Floor Statements

Mr. President, this bill is part of the special interest agenda being pushed by the NRA and the Republican leader. First they managed to stall the reauthorization of the assault weapon bank, even though the bill saved lives and kept out police officers safer. Now they are looking to grant sweeping protections to gun manufacturers and dealers who recklessly sell guns that cause thousands of deaths in this country each year.

Contrary to what supporters of this bill are saying, this is not ``tort reform'' and this will not, as the White House said, ``help curb the growing problem of frivolous lawsuits.''

They call this bill the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' They give it a nice name to make it sound like they are protecting trade. What if we called it the ``Shield Gun Makers From Lawsuits When Their Defective Gun Blows Your Child's Arm Off Act?'' Or, ``You're Off the Hook if You Sell Guns to Criminals and They Use Those Guns to Murder People Act?'' I guess those names just don't have the same ring to them.

How about a little truth in advertising here--``Protect the Unlawful Commerce in Arms Act?'' I don't think so. Make no mistake, this bill is an

erosion of victims' rights. This bill puts the gun industry ahead of the rights of individuals. Ahead of the Dix family. These are real people, real victims. The doors of the courthouse would have been shut to the family of Kenzo Dix, who ultimately settled with Beretta.

This case was brought by the parents of Kenzo, a 15-year-old boy who was unintentionally shot and killed by a young friend with a defectively designed gun. Kenzo's friend Michael thought that he had unloaded his father's gun when he replaced the loaded magazine with an empty one. But the design of the gun failed to reveal the hidden bullet in the chamber, and this bullet killed Kenzo.

Beretta could have easily designed the gun with inexpensive, well- known features that would have prevented Kenzo's death. They could have included an internal lock to prevent Michael from firing the gun, or an effective loaded-chamber indicator to alert Michael that the gun was loaded. Although Beretta was long aware of the need for these features, it refused to include them.

Imported guns are subject to safety standards. But because domestic firearms are currently exempt from Federal consumer product safety oversight, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot compel gunmakers to include needed safety devices, as it routinely does with manufacturers of other products.

So court cases like Dix v. Beretta are the only way we can ensure gunmakers do the right thing. It is the only way. We know that just 1 percent of the gun dealers supply 57 percent of the guns used in crimes. None of us can ever forget the terror and horror wrought by the DC-area snipers. And no one here can forget the role that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply of Tacoma, W.A, played in that terror. Bull's Eye says it ``lost'' the assault rifle used by the DC area snipers to murder 12 people.

In just 3 years, Bull's Eye says it managed to ``lose'' 237 other guns as well. This is unbelievable. How did Bull's Eye ``lose'' all of those weapons? Clearly, the victims of Bull's Eye's gross negligence should have their day in court. In all it supplied guns traced to at least 52 crimes.

But if the Senate caves to the gun lobby and passes this bill, dealers like Bull's Eye will be able to continue business as usual. This bill eliminates any real incentives for the gun industry to act more responsibly. This can only result in more victims in the future like those killed by the DC area snipers.

This bill would bar cases including those brought by two New Jersey police officers, David Lemongello and Ken McGuire. They won a settlement from a pawn shop dealer who negligently sold twelve guns to a straw purchaser.

How does a straw purchaser work? This is one way: A criminal wants to buy several guns for his gang. He knows he can not buy it because he is a felon. So he gets his girlfriend who does not have a criminal record to go to the sales counter with him, and she buys the guns for him. The gun dealer knows something is wrong here, this young woman wanting to buy all these guns, but the dealer wants the money and goes ahead and sells the guns to the girl.

As a result of the police officers' suit, the West Virginia dealer changed its policies and now no longer engages in large-volume gun sales. Two other dealers in the same town also changed their policies. So the lawsuit brought about responsible behavior and our people are safer.

I want my colleagues to consider the outcome of this lawsuit. For two brave police officers, justice was done. The dealer was held accountable for its reckless sale to a straw purchaser, and now the dealer operates more responsibly. And no one declared bankruptcy.

This outcome was only possible because this special interest immunity bill had not yet become law.

Police and big city mayors oppose the bill before us. They say it will just make battling illegal guns more difficult and make police officers' lives more dangerous, more deadly. They oppose immunizing gun manufacturers against civil liability because it would remove much of their legal incentive to behave responsibly. It would just encourage bad manufacturers to remain bad, while giving good manufacturers the green light to become lax.

In my home state of California, we used to have a law that shielded gunmakers from liability, but the governor signed legislation repealing that law 2 years ago. Today in California, gun manufacturers like everyone else are responsible for making their products as safe as they can be.

We are safer today in California, but that margin of safety will disappear if Congress gives the gun industry special legal immunity.

In 1999, the late Senator John Chafee and I introduced the Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act, which would have preserved the right of local governments and individuals to hold the gun industry accountable for avoidable gun violence.

Congress not only failed to pass our bill; the House and now many of my colleagues have charged off in the opposite direction to protect gunmakers while putting the rest of us at greater risk.

Who do we represent here? I ask my colleagues that we think about the 30,000 Americans killed every year by guns, and 12,000 children wounded each year by guns.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the police officers walking the beat, to Lynn Dix, the mother of Kenzo Dix, and to all the other mothers who have lost their children to gun violence, and to victims of the DC snipers' rampage. Listen to them and vote against this extremist bill.

Mr. President, today we are passing a significant bill for the people of this country. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will reduce congestion on our highways. It will move goods more efficiently. And it will improve local transit systems.

I was pleased to have been a part of putting this bill together as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and as a conferee on this legislation.

This is a good bill for the State of California. In total, California will receive $21.6 billion in highway and transit funding over the next 5 years. That is an average of $1.175 billion more per year for California than the last highway bill in 1998. And it will create an estimated 800,000 jobs in my State.

When I arrived in the Senate in 1993, California was getting about 83 cents on the dollar in highway funds. I am pleased to report that with this bill California's rate of return will reach 92 percent. Not what it should be--but a significant improvement.

This bill also includes over $1 billion in special projects for California, including over $130 million for the I-405 HOV lanes in the Los Angeles area and $58 million for the Golden Gate bridge seismic retrofit--an extremely important project in helping to preserve one of American's most notable landmarks.

Let me tell you why increased funding is so crucial for California.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland region are ranked No. 1 and 2 for the worst roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in the top five, with San Jose ranked fourth and

San Diego ranked fifth. The inland empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked 12th and Sacramento is ranked 13th.

What does this congestion translate to? Delays--in the Los Angeles area, 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. Drivers in the San Francisco and Oakland area experience 92 hours of delays, and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland empire drivers are delayed 64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed 51 hours a year. This is time people could spend with their families, reading a book, or any number of other things; instead, they are stuck in traffic.

Congestion will not get better over time. California's population is expected to increase from 35 million people today to 50 million people by 2020. We need to make significant improvements in our transportation system. This bill will help fund the roads that will help ease congestion.

And it will also fund transit systems that will enable more people to get off the roads and onto buses, trains, and subways.

Transit ridership is up growing rapidly in California. The number of miles traveled annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and 2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on transit. And 30 percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on transit.

This is why I am pleased that California will receive $4.6 billion in guaranteed transit funding over the next 5 years.

To mention a few specific examples of projects in California, this bill funds the Metro Gold Line eastside extension in Los Angeles, the Mission Valley east extension in San Diego, the Muni Third Street light rail in San Francisco, and the South Corridor light rail extension in Sacramento.

Another issue that I spent a lot of time working on involves grade crossings. Over 40 percent of all the Nation's imported goods come through California ports. The majority enter through the ports of LA and Long Beach. Many of the goods are then put on trams, leave Los Angeles, and travel through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This causes terrible local congestion.

To help that problem, this bill funds over $150 million for the Alameda corridor east for grade separations.

In addition to congestion, grade crossings create significant safety problems. This bill includes my provision for a study of grade crossing safety. The study would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies.

Finally, this legislation recognizes that we can both improve our transportation system and improve our environment at the same time.

For example, I worked to ensure that fuel-efficient hybrid cars can be allowed on HOV lanes. This will provide incentives for people to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, and will allow the State of California to implement a law passed last year.

In addition, this bill promotes bike and pedestrian paths. Funding is provided for the Virginia Corridor Rails to Trails plan, which will convert a Union Pacific railroad right of way into a bicycle and pedestrian trail in Modesto. Also, Marin County will receive $25 million to develop a network of bike and pedestrian paths.

This bill has been several years in the making. It has been the subject of intense--and sometimes tough--negotiations. But in the end, I am glad I had the opportunity to help craft a bill that will do so much to improve the lives of Californians, create so many jobs in California, and make such significant improvements to our transportation system.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 32 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since April 23. This brings to 434 the number

of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 24 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

SGT Anthony J. Davis, age 22, died April 23 in Mosul when a vehicle- borne improvised explosive device detonated near his Stryker military vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA. He was from Long Beach, CA.

CPL Kevin W. Prince, age 22, died April 23 in Baghdad of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

SGT Timothy C. Kiser, age 37, died April 28 in Riyhad, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated near his patrol. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 340th Forward Support Battalion, 40th Infantry Division, Red Bluff, CA. He was from Tehama, CA.

CPT Stephen W. Frank, age 29, died April 29 in Diyarah, Iraq when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated as he was conducting a traffic control point inspection. He was assigned to 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

CPT Ralph J. Harting III, age 28, died April 29 in Diyarah, Iraq when a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated as he was conducting a traffic control point inspection. He was assigned to 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

SSG Juan De Dios Garcia-Arana, age 27, died April 30 in Khaladiyah, Iraq when his Bradley Fighting Vehicle was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire. He was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Hovey, Korea. He was from Los Angeles, CA.

MAJ John C. Spahr, age 42, died May 2 from injuries received when the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft he was piloting apparently crashed in Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. His unit was embarked aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson.

CPT Kelly C. Hinz, age 30, died May 2 from injuries received when the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft he was piloting crashed in Iraq while flying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was assigned to Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 323, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. His unit was embarked aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson.

SGT Stephen P. Saxton, age 24, died May 3 in Baghdad when his unit was conducting a route security mission and an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Temecula, CA.

LCPL John T. Schmidt III, age 21, died May 11 from wounds received as a result of an explosion while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Al Anbar Province on January 30. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to the 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SGT John M. Smith, age 22, died May 12 in Iskandariyah, Iraq from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

SFC Randy D. Collins, age 36, died May 24 at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland of injuries sustained in Mosul on May 4 during a mortar attack. He was assigned to the Army's 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA. He was from Long Beach, CA.

MAJ Ricardo A. Crocker, age 39, died May 26 from a rocket propelled grenade explosion while conducting combat operations in Hadithah, Iraq. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Reserve's 3rd Civil Affairs Group, Camp Lejeune, NC. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Mission Viejo, CA.

SGT Mark A. Maida, age 22, died May 27 in Baghdad of injuries sustained in Diyarah, Iraq on May 26 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the Army's 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA.

1st Sgt Michael S. Barnhill, age 39, died May 28 after his vehicle stuck an improvised explosive device near Haqlaniyah, Iraq. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Reserve's 6th Engineer Support Battalion, 4th Force Service Support Group, Eugene, OR. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Folsom, CA.

CPL Jeffrey B. Starr, age 22, died May 30 from small-arms fire while conducting combat operations against enemy forces near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force.

CPT Derek Argel, age 28, died May 30 in the crash of an Iraqi air force aircraft during a training mission in eastern Diyala province. He was assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL. He was from Lompoc, CA.

CPL Antonio Mendoza, age 21, died June 3 at Brook Army Medical Center, San Antonio, TX from wounds received as a result of an explosion while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on February 22. At the time of his injury, he was assigned to 5th Battalion, 11th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Santa Ana, CA.

LCPL Daniel Chavez, age 20, died June 9 as a result of explosion while conducting combat operations with the 2nd Marine Division in Haqlaniyah, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Jonathan R. Flores, age 18, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Jesse Jaime, age 22, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Tyler S. Trovillion, age 23, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

LCpl Dion M. Whitley, age 21, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division. He was from Los Angeles, CA.

LCpl Chad B. Maynard, age 19, died June 15 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was operating with the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Cesar O. Baez, age 37, died June 15 as a result of enemy small arms fire while conducting combat operations in al-Anbar Province. He was a Hospital Corpsman assigned to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. He was from Pomona, CA.

LCpl Erik R. Heldt, age 26, died June 16 when his vehicle hit an improvised

explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

CPT John W. Maloney, age 36, died June 16 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, his unit was attached to 2nd Marine Division.

SGT Arnold Duplantier II, age 26, died June 22 in Baghdad where he was providing cordon security, and was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire. He was assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, Auburn, CA. He was from Sacramento,

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the memory of the late Nels Daniel Niemi, an officer with the city of San Leandro Police Department. Officer Niemi was a 3-year veteran of the San Leandro Police Department who dedicated his life to his family, community, and Nation. He was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 25, 2005.

Officer Niemi was born 42 years ago in Guam. A graduate of De La Salle High School in Concord, CA, Officer Niemi first worked as a network administrator in the computer industry. Officer Niemi also taught self-defense and gun-awareness classes, which raised his longtime interest in law enforcement. Four years ago, he decided to switch careers, and enrolled in the Police Academy. An officer with the San Leandro Police Department for the last 3 years, he excelled at his job. He was a dedicated and caring officer, who often used his computer expertise in investigations. Through his hard work

and dedication to public safety, Officer Niemi earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he worked.

Officer Niemi will long be remembered for his courage, service, and bravery. He will be missed by all who knew him. Officer Niemi is survived by his parents Rudie and Mildred Niemi; brother Jim; wife Dionne; daughter Gabrielle; and stepson Josh Hewitt. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would ban additional oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National Forest. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, joins me in this effort. Representative Capps introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this month.

Los Padres National Forest is on California's central coast, stretching from Monterey County's Big Sur down to Ventura and the western edge of Los Angeles County. Covering almost 1.75 million acres, it is California's third-largest national forest and one of the State's most visited. Los Padres National Forest is an ecological treasure and a recreational refuge in one of California's, indeed America's, most densely populated areas.

It provides habitat for 20 threatened and endangered wildlife species, including the spectacular California condor. Los Padres also contains unexplored archaeological sites that contain Native American historical artifacts.

Yet, despite these facts and strong local opposition to oil and gas drilling in the Forest, the Forest Service announced today that it will open up more than 52,000 acres of land to oil and gas drilling in Los Padres National Forest. While this is far less land than the Forest Service previously considered opening, additional drilling is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing legislation to prevent this new drilling, and any future drilling from occurring in Los Padres National Forest.

Additional oil and gas drilling will threaten the pristine and unspoiled lands in the Forest. It could damage or destroy Native American artifacts. And, it could ruin recreational opportunities by contaminating streams and increasing air pollution.

My legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Los Padres National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Reserving the right to object.

I thank you. The majority leader said something here today that really surprised me. He said he is going to prove that the gun liability bill was one of the most important things we were going to do, and I want to know from the majority leader, does he think that bill is more important than the Defense authorization bill?

Does he think that the Defense authorization bill is not as important as gun liability?

Mr. President, my understanding is I have 20 minutes; is that correct?

I ask to be notified when I have used 14 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his work on this amendment. I am very pleased to be a cosponsor.

As he explains, this amendment will stop the Export-Import Bank from financing a project to construct nuclear powerplants in China. Earlier this year, the Ex-Im Bank agreed to provide $5 billion in loans or loan guarantees to the American subsidiary of a British company, Westinghouse Electric Company, so the company could bid on a contract to build nuclear powerplants in China.

This deal will, if we do not stop it, be the largest deal in the history of the Ex-Im Bank. In fact, it would be nearly

three times larger than the bank's previous deal, a $1.7 billion transaction in the mid-1980s. So this is not some small, inconsequential amendment. This is a big deal because this would be the biggest deal of the Ex-Im Bank since the 1980s, and three times the size of that deal. According to the Ex-Im Bank itself, some of these loans may go not to the company but directly to the Government of China. What is going on here?

Over the last decade, China has emerged as an economic power. It is the sixth largest economy in the world with a gross domestic product of over $1.65 trillion. The economy is growing at 9.5 percent.

What about our economic relationship with China? Last year, the United States had a trade deficit of $162 billion with China. This year, the trade deficit may go over $200 billion. This is in part because China purposely undervalued its currency in order to dump projects in America.

Just last month, a company that is majority-owned by the Chinese Government offered to buy the American company, Unocol, for $18.5 billion. In addition--and this shocks me every time I read it--the Chinese Government owns $230 billion of our Treasury bonds on which we are paying billions of dollars of interest. The Chinese Government is not poor, and it does not need a loan backed by U.S. taxpayers.

What would that $5 billion loan be used for? It would be used to help Westinghouse build nuclear powerplants in China, one of the riskiest investments possible. Remember, as Senator Coburn has explained, Westinghouse is the American subsidiary of a large British company.

Since 1948, in the United States the nuclear power industry has received more than $66 billion of Federal research and development funding. I am the first to say, the majority of Senators support these types of subsidies. Why? Because we have not seen a nuclear powerplant built in America since 1973. Why? Because it is too risky an investment. But the Ex-Im Bank is prepared to put our American taxpayer dollars at risk for nuclear powerplants in China. Nuclear power is not only a risky investment here, but think about nuclear powerplants being built in China where the terribly weak standards on workplace safety glare out at us and the terribly weak standards of environmental protection stand out. That in itself takes the risk to a whole new level.

There are several other aspects of this deal that do not make sense. It comes down to the same bottom line: Why should we use American taxpayer dollars for this risky investment? Again, the beneficiary is not an American company but a subsidiary of a British-Government-owned company. The Brits are great allies. We love them. But let them put their taxpayers on the line. Why do we have to put our taxpayers on the line?

As Senator Coburn points out, the biggest argument against our amendment is this will create 5,000 American jobs if we agree to this risky loan. Let's ignore for a minute that the Chinese Government says it fully intends to develop for itself the ability to manufacture the parts that Westinghouse would be selling to them--a point made very dramatically by my colleague, Senator Coburn. The fact is, those 5,000 jobs will not last very long when the Chinese learn how to do the work. But, given that, that the 5,000 jobs will be created, we need to put that number in context. We are talking about $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees. It will create 5,000 jobs.

U.S. manufacturers have estimated that China's undervaluation of its currency has resulted in the loss of 2 million American jobs. So why don't we do something to change this persistent unfair trade practice and create 2 million jobs--if everything was fair--not 5,000 jobs? If we can't do this through pressure by convincing the Chinese to change their practice or by pursuing a complaint with the WTO, surely there are easier ways to create 5,000 jobs.

For example, spending $100 million--2 percent of the size of this deal--on transportation projects would create 5,000 jobs. According to the measurements used by the Small Business Administration, $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees to American small businesses would create 100,000 new jobs. What is wrong with this picture? If we are so ready to give loan guarantees, let's look at giving them right here to our small businesses. Of course we are not going down that path today. It is a point of priorities.

Count me out for this. The 5,000 jobs are not real. They will not last long. It is a British-owned company. And we can do much more with $5 billion in loan guarantees to our small businesses and create 100,000 jobs.

This Chinese nuclear powerplant deal is a bad deal from an American jobs standpoint. Another thing that makes no sense is that in order to build the nuclear powerplants, we would be selling our advanced nuclear technology to China. I say to my colleagues, wake up.

Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu said:

If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided

ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think

we will have to respond with nuclear weapons.

The date was July 15, 4 days ago, that this major general threatened us with nuclear weapons.

The same major general said on the same day to the Asian Wall Street Journal on the Financial Times:

Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that

hundreds of, or two hundreds of (or) even more cities will be

destroyed by the Chinese.

I believe this was stated in the context of the Taiwan situation.

We are at the brink of giving a $5 billion loan, or loan guarantee, part of which, according to the Ex-Im Bank, will go directly to China to give them the technology they need so that this general can run around and make threats to use nuclear weapons. This is beyond belief. I hope and pray and maybe go so far as to trust this general is not reflective of reality in China.

But even if you do not believe this guy has any clout, what a time to give them nuclear technology when one of their top military people is threatening us. What a time to give them the opportunity to steal our technology.

China is one of the largest violators of U.S. intellectual property rights in the world. That is indisputable. Coming from California, I know too well the piracy of American movies, music, software, and other products committed by China. It costs American businesses billions of dollars every year. A movie and a record represents millions and billions of loss to my business people and American jobs, but it cannot kill. We are talking about nuclear technology. That can come back and bite us. We have to assume that the Chinese will pirate our nuclear technology if they pirate all our other technologies. They admit they are going to learn how to use it. When all is said, something is wrong with this picture.

I conclude this portion of my remarks in this way. I will paint the picture as succinctly as I can. If the Ex-Im Bank's deal goes through, U.S. taxpayer dollars will be put at risk so that the Chinese Government can pay an American subsidiary of a British company to send U.S. nuclear technology to China where a major general has threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States--all of this in order to undertake an incredibly risky financial investment, building nuclear powerplants. Not only is something wrong with this picture, something is horribly wrong with this picture.

Am I permitted to refer to a House vote on the Senate floor?

In the House of Representatives a very similar amendment was offered. It passed with the type of coalition we see here, across the aisle. It passed 3 to 1. We have an opportunity today to follow the lead of our colleagues who ask us to stand with them.

This deal makes no sense. The Coburn-Boxer amendment stops this deal in its tracks. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I retain the remainder of my time and defer to Senator McConnell.

Will the Senator yield to me?

Again, I thank the Senator for his leadership on this issue.

Yes.

All right. Very good.

Mr. President, what I was going to ask the Senator--but it is more a rhetorical question--is, Why does China need this money anyway? We already owe China $230 billion they have loaned us buying our Treasury bills. We pay them now billions of dollars of interest-- billions, multibillions. I was going to ask my friend a question, but it was a rhetorical question. The Chinese do not need any more dollars. They have dollars all right. They have so many dollars it is unbelievable: dollars from the trade deficit that is huge and climbing. They have the interest payments that we pay them.

Now they need another $5 billion? This is the most outrageous thing I have seen come across my desk. I will tell you this: If we cannot win this amendment, I say to my friend, I do not know who we are here fighting for. It does not make any sense. Set aside our differences on nuclear power, that does not even have to come into it. My friend from Pennsylvania says there is not a risk? Give me a break. Talk to any American businessman who has done business in China. I meet them all the time in California. Oh, everything is promised. Oh, it is all going to be great. Somehow it does not happen, and they are left holding the bag.

I wish I could protect my California businesspeople. I cannot. But I sure can protect my California taxpayers. For 5,000 jobs in Pennsylvania--which, by the way, the Chinese Government admits they are going to take the technology. They admit it. I will give them that. And they are going to replace those 5,000 workers.

In light of what the general said 4 days ago: The Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of or two hundreds of or even more cities will be destroyed by the Chinese with nuclear weapons--he says: We'll have to respond with nuclear weapons--that is what he said in light of a conversation about Taiwan.

So what is wrong with this picture? We are putting taxpayers on the hook for $5 billion in loans and loan guarantees to a British- Government-owned subsidiary, where it will create, in the short term, 5,000 jobs, what the Chinese say will not be long-lasting, to give them nuclear technology so they can build better weapons against us and have more materials to use against us. It makes no sense.

I want to create 100,000 jobs in America. I want to create 2 million jobs in America. Do you know how we can do

that? By cracking down on the way the Chinese deal with their currency. If they would allow their currency to float, we would create more than 2 million jobs in America, and it would not put the taxpayers on the hook for anything.

As my colleague from Oklahoma said--as we both have said--if you want to put up $5 billion in loan guarantees, why not do it for American small businesses, and instead of creating 5,000 jobs, create 100,000 jobs. If that is my choice, I come down on the side of the American worker. This is 5,000 jobs, at $1 million a job. This makes no sense whatsoever--and putting the taxpayers on the hook.

So no matter how I look at it, the Chinese do not need this money. And do you know what I say? Let the Russians have this deal. Let the French have this deal. Let the French put their taxpayers at risk. Let the Russians put their taxpayers at risk. I am not moving forward toward this deal, which is the largest deal ever done by Ex-Im Bank, to benefit a country that has threatened us with nuclear weapons, at least the major general has.

This is insane. If anything should garner a big bipartisan vote, it is the Coburn-Boxer amendment. We do not team up that often. We have a couple times. This is really interesting. And we do it for different reasons. But do you know what? Overall, it is looking out after the taxpayer. That is the bottom line of this particular amendment.

There are many issues where I could stand up on this floor and say to my tax-paying constituents: There are certain things that I think are worth investing in. I think it is worth investing in No Child Left Behind and making sure our kids can read and write. Yes, it is going to cost money. Yes, it is a bit of a risk because some of the kids may not learn, and that is a problem. I guess you could argue with that. But I think, overall, the benefits outweigh the risks.

What is the benefit here to give over technology that the Chinese say they are going to learn; they are going to replace the American workers; they will have technology they can use against us? I think it is a bad deal. It is bad for the American taxpayer. It is a terrible message to send from a foreign policy point of view. The jobs we are creating are costing $1 million a job. They are very few jobs. They will not last long.

I cannot say enough how I hope this amendment will be adopted with an overwhelming vote.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I do.

I will take just 30 seconds.

Mr. President, the Coburn-Boxer amendment will stop us from putting at risk $5 billion of taxpayer money. My colleague from Pennsylvania can say all he wants that he believes the Chinese will never default, no problem, just come and talk to the business people who have made investments in China. It hasn't been a pretty picture.

The fact is, if this is about creating jobs, the Senator from Oklahoma and I and others have shown much better ways to create far more jobs that will really benefit the American people. This is something that we should not do.

I am on the Foreign Relations Committee with my colleague in the chair, and we are very proud of that committee. We want to be known as ``Uncle Sam.'' We don't want to be known as ``Uncle Sucker.'' I think we have a chance tonight to say we are Uncle Sam; we are not Uncle Sucker. We are going to protect the taxpayers and American jobs. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote, just as the House voted for a similar amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Deputy Jerry Ortiz, a 15-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on June 24, 2005.

As a young child growing up in Southern California, Jerry Ortiz knew that he wanted to dedicate his life to protecting his fellow citizens. So it came as no surprise when he enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after his graduation from El Monte High School in

1988. Only 2 years later, he fulfilled his dream of becoming a police officer when he joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Deputy Ortiz's strict work ethic and dedication quickly made him a well-respected member of the Department and earned him a position with the elite antigang unit at the Lakewood Station. Although this was a formidable task with great responsibilities, he knew that in this capacity he could truly make a difference in the community and help at- risk youth. Deputy Ortiz did just that.

Jerry Ortiz was an important part of the Sheriff's Department family. He was well known for his sense of humor, positive attitude, and athleticism on the Department boxing team. Over his 15-year career, he became an integral part of the fight against gang crime in the area and went above and beyond to protect the innocent citizens caught in the unfortunate gang violence in their communities. Days before his tragic murder, Deputy Ortiz received word that he was being promoted to detective.

All who knew him said that he loved his job but that he was first and foremost a family man. Ortiz spent most of his free time with his two sons, Jeremy, 16, and Jacob, 6. He was a sports fan and enjoyed sharing this passion with his sons. Only three weeks before his death, Jerry Ortiz married his wife, Chela, and those close to him say he was happier than ever.

I am truly saddened to lose this remarkable public servant. Deputy Jerry Ortiz died doing what he loved--providing protection for his community. He was a leader, an inspiring mentor, a hero, and a wonderful father and husband. We will always be grateful for Deputy Ortiz's heroic service to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the community that he so bravely served.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of Deputy Jerry Ortiz, a 15-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on June 24, 2005.

As a young child growing up in Southern California, Jerry Ortiz knew that he wanted to dedicate his life to protecting his fellow citizens. So it came as no surprise when he enlisted in the U.S. Army shortly after his graduation from El Monte High School in

1988. Only 2 years later, he fulfilled his dream of becoming a police officer when he joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Deputy Ortiz's strict work ethic and dedication quickly made him a well-respected member of the Department and earned him a position with the elite antigang unit at the Lakewood Station. Although this was a formidable task with great responsibilities, he knew that in this capacity he could truly make a difference in the community and help at- risk youth. Deputy Ortiz did just that.

Jerry Ortiz was an important part of the Sheriff's Department family. He was well known for his sense of humor, positive attitude, and athleticism on the Department boxing team. Over his 15-year career, he became an integral part of the fight against gang crime in the area and went above and beyond to protect the innocent citizens caught in the unfortunate gang violence in their communities. Days before his tragic murder, Deputy Ortiz received word that he was being promoted to detective.

All who knew him said that he loved his job but that he was first and foremost a family man. Ortiz spent most of his free time with his two sons, Jeremy, 16, and Jacob, 6. He was a sports fan and enjoyed sharing this passion with his sons. Only three weeks before his death, Jerry Ortiz married his wife, Chela, and those close to him say he was happier than ever.

I am truly saddened to lose this remarkable public servant. Deputy Jerry Ortiz died doing what he loved--providing protection for his community. He was a leader, an inspiring mentor, a hero, and a wonderful father and husband. We will always be grateful for Deputy Ortiz's heroic service to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the community that he so bravely served.

Mr. President, I rise to honor an extraordinary actor, entertainer, and humanitarian. Upon his passing, Eddie Albert leaves a legacy of talent, determination, and good will.

Eddie Albert Heimberger was born in Illinois on April 22, 1906, and moved to Minneapolis as a child. It was there

that Mr. Albert began his stage career, hosting magic shows and singing in small venues to put himself through drama school. After becoming a crowd pleaser in Minnesota, he decided to pursue his creative passion in other cities and on the radio. After dropping his last name to avoid being mistakenly called Eddie Hamburger, he shifted his focus to comedy. His success on the airwaves led to his 1935 Broadway debut in the comedy ``O Evening Star.''

Mr. Albert went on to appear on Broadway several times before making it to Hollywood in 1937 as Bing Edwards in the film ``Brother Rat.'' His fame grew, and in 1939 Mr. Albert started entertaining audiences as an aerialist and clown in a traveling Mexican circus. During his time there, he began providing intelligence to the U.S. Government on Japanese and Nazi activity in Mexico. His career was put on hold when he bravely served in the Marines during World War II. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his courageous fighting in the Battle of Tarawa.

Upon returning from his service overseas, he started Eddie Albert Productions and worked behind the camera to make sex education films, a rarity in their time. One of his best known roles was in the 1960s sitcom ``Green Acres,'' in which he portrayed lawyer turned farmer Oliver Wendell Douglas. Appearing in nearly 100 films, Mr. Albert earned two best supporting actor Academy Award nominations for his parts in ``Roman Holiday'' (1953) and ``The Heartbreak Kid'' (1972).

Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Albert traveled the world and became interested in the fight against poverty and preserving the environment. In the 1970s, he established the City Children's Farms and dedicated his free time to publicly speaking about the importance of nutrition for the world's children. He served as a special envoy for the philanthropic mission ``Meals for Millions'' and as a consultant for the World Hunger Conference. An avid outdoors man, Mr. Albert treasured the beaches, trails, and wildlife near his home in Southern California. He used his fame to bring much needed attention to the harmful effects of DDT and, on his birthday in 1970, Mr. Albert helped inaugurate the first Earth Day. Later that year, he and his wife opened a community arts center in Los Angeles, which is still in operation today.

In 1945, Mr. Albert married actress Margo, nee Maria Marguerita Guadalupe Teresa Estela Bolado Castilla y O'Donnell. She preceded him in death in 1985. Eddie Albert died of pneumonia on May 26, 2005, at his home in Pacific Palisades, CA. He is survived by his son, daughter, and two grandchildren. Whether as an entertainer or philanthropist, Mr. Albert will be remembered for his passion and dedication to making others smile. His talents and kindness will surely be missed.

Mr. President, I rise to honor an extraordinary actor, entertainer, and humanitarian. Upon his passing, Eddie Albert leaves a legacy of talent, determination, and good will.

Eddie Albert Heimberger was born in Illinois on April 22, 1906, and moved to Minneapolis as a child. It was there

that Mr. Albert began his stage career, hosting magic shows and singing in small venues to put himself through drama school. After becoming a crowd pleaser in Minnesota, he decided to pursue his creative passion in other cities and on the radio. After dropping his last name to avoid being mistakenly called Eddie Hamburger, he shifted his focus to comedy. His success on the airwaves led to his 1935 Broadway debut in the comedy ``O Evening Star.''

Mr. Albert went on to appear on Broadway several times before making it to Hollywood in 1937 as Bing Edwards in the film ``Brother Rat.'' His fame grew, and in 1939 Mr. Albert started entertaining audiences as an aerialist and clown in a traveling Mexican circus. During his time there, he began providing intelligence to the U.S. Government on Japanese and Nazi activity in Mexico. His career was put on hold when he bravely served in the Marines during World War II. He was awarded the Bronze Star for his courageous fighting in the Battle of Tarawa.

Upon returning from his service overseas, he started Eddie Albert Productions and worked behind the camera to make sex education films, a rarity in their time. One of his best known roles was in the 1960s sitcom ``Green Acres,'' in which he portrayed lawyer turned farmer Oliver Wendell Douglas. Appearing in nearly 100 films, Mr. Albert earned two best supporting actor Academy Award nominations for his parts in ``Roman Holiday'' (1953) and ``The Heartbreak Kid'' (1972).

Throughout his lifetime, Mr. Albert traveled the world and became interested in the fight against poverty and preserving the environment. In the 1970s, he established the City Children's Farms and dedicated his free time to publicly speaking about the importance of nutrition for the world's children. He served as a special envoy for the philanthropic mission ``Meals for Millions'' and as a consultant for the World Hunger Conference. An avid outdoors man, Mr. Albert treasured the beaches, trails, and wildlife near his home in Southern California. He used his fame to bring much needed attention to the harmful effects of DDT and, on his birthday in 1970, Mr. Albert helped inaugurate the first Earth Day. Later that year, he and his wife opened a community arts center in Los Angeles, which is still in operation today.

In 1945, Mr. Albert married actress Margo, nee Maria Marguerita Guadalupe Teresa Estela Bolado Castilla y O'Donnell. She preceded him in death in 1985. Eddie Albert died of pneumonia on May 26, 2005, at his home in Pacific Palisades, CA. He is survived by his son, daughter, and two grandchildren. Whether as an entertainer or philanthropist, Mr. Albert will be remembered for his passion and dedication to making others smile. His talents and kindness will surely be missed.

Mr. President, the Reid-Levin Rockefeller-Biden amendment is very clear. I will read it again so that, hopefully, the American people know what we are debating. This is what we are debating:

No Federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed,

classified information, including the identity of a covert

agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not

authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to

hold a security clearance for access to such information.

Why is this important? It is important because when this story broke, CIA agents and folks at the CIA were absolutely horrified that the name of a covert agent had been leaked, putting that covert agent in grave danger.

Now who could vote against this? I don't know. We are going to find out. But let me state what I think it is about. Either you stand on the side of these brave undercover operatives who risk their lives every day, without people with a political agenda going after them to reveal them, or you stand on the side of those who would play politics and have played politics with their identity.

Why did it happen in this particular case? Because this particular administration did not like what they heard from a particular gentleman, and to punish him, they went after his wife. And they didn't care. You cannot tell me because you didn't use her everyday name that it was hard to find out who she was.

If somebody says Senator Boxer's husband did thus and so, even if he had a different last name, it would not be too hard to find out who my husband is.

So here we had a political agenda and Senator Coleman talks about how horrible it is to play politics on the floor of the Senate. Publishing an ``enemy's list'' is the worst form, and the lowest form, of politics you can have. This took it to a whole other level when it involved someone who was an undercover agent.

I want to say a word about the second-degree amendment, which is unbelievable. Under the second-degree amendment, if this passes, every single Member in the Senate will lose their security clearance. Anyone in this Senate who ever came down to the floor and said anything about the pictures at Abu Ghraib will lose their clearance. Anyone who ever came to the floor and said, I think it is important, when the President makes a nomination, we get all the information, including reading an FBI report. Let me say, and I guess I will lose my clearance, but I will say it right now, up against this amendment, this ridiculous second-degree amendment--I say right now, whenever the President nominates someone for a high position and there is an FBI file, I say to my friends, you are not doing your job if you do not read it.

Under this, I guess I lose my security clearance.

So be it. But I think everyone in this Senate has lost their security clearance because every one of us has spoken about the Iraqi war.

Now my colleague says we don't have a security clearance. You have read this. You have written this. So there you go.

Your side wrote, can't have a security clearance. So all I can say is, one side can say you are playing politics, the other side can. Put that aside. Read this amendment. It is the right thing to do. Either you stand on the side of the brave men and women who risk their lives undercover every day or you stand on the side of politics. You make up your mind.

I yield the floor.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Could you yield now on your time?

I thank the Chair so much. I call up amendment No. 1216, on behalf of myself and Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, since 9/11, those of us on the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a very bipartisan way, have attempted to bring legislation to the Senate to begin the process whereby we can protect our nuclear power plants, first by making sure that there is an assessment made on each power plant, what are their vulnerability needs, and then making sure that these plants are protected from terrorists.

We know that on September 10, 2002, in a taped interview on Al- Jazeera, it included a statement that al-Qaida initially wanted to include a powerplant in its attacks on the United States. And we on the committee passed out a bill and passed another one last month. This amendment says it is the sense of the Senate it should pass bipartisan legislation to address nuclear powerplant security prior to the August recess.

Colleagues, we have a limited time. We need to move forward.

I would accept a voice vote, if that is OK with Senator Gregg, and I think he would prefer that. But we would like to have a clear voice vote if we could at this time.

I send up a modification.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Jeffords, Voinovich, and Carper be added as cosponsors.

I thank my colleagues.

Amendments Nos. 1140 and 1144, as Modified, En Bloc

Mr. President, on the way from California to Washington this morning, my plane had engine trouble, and I had to return to California. As a result, I was not able to make the vote on the resolution condemning the terrorist bombings in London last week and expressing sympathy for the people of the United Kingdom.

Had I been present, I would certainly have voted for the resolution. I hope that it serves to strengthen our resolve to go after the terrorists and to do everything we can to protect the people of the United States, particularly by doing more to secure our rail and transit systems.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I am opposed to and will vote against the Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA.

I am not against trade agreements, provided they are fair. But when those agreements unfairly disadvantage American workers and businesses, I oppose them.

I could vote for CAFTA if it meant more jobs in America and a stronger American economy. But, I do not believe that is the case. Because of CAFTA, Americans will lose jobs and manufacturing will move overseas.

CAFTA will not foster free trade; it will result in unfair competition. Most of the Central American governments are notoriously lax in enforcing their labor laws. Under CAFTA, the Central American countries pledge to enforce their labor laws and strive to ensure workers' rights are protected, but these are merely ``paper pledges.'' Moreover, unlike other trade agreements, the mechanisms for forcing the Central American governments to enforce their own labor laws are limited and the penalties for noncompliance are negligible. Worse still, nothing in CAFTA prohibits a country from further relaxing its existing laws.

In addition, most Central American countries do not have strong environmental protection laws, and enforcement of the laws that do exist is limited. Companies are permitted to destroy the environment and harm their workers in order to produce cheaper products for export.

U.S. manufacturers and workers are the best in the world. Their productivity and innovation cannot be matched. But even they cannot-- nor should they have to--compete with foreign companies that have weak labor protections and that ignore the environment in order to cut prices.

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that CAFTA will result in American workers losing their jobs, U.S. companies closing their doors, a downward pressure on wages, and a worsening trade deficit.

For these reasons, I cannot support CAFTA and will vote against it.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to honor the memory of a most dedicated public servant, California Assemblyman Mike Gordon. Assemblyman Gordon passed away on June 25, 2005. He was 47 years old.

Assemblyman Gordon began his political career at the young age of 18 as a voter registration coordinator for Assembly Speaker Leo McCarthy and later joined the staff of Assemblyman Bruce Young (D-Downey). In 1982, Gordon began his 3-year tenure as executive director of the California Democratic Party and in 1995 co-founded Gordon and Schwenkmeyer, Inc., a successful polling and fundraising firm that is still operating today.

Mike Gordon was elected to the El Segundo City Council in 1996 and as the city's mayor in 1998, 2000, and 2002. During this time, he focused on revitalizing El Segundo's downtown and helped increase funding for police, fire and recreation. As cofounder of the Los Angeles Air Force Base Alliance, he fought against the closure of the base and focused his attention on finding a solution for regional air and road traffic. Of all his great work as councilman and mayor, Mike's focus on education and funding for the El Segundo Unified School District made him a hero in the community.

In 2004, Mike Gordon ran successfully for the 53rd California Assembly seat in the South Bay of Los Angeles County. Assemblyman Gordon introduced 22 bills during his first 2 months in the assembly and was appointed chair of the Assembly Committee on Veterans Affairs and as the body's representative to California's Milton Marks Little Hoover Commission. His strong leadership skills and passion for public service were instrumental in his early success in the assembly.

Assemblyman Mike Gordon knew firsthand the concerns and needs of his community and dedicated his life to serving the citizens of Southern California. He grew up in La Mirada, CA where he attended Neff High School and in 1979 graduated from California State University, Fullerton with a bachelor's degree in political science. Whether as mayor or assemblyman, he used his knowledge, influence, and skills to better the lives of his constituents.

Assemblyman Gordon is survived by his wife Denise and children, Ryan, Erika, Amanda, and Gordy. He was a deeply loved member of both the California State Legislature and the South Bay community for his willingness to champion the causes of those he represented. He will be missed by all who knew him.