Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the ``Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 2003.'' This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities.

In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available tell us that 58.5 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care.

Under this proposal, States may apply for grants for assistance in implementing ``systems change'' initiatives, in order to eliminate the institutional bias in their current policies and for needs assessment activities. Further, if a state can show that the aggregate amounts of Federal expenditures on people living in the community exceeds what would have been spent on the same people had they been in nursing homes, the state can limit the program. No limiting mechanism is mandated under this bill, And finally, States would be required to maintain expenditures for attendant care services under other Medicaid community-based programs, thereby preventing the states from shifting patients into the new benefit proposed under this bill.

Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. In 1999 the Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid community-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.

Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. The time has come for concerted action in this arena.

I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths, those exempt from attending school, between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced identical measures in the past three Congresses. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House in the 105th and 106th Congresses. I am hopeful the Senate will also enact this important issue.

As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live.

The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on this issue. On May 3, 2001, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine these issues.

At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish.

Under my legislation, youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced.

The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause with the House legislation. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities.

I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education.

I offer my legislation with the hope that my colleagues will work with me to provide relief for the Amish community.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to improve the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Services program and reinstate Lancaster, PA's eligibility to receive subsidized air service.

The Essential Air Services program provides operating subsidies to airlines, enabling them to serve smaller markets which would otherwise be unable to attract or retain commercial flights. To be eligible to receive such a subsidy, the community where the airport is located must be greater than 70 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. If the airport is located within 70 miles of a hub airport, the Secretary of Transportation may use his or her discretion to award a subsidy if the most commonly used highway route between both places is greater than 70 miles. It is up to the Department of Transportation to determine what route is used in making this mileage determination.

Residents and businesses in many rural and smaller communities throughout the United States rely heavily upon air service to provide a necessary link to larger cities. Lancaster, PA is one such community which had been designated as an Essential Air Services city since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Up until the events of September 11, when the Airport faced a sharp decline in passenger revenue, Lancaster had never required a subsidy under this program.

When Lancaster ultimately found it necessary to seek a subsidy for its three daily flights to Pittsburgh, the Department of Transportation issued an Order to Show Cause on March 8, 2002, stating that Lancaster was not eligible for an Essential Air Services subsidy because it was located within 70 miles of Philadelphia International Airport. The Secretary of Transportation declined to use his discretion to award the subsidy because the Department identified a driving route of less than 70 miles between Lancaster City and Philadelphia Airport. While there is no question that such a route exists, it is by no means the most commonly used highway route as required by law.

The route selected by the Department of Transportation is one which the average person would never travel, via back roads and seldom used streets. In making its distance determination, the Department used a 66 mile route along Route 30 which would take over three hours to drive. The more commonly used highway route to the Philadelphia International Airport would be along US 222 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and then on to I-76, which is over 70 miles.

The legislation I am introducing today addresses this issue by designating an area's local metropolitan planning organization, rather than the Department of Transportation, as the organization responsible for determining the most commonly used highway route. If no such organization exists, the Governor of the State in which the airport is located, or the Governor's designee will make the determination. I believe that a local entity, not the Department of Transportation, is better suited to identify the route most travelers would drive. In such cases where that route exceeds 70 miles, the Department should be required to designate a community as eligible to receive subsidized air service.

My legislation will not place too great a burden upon the Essential Air Services program by allowing additional airports to participate. I am advised that there are only eight other communities, including Lancaster, which could become newly eligible to receive subsidized air service as a result of the changes I am proposing. Further, I would note that of the $113 million the program received in Fiscal Year 2002, there was an excess of $10.9 million which remained unspent and which carried over into Fiscal Year 2003.

Lancaster Airport's only commercial air carrier, Colgan Air, ceased operations on March 23, 2003, because it could not sustain service without a subsidy. The loss of commercial air service has already had a serious impact upon the Lancaster community. I am confident that my legislation will not only reinstate Lancaster's eligibility for subsidized air service and allow for the return of commercial air service, but it will also provide for a greater level of fairness for other communities which rely so heavily upon this important program.

Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat hate crimes. Hate crimes are a violation of all our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said, ``Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom.''

Although there was a significant overall reduction in violent crimes during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes continued to grow. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001. That is over 26 hate crimes a day, every day. More than 83,000 hate crimes have been reported since 1991.

The need for an effective national response is as compelling as it has ever been. Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims rose dramatically in the weeks following the September 11 terrorist attacks. These hate crimes included murder, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Islamic incidents were the second highest-reported type of hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.

Los Angeles and Chicago reported a massive increase in the number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crimes after 9/11.

Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported.

Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. It is not the frequency of hate crimes alone that makes these acts of violence so serious. It is the terror and intimidation they inflict on the victims, their families, their communities, and, in some cases, the entire Nation.

Congress cannot sit silent while this hatred spreads. It is long past time for us to do more to end hate-motivated violence. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Our legislation is supported by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations.

The current Federal law on hate crimes was passed soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Today, however, it is a generation out of date. It has two significant deficiencies. It does not cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. And even in cases of hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, it contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that the victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.''

Our bill is designed to close these substantial loopholes. It has six principal provisions: 1. It removes the ``federally protected activity'' barrier. 2. It adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin. 3. It protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. 4. It offers federal assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute heated crimes in any of the federal categories. 5. It offers training grants for local law enforcement. 6. It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability.

These much needed changes in current law will help ensure that the Department of Justice has what it needs to combat the growing problem of hate-motivated violence more effectively.

Nothing in the bill prohibits or punishes speech, expression, or association in any way--even ``hate speech.'' It addresses only violent actions that result in death or injury. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly--and as recently as this year, in the cross-burning decision Virginia v. Black--that a hate crimes statute that considers bias motivation directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct does not violate the First Amendment. No one has a First Amendment right to commit a crime.

A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential, because crimes have an impact far greater than their impact on individual victims. Nevertheless, our bill fully respects the primary role of state and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local authorities in hate crimes cases, but it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a state does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence. In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement, to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted.

Working cooperatively, State, local and Federal law enforcement officials have the best chance to bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. Federal resources and expertise in the identification and proof of hate crimes can provide invaluable assistance to state and local authorities without undermining the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said of current law, ``Cooperation between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding.'' And it will continue to be so, and be even more effective, when this legislation is enacted into law.

Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Now is the time to make combating hate crimes a high national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a needed response to a serious problem that continues to plague the nation, and I urge the Senate to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitizgerald and Senator Snowe in introducing the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. The purpose of our bill is to see that health insurers and health plans cover the treatment of children's congenital and developmental deformities and disorders.

About 7 percent of all children are born with significant problems, including cleft lips or cleft palates, serious skin lesions such as port wine stains, malformations of the ear, or facial deformities. Plastic surgery can correct many of these conditions, but too often parents face significant barriers in obtaining care for their children. More than half of all plastic surgeons report that these patients are denied insurance coverage or had the struggle to receive it. Too often, insurers deny coverage by calling the treatment cosmetic or not medically necessary.

The medical, developmental, and psychological problems associated with denied or delayed treatment of these deformities are enormous. Treatment often requires a series of treatments as the child grow. No child should be forced to live with an untreated cleft lip or a facial deformity while parents appeal an insurer's unfair denial. Delayed or denied treatment puts a child's physical and mental health at risk.

Our bill requires health insurers and health plans to provide coverage to treat a child's congenial or developmental deformity, or disorders caused by disease, trauma, infection, or tumor. It is supported by many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. I urge the Senate to support this important bill, and give children and families the support they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act.

In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism.

And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.

In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation.

Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.''

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action.

However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders.

How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States?

Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people.

In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.''

This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms.

There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws.

On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon.

And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community.

We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said:

[W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of

terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and

these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney

involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms

against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define

terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they

were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in

front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a

terrorist act and needs to be dealt with.

Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders.

Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun.

Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun.

That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat.

When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack.

The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security.

The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby.

And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check.

Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time.

This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country.

These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security.

This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen.

This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year.

The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth.

I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation.

Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore.

When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons.

It makes no sense.

This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act.

In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism.

And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.

In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation.

Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.''

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action.

However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders.

How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States?

Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people.

In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.''

This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms.

There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws.

On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon.

And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community.

We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said:

[W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of

terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and

these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney

involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms

against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define

terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they

were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in

front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a

terrorist act and needs to be dealt with.

Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders.

Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun.

Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun.

That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat.

When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack.

The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security.

The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby.

And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check.

Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time.

This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country.

These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security.

This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen.

This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year.

The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth.

I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation.

Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore.

When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons.

It makes no sense.

This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that I hope will take us one step closer to achieving permanent protections for Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front.

The Front, as we call it back home, is part of one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48. To the North, the Front includes a 200 square mile area known as the Badger-Two Medicine in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. This area sits just south-east of Glacier National Park, one of our greatest national treasures. The Badger-Two Medicine area is sacred ground to the Blackfeet Tribe. In January of 2002, portions of the Badger-Two, known as the Badger-Two Medicine Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District, were declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

South of the Badger-Two, the Front includes a 400 square mile strip of national forest land and about 20 square miles of BLM lands, including three BLM Outstanding Natural Areas.

Not only does the Front still retain almost all its native species, but it also harbors the country's largest bighorn sheep herd and second largest elk herd. The Rocky Mountain Front supports one of the largest populations of grizzly bears south of Canada and is the only place in the lower 48 states where grizzly bears still roam from the mountains to their historic range on the plains.

Because of this exceptional habitat, the Front offers world renowned hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities. Sportsmen, local land owners, hikers, local communities and many other Montanans have worked for decades to protect and preserve the Front for future generations.

In short, a majority of Montanans feel very strongly that oil and gas development, and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, just don't mix. The habitat is too rich, the landscape too important, to subject it to the roads, drills, pipelines, industrial equipment, chemicals, noise and human activity that come with oil and gas development.

Building upon a significant public and private conservation investment and following an extensive public comment process, the Lewis and Clark National Forest decided in 1997 to withdraw for 15 years 356,000 acres in the Front from any new oil and gas leasing. This was a significant first step in protecting the Front from development that I wholeheartedly supported.

However, in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Front, oil and gas leases exist that pre-date the 1997 decision or are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area, where the lease suspension could be lifted soon. These leaseholders have invested time and resources in acquiring their leases. Several leaseholders have applied to the federal government for permits to drill. These leases are the subject of my proposed bill.

History has shown that energy exploration and development in the Front is likely to result in expensive and time-consuming environmental studies and litigation. This process rarely ends with a solution that is satisfactory to the oil and gas lessee. For example, in the late 1980's both Chevron and Fina applied for permits to drill in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front.

After millions of dollars spent on studies and years of public debate, Chevron abandoned or assigned all of its lease rights, and Fina sold its lease rights back to the original owner.

Therefore, I think we should be fair to those leaseholders. We want them to continue to provide for our domestic oil and gas needs, but they are going to have a long, difficult and expensive road if they wish to develop oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain Front.

My legislation would direct the Interior Department to evaluate non- producing leases in the Rocky Mountain Front and look at opportunities to cancel those leases, in exchange for allowing leaseholders to explore for oil and gas somewhere else, namely in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Montana. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary would have to consult with leaseholders, with the State of Montana, the public and other interested parties.

When Interior concludes this study in two years, the bill calls for the agency to make recommendations to Congress and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the advisability of pursuing lease exchanges in the Front and any changes in law and regulation needed to enable the Secretary to undertake such an exchange.

Finally, in order to allow the Secretary to conduct this study, my bill would continue the current lease suspension in the Badger-Two Medicine Area for three more years. This lease suspension would only apply to the Badger-Two Medicine Area, not the entire Front.

That's it, that's all my bill does. It doesn't predetermine any outcome, it doesn't impact any existing exploration activities or environmental processes. It just creates a process through which the federal government, the people of Montana and leaseholders can finally have a real, open and honest discussion about the fate of the Rocky Mountain Front.

I would also point out that the Administration recently completed an inventory of the onshore oil and gas reserves on federal lands in five basins in the Interior West, including the Rocky Mountain Front, also known as the Montana Thrust Belt. The Administration's study found that this area contains the smallest volumes of oil and gas resources of all five of the Western inventory areas. For example, the mean estimate of all natural gas reserves in the Uinta/Pinceance Basin in Colorado and Utah is 22 trillion cubic feet. In the Front, the mean estimate is only 8.6 trillion cubic feet.

Additionally, the study concluded that in reality, the vast majority of Federal lands in the interior West are available for leasing with few if any restrictions. Although a large percentage of federal lands in the Front are currently unavailable for leasing, many of those lands are unavailable because they lie under Glacier National Park, Indian lands, and already established wilderness areas, which comprise much of the Federal land in the Front. So, not only is the Front relatively poor in terms of oil and gas reserves, many of those reserves--by Congressional mandate, executive order or treaty--will never be available for leasing.

We should look for ways to fairly compensate leaseholders for investments they've made in their leases if they decide to leave the Front rather than waste years and millions fighting to explore for uncertain--and small--oil and gas reserves. A lot of Montanans just don't want to see the Front developed, and they will fight to protect it. Including me.

So, developers can wait years, or decades, or most likely never, for oil and gas to flow from the Front. Or we can look at ways to encourage domestic production much sooner, in much more cost effective, appropriate and efficient ways somewhere else.

That is what I hope this legislation will accomplish Mr. President, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it.