NICS Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues, led by Senator Reed of Rhode Island, to express the strongest opposition that I possibly can to the legislation before the Senate. I want to say, Mr. President, that enough is enough.

In doing so I am proud to not only stand with many of my colleagues but many of my fellow Americans who are on the front lines trying to keep our communities safe, such as our chiefs of police, other law enforcement, and mayors from around the country, as well as the tens of thousands of victims of gun violence, including my friends Jim and Sarah Brady.

Here in Washington, there is a lot of talk about responsibility and accountability. Yet, this legislation does just the opposite. It does nothing but shield irresponsible gun makers and gun sellers from accountability.

Gun owners are asked to act responsibly and the vast majority of them do. Gun makers and gun sellers should be held to the same standard. And yet, the legislation before us--the gun immunity bill--says to gun makers and gun sellers that they don't need to meet the same standards as every as other business is required to meet, and that is to conduct one's business in a reasonable and non-negligent manner.

No other industry has the kind of protection that the NRA is seeking on behalf the gun industry with respect to a relatively small number of lawsuits that have been filed or may be filed in the future. I simply cannot understand why the Congress would give this extraordinary and unprecedented liability protection to the gun industry.

Mr. President, we must do all we can to defeat the gun immunity bill which, among many other things, will give legal protection to the gun dealer--Bull's Eye Shooter Supply--who armed the D.C. area snipers and will take away the right to sue from the victims.

What an injustice to the DC sniper victims and the American people. What a real shame.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. Despite protestations and suggestions to the contrary, this bill isn't about helping people. This bill is not about the rights of hunters.

Not one single gun owner will be helped by this immunity legislation. This bill is also not about jobs. This is about serving the will of the gun industry first, and the interest of the American people a distant second.

As noted by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Mayor Daley of Chicago, Mayor Kahn of Los Angeles, and Mayor King of Gary, in an op-ed in the New York Times opposing this bill, federal data from 2000 shows that a little more than 1 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Responsible gun sellers should be angry about this. They should demand action to clean up their industry. Yet, the legislation the Senate is considering now would say to the small group of irresponsible gun dealers, ``don't bother running a responsible business,'' and ``you are not responsible for your actions no matter how reckless or negligent they may be.''

Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, let me clear up some other misinformation about how criminals get their guns. Many falsely believe that criminals and drug dealers steal most of their guns and that gun dealers are not responsible in any way for the vast majority of guns that end up being used in violent crime, that it is the fault of criminals. This is simply not true.

In 1998, a Northwestern University study of records maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms demonstrated that more criminals buy their guns new than steal them. Specifically, the ATF determined that while more than 11,000 of the weapons traced were stolen from licensed gun dealers or residences, almost four times as many--more than 40,000--were sold by licensed dealers. This number is astounding.

Almost four times as many guns recovered from criminals by the ATF were gained through licensed traffickers and not through theft.

This is an important point to note because if most guns used in crimes in our country are not stolen but in fact are purchased, manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition can greatly influence the degree to which guns flow get in the hands of criminals.

Gun dealers hold an enormous and unparreled power over the supply of guns in America. While most gun dealers who wield this power act responsibly, the negligence and irresponsibility of a few bad seeds, like the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, are the cause of the problem. These bad gun dealers, the 1 percent of dealers who account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations, need to be held accountable. Yet this bill removes that accountability.

This legislation removes that accountability through section 3 of the bill, which precludes even the bringing of civil actions against gun manufacturers, gun dealers, distributors, sellers of ammunition, and even trade associations in any Federal or State court.

By the way, the prohibition on commencing an action applies not just to individuals, but to states, local governments, and, incredibly, even the federal government.

Section 3 also states that pending civil actions ``shall be immediately dismissed'' by the court in which the action was brought.

This bill is particularly disturbing to me because it directly and significantly affects New Yorkers. Currently, the City of New York has a suit pending--initially commenced by Rudy Giuliani when he served as Mayor of New York. Given that bill proponents have argued that this legislation is needed to protect against frivolous lawsuits, are they suggesting that Rudy Giuliani would file such a lawsuit against the gun industry. I don't think so.

It would be a shame if New York City's suit were to be dismissed because New York City--under the Giuliani administration--filed suit to try and protect the health and safety of New Yorkers by getting the gun industry to change its practices.

Indeed, a New York federal court has already found in another case that gun manufacturers improper sales and distribution practices contribute to the illegal gun market in NY State, and there is ample evidence, including a study conducted by the National Economic Research Associates, that if gun manufacturers and sellers change their practices and use care and act responsible in their selling practices, many fewer guns wind up in the hands of criminals and used in committing crimes.

And the New York Police Department--the largest and one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the world--has had to expend enormous resources to control gun-trafficking. I don't want their work--none of us should want their work--to be conducted in vain by failing to hold accountable irresponsible gun dealers.

As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said: ``The nation's law enforcement officials struggle every day against the scourge of gun crimes, and we look to Congress to assist us in that fight, not make our jobs harder. By providing broad immunity to the gun industry, this bill will endanger the very police officers who place their lives on the line to protect all Americans.''

In addition to New York City, a small number of New Yorkers who have been severely injured because of the negligence of others have also commenced actions against certain gun manufactures and gun dealers. I am not going to prejudge the merits of these cases, but the bottom line is that they deserve their day in court. This law would deny them that basic right.

One of these suits arose out of what has been referred to as the ``Wendy's Massacre.''

In May of 2001, two criminals armed with an allegedly illegally acquired semi-automatic pistol went into a Wendy's restaurant, ordered all of the employees into the basement, marched them single file into a walk-in refrigerator, duct taped their mouths, tied them up, covered their heads with plastic bags, and one by one, shot them execution style in the back of the head. These workers were brutally gunned down for a total of $2,400.

One of those injured individuals fortunate enough to have survived the tragedy was Jaquione Johnson, who now has a suit pending against Bryco Arms. Johnson sustained serious injuries including brain damage and paralysis.

Jaquione contends that the defendant's distribution practices created, contributed to, and maintained the illegal secondary gun market through which the handgun passed until it did its deadly work. This underground market, the complaint asserts, depended upon defendants' irresponsible business practices, such as multiple firearms sales and straw purchases.

The complaint further asserts that because the gun dealers could gain significant revenue from illegal firearms sales, they failed to adopt basic policies and practices that would greatly decrease the number of guns reaching criminals despite the knowledge that it was reasonably foreseeable that individuals like the plaintiff and the public at large would be harmed.

No one in the Wendy's case is arguing that the defendant gun manufacturer and dealer pulled the trigger that killed and maimed the Wendy's workers. Instead, the victim is simply seeking to be compensated for serious injuries that were caused by the negligence of another.

If the defendants were not negligent in distributing the deadly weapon used here, they will not be held liable by the court. However, if the defendant gun dealers were negligent in their distribution of the guns and that negligence helped cause the plaintiff' harm, then they will be held accountable.

A suit like Jacquoine's, despite what others would have you believe, is not frivolous. This is a meritorious suit that must be heard in our courts to ensure accountability.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, on February 3, a Federal judge in New York denied the defendant's motion to dismiss Jaquione's suit, making clear that Jaquione claim is anything but frivolous. Yet, the NRA believes that it, by legislative fiat, should pre-ordain the result in Jaquione's case.

This New York case and the case commenced by the City of New York

under the Giuliani administration are not outliers. Gary, IN has a suit pending and the Supreme Court of Indiana has held that city had a valid legal claim. The Illinois Court of Appeal held similar with respect to a case brought by the city of Chicago. The bill before us, however, would override the decisions of these appellate State courts.

Similarly, in New Mexico, a teenager who was shot in the face has brought suit against Bryco Arms alleging that the pistol's design was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its failure to incorporate safety devices like a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect safety that would prevent a pistol from being fired with the magazine removed.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the suit stated a valid legal claim and should go to trial. Further, the court stated, ``application of our tort law can be expected to enhance [gun] ownership by tending to increase the safety of guns.'' This legitimate and worthy claim would be in danger of dismissal if this bill is passed.

There are a number of other suits just like the ones I have just mentioned and they are before our State and Federal courts. That Congress, rather than these courts, would make the decision by legislative fiat to dismiss these cases, regardless of the facts and the law, is extraordinary and unprecedented and a real shame. It should not be countenanced.

The proponents of this legislation point to the exceptions contained in section 4 of the bill and have argued that the exceptions are sufficient to allow non-frivolous lawsuits to be maintained.

First of all, despite all the talk of frivolous suits, the proponents point to not one court that has deemed any lawsuit brought in any federal or state court against a manufacturer or gun dealer as frivolous. The proponents of this special interest legislation cannot point to such a decision because there is none. No frivolous lawsuits have been filed. That assertion is simply devoid of merit.

As to the purported exceptions in the bill, they are so narrowly crafted as to be illusory.

The first exception provides that a lawsuit can be brought by the party ``directly harmed'' against a defendant who has been convicted of the crime of ``knowingly'' transferring a firearm ``knowing'' that the guns would be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

In other words, this exception would not apply to a dealer who is extraordinarily reckless or negligent as to how it markets or sells its guns unless the dealer knew it was selling a gun to someone who would commit a violent crime.

This is an extraordinarily high burden because it says that you can only sue a dealer if the dealer engaged in a criminal act--if the dealer is, in affect, an accomplice to a violent or drug trafficking crime.

The second exception provides that an action may be brought ``against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''

``Negligent entrustment'' is defined in the bill to mean ``the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.''

In other words, according to the Congressional Research Service, this exception would appear to allow a suit to be maintained against an entity that supplied a firearm or ammunition to a person who, because of age, mental disability, intoxication, or violent propensity, seems likely to use the product in a dangerous manner.

That may be all well and good, but I wondered why the crafters of the bill went to the trouble of defining ``negligent entrustment,'' when such a cause of action is defined by state law.

Well, it's because ``negligent entrustment'' has been defined in this legislation much more narrowly than how it has been defined by many states under state law.

In fact, in the case brought by the victims of the DC snipers against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state court held that ``negligent entrustment'' also occurs when a firearms manufacturer sells firearms to a retail store that it ``knew or should have known . . . was operating its store in a reckless or incompetent manner, creating an unreasonable risk of harm.''

Indeed, one of the allegations in the complaint brought by victims of the DC sniper against the manufacturer of the gun used by the DC snipers was that the manufacturer knew or should have known that the retailer--Bull's Eye--had a ``history of a large number of weapons for which it could not account.''

The Washington state court found that if the plaintiff could prove this, then the manufacturer ``may be liable for plaintiff's injuries under the theory of negligent entrustment.'' The court, therefore, denied the defendant manufacturer's motion to dismiss.

So the bottom line is that this supposed ``exception'' in the bill is not really an exception because it dramatically narrows the State law definition of negligent entrustment.

To make matters even worse, the exception does not cover manufacturers; it only covers ``sellers,'' such as gun dealers. So even if there were a broader definition of negligent entrustment in this exception, it would still prohibit such a cause of action from ever being brought against a manufacturer. This is one of the major objections to the bill made by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Lastly, as to this second exception in section 4 of the bill, including ``negligence per se'' doesn't add much because the common law definition of ``negligence per se'' means that a person or entity is negligent per se, 1, if the party violated a state or federal statute; 2, if it demonstrated that the person bringing the action was the member of the class of persons that the statute was intended to protect, and 3, that the party's injuries suffered were the kind that the statute was enacted to prevent.

But the bottom line is that violation of a statute is required. That's not very much of an exception to the gun immunity's general provision that no civil action can be brought in any federal or state court and that all pending cases must be dismissed.

There has been much discussion about the third exception because it was recently added to this legislation, but this exception, like the others in the bill, is extraordinarily narrow as to be almost meaningless.

The third exception provides that an action may be brought in which a manufacturer or a seller of a gun violated state or federal law concerning the sale or marketing of guns or ammunition and the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including, 1, any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made a false entry in, or failed to make an appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under federal or state law; 2, any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any material factor concerning the lawfulness of the sale; or 3, any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with some to sell or otherwise dispose of a gun or ammunition, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the gun or ammunition was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsections (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18.

I know this section has already been discussed at some length, but I want to underscore that two esteemed lawyers, Lloyd Cutler and David Boies, after reviewing this language extensively and the complaint filed by the DC sniper victims against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, stated that in two separate legal opinions that this suit could not be maintained under this exception and would have to be dismissed.

The fourth exception is an action for breach of contract or warranty in the connection with the purchase of a gun.

This exception is also of no moment, however, because as troubling and out of the mainstream as this legislation is, one would hope that the United States Congress would not seek to render null and void contracts and warranty agreements entered into between the sellers and purchasers of guns.

The fifth and final exception to the general provision requiring the dismissal of pending cases and the prohibition on bringing any future cases is

an exception for ``an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.''

``Reasonably foreseeable'', however, is defined to exclude any criminal or unlawful misuse--violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation--of a gun or ammunition, other than possessory offenses. What does this mean?

Contrary to what some of my colleagues have said during this floor debate, it does not mean that all design or manufacturing defect cases can be brought or maintained.

This is so for a number of reasons. First, the product would have to be used as intended. If there is a defect in the gun, for example, but an unintended use is that a child uses the gun and accidently maims or kills himself, this legislation would prevent the child or his parents from even filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer to seek recovery and, equally important, from trying to hold the manufacturer accountable so that the defect could be fixed and such injuries to other children could be prevented.

This exception is also extraordinarily narrow in that even if there is a design or manufacturing defect and even if someone is harmed because of the defect, no recovery can even be sought if the gun was used in any criminal activity or misused in any way.

I know I have taken a fair amount of time to talk about the exceptions contained in section 4 of this bill, but I felt it important because proponents of this legislation have constantly said ``look to section 4,'' suggesting that these exceptions will enable legitimate cases to be brought and/or maintained against negligent manufacturers and gun dealers.

As I have laid out in great detail, the assertion made by the proponents of this legislation is unequivocally--simply--not true. And I want to make sure that the American people who are watching and listening to this debate understand that.

I also want to take a moment to correct some other misstatements that have been statements in support of this bill.

As noted above, one of the assertions is that there are thousands of frivolous lawsuits--including I guess the one filed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--that have been filed. Well, as we now know, that statement is simply not true because not one court has deemed any case filed to be frivolous.

In fact, a respected senior Federal judge in New York, Judge Jack Weinstein, actually dismissed a case brought by the NAACP because he held that the NAACP wasn't the proper plaintiff. However, in his 178- page ruling, Judge Weinstein found that gun manufacturer's improper sales and distribution practices contribute to the illegal gun market in New York State. His conclusion was based on previously unavailable data from the ATF and from the gun industry that established a connection between the gun industry's marketing practices and access to guns by criminals.

He also found that the data demonstrated that a ``handful of `bad apple' retailers in the industry supply a disproportionate share of guns used in crimes.''

Indeed, according to Robert Haas, the former Senior Vice President for marketing and sales for defendant Smith & Wesson, the gun industry knows that the criminal market is fueled by the industry's distribution practices, but does nothing.

Haas has said: ``The company and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of firearms.''

``The company and the industry are also aware that the black market in firearms is not simply the result of stolen guns but is due to the seepage of guns into the illicit market from multiple thousands of unsupervised federal firearms licensees. In spite of their knowledge, however, the industry's position has consistently been to take no independent action to insure responsible distribution practices.''

This failure to take action is particularly disturbing because the problem can be fixed. If all gun manufacturers took reasonable measures in distributing their guns, then there would be significantly fewer guns in the hands of criminals.

This is consistent with Judge Weinstein's finding that the data in the case before him showed that the handgun industry could have done something about these dealers, including implementing obvious common sense solutions such as data gathering and monitoring regulations, but chose not to do so.

Another assertion by proponents of this legislation is that these lawsuits--less than 100 of them--are bankrupting the industry. Well, from what I can tell, the gun industry is doing anything but hurting. That's not my view, but the view of gun manufacturers that have filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Manufacturer after manufacturer has reported to the SEC that it is financially stable and that ``it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company.''

Another claim made is that these suits are going to cause jobs to go overseas. Now, I would love it, and more important, the American people would greatly appreciate it, if instead of considering this bill, the Senate was seeking to address in a comprehensive way the more than 3 million jobs lost in the past 3 years. But the Senate has chosen not to do so.

I have worked hard to support the development of jobs in my state and appreciate that there are New Yorkers in my state who help to manufacture guns at Remington Arms.

But the truth is that Remington Arms is not in financial trouble based on this litigation. Remington Arms produces long guns primarily and the vast majority of the victims of gun violence and crime are shot by hand guns, not long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Remington Arms does not need this protection; it is financially strong. Instead, it is the victims of gun violence that need protection from this legislation.

In short, these suits are not about putting the gun industry out of business. They are about responsible business practices, they are about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands through responsible distribution practices.

In fact, it is because of some of the lawsuits that have been filed that some gun manufacturers have improved their marketing and distribution practices.

In March of 2000, for example, the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson reached a settlement with a number of government entities, including the State of New York.

This settlement demonstrates why the gun immunity bill will actually make guns less safe.

As part of the agreement, Smith & Wesson agreed to change the ways it distributes guns it manufacturers. It promised to sell only to authorized distributors and dealers who adhere to a stringent code of conduct and it agreed to terminate sales to any dealer who sells a disproportionate number of guns used in crime. The settlement makes us safer because it helps to ensure that guns won't end up in the hands of criminals.

Smith & Wesson also agreed that their guns will be shipped with external safety locks, that all pistols will have a chamber loaded indicator, that new gun designs will include smart gun technology, and that all guns must pass performance tests to ensure safety and quality.

These are reasonable agreements that all gun manufacturers should follow. They make guns safer for everyone, especially those who own and operate them, especially for the children of gun owners. This settlement demonstrates the great possibilities that exist to improve the safety of guns.

This settlement underscores how much manufacturers and dealers can do to keep Americans safer without unduly affecting the bottom business line.

If the bill before us becomes law, however, don't expect to see any similar settlements in the future. If gun makers cannot be held liable, they will have no incentive to enter into a settlement. If they cannot be held liable, gun makers will have absolutely no financial incentive to make their guns safer. Indeed, they will actually have a financial disincentive to develop new safety mechanisms and distribution practices.

As a Senator from a State with millions of law abiding gun owners, I want

guns to be as safe as possible. I want new safety features and improvements developed. And I want--we should all want--the victims who are injured or killed because of defective guns or bad marketing and sales practices to not have the courthouse doors slammed in their faces.

Gun violence is a dangerous threat throughout our nation claiming the lives of thousands of people every year across America and New York State.

In 2001, the number of deaths in the U.S. from firearms was 29,573. In addition, for every firearm fatality in the U.S., there are two non- fatal firearm injuries.

A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.

In 1999, New Yorkers suffered 1,652 hospitalizations and 965 deaths at the hands of gun violence. 291 of those deaths were individuals below the age of 24.

In 2000, there were 1,093 deaths in New York State from firearms.

We should be talking about how we can reduce gun violence and prevent deaths of American men, women, and children, not how to slam the courthouse door shut to gun victims and while at the same time giving bad gun dealers blanket immunity from irresponsibly and negligent conduct.

Although this very bad bill is currently before the U.S. Senate, all of my colleagues, including the bill's proponents, have an opportunity to help make our communities safer by supporting a number of amendments currently pending, including the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein, Warner, and Schumer that reauthorizes the assault weapons ban and the amendment offered by Senators McCain and Reed that seeks to close what has been called the ``gun show loophole.''

I must say that it is astonishing to me that we even need to debate the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because there is no reasonable argument that can be made against it. People do not hunt with assault weapons. Instead, assault weapons are designed for one purpose and for one purpose only and that is to kill people.

Extending and improving upon the assault weapons ban is essential because assault weapons are a clear threat to law enforcement. Assault weapons kill police officers.

One in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. I would hope that everyone would agree that we need to put the interests of law enforcement officers far ahead of the interests of the NRA. If we are to remain true to our support for law enforcement officials, we need to extend and improve the assault weapons ban because it is our duty to protect those who risk their lives to protect us.

In addition, a report released yesterday by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, ``On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act,'' demonstrates that the assault weapons ban passed 10 years ago has been working. The report shows that the assault weapons banned by name in the Act have declined substantially, 66 percent, as a percentage of overall crime gun traces since the assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994. The study concludes that the ban has contributed to a substantial reduction in the use of assault weapons in crime, despite the industry's efforts to evade the law through the sale of copycat guns.

The assault weapons ban has been successful keeping these killing machines off our streets but it is set to expire later this year. To protect our law enforcement officials, to protect our safety, we cannot let this law expire. We must reauthorize the ban on assault weapons.

We must also do all we can to close the ``gun show loophole'' because the loophole enables those who are otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms under federal law to easily obtain guns.

Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers at gun shows because they know that they can simply put down their money and walk away with deadly weapons. Additionally, because these unlicensed sellers are not well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show firearms that turn up at crime scenes. Gun shows are now the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations.

The gun show loopholes in our laws allow individuals otherwise prohibited from legally purchasing firearms to easily gain access to potentially deadly weapons. Both the City and State of New York have enacted laws regulating gun sales and the possession of guns within the City and State. Yet, because of the gun show loophole, these laws have been unable to stop guns from coming into New York. Expert studies by Dr. Howard Andrews of Columbia University show almost 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in NY were purchased out state.

If our background checks on gun purchases are going to have meaning and value, we must close the gun show loopholes and that is why I support the McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman amendment and I hope the entire Senate will do the same.

In closing, Mr. President, I want to implore my colleagues to examine the legislation before us that will give blanket immunity to bad gun manufacturers and dealers and to support the amendments designed to make our country safer.

I can't even begin to imagine what this nation will be like at the end of this September if the assault weapons ban is not renewed, the gun show loophole is not closed, and the gun immunity bill becomes law.

Unscrupulous and negligent gun manufacturers and dealers--both licensed and unlicensed--will be able to sell guns of all kinds, including assault weapons, and incredibly, no matter what happens, no matter how many Americans will be maimed and killed, they will be immune from liability.

I implore my colleagues to do all we can to make sure that doesn't happen.

Mr. President, the Senator from California is now on the floor to offer her amendment. So we can expedite matters, under the unanimous consent agreement, the McCain-Reed amendment is to be set aside for the purposes of the introduction of an amendment by the Senator from California.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent request, this amendment currently before the Senate, the Feinstein amendment, would be set aside for the purposes of the introduction by our leader, Senator Frist, of the DC gun ban repeal. That amendment will not be offered today, so we are now on full debate for the balance of time until votes start at 11:30 on the two issues before the Senate and the balance of the whole bill.

Certainly, there are other amendments besides the assault weapons ban introduced by the Senator from California, the gun show loophole by Senators Reed and McCain. Also, we will have votes today, and it is critical for Senators who want to debate on armor piercing by Kennedy and the Frist-Craig alternative, also on conceal and carry, offered in behalf of Senator Ben Campbell, that some have debated.

For a few moments, let me debate one general topic. The clock has started for all of us on the 2-hour balance of time equally divided between us on this issue.

For a moment today, I will talk about attitudes of the American public as it relates to the second amendment in the Senate today. The Senator from New York talked about why we are at the eleventh hour debating the gun show loophole. We are because he and his colleagues introduced it, obviously, believing it was a timely topic to debate at a time when we have a very narrowly prescribed bill to deal with the legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in the manufacture of firearms. He has decided to add or attempt to add this to the bill. Our President has asked for a clean bill.

Let me talk about where the American people are. Once again, we find ourselves in a political season. And once again, we find ourselves debating and arguing about gun ownership in America. The second amendment is clear. Many who are strong advocates of that amendment believe it is extremely clear.

We have heard over the last several days Senators with honest differences of opinion take to the Senate floor and claim their vows to represent the folks back in their home States.

Let's take a few minutes to look at some of the relevant research from respected polling from the firm Zogby International. Zogby recently surveyed 1,200 voters nationwide on firearms issues. As a conservative, I don't view Zogby as a conservative pollster; some call him middle of the road, some call him middle left. I guess what I am saying is Zogby and his polling are largely respected by many across the country. The Zogby International group, working with the John Goodwin Tower Center for political science at Southern Methodist University, looked at and decided to poll in a unique way. They said: Let's examine the difference between the George Bush States in 2000, the red States, and the Al Gore States, the blue States. For the balance of my comment, think red and think blue and remember that map we saw after the last Presidential election when the vast majority of America was red except for a few blue strips along the west coast line and the east coast line.

Here were the questions asked of 1,200 voters--not citizens, voters; those who said they voted in the last election--as to the attitude of Americans on firearms. They asked: Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers that sell a legal product which is not defective--meaning a quality product used for the intent of its manufacture--should be allowed to be sued if a criminal used their product in a crime.

What are the answers? The answers are, there were enough laws on the books. In the Bush States, 69 percent agreed they should not be sued; in the Gore States, 63 percent agreed they should not be sued and they ought not be sued; military people in those States, 70 percent; veterans, 71 percent; nonmilitary, on the average 66 percent. A very strong majority of the American people made it very clear. The answer came back loudly, from every demographic group opposed to these kinds of lawsuits.

That is why we have S. 1805 before the Senate. American minds are made up. These are junk and frivolous lawsuits. They ought not be filed. They also said a manufacturer of a product ought to be held liable if that product is defective, if it malfunctions, and if that defectiveness or that malfunction might create an injury. That is exactly what we continue to allow to happen.

Opposition in the Bush States on that issue, 74 percent; while 72 percent of the voters in the Al Gore States voiced opposition. Interestingly, across the board those most strongly opposed to these lawsuits against the firearms industry are current members of the military and their family. Their opposition collectively measured at 83 percent. This is not from a conservative right-wing pollster. This is from Zogby himself.

When certain gun organizations heard about this, they called the Zogby polling group and asked, Are these valid? The answer from Zogby: Yes, we ran them again. We were not so sure, and we believe they are accurate and valid.

Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Of course, those were the figures we showed in the first chart. There needs to be new and tougher gun law legislation to help fight against crime. That is what we are debating now in the Senate. That was question A: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better law enforcement of current laws regarding gun control, by a better than 2 to 1, 66 to 31.

In essence, the American people are saying no new gun laws; we have plenty of them on the books. That is not about laws but going after criminals. That is common sense in America, and we never want to doubt the common sense of the average American when they are well informed about an issue or when they just suggest that somebody is playing politics with an issue and it really does not make any sense.

Sixty-nine percent in the Bush States; 63 percent in the Gore States; and those numbers are extremely strong.

So what are we saying? We are saying that moderates solidly favor better law enforcement--62 percent to 34 percent. They are saying: Leave the gun owner alone. Gun control laws do not work.

Somehow, the American people have settled into understanding what most people understand, with common sense: If you do not use the laws to go after the criminal element in our country, if you try to blame their problem on somebody else or their malfunctioning in society, and you try to reach through and sue somebody else, the American people are saying: No, we don't go there anymore and we won't tolerate that.

Those are the issues at hand. That is the underlying purpose for why we are here today debating S. 1805. We think it is fundamental to the American people to allow them to speak and say: Enough is enough; 30- plus lawsuits by

municipalities or political jurisdictions, and 21 of them already thrown out of the courts. Our courts are now full of many of these. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in defense of law- abiding manufacturers and licensed firearms dealers. It is time we say, no, if that third party is trying to be held unaccountable by going after somebody else who is a law-abiding, legitimate citizen. Let's return to old, historic, fundamental tort law. It is the individual who is responsible for their actions, not someone else.

I think we were all taught that as a child. If we were not taught that by our parents, then I guess I have to say shame on our parents because that is pretty fundamental. You are responsible for your actions. If you misact, you might be punished for it. In society, if you misuse a gun, you ought to be punished for it instead of trying to pass it on to somebody else who is a law-abiding citizen playing by the rules that society has laid down and of which our Constitution so clearly speaks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the gun show loophole bill now being introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Reed is before us for full debate at this moment. Let me talk for a few moments about this issue and what it is

and what it is not, and what has been done and what has not been done.

I believe some of the language used on the floor deserves to be clarified for the Members who might be looking in. The Senator from Rhode Island said yesterday that a good many States have already closed the loophole. I think he meant that 15 States have preexisting processes. Long before you go to a gun show, if in fact you are in the market to purchase a gun, you pick up a permit by which to purchase. States do backgrounds and have backgrounds and do that kind of thing.

He did mention, though, North Carolina and spoke greatly about how North Carolina had closed the loophole, and then gun shows flourished. Well, numbers are not any different in the number of gun shows. North Carolina requires a handgun permit to purchase a handgun. So they do a check, a normal check, the kind you would normally do. You have to have that going in or coming out of a gun show to acquire from any activity, other than a one-on-one private sale. So to examine all of those issues, none of the States have the kind of regulatory structure that is being asked to be imposed on all gun shows in all States by the McCain-Reed gun show amendment. Clearly, what we have is an effort to create a blanket Federal policy across 1,000 gun shows, attended by millions of people annually, which is legal, responsible commerce.

Well, it has also been argued that gun shows are now the venue by which terrorists acquire firearms. It is interesting that the reason they suggest that is because the terrorists who acquired a firearm through a gun show, or through a straw dealer who bought a firearm at a gun show, are arrested and in jail. Somehow the law must have worked. It did work because if you are an illegal alien in this country, you cannot acquire a firearm. If you are a felon, you cannot acquire a firearm. It catches up with you if you are a law breaker.

In this instance, those they know of are three. There were three they can talk about. Does a purchase of three make the gun show venue a wide open market for terrorist activities? Absolutely not. It never has and it never will.

What we know, what the statistics show from the Department of Justice, is that the reality would suggest there are possibly a couple of percentage points, 1.5, 2 percentage points, that we can actually understand as it relates to firearms obtained through gun shows, used in criminal activity.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is, I believe, by far the most reputable accumulator of this kind of information. They suggest that it has been a constant, all the way through, possibly about 1 percent. So that is the reality we deal with on this issue.

Let me put forth another scenario. This is a question they cannot answer because they have set up a major, new tripwire for an individual.

Let's say an individual goes to a gun show. He or she looks around and they find a particular gun in which they are interested. It is not being offered by a licensed Federal firearms dealer; it is being offered by a collector or an individual who bought a table and has two or three firearms to sell. He likes it. The dealer or the person says, take my card.

So he takes his or her card and he goes home and talks to his spouse; the spouse says, you have enough guns, you don't need another gun. That conversation goes on for quite a while. Finally, they agree that maybe for the collection, or for whatever purpose this citizen would want to own that gun, that they will buy it. They call the fellow on the business card. The purchase goes about.

Now, has that gun been purchased illegally? I do believe under the Reed-McCain amendment you have set up a major new tripwire for innocent, law-abiding citizens who, after the fact of a gun show, purchase the gun.

It can be argued that it was outside the gun show, but the point of contact was inside the room, inside the organized gun show.

What if 2 or 3 years later you realize that particular collector, who you met at the gun show and visited with and you saw his particular collection at the gun show, has that one firearm that you want to add to your collection? Does that point of contact, therefore, require, under Reed-McCain, a background check? I believe it is a phenomenally gray area and a critical area for an awful lot of law-abiding citizens who, once again, out of a desire to put up a law that doesn't work, when you create a Federal bureaucracy, you throw them into the middle of the bureaucracy when they in every way have been law-abiding citizens. I believe that is a phenomenal risk to place on our citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing--placing a risk on a citizen when we have never before said that this was a problem.

The ATF did research a few years ago and found out that less than 2 percent--1.7 percent--of firearms involved in criminal activity came from a gun show and they said, oh, there is a loophole. If there is a loophole in a gun show, there is one outside of a gun show. The laws that pertain to every citizen outside the gun show today pertain inside the gun show as well.

Yet McCain-Reed says that is not good enough. This is a special activity--1,000 legal activities that go on across our Nation a year, and millions of people attend them not just to acquire a gun but to get information, to collect, do all kinds of things you do at normal shows.

So our Federal Government is going to decide to regulate one more activity of commerce out there in the free marketplace. Why? To set up a charade that hasn't worked and won't work any differently than it has outside the gun show.

Let's stay with the laws we have. Let's go after the criminal element. Let's keep S. 1805 a clean bill so we can get it to the President for his signature.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado. He has worked with us and has the concealed-carry bill we will be voting on later today.

I think the Senator sees it clearly, as I see it. That has established a very big gray area. Of course, if that weapon fell into the hands of a criminal who misused it, and if that trace came back, that is a field day for a lawyer inside a court saying, you bet, that contact was made, that sale was initiated at a gun show, when the scenario could have been just as the Senator explained it.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his excellent amendment and for his willingness to stand up and speak out on these critical issues.

I now yield 10 minutes of my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his comments and the work that he has done to keep the gun laws in this Nation clean, appropriate where necessary, and enforceable without the entrapment of law-abiding citizens. I thank him for that work, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would you notify me when I have used 5 minutes of my remaining time?

Mr. President, why are we on the floor today debating a law, not debating a proposed law? We are debating this law because some years ago, when the Congress put it in place, they said, let's sunset it to force Congress to come back and look at it to see whether or not it worked. Because at that time there was a concern and somebody sought a political placebo to go home to their constituents and say, look what I did for you to protect you and therefore the world is safer. But many of us said, wait a moment, let's watch the law and see if it works. Let's put a sunset in it and come back and revisit it. That is what we are doing today.

In September of 2004, the assault weapons ban expires and the great debate is whether we ought to extend it for another period of time or whether we should not. The rationale to extend it is based on the fact it worked.

If it is a good law in place, it ought to be extended. I think the argument today is, fundamentally, did it or did it not work? That is the business of statistics and polling and data. The Senator from California, who offered the extension, used tracing data. I am using data that has been put forward by the Justice Department. Let's compare the two.

I am not saying the Senator from California's data is wrong. What she presented to the Congress, and to the Senate, is an accurate presentation. But let's put it into the context of how it was intended to be used because I don't believe it was intended to be used for this debate.

What is tracing data from BATF? This is a phrase to remember when you are talking about tracing data: Not all crime guns are traced--period. Not all gun traces are of crime weapons. Not all traces are of crime weapons.

For example, if you get a search warrant and you go into a house and you find firearms and the police department wants to know from whence they came, you do a trace. Were they used in the commission of a crime? No. In other words, it is an intelligence-gathering piece of information for the law enforcement community.

In 1994, in the passage of the assault weapon ban, there was this bubble of public interest because there was a lot of accusation out there that semiautos and assault weapons were the common weapon of the criminal. A lot of traces were done during that period of time. It tapered off over time. So if you argue it worked, the law worked--it didn't. It was simply reassessing the value of the trace at that time and the need to trace.

Back to the same premise: Not all crime guns are traced and not all gun traces are of crime guns. It is an information-gathering tool by

I thank you, Mr. President. I allot myself 2 more minutes.

Machine guns: Fully automatic--the kind that is already banned. You can acquire them by permit from BATF to put in your collections, but you can't go to the street and buy them unless you buy them illegally and you buy them in the black market. You don't buy them at gun shows. That is the reality of what we are talking about.

Where lies the burden of proof to renew or re-up a law that has restricted the ability of law-abiding citizens, created another tripwire, and denied them what is a legitimate ownership right in this country? Less than 2 percent. I believe those are fully verifiable statistics when we are examining this. That is why the House and many others have said, no, let's not go there. Let this law expire. It may have been necessary at the time largely for political purposes only. Many of us opposed it then, saying it wouldn't work and it wasn't necessary. It didn't work and it isn't necessary. That is the reality of what we are doing.

Let us take this law from the books. Let us make sure we go after the criminal who misuses the gun--who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. That is where we get law enforcement. That is how we protect law-abiding citizens in this country and we don't thereby deny them their constitutional right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. President, we are within a short time of beginning three very critical votes today starting at 11:30 on three very important items.

First, let me start with the underlying bill, S. 1805. The Statement of Administration Policy is to keep the bill clean. Don't add all of these other amendments to it. It is a clean, well-drafted, narrow provision that says we are going to exempt law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers who play by the rules from third party suits of those who might take a law-abiding object and turn it into a criminal weapon; and that action should not be allowed to reach back through the court

system and go after law-abiding gun manufacturers and licensed dealers.

Product liability: Don't change that law. Standard tort law: Don't change that law. But we narrow and we define so that all of these new creative arguments that the trial bar is trying to bring up in the 30- plus lawsuits they have brought don't fit anymore.

It is plain and simple. We go back to old tort in this country that says the individual is responsible for their actions. The individual is responsible for their actions. That is the underlying premise of S. 1805.

Added to that, certainly the Senator from California will attempt to extend the assault weapon ban.

A few moments ago I argued that there is no clear evidence, and the Justice Department's own statistics would argue that it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

The Senator from Arizona talked about the gun show loophole and mentioned that it is now accessed by terrorists for their weapons of choice. He also didn't mention that all of those terrorists were arrested. Somehow the law worked. They were caught. They were illegal. They may have made the point of contact and they may have lied and they may have acquired a firearm which they could have acquired outside of a gun show, but they were caught. They were arrested. They were trafficking in guns. And darn it, that is illegal in this country. We have well established that.

Do you create a whole new bureaucracy and a whole new hurdle over which the law-abiding citizen has to jump? I don't think so. I hope not. Or do you really create that gray area that I talked about earlier?

What if I go to the gun show and see the gun I like, but it is a licensed dealer, it is a collector, and months later I have his card? I call him up and I say, I visited with you at the gun show. I have decided to buy your weapon, the firearm. I want to add it to my collection. I want to add it to my personal inventory.

A legal action, it is today a legal action. If the gun show loophole bill passes, I think it is a phenomenally gray area. We set up another tripwire for the law-abiding citizen.

The Senator from Arizona and I know how creative the trial bar is. Let's at least argue that they discussed it and that they avoided the background check at that time by buying it outside the gun show. The point of contact was the gun show. The point of contact for millions of Americans who legally buy firearms is the gun show, with 1,000 gun shows a year, millions of people attending them. So now we overlay that with the Federal bureaucracy.

Yes, States do shape gun shows in their own likeness, and I don't object to that. Permits are required in some instances. Twelve States have done so. Have they plugged a loop hole? They have required that on all gun sales in their State, whether they are done inside of a gun show or outside of a gun show. Is that plugging a loophole or is that standardizing a law that fits that given State and the population of that State? That is 12 or 15, at the most. The rest have not. We had those kinds of requirements in the State of New York in 1911 and Congress did not speak to it. It was not called a loophole then. It was called a loophole only when the BATF, in their survey, said there might be a loophole through which some might be acquiring guns. One percent, 2 percent, 20 percent--how about 1.7 percent? It was true before the law; it is now true after the law.

Did the law work? In the case of assault weapons, it did not work. We have denied it before, but what the Senator is going to say, let's plug the loophole in the gun shows and then later on let's reach outside the gun shows and do the same thing, by gosh, that is called gun control. When the right of a free citizen to engage with his neighbor, which they have exempted now, and they have trimmed it down a bit--and I don't argue that--that is a new Federal law over all of our citizens. I question the need and I question the responsible act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I might ask the other side how they want to deal with their 1 minute remaining prior to my closing statement.

Mr. President, I have been granted the time of the leader to close out this debate before we start votes at 11:35.

I must tell you, I am honored by the presence of the Senator from Massachusetts today on the floor to debate this critical issue. I am honored we have lifted the gun debate, on a fundamentally important bill for the average American, to Presidential politics. So let's go to where the average American is, by a Zogby poll taken some months ago, and this is: The red States versus the blue States, the Bush States versus the Gore States, in 2000.

When the average American, by the Zogby International polling group-- certainly no rightwing polling group--did their work with Southern Methodists, here is what they got. For the statement: ``There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better law enforcement for current laws regarding gun control.''--69 percent in the Bush States agreed, 63 percent in the Gore States; for the military, the veterans, and the nonmilitary--all of them well above a majority of 50 percent. When it comes to the underlying bill, that number jumps into the 70s.

Americans are fed up with the politics and the placebos to put a law on the books and somehow you have made the world safer. What they want is the cop on the beat arresting the bad guy or gal, and the courts not summarily putting them back on the streets. And when you use a gun in the commission of a crime, I suggest, and we suggest, and the American people suggest, you do the time. You don't plea-bargain them back to the streets out of a liberal court system.

That is the reality. That is what is important about this underlying debate. I am proud we have elevated it to the stature it is today.

I yield 5 minutes of my remaining time to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his debate and leadership on these issues. He has been a statewide law enforcement officer. He knows what laws are all about. He knows how the public reacts to them, and he knows that laws have to be enforced.

We are minutes away from starting a very critical vote process on three amendments before we break for lunch. We will vote on the Feinstein, McCain, and Campbell amendments. There will be time allotted for each one as we get to them. In the minute that remains, I will say this has been a very positive debate. At the same time, I think there is a common sense and a reality that stacking up gun laws on the Federal books of the U.S. Code doesn't work, unless they are effectively enforced on the ground and the criminal element who may violate these laws knows there is a bite in the law; that somehow if they use a gun in the commission of a crime, they are going to do the time.

Everywhere that principle has been applied, crime has gone down, the use of a gun by a criminal has gone down. There have been arguments about keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. They have not made their case because every example they use was a terrorist who had been arrested, stopped. The guns, strangely, were to be exported out of the country by the terrorist. So they placed themselves in double jeopardy. Now they are doing the time. Somehow, in that portion of the law it worked well. But the vote we are going to take is over whether to extend the law for another period of time that Congress said some years ago they wanted to look at. Therefore, we would sunset it and reconsider it. That is what we are doing and will do by a vote on the extension of the assault weapons ban, the extension of a law that hasn't worked.

All of the statistics are in. The numbers have not changed. Is the assault weapon, or a weapon of similar appearance, misused on occasion? Yes, it is, but by less than 2 percent in participating in a crime. Is that a justification for, again, establishing a tripwire? The Senator from Massachusetts said you are going to unleash AK-47s back on the streets. Well, the law that bans them is still in place. It doesn't fall out with the assault weapons ban going away. That and the Uzi law are in place.

Senators will now come to the Chamber for a vote in a few moments on these critical issues. I hope they have been engaged. The debate has been very civil over a very important part of what we do in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to let the assault weapons ban die in peace. It expires in September of 2004. Statistics show it has not changed the method of operation of criminals in this country. The assault weapons or the definition to which we prescribe in the law is not a weapon of choice of the criminal on the streets of America. It has simply set up the tripwires for law-abiding citizens who may choose to have this type of gun in their collection. By definition, that means that gun doesn't get misused. The stolen weapon, the one trafficked in the black market, is the one that is misused. That is why I believe--and many colleagues agree with me--when you sunset a law, you do so for the purpose of reexamining it to see whether it is worthy of staying on the books of

this country. It is not. It is time for it to go away. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my colleagues, another critical vote is at hand.

To my colleagues, envision a door. If you walk through the door, the Federal Government takes over. If you stay outside the door, the current laws are in authority. It is called the gun show loophole. We have an amendment here that puts a whole new tripwire in front of the law-abiding citizen. It does not go after the criminal element. We know less than 2 percent of guns that are used in the commission of a crime are gotten through a gun show. Most of them are obtained in the back streets.

Let's talk about law enforcement and the argument about terrorists gaining their guns through gun shows. The reason they arrested the terrorists is the current laws work. There are 1,000 gun shows for law- abiding citizens. Let's not create a Federal bureaucracy that will begin to govern and control what is the right of free commerce in this country. Let the current Federal law work.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2623

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we will now adjourn for lunch. When we return at 2:15, we will have under consideration the Frist-Craig amendment on armor piercing, the Kennedy amendment on the armor- piercing gun ban, and a Levin amendment to be tabled, and final passage. We will reconvene at 2:15.

Mr. President, I am compelled to speak out against continuing this assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Feinstein. An assault weapon is a military firearm which can be fired either automatically or semiautomatically with the flip of a switch. In other words, a true assault weapon is a machine gun, which is a gun already regulated by Federal law.

The firearms covered by the so-called ``assault weapons'' laws are semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Some of these firearms are made to look like a military-style weapon but are mechanically indistinguishable from any true traditional-looking deer rifle.

According to the FBI, in 2001, nearly five times as many individuals were murdered at the hands of criminals wielding knives than were murdered by criminals using rifles. I might add, only a fraction of those rifles were the semiautomatic rifles that were banned by the so- called assault weapons ban. What I think is most interesting and telling about this statistic is that the proportion is nearly identical to what it was 10 years ago; that is, according to the FBI, in 1991, 3 years before the assault weapons ban passed, nearly five times as many murders were committed with knives than rifles--exactly the same proportion as exists today.

The so-called assault weapons ban has succeeded in only one thing: law-abiding men and women, precisely because they abide by the law, were stripped of some of their second amendment rights. We cannot make the same mistake this body made 10 years ago.

The number of murders committed with different weapons has decreased in all areas, proportionally, over the last 10 years. The suggestion that the assault weapons ban is responsible for this decrease is as preposterous as it is misleading. There is no more evidence that the ban on semiautomatic weapons has had a positive impact on crime than there is that the setting Sun is responsible for street lights turning on.

The fact is, just as we feared 10 years ago, the only impact the ban on semiautomatic weapons has had has been on law-abiding citizens. I would like, therefore, to take a few minutes about how we ought to address gun violence. Instead of banning certain firearms for merely political reasons, we need to continue aggressively prosecuting criminals.

Rather than focusing on crafting and enacting more laws that erode law-abiding citizens' constitutionally protected rights, we ought to channel our efforts towards enforcing our current laws and punishing those who choose to abuse those rights and commit crimes with guns.

For example, President Bush has made a commitment to reduce gun crime by getting armed criminals off the streets through his initiative,

Project Safe Neighborhoods. In contrast to the 10-year assault weapons ban and its ineffectiveness in combating gun violence is the overwhelming success of Project Safe Neighborhoods. Project Safe Neighborhoods, announced by the President and the Attorney General in 2001, is a comprehensive strategy that brings together Federal, State, and local agencies to reduce violent crime in our communities.

I might add that we have had a 68-percent reduction in violent crime since that came into being. And I might also add that the only way to keep this under control is to get tough on those who abuse the right to have guns and who abuse the use of guns.

The President is on the right track. We do not need this particular amendment. I hope my colleagues will not accept it.

This ought to be our approach. Not simply saying all guns of a certain appearance are banned. We must continue to vigorously pursue those who abuse the right to own a firearm--not stripping away law- abiding individuals' rights to own and possess firearms. Especially when, other than their appearance, those firearms are no different than thousands of other firearms that are considered legitimate. In fact, in May of last year, I held a hearing for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of Project Safe Neighborhoods. The results are in, and they are impressive.

The number of Federal firearms prosecutions has increased significantly every year under Project Safe Neighborhoods. Specifically, prosecutions have increased 68 percent in the past 3 years. In 2003, the Department of Justice filed over 10,500 Federal firearms cases--the highest number ever recorded by the Department.

Federal offenders are being sentenced to significant jail time. In 2003, approximately 72 percent of offenders were sentenced to prison terms greater than 3 years.

The per capita number of violent crimes involving firearms has dropped 14 percent since the start of the Bush administration. This has translated into an average of over 32,000 fewer gun crimes annually in each of the first 2 years of the Bush administration.

There were nearly 130,000 fewer victims of gun crime in 2001-2002 than in 1999-2000.

The President has been and Congress should be making America's neighborhoods safer by vigorously enforcing gun laws and preventing and deterring gun crime. Arbitrarily taking guns away from law-abiding citizens does not assist the President in making the neighborhoods of America safer.

Inthe course of the debate over gun liability my colleague, Senator Durbin, spoke of Korean-American victims in Illinois. Let me tell you about Korean-American victims in California.

Many of the guns which current assault weapons bans are targeting-- including the Federal ban enacted in 1994--are the very guns with which the Korean-American merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. For those of you who may not recall the Los Angeles Riots, let me tell you about this tragedy. On April 29, 1992, African Americans, upset over the verdict in the Rodney King case, took to the streets of Korea Town in downtown Los Angeles. Although these innocent Korean-Americans had nothing to do with the police brutality inflicted upon Rodney King, their businesses were singled out. Calls for help came in to 911 by the hundreds. but citizens were informed that no assistance was available. Order had broken down. People were on their own.

As a result of one night of violence, 55 people died, over 2,300 were injured and one billion dollars of property damage was sustained according to the Christian Science Monitor. Gunfire killed 35 people. Six died in arson fires. Attackers used sticks or boards to kill two people. Two other were stabbed to death. Six died in car accidents, two in hit-and-runs, and one person was strangled. The violence crossed racial and ethnic lines.

Seventy-five percent of the businesses destroyed belonged to Korean Americans. Those Korean-American merchants who possessed assault weapons and used them to defend themselves, would likely have a different story about gun control laws and how they help victims. The Korean-American merchants would agree that when one is facing mob violence and the police are unable to respond, one may need a gun that shoots more than just six bullets or has a menacing appearance. A ban on large capacity semiautomatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family rather than deter crime.

While most American spend little time thinking of what the police can do to protect them during times of domestic tranquility, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Citizens, like the police, have a right, and some would say a duty, to defend themselves and their families against deadly threats.

The assault weapons ban is a measure entirely devoid of rational thought. It is not based upon compelling factual data or civil necessity, but of political strategy and the machinations of over- reactive, quick-fix ideologues. This amendment addresses neither the problem nor the solution, when it comes to gun crime. And because the amendment serves only the political agenda of the few and not the convictions and rights of the many, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Amendment No. 2636

Mr. President, another issue I would like to talk about is the amendment sponsored by my colleague, Senator McCain, the so-called gun show loophole.

Based on some of the arguments I hear made by Senator McCain and his cosponsors, it is apparent there are some misunderstandings about what gun shows are, how they operate, and existing applicable laws.

Gun shows are large events that are open to the public. These events attract a broad range of people. They include collectors, hunters, target shooters, police officers, and those who serve in the Armed Forces.

Gun shows are an opportunity for Americans--fathers and mothers and their sons and daughters--to pass along a family tradition. Exhibitors at these gun shows include gun dealers who are all federally licensed, as well as gun collectors, hunting guides, target shooting clubs, and vendors of books, clothing, hunting accessories, and so on.

What Federal laws currently apply to gun shows? Contrary to popular opinion, there are no special exemptions for gun shows. Anyone who engages in the business of selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of where he or she does business.

More specifically, there is simply no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. In fact, dealing in guns without a license is a Federal felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a substantial fine. Congress authorized licensed firearms dealers to conduct business at gun shows in 1986 under the Firearms Owner Protection Act.

So what happens when these dealers sell guns at gun shows? Have these dealers applied for and received Federal firearms licenses from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives? The answer is a simple yes.

Dealers are required by Federal law to conduct a criminal background check. They must conduct a check through the national instant check system at gun shows just as they would have had to do in any other location. So if we adopt this amendment, who will it affect? The answer is not surprisingly, but unfortunately ignored by the proponents of this amendment. The answer is it would affect law-abiding citizens who are out to hurt no one.

It would drive out and shut down the gun collectors who buy and trade some of their guns at gun shows. They represent a fraction of the exhibitors at gun shows.

Remember, gun collectors are not gun dealers and may not engage in the business of dealing firearms without a firearms license.

I would like to touch on an issue that many Utahns and I find particularly troublesome. If we adopt this amendment, it will effectively create gun owner registration.

I want to make sure my colleagues understand how this legislation, if it became law, would work. Under the amendment, special firearms event operators would have to verify the identity of all participating vendors and have those vendors sign a ledger saying they were there selling firearms, whether or not any of the vendors actually sold a firearm. This requirement is

a modest improvement of the original bill, which, as introduced, would have required vendors to submit to the Attorney General the names of all vendors slated to participate in the Gun Show. Regardless of the slight change, it is clear what the sponsors of this amendment intend. That is, to track and register law abiding citizens who merely want to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.

So suppose a private, law-abiding citizen enters a gun show hoping to sale or trade a firearm, but that person does not make a deal and leaves with his own firearm. This person, this private law-abiding citizen, would be on file and in a ledger forever as a special firearms event vendor, copies of the ledgers to be used for any future purpose.

This amendment also purports to provide for instant background checks. Now, anyone who knows anything about the national instant criminal check system knows that they do not turn around such inquiries in 24 hours. In fact, currently, the national instant criminal check system has 3 days to turn around a request for a background check.

The amendment before us provides that the wait may be reduced to 24 hours if a State applies for the privilege of improving its records. With a 3-business-day period still allowed to check out-of-State records, a few large States will drag down the whole scheme for all transfers across the Nation.

Again, what is the practical effect? Gun collectors who occasionally attend gun shows for a day or two on a weekend will be shut down because they will not be able to have the national instant criminal check system run the required check on a prospective buyer and make such a transaction in that day.

There are two more important points that I think many of the Members in this body may have overlooked. First, in November of 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on imprisoned felons and where they obtained their firearms. Fewer than 1 percent obtained the guns they used to commit their crimes at gun shows. Of that 1 percent, only a fraction obtained weapons through collectors.

What does this tell us? The idea that shutting down collectors at gun shows will affect crime in any appreciable way is dramatically overstated, if not preposterous.

Criminals are getting their guns on the street or from the residential burglaries, but not from heavily police-attended gun shows.

Second, and I want my colleagues to hear this: Law enforcement and Federal prosecutors continue to use gun shows to weed out corrupt gun dealers. In fact, Federal prosecutors stress to me that passing this amendment would serve only to drive those few who would unlawfully deal in firearms without a license into the black market, into the back alleyways, and into the hidden areas of our communities, making it nearly impossible to locate and prosecute such criminals.

So not only will this amendment fail to address the true nature of the problem, but it will punish law-abiding collectors who choose to publicly trade their firearms.

I submit that adopting this politically driven, knee-jerk amendment, which only injects partisanship into a bill that otherwise enjoys broad bipartisan support, will have two effects: One, it will shut down lawful gun collectors who attend and trade guns at gun shows; and two, if it has any effect on crime, it will affect it negatively by driving the few dealers who are unlawful into the black market where it is exorbitantly more difficult for them to be located and prosecuted.

I urge my colleagues on other side of the aisle to re-examine their analysis, put politics aside, and reject this amendment.

It will serve no purpose in pursuing our common goal of fighting crime, but instead will only hurt innocent law-abiding citizens.

Let us not be distracted from the issue at hand.

We have legislation before us that enjoys broad bipartisan support and that deserves our attention. That should be the focus of our efforts, not passage of this unwise amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume from my time.

I rise to support the McCain-Reed amendment and also the Feinstein amendment. I am a cosponsor, obviously, of both amendments.

I wish to talk, for a moment, about the gun show loophole. It is clear and obvious to anyone--at least I believe it is--that we should not have two different standards at a public gun show. We should not have a situation where you can approach one seller who is a licensed firearms dealer and in that transaction have to undergo a background check, and then, 5 feet away, have an unlicensed seller and be able to purchase a weapon without any type of background check.

These are public functions. Thousands of people stream through these gun shows. This is not a private sale where the seller and the buyer know each other, have an association to each other, and essentially do not need any kind of a background check. In order to prevent these gun shows from being exploited by criminals and terrorists, there has to be a common standard. Every transaction should be governed by a background check at a public gun show.

We know these unlicensed dealers and these gun shows have been exploited by criminals. I have mentioned, over the course of the last several days of debate, numerous examples. Let me return to one.

Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in Buffalo, NY.

It is a very obvious scheme. You go to a place, if you are a felon or a criminal, that requires no background checks, that are publicly advertised, that are easily accessible, you buy the weapons, take them to another State that has very tough laws, and you sell them to criminals.

One of these weapons was recovered in a homicide. It has been reported that Bostic purchased 45 firearms at one of these sales; his accomplices, 85 guns.

These are the examples that will continue to take place unless we close this gun show loophole. Indeed, it is obvious to gun owners it should be closed. More than 80 percent of gun owners surveyed indicated they support closing the gun show loophole. President Bush repeatedly, in the campaign of 2000, said he was for closing the gun show loophole.

The legislation that we present imposes no great burden on any participant at a gun show. Because of the National Instant Check System, 91 percent of these background checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent are accomplished in less than 2 hours. The remaining checks reveal, in many cases, prohibitive purchases. That is the purpose of the check.

I think we can do something logical that is supported by the broad majority of Americans, including gun owners, by closing this gun show loophole. I hope we can do it today.

But let me, before I conclude, make a general comment on the underlying bill. We have heard the proponents of the bill talk a lot about responsibility, that we have all been taught as children that if we misuse a gun, we should be responsible for that.

Well, the underlying legislation is a license for irresponsibility. The most salient example is Bull's Eye Shooter Supply gun store up in Washington State, the source of the weapons for the snipers who were plaguing this Washington metropolitan area.

There, the individual gun dealer apparently let weapons lay around. He could not account for over 238 weapons. He did not inventory his weapons. That is what I call a misuse of a weapon. People were harmed by that misuse, but we are insulating that individual from any serious liability because there is no Federal law--and my colleagues on the other side are not likely to propose it--for strict control of the security of weapons.

I am amazed about the statistics my colleague from Idaho cited about the military support for no new weapons, et cetera. I tell you what. I served for 12 years in the U.S. Army. If you told an Army officer there was someone with hundreds of weapons, unsecured, lying around, subject to being shoplifted by teenagers, they would be appalled. Because the first thing you learn in the military is that you better secure those weapons, you better lock them up, you better inventory them, and do all the things you have to do, not only to protect yourself but to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. This legislation, if passed, will be a license for irresponsible behavior, unconstrained by any civil suit that could not only compensate the victims but suggest a higher level of care. So I hope that not only we support these amendments but look seriously at the underlying bill.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I initially want to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from Utah. I believe he read a legislative proposal that Senator McCain and I submitted last fall, not the amendment that is before us today because we specifically removed from the amendment today any requirement for the turning in of lists of vendors at gun shows to the Attorney General of the United States. That is not in this amendment.

There is no requirement for unlicensed sellers to execute any paperwork. That requirement will be undertaken by a special licensee, presumably the gun show sponsor and operator, not the unlicensed gun dealer. Furthermore, there is no requirement to seek permission from the Attorney General or any Federal authority to conduct a gun show. So I think the comments of the Senator from Utah reflect not this amendment but previous proposals. This amendment has been specifically modified to make it as easy, as efficient, and as effective as possible to conduct these background checks.

The Federal authorities have a 3-day period of time in which to execute a gun show background check, but, frankly, with the National Instant Criminal Background System, we all know the facts are clear. Ninety-one percent of these checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent in less than 2 hours. If the check is not completed in 3 days, then the transaction goes through. That is just a backstop in case there is information that these Federal authorities cannot obtain.

So, frankly, the suggestion that gun shows will be put out of business is quite wrong. Those places which have even tougher standards than those suggested by the McCain-Reed bill still have gun shows, and they are still highly popular and highly successful.

I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments about North Carolina. My comments generally talked about closing the gun show loophole. As he points out, North Carolina requires everyone who is buying a firearm at a gun show to have a North Carolina firearm permit, which is probably a more demanding standard than we are suggesting in our amendment, and we would not suggest that. That is a State prerogative. Technically, they do not require all the background checks on licensees and unlicensees, but they do in fact require any purchaser to have a permit. That is a very stringent standard.

Now, there has also been some discussion today about the fact that this is going to cause tremendous chaos because what if someone saw a weapon at a gun show and then later called a private dealer. Well, that is why the amendment clearly defines activities that are not part of a gun show subject to this amendment.

The language states:

does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale,

exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal

collection of that individual, at the private residence of

that individual, if the individual is not required to be

licensed under section 923 or 932.

For example, if someone is a private collector, if they have some guns in their home and they are selling those weapons from their home, then they are not subject to this provision.

It is as clear as we can make it to exempt the many people who are private collectors and the many people who, indeed, should not be subject to this license requirement.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for the 2 minutes.

In summary, this amendment that Senator McCain and I proposed is as sensible as I think one can ever fashion a law. When someone walks into a gun show with thousands of individuals, hundreds of booths, it makes no sense to the average person why one individual should require a background check and another does not have to conduct a background check in the sale of a firearm. It makes sense to have an even playing field.

These are public events. It is virtually impossible for a seller at a major gun show to know the background of all the potential purchasers. We know these gun shows are exploited. This is not hypothetical. They are exploited by criminals. Goodness gracious, it makes perfect sense why they would be. It is a supermarket where a person can obtain firearms without any background check. It is like a neon sign that says: Come here if you are looking to get weapons and you cannot buy them legally.

We know what happens. We also know because of the threat of terrorists that terrorists have looked at these gun shows as possible ways to obtain firearms. Frankly, I think the American public would demand, as they have in the past, anything we can do that would curtail access to dangerous weapons to terrorists.

So I hope we support closing the gun show loophole. I also hope we support the assault weapons ban. Finally, I think we have to carefully look at the underlying legislation as a severe encroachment on hundreds and hundreds of years--indeed, many years--of common law tradition.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first indicate that this legislation already includes an amendment by Senator Boxer on child safety locks, so the bill is not clean.

The question today is, Will we add additional sensible gun safety measures? One of them is the assault weapons ban. That is something that is entirely appropriate, one that has been supported by vast numbers of the American public, that we should continue.

The idea we are suddenly going to open up, once again, access to assault weapons across this country is difficult to bear, particularly by police officers. That is why they are so committed to this extension of the assault weapons ban because they are the individuals who have to face these weapons on the street.

There is another amendment which I cosponsored with Senator McCain that will close the gun show loophole. Senator McCain pointed out quite clearly the terrorists who have already been identified as exploiting this loophole or attempting to exploit it. Indeed, I suspect there are others because the nature of terrorists is that they do not go around advertising themselves too much. The loophole is there. They know it is there. They will exploit it to our detriment. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to prohibit, preempt terrorists from attacking us within the United States.

My colleague from Idaho conjured up this fear that this legislation is creeping gun control; this amendment will interfere with private sales. That is why the McCain-Reed amendment clearly specified that it does not apply to the sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual at the private residence of that individual. That is a private transaction unaffected by this legislation.

We know this loophole is being exploited. We know guns are going into the hands of criminal elements, perhaps terrorist elements, through the gun show, and we also know it makes no sense to anyone--forget legislative, forget advocates, the common person--to walk into a gun show and understand some people have to do background checks and others do not because those weapons are equally dangerous. The potential customers of these shows could be terrorists, could be criminals. We have to be responsible and reasonable. That is exactly what this amendment does.

This amendment does not create any new Federal bureaucracy. It does not require a gun show operator to report vendors to the Attorney General. It does not require that the Attorney General approve a gun show. It places no administrative burden practically at all on an unlicensed vendor.

Just remember, 5 years ago, two young men went into a high school and killed 13 people because they were able to exploit the gun show loophole.

Mr. President, I understand we are about to vote on the Feinstein amendment. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I urge all colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would continue a ban on assault weapons that has been in place for 10 years. It has ensured that military weapons will not be on the streets of America, will not be used in crimes, will not be accessible to terrorists, which will not force our police officers to confront these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a continuation of present law. It is not a new law. I think the American public has come to understand this law and appreciate it and support it. I think they would urge its adoption and its continuation. Again, I urge a favorable vote on the Feinstein amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, as a strong defender of law-abiding Americans' second amendments rights, today I join my colleagues, Senators Reed, DeWine, Lieberman, Chafee, and Dodd to offer a bipartisan compromise amendment to address what has become known as the gun show loophole.

Currently an individual can walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm from either a federally licensed dealer or an unlicensed dealer. A background check is only performed on that individual if he or she buys a gun from a licensed dealer. There is no requirement--I repeat, no requirement--for a background check of any kind when purchasing a firearm from an unlicensed dealer. This is a very dangerous loophole in the law and we are doing a disservice to the American people if we allow it to remain open.

This amendment would close this dangerous loophole in our gun safety laws in a way that is respectful of the rights of gunshop operators, gun show vendors, and gun show enthusiasts. It defines gun shows in a reasonable manner to cover only public events where at least 75 firearms are offered for sale. It specifically exempts from regulation any private sale from the home, such as yard sales or estate sales. Additionally, it exempts sales between members of hunt clubs, an exception that I know is important to a number of our colleagues who represent hunting and sporting clubs that occasionally sell, trade, or raffle firearms between club members.

The amendment would also create a new category of licensees who can become deputized to perform background checks for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. This licensee, who could even be a gun show employee, would enable any unlicensed vendor to conveniently have an instant background check performed when selling a firearm. In addition, this amendment would allow States to graduate to an even faster instant check once they have sufficiently automated the records necessary to ensure that a faster check does not sacrifice accuracy.

Why do we need this amendment? Some might point to tragedies such as Columbine, but as horrific as the massacre at Columbine was, where 11 young people needlessly lost their lives, that is not what drives the need to close the gun show loophole. We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws. We need this amendment because our second amendment rights do not extend to criminals who violate our laws and terrorists who hate this country.

We need this amendment because, according to the NRA, ``hundreds of thousands'' of unlicensed firearms sales occur at gun shows each year. We need this amendment because ATF has identified gun shows as the second leading source of firearms recovered from illegal gun trafficking investigations.

We also need this amendment because my law-abiding constituents who attend gun shows in Arizona should not have to rub shoulders with the scum of the Earth who use this loophole to evade background checks to buy firearms to peddle to God knows who. We need this because every one of the 15 leading gun trafficking States in America has not taken action to close the gun show loophole. Conversely, 11 of the 15 States with the lowest level of interstate gun trafficking have taken action to close the gun show loophole.

When discussing the topic of gun safety, I often hear my colleagues say things such as, let's enforce existing law before we make new ones. I completely agree and that is exactly what we are seeking to do today. We are seeking to strengthen existing laws by closing an enormous, dangerous loophole.

I offer this amendment as one who counts himself as a strong supporter of the underlying legislation to protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits. I plan to vote for the underlying bill because it is fundamentally unfair to blame a firearms manufacturer when a criminal misuses a gun. But it is also unfair to the American people to knowingly leave open a gaping hole in our gun safety laws that criminals and terrorists can and do easily exploit.

The last time the Senate considered similar legislation was in 1999, following the school shootings at Columbine High School. Two amendments were proposed to close the gun show loophole. One amendment received 51 votes with then-Vice President Gore casting his deciding vote. I opposed that amendment because, frankly, I thought it defined gun shows too broadly, covering certain private sales from the home, at yard sales, estate sales, and between members of private hunt clubs, places that obviously are not gun shows.

The second amendment which I supported also passed the Senate. Unfortunately, opponents of that amendment said it weakened the Brady law for licensed dealers and created new loopholes.

Today we offer a compromise proposal that is a reasonable, responsible consensus. I urge this body not to let this opportunity slip by.

Opponents of today's amendment will make several arguments. I would like to take a few moments to address them head on. It is important to point out that this amendment is a modification of the legislation we introduced last fall. This amendment contains none of the vendor notification requirements contained in that bill. The vender notification requirements in this amendment are the same as those that passed the Senate in 1999. Let me state that again for clarity. This amendment does not contain the vendor notification provisions contained in S. 1807. They are gone.

We still hear that criminals don't obtain guns from gun shows and we will

hear about a survey of State and Federal inmates conducted by the Justice Department showing that about 3 percent of prisoners obtained their guns from gun shows. Let me make a couple of points.

First, the survey was conducted in 1997. The gun show loophole didn't exist until December of 1993, so any criminal in prison for more than 3 years or any criminal who had a firearm for at least 3 years would not have had a reason to exploit this loophole.

Second, let's be clear to quote ATF field agent Jeff Fulton: ``Crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.'' In fact, the ATF says gun shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal trafficking investigations.

Some opponents of this amendment will say that background checks take too long for weekend gun shows. That may have been the case in 1999, but today, thanks to the diligence of the Department of Justice, 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes and over 95 percent of background checks are completed within 2 hours.

For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant check has lived up to its name. For the 1 out of 20 checks that take more than 2 hours, these applicants are 20 times more likely to be unlawful than the rest of the applicants. Additionally, this amendment encourages States to improve their records, making them eligible for even faster background checks.

I point out again that 91 percent of criminal background checks are completed within several minutes; 95 percent, within 2 hours.

Opponents say the background check requirements would put gun shows out of business. That is not true. According to the Krause Gun/Knife Show Calendar, the definitive source of gun show information in the Nation, in 2003, the 17 States that have closed the gun show loophole have hosted, on average, more gun shows than the 33 States that have not closed the loophole.

I repeat, the 17 States that have taken action to close the gun show loophole hosted, on average, 45 gun shows in 2003. The other 33 States, on average, 41 gun shows.

I am a gun show supporter. Arizona is a big gun show State. This amendment will have zero effect on legitimate gun show businesses.

This amendment has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the Conference Of Mayors--the list goes on and on with those who have to deal with the results of guns obtained illegally.

Let me say that the administration has said they want a ``clean bill.'' The administration has supported closing the gun show loophole but now they want a ``clean bill.'' Wink-wink, nod-nod. It is remarkable. It is remarkable. This loophole needs to be closed. The administration has had the position that it needs to be closed. We all know it needs to be closed.

There were two State referendums in the 2002 election, in Colorado, not notoriously a liberal State, and Oregon, not notoriously a conservative State. Both of those ballot initiatives carried overwhelmingly when taken to the people instead of the incredible influence of the NRA over this process.

I hope my friends will stand with the police chiefs and mayors and those who are required to enforce the law and vote for this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me just for a minute put a practical face on the issue we are talking about this morning. These are just a few examples of the criminals who are exploiting this loophole.

Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national, member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon; Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national in this country on an expired visa who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who obtained a pilot's license and had photos of tall buildings in American cities and, though seemingly impoverished, purchased a time-share for a Lear jet. And Conor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle into Ireland.

We are talking about the ability of terrorists--the proven record of terrorists exploiting the gun show loophole for the purpose of obtaining weapons that could be used against the United States of America.

This is a serious amendment and a serious issue. I want my colleagues to understand when voting on this amendment that there have already been cases where members of known terrorist organizations have exploited the gun show loophole and purchased weapons with which to eventually commit acts of terror against the United States of America. This is not an issue that should be in any way dismissed. There are many others.

Mr. Thomas Timms was arrested October 2003 with 147 guns and 66,000 rounds.

Mr. President, do I have time remaining on my time?

I remind my colleagues all reference to the Attorney General has been removed from this amendment. There is no Department of Justice oversight of the gun shows in this amendment.

Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and a member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted for attempting to smuggle firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon.

Muhammed Asrar, a Pakistani national, in this country on an expired visa, who admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Asrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who had obtained a pilot's license, had photos of tall buildings.

Connor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle to Ireland.

They were arrested. How many were not arrested? This is the most curious logic I have ever heard. They were arrested. Who wasn't arrested? A loophole exists. If we are interested in the security of this Nation, we will close it.