rates of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

We are about to exclude an entire industry from even being brought to the bar to question whether or not they might be liable. One study noted the firearm injury epidemic among children is nearly 10 times larger than the polio epidemic in the first half of the 20th century.

The human cost of gun-related deaths and injuries is tragic in itself, but the economic loss is also significant. According to a study published in 2000, the average costs of treating gunshot wounds were $22,000 for each unintentional shooting and $18,400 for each gun assault injuries. These costs would undoubtedly be much higher today.

Total societal cost of firearms is estimated to be between $100 billion and $126 billion per year. Who pays these expenses? By and large the American taxpayers do.

My colleagues speak against unfunded mandates, and yet this bill, if enacted, burdens the Nation's cities and counties with billions and billions of dollars in medical care, emergency services, police protections, courts, prisons, and school security. It is shameful that while tens of thousands of people are dying each year due to firearms, and while the American taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to cope with the effect of gun violence, the United States Senate is doing absolutely nothing to make our streets and homes safer. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite by our actions today.

Second, the legislation will give this industry special legal protections that no other industry in the United States has. Neither cigarette companies nor asbestos companies nor polluters have such sweeping immunity as we are about to give this industry. In fact, gun manufacturers and sellers are already exempt from Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation, despite the fact firearms are among the most dangerous and deadly products in society. We have more regulations on toy guns than we do on the ones that fire real bullets.

Imagine that, a toy gun that you buy from Mattel, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issues literally pages of regulations on what must be included in the production of that toy gun. There is not a single word in the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the production of a gun that may kill 29,000 people each year in this country. The National Rifle Association made sure of this exemption 30 years ago, just as highly addictive tobacco products are not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

I have supported tort reform in specific areas where I believe it is appropriate. My colleagues know that. At the same time, I recognize that litigation has been a powerful tool in holding parties accountable for their negligence and providing them with incentive to improve the safety of their products.

It has been employed on behalf of other potentially dangerous products, such as cars, lawnmowers, household products, and medicines, to protect the health of the American people. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason enough, in my view, why we cannot afford to grant the firearm industry legal immunity.

If this legislation is enacted, and I know it will be given the number of cosponsors and how this bill is sweeping through the Congress, would it remove any incentive under current products liability law for gun manufacturers to make their firearms safer? Studies have shown that the technology is both readily available and very inexpensive to install in order to help avoid future gun-related tragedies.

For example, a load indicator could be included to tell the user that the gun is still loaded. That is never going to happen now, I promise. A magazine disconnect safety could be installed by the manufacturers to prevent guns from firing if the magazine is removed. Even child proofing the gun with safety locks can be done relatively easily. However this bill is enacted into law, gun manufacturers will lose a huge incentive to include such reasonable safety devices in their products.

I know I am going to hear shortly, well, we just adopted a gun safety lock amendment. We did that a few years ago as well. What happened to it? It got dumped. That is what happened. Do not have any illusion about these amendments being adopted. My colleagues have been around long enough to know what is going to happen. When this bill leaves the Senate and goes down the hall to the other Chamber all of these nice provisions that are included will be dropped, just as they have been in the past.

Third, this legislation would close the courthouse door on our Nation's mayors, gun victims, and law enforcement officers who are seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for their negligent conduct. Just last week, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and over 80 other prominent law enforcement leaders from 26 States sent a letter to the Senate opposing the legislation.

The chiefs warned that passage of the immunity legislation would result in more illegal gun running and deter efforts to develop child- resistant guns. In the words of Chief Bratton:

The passage of this bill would deliver a devastating blow

to justice. The NRA and Congress need to understand that

special interest groups cannot come before public safety. Gun

stores and manufacturers must be held to the same standards

of safety as any other industry. And if they fail to act

responsibly, they must pay the price.

Evidence has been uncovered which reveals that the gun industry has been engaged in irresponsible behavior for many years. Senator Reed and others have already mentioned one such industry actor: Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA. This gun store claims that it ``lost'' the gun used by the Washington, DC snipers John Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo as well as more than 200 other guns. Many of these firearms were later traced to other crimes.

In fact, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had no record of the gun ever being sold and did not report it until after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms recovered the weapon and traced it back to the store.

Even after the rifle was linked to the sniper shootings and the newspapers reported on the disappearance of the guns from Bull's Eye, the rifle's manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, declared that it still considered Bull's Eye a ``good customer'' and was happy to keep selling to the shop. The judge in this case has since ruled twice that the suit brought by the families of the DC-area sniper victims against both Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply should proceed to trial, and a preliminary appeal of these rulings has been rejected.

Nevertheless, this case as well as other important pending and future lawsuits against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers would be banned under the Senate bill, according to the opinion of two of the Nation's most prominent attorneys, David Boies and Lloyd Cutler.

There are many other instances of the gun industry not taking steps to prevent guns from reaching the illegal market. According to Federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Undercover sting operations in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana have found that such dealers routinely permit gun sales to ``straw purchasers,'' that is, individuals with clean records who buy guns for criminals, juveniles, or other individuals barred by law from purchasing them. Again, if the Senate bill is enacted, police officers shot by a gun bought by a straw purchaser would no longer get his day in court.

Gun shows are also an important source of guns for criminals. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators McCain and Reed in co-sponsoring legislation to close the gun show loophole in the Brady Act. Studies have shown that unlicensed dealers often sell large quantities of guns at these shows without having to run criminal background checks or keeping records.

Many of my colleagues might recall that a gun show was the source of the firearm purchased Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they went on their murderous rampage at Columbine High School. But again, the Senate bill will not hold such negligent gun sellers responsible for the injuries and deaths their firearms cause.

Supporters of this legislation contend that there is a gun litigation crisis in America, and that many of the cases being brought against the gun industry are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are no massive backlogs of claims against gun dealers and manufacturers burdening the court system, as with the asbestos litigation. Only 33 municipalities and one State, New York, have filed suits against gun makers. Not one of these cases has been dismissed as being frivolous.

In fact, 18 cities and counties have won favorable rulings on the legal merits of their cases. These courts have recognized that such cases are based upon well-established legal principles as negligence, product liability, and public nuisance. Important information on the gun industry's wrongful actions, which has long been cloaked in secrecy for many years, is being revealed during the discovery process. These cases, however, will be precluded, and the information gleaned from them will be lost, if the gun industry is granted the immunity it seeks.

This legislation is the wrong way for the Senate to proceed on gun violence. Rather than giving special immunity to those manufacturers and dealers who wrongfully make and sell guns to criminals, the Senate should be working to protect our police officers and the people they protect.

Rather than placing more guns on the streets, the Senate should be considering more responsible guns legislation, such as making the ban on assault weapons permanent and closing the gun show loophole. I am hopeful that the Senate will have a full and comprehensive debate on these important issues in the coming days.

Rather than encouraging reasonable and safe gun use, the Senate is destroying any incentive for gun manufacturers to improve the safety of their deadly wares.

The Senate wisely defeated a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the medical malpractice bill. It should now tell the gun industry that they need to be held accountable for their deeds as is the case for every other industry in America so I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I have great respect for my colleagues, but there is no amendment that is going to be adopted in this Chamber that is going to make this ugly legislation any better. I do not care how much lipstick is put on this one, this is an unattractive bill by any measure, and I am going to vote against it no matter what. What we are doing is outrageous. As the Senator who represents more of these manufacturers than any other Member in this body, I can say this is flat out wrong and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for taking an entire industry and not holding it potentially liable for the harm that it causes to people across this country. Thirty thousand people die every year, almost 3,000 kids, and we are about to say to the manufacturer of the products that kill them to take a walk and that you never have to show up again in court. That is incredible to me that we are about to do that.

I yield the floor.

If my colleague will yield.

The Senator raised my name. I did not talk about the Senator from Idaho. The Senator used my name. May I respond?

Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to say something about losing jobs. I have lost 45,000 manufacturing jobs in my State over the last few months. It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with the fact that this administration has decided that manufacturing jobs are producing hamburgers at McDonald's, and believe that outsourcing is a great thing for the country. That is where my jobs are going, not because of litigation.

There have been 33 lawsuits by counties or communities and one by a State brought against the gun manufacturers. None of them have ever gone anywhere. What are we doing? Tell me there is some great problem out here in litigation with my companies losing lawsuits all across the country.

We are a nation of 280 million people. Thirty-three lawsuits by counties, one by a State. The manufacturers never lost one. Why are we changing the law? Why, when 30,000 people die every year, 3,000 kids, why are we changing the law? There is no justification in fact or in law to be doing this.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for offering a very important amendment on unemployment insurance. This amendment is absolutely necessary because this administration has put this country on the wrong economic path.

The economy is not improving, jobs are not being created, and workers and their families are suffering. Since this administration took office, America has lost nearly 3 million jobs, including over two and a half million in manufacturing. More than 9 million Americans are out of work. Unless we see an unbelievable turnaround in the next 8\1/2\ months, this administration will be the first since that of Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy where more jobs are lost than created.

And what is the President's plan for economic recovery and job creation? More tax cuts for the wealthy; eviscerating overtime pay for hard-working Americans; shipping service and manufacturing jobs overseas; all while raising our deficits to record levels.

It is not just the President alone who supports these policies--his administration supports these and other irresponsible policies as well. They have been forthcoming about their priorities and the priorities are out of step with working Americans. Therefore, no one should be surprised when instead of receiving a paycheck they receive a pink slip. No one should be surprised when they lose their house because the administration refuses to extend unemployment insurance benefits. No one should be surprised when retirees see their social security benefits slashed. No one should be surprised when companies move overseas or rely on workers overseas.

Also troubling, just yesterday the Fed Chairman encouraged Congress and the Administration to make cuts into future Social Security payments in order to bring down the deficit. So now this administration is telling men and women who have worked hard their whole lives and are relying on Social Security to help them during their retirement years that they are better off cutting Social Security benefits rather than eliminate the tax cuts that go to the wealthy.

The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors is quoted as saying, ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that's a good thing.'' American workers are losing their jobs and the Administration says it's a ``good thing''. That is an extraordinary statement.

In fact, not once in the past month has the President mentioned extending Federal unemployment benefits. What more must happen for this administration to wake up and begin to take meaningful action?

The President talks about tremendous job growth this year. This prediction would only be met if job growth averaged more than 450,000 new jobs each month, about four times the level of job growth in January according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Americans are hurting and instead of taking steps to ensure job creation, this administration continues to call for more tax cuts--tax cuts that will favor the most wealthy, but do nothing for the families that are struggling today. These tax cuts will cost an additional $1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. What is even more alarming about this is that this is coming at the worst possible time--right when the baby boomers begin to retire.

It is dumbfounding to me that just 3 years ago we were looking at the biggest surplus in our Nation's history--an annual surplus of $236 billion. We were actually having interesting discussions about the effects of paying down the debt too fast. If only we were debating that today. Instead, we are facing an unsustainable fiscal path with the largest deficit in history--a deficit of $521 billion this year, a deficit that if not tackled soon, will have dangerous consequences.

It has been projected that by 2009, if we continue on this irresponsible path, each person's share of the debt will total $35,283. This will lead to a reduction in consumer demand, an increase in interest rates, and it will make it enormously difficult for families across this country to achieve financial security.

Today, the Labor Department reported that 350,000 people filed new claims for State unemployment benefits last week. Just yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that from late December, when the Federal unemployment benefits program expired, through the end of February, 760,000 jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving any additional Federal aid. More than 4,700 jobless workers in Connecticut will exhaust their benefits without qualifying for additional Federal aid.

So that is why I wholeheartedly support extending Federal unemployment benefits right now. At the very least, we need to reach out to American workers and offer them a lifeline. This ought not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked late into the night to put forward a list of amendments this body would consider. I am very proud my amendment made the list. It is an amendment this Senate has supported before. It is an amendment that will protect our children from violence, and what could be more important to us as we gather here every day than to protect our children?

My measure would do two things. First, it would require that every handgun sold in this country come with a child safety device. The amendment is very broad on what that could be, so it really isn't a micromanaging type of amendment. This device could be a lock using a key or a combination, a device that locks electronically, it could be a lockbox, or technology that is built into the gun itself. Many of the folks working on this type of technology are very enthusiastic about it.

There is no question in my mind, there is no question in the minds of the police in my State who just had a press conference on this issue, if we were to agree to this and it were to become the law of the land, the number of children involved in accidental shootings would go way down. So that is the first thing we do. We require some type of a lock when you buy a handgun.

Second, my amendment would make sure child safety devices are effective and that they are not shoddy or of poor quality. One of the worst things we could do is pass a bill that requires these devices and then the device doesn't work. That would be a terrible thing for our families. So the bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish standards for the design of these locks and these boxes and a standard for their performance. We want to make sure, when parents use a child safety device, that they are confident it will work as intended.

In 1999 the Senate passed an amendment by a vote of 78 to 20 to require that all handguns in this country be sold with a child safety device. The majority of our colleagues very strongly

supported this in quite a bipartisan way. I believe we should again agree that we need to protect our children from accidental gun shootings.

My home State of California recently enacted an excellent child safety device bill. It requires that all licensed dealers and manufacturers equip the guns they sell with State-certified child safety devices. This is a very important bill for my State and I am proud of my State for doing it. But it is clear that the States along California's border do not have this requirement. Not one of those States has child safety device laws. That means even if California--and we do--has a good law, anyone can purchase a gun without a safety lock from a border State and return to California with it. Therefore, the progress we hope to make in California will be set back because we don't have a uniform and standard law.

The other important feature of our bill that impacts Californians is that while there is a State-certified standard for gunlocks in my State, those standards have not been set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and everyone agrees that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is the premier organization in the country that sets the gold standard. Again, I think it is very important that we have this type of standard because, as many colleagues point out, the manufacturers of these devices deserve some guidance. California may have one set of standards, we could have another set of standards in New York, or in the Midwest, and we are going to have a potpourri of standards floating around rather than what I call the gold standard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The other important point for my people of California--again, they have the safety lock law--is that the amendment allows for a Federal cause of action for violations of this child safety requirement. So if in fact there is a serious problem with a child safety lock, and the State for some reason doesn't get its act together, doesn't put the case together, and so on, there will be a Federal cause of action. It is kind of a double protection for the children.

I would like to talk about the need for this amendment for a moment. I have a chart that shows the statistics. In the United States of America, in our great country, the greatest country in the world, a child or a youth is killed by an accidental shooting every 48 hours-- every 48 hours. Where do these statistics come from? The FBI. For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded. Where does that come from? The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, December--I am assuming that is 2000--volume 55, No. 12.

What does this mean, when you multiply it out? Thousands of children are injured or killed by guns every year in this country. According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Let me repeat that. The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

Colleagues stand up and say: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If you want to, say: Guns don't kill children; children kill children. Yes, children kill children because they pick up a gun and they fire it at a friend. They fire it at a brother. They don't understand the consequences of this. More than 22 million children live in homes with guns. I want you to envision this--22 million children live in homes with guns. More than 3.3 million of those children live in homes where the guns are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked.

Too many children are playing with real guns found in their parents' bedroom or a friend's home, and too many children are killed in this country because they are doing what children do: They are exploring; they are being curious. I don't know how many times I have heard stories with tearful parents saying: I kept that gun away from my child. It was far away from my child. It was in the highest, darkest corner of the deepest, tallest closet in my house. I never thought my baby could climb up and find that gun.

Well, they do. They do. Children are smart. They are tenacious. They are energetic. One study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where their parents kept that gun. Seventy-five to eighty percent of first and second graders knew where their parents kept that gun.

In this country, we do so much to protect our children. We worry about them, as we should; it is our responsibility. We make sure that in a car they are put in a child seat facing in the right direction so they don't have a tendency to get hurt in an accident. We have airbags to protect them. We protect them from shoddy toys, such as Play-Doh that they could eat and could hurt them. We set standards. We set standards for Teddy bears, for toys. We care about our children.

I wrote the afterschool law we have here with Senator Ensign. We love our children, every one of us--our own children, our children's children. We are here to protect the children. That is part of our job.

So let me reiterate, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 percent to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the parents kept that gun. So even if that gun is in a closet, at the top of a closet, under towels or blankets, kids are tenacious and they find the guns. But if they found a lockbox and they couldn't open it, they would be protected. If they grab that gun and it had a child safety device on it and they tried to shoot, it wouldn't go off. If the gun had technology built in it so that only when the parents held it it would fire, they would be protected.

It seems to me in this day and age when we are losing a child or a youth to an accidental shooting every 48 hours, we ought to be absolutely united in doing something about it.

I want to show you the face of a beautiful young man, Kenzo, a Californian, 15 years old, with his mom. His friend, Michael, while playing with a gun, shot Kenzo Bix, and he is gone forever. If that gun had had a child safety device on it, it wouldn't have happened.

I will give you some other stories.

Just this January in Indio, CA, a 17-year-old boy named Jason Weed died after his 14-year-old brother accidentally shot him in the head. The other boy was showing him the gun in the home when it accidentally went off, lodging a bullet in the small boy's head. If that gun had had a safety device, and if the amendment we already passed here--the Kohl- Hatch-Boxer amendment that passed here the last time--had been adopted in the other body, if it had been signed into law, Kenzo would be alive; and this child I just talked about, Jason Weed, would be alive.

Then there is a story from Florida. There are so many stories, and we just picked a few.

A 3-year-old, Colton Hinke, and his 2-year old sister Kaile were playing in her parents' bedroom when Colton found an unlocked, loaded handgun in the drawer. A neighbor heard the shot and rushed to the scene and found Kaile on her back, her face pale, her lips blue, and a small hole in her chest. She was in shock, and she was rushed to the hospital, but it was too late.

Mr. President, I was told I had 30 minutes.

May I ask for one additional minute from each side so I can conclude?

Thank you so very much.

There is another incident where a 1-year-old girl was critically injured by her 3-year-old brother. This little girl survived.

I could go on, but I don't have the time at this point.

Let's pass this measure. I know Senators DeWine and Kohl have an amendment to change my bill in a very small way. I don't have a problem with that. I will be supporting that. I just know the overriding concern of mine, and I really do think most people in this body who voted for this the last time, is let us protect our kids. Let us do it in a smart way. It is the right thing to do for the families of America.

I yield the floor.

I take this time to respond to the point made that the gun manufacturers are taking care of the child safety locks and that we do not need to have this law.

The experts in this whole field have turned out to be the National SAFE KIDS Campaign. This is a bipartisan organization that has one mission only and that is to protect our children. When they saw these statistics that are still occurring today, they said enough is enough. A child or youth is killed by a firearm every 3 hours. This has not changed.

In 1997, the gun manufacturers said they would work on this themselves, that they did not need a law. Research assessing the compliance with this agreement found most manufacturers were not providing locks and those that did offered low-quality devices where the locks just fell off and did not work.

The SAFE KIDS Campaign is urging us to include a provision to issue safe standards for gunlocks. This is very important.

My colleague says this is taken care of. It is not taken care of. We still have children dying. We still have our constituents calling with the tragic cases. I read some of the cases, but not all of them, case after case, kids finding out where there is a gun, grabbing it and trying to act out a fantasy, not understanding this is a lethal weapon that can kill or maim a brother, a neighbor, a friend.

We did not tell the makers of aspirin, we know you are good manufacturers. They are good manufacturers. We do not tell them, please make a childproof cap. They have to make a childproof cap. There are good manufacturers out there. I applaud them. But if you look at our bill and the way it works, we are not mandating a particular one-size- fits-all solution. We are very careful to

say we know there are many different handguns--this only applies to handguns; in my State we have one that applies to rifles and long guns, but this is just a handgun--we say you can have in your array of products a box that locks. You can have the technology built in the gun. You can have a combination lock.

I appreciate my friend does not like to put regulations on gun manufacturers and dealers. I understand that. And I understand he believes they are the best of the best of the best. But the problem is, our kids are dying in the home. They are smart. They find out where the guns are. I cannot understand why this is not something we would all support. The last time it came to the Senate, we had a huge vote. I am hoping we will have a similar vote.

Look to the people. We are in charge of a lot of issues. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign is about one issue, the safety of kids. They are bipartisan. They are begging us to make this the law of the land. The Senate did it once before. The Senate should do it again.

Children living in the South have an unintentional shooting death rate that is 7 times that of children living in the Northeast. That is a fact the National SAFE KIDS Campaign has shown. All we need to do is see the rate our kids are dying and compare it to 25 other countries to see our kids are at a great disadvantage. We can do something today. I hope we will.

I yield my time.

I appreciate my friend yielding.

I think this argument has now been joined. The argument Senator Craig makes against this amendment, to me, is just off point. This bill is not a mandatory storage law. This has nothing to do with a mandatory storage law. The fact is we have passed this before, 78 to 20. We are not saying you have to have storage. We are saying that when you go to buy a handgun, it has some type of device on it. We don't mandate what that device is. We say it could be one of five or six different things. There will be standards set. It is not one-size-fits-all. It is not a mandatory storage law.

I agree with my friend, if the gun manufacturers do this on their own, that is great. But as we have learned from the SAFE KIDS Campaign, not all of them are doing it. Some of them are and some of our kids are exposed.

I have two quick further points to make.

I ask for an additional minute and give my friend 2 additional minutes.

Let me make this point. When my friend compares an accidental shooting with a gun resulting in a death to a suicide, I would say that is quite different, because in the tragedy of suicide, although my friend is quite right, we do try on some of our bridges to build barriers, but if there is an intent, although we do our best, we often fail. But a 3-year-old or 5-year-old child picking up a gun really doesn't know someone is going to die. So it is up to us to make sure we do our best. That is all; we do our best.

My last point. There are standards for aspirin caps, cribs, Play-Doh, Teddy bears, pajamas. There ought to be a standard for a safety lock on a gun. I don't think we do violence to freedom in any way.

I wish my friend were with me on this, but if not, I hope we can repeat the vote we had last time; 78 to 20 sounds really good. I hope we can do that again.

I yield the floor.