Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, it is my understanding the Senator from Virginia wants to offer an amendment.

Madam President, I ask the Senator from Virginia, is it a second-degree amendment?

I would agree to that providing--

I want to make sure we get a vote on my amendment. This is what this is all about. We might as well get this out in the open as to whether or not there will be votes that will be agreed to on the amendments that are offered. The unanimous consent agreement talked about amendments being offered today and Monday. The Senator from Idaho, I think, as well as I believe the Senator from Nevada, talked about votes on these amendments, but it is not clear in the UC that the amendments offered would be voted upon.

I do not want to lose the regular order that my amendment would be disposed of by agreeing to a unanimous consent agreement that my good friend from Virginia would then come next. That is the issue, I tell my good friend from Idaho.

I will be happy to yield.

Of course.

I would then offer--Madam President, do I have the floor?

I then suggest the amendment in a unanimous consent request, that my amendment again be the regular order first thing on Monday. The reason for this is that it is important to assure that there be votes on these amendments. I do not know what the intention of the Senator from Idaho is relative to----

I have no objection, of course, to that, but my question to the Senator from Idaho is, is it the intention of the Senator from Idaho that there be votes on amendments that are offered on Monday?

Then I would have to object because otherwise I am no longer the regular order.

I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Not at all. My desire is that I not lose my opportunity to have a vote on my amendment.

I do not want a vote today. Let's be very clear on this. When the operating UC was entered into, it was my understanding that amendments would be allowed to be offered today and Monday. It was also my understanding that there was an intention that that meant those amendments would be voted on at some point--not today but at some point. If there is any doubt that that is the intention of the leadership or of the floor managers, to allow votes on amendments that are offered today, the only way I can come close to having assurance that there will be a vote on my amendment at some point will be to modify any UC to agree to set aside my amendment, which will be fine, but then make it a part of the UC that my amendment then be the amendment that is in order on Monday, because otherwise I am weakening the position I have.

I have no objection to yielding the floor for an answer to that question, without losing my right to the floor.

I thank my good friend from Idaho.

Amendment No. 2631

Madam President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Do I understand, then, that the Levin amendment would continue to be the regular order under that unanimous consent?

I thank the Senator from Idaho. It is fine with me.

Madam President, what is the pending amendment?

Madam President, in the fall of 2002 the entire country was focused on the Washington, DC, area as an unknown sniper indiscriminately shot 16 innocent people in little more than a month, from September 14 to October 24. Among the sniper victims were Jim Martin, shot and killed on October 2 while walking across a Shoppers Food Warehouse parking lot in Wheaton, MD, after purchasing groceries for his church; Sarah Ramos was shot and killed while sitting on a bench in front of a post office. She was waiting for a ride to take her to a babysitting job; Thirteen-year-old Iran Brown, the youngest of the victims, was shot in the chest and wounded on October 7 after getting out of a car at his middle school; and Conrad Johnson, a 35-year-old busdriver, was shot and killed on October 22 while standing on the top step of his bus at a ride-on bus staging area in Aspen Hill, MD.

On Thursday, October 24, members of the sniper task force arrested John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Boyd Malvo at a rest stop on I-75 in Frederick County. They were charged with shooting the victims with a Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle. Both were prohibited under Federal law from possessing a gun. Malvo is a juvenile and Muhammad was the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. Both have been convicted of capital murder in Virginia.

The sniper rifle used by Malvo and Muhammad was later traced to Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Takoma, WA. Bull's Eye representatives claim not to have any record of sale of the weapon, cannot account for how the snipers obtained the assault rifle. Malvo later admitted he had shoplifted the gun.

The sniper case prompted an ATF investigation of Bull's Eye. The investigation revealed that the gun dealer had no record that the gun used by the snipers was missing from the inventory. The ATF investigation also determined that 77 other guns were missing from the Bull's Eye store. Four prior audits of the dealer found at least 160 additional guns missing from the store. The guns that were missing from Bull's Eye were not all handguns that could walk out the door in somebody's pocket. The gun shoplifted by Malvo was an assault rifle.

The families of the sniper victims filed a lawsuit against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster, the manufacturers that supplied the sniper weapon to the dealer, claiming that Bull's Eye operated its business in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of guns routinely disappeared from its store and that Bushmaster continued to supply that dealer even after years of audits by ATF showing that scores of guns were missing from the dealer's inventory.

Did Bull's Eye or Bushmaster violate any Federal or State statute? That is the issue. That is the heart of the issue we are debating. If you are reckless in your operations, even though you may not have acted illegally, but if you are reckless or if you are grossly negligent in your operations, should you be held accountable for your own actions? That is the question. Should you be held accountable for your own reckless or grossly negligent actions if that gross negligence or recklessness is the proximate cause of somebody else's death or injury?

That is what this amendment is all about. Frankly, that is what the bill is all about, to eliminate the possibility of recovery in cases where somebody can prove recklessness or negligence unless they can also prove illegality. That is the purpose of the bill, to give that immunity unless plaintiffs can prove illegality. The purpose of this amendment is to say that if you can prove gross negligence or recklessness on the part of an individual, and if that recklessness and gross negligence is the proximate cause of injury or death, then you are entitled to bring a lawsuit.

I listened to this debate; I have not been here for much of it, but I read a great deal and tried to follow it. It seems to me that is the heart of the matter and what it comes down to. That is what this amendment is intended to clarify.

The Senator from Virginia is very much on point and is correct. This is a victim's right remedies issue. Do we provide a remedy for a victim of somebody's gross negligence or recklessness that has injured that victim where the proximate cause of the injury--or a proximate cause of the injury, to be technically correct--is the defendant's recklessness or gross negligence or are we going to deny victims that remedy? Are we going to tell a victim: You have to prove that someone violated a law in order to get recovery, even though you can prove gross negligence or recklessness. Even though you can prove that recklessness or gross negligence on the part of someone you sue was a proximate cause of death or injury, you have to prove that there was a violation of law?

Why would we immunize any particular industry from that kind of recovery where it is not somebody else who is being sued for their contribution to somebody's injury but it is the industry itself or a gunstore itself or any store that contributed, through recklessness or gross negligence, to somebody's death or injury?

I have read and heard a lot in this debate about individual responsibility and accountability, that you should not be accountable for somebody else's actions injuring somebody else, and I do not disagree with that. My amendment says where it is your own recklessness or gross negligence which is a proximate cause of an injury or a death, you should not be immunized. That is what my amendment provides, that if your own recklessness or your own gross negligence is a proximate cause of death or injury, you should still be held accountable.

That is what we are going to be voting on. I hope we are going to be voting on it, I should say.

The Senator is correct. In terms of the definition of ``victims,'' we are talking here about families who lose loved ones as well as people who are injured themselves.

I want to emphasize one fact here, which is there was a motion to dismiss this case in the State of Washington brought by victims against Bull's Eye and against Bushmaster. On June 27, 2003, the court denied the motions, and here is what the court said:

[T]he facts in the present case indicate that a high degree

of risk of harm to the plaintiffs was created by Bull's Eye

Shooter Supply's alleged reckless or incompetent conduct in

distributing firearms.

The court said it was the defendant's actions that caused damage to the

plaintiffs. It seems to me for us to say even though Bull's Eye caused damage through recklessness or gross negligence to victims, we are going to deny those victims a remedy unless they can prove there was an illegal action--not just a reckless action, but an illegal action--is to mistreat this particular class of victims.

To single out this class of victims and say, ``You cannot recover unless you can prove illegal action on the part of the defendant''--not just that they were reckless, not just that they were negligent--I think is highly arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of real victims who right now can go to court, and if they can show reckless behavior, negligent behavior on the part of the defendants that was a proximate cause of their injury, then they can recover.

I do not even know that Congress can constitutionally destroy the pending claim. I hope not. I hope we cannot destroy a claim that is pending for an injury that has already been caused, constitutionally, but I do know we should not try. We should not be trying to remove the rights of victims to sue people whose recklessness or gross negligence was a proximate cause of their injury.

That is what this amendment would assure, that that right of action for recklessness or gross negligence which is a proximate cause of the injury can be compensated for.

There are a number of other troubling cases that have been referred to that would be jeopardized. Again, I do not know that we can constitutionally eliminate a claim based on an action which has already taken place. I sure hope not. But I know what the intent of this bill is, which is to immunize the defendants whose reckless or negligent conduct is being sued upon.

The Guzman case, on Christmas Eve 1999--this was a man who was killed by a shot to his heart while standing in front of a Worcester, MA, nightclub. About a week later, the police recovered a handgun in a lot near where this man, Danny Guzman, was killed. The gun was lacking a serial number. It was found by a 4-year-old child. A ballistics test determined the gun was the one that killed Danny Guzman.

The investigation following the shooting revealed the gun was one of several stolen by employees of Kahr Arms. It was discovered that one of the employees in the Kahr manufacturing facility had stolen the gun used to kill Danny Guzman and sold it to buy crack cocaine.

Publicly available records, summarized in a complaint filed by Danny Guzman's family, indicate this employee of the Kahr facility had not only been arrested on various charges over the years but as early as 1995 had been addicted to cocaine and was ``habitually stealing money to support his cocaine habit.''

In March of 2000, the police arrested the Kahr employee who later pled guilty to the gun thefts. The investigation also led to the arrest of a second Kahr employee who also pled guilty to stealing a gun.

According to a complaint that was filed by Danny Guzman's family, Kahr Arms not only apparently hired a drug addict with a record of criminal charges, but the company also chose not to utilize basic security measures that could have prevented the theft, or an inventory tracking system that could have determined that guns were missing. According to the family's complaint, Kahr Arms did not conduct background checks on employees. The company did not install medal detectors, security cameras, x-ray machines, or other devices to ensure that employees did not just walk off with guns.

In fact, an affidavit signed by ATF Special Agent Michael Curran says the person who stole the gun that ended up killing Danny Guzman once said--we all should listen to those words--``he had taken the firearm out of the company, that he does it all the time, and that he can just walk out with them.'' Those are his words. He takes guns out of here ``all the time''--this drug addict. He can just walk out with them.

The company did not track its inventory in any meaningful way. And according to the complaint, from February 1998 to February 1999, approximately 16 shipments of handguns from Kahr Arms failed to arrive at their points of destination.

Did Kahr Arms violate a State or Federal statute? Nobody has claimed they did. And unless they did, under this pending bill, immunity from suit would result. It seems to me this is something all of us ought to be troubled by and focus on because there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion, I believe, as to what this bill would provide.

But at its heart, the issue is this: Should we say unless you can prove an act was illegal on the part of the defendant, you will not be able to recover for damages caused by that defendant's recklessness or gross negligence?

Should that defendant be immune from suit even though his recklessness or gross negligence has caused your injuries, unless you can prove that that conduct was also illegal?

The lawsuit that was filed by Danny Guzman's surviving family members alleges the wrongful death based on Kahr Arms alleged negligence. While the defendants moved to dismiss this case on April 7, 2003, the Massachusetts Superior Court denied the motions. This bill is aimed at nullifying that kind of case. I hope we can't constitutionally do it retroactively. I hope we cannot destroy that cause of action. But we should not try and we surely should not single out one industry to help immunize them against their own acts of recklessness or gross negligence.

In a third case, a team of Orange, NJ, police officers was operating undercover at a gas station that had been robbed repeatedly over the course of several months. Detective Lemongello was among the officers taking part in the undercover surveillance. In the course of a stakeout, Detective Lemongello attempted to question a man who had suspiciously approached the gas station. Lemongello walked up to the man and asked him to remove his hand from his pockets, whereupon the man turned and opened fire, shooting Detective Lemongello three times-- once each in his stomach, chest, and left arm.

Detective Lemongello was able to announce over his police radio that he had been shot and that the suspect had fled the scene. In response to the radio call, Officer Kenneth McGuire set off on foot after the shooter, who had fled into a nearby neighborhood. When Officer McGuire entered a backyard where the suspect was hiding, the suspect emptied his ammunition clip, shooting Officer McGuire in the abdomen and leg. Officer McGuire managed to return fire, killing the suspect. It turned out that the man who shot Officer McGuire and Detective Lemongello was wanted for attempted murder and had at least three felony convictions on his record. This man could not have legally purchased a gun, so the question is, Where did he get it?

Mr. President, I have been asked by my good friend from Vermont to interject a statement on a different subject at this point. To accommodate him, I would be perfectly happy if the Senator from Idaho would be willing to have me yield to him for a statement, without losing my right to the floor.

Yes.

I would be happy to have my amendment set aside, providing

that after the Lautenberg amendment is offered, the floor then be returned to me.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Nevada.

I want to go back to the case of the two police officers who were shot with a gun that was sold under extremely suspicious circumstances by a gun dealer who was then sued by these two police officers.

The lawsuit alleged on the part of the defendants some very serious negligence, gross negligence, recklessness in terms of that sale. The person who purchased the gun bought 11 other guns at the same time, selected by somebody else. The person who filled out the purchase paperwork was not the person who actually bought the guns. They were picked out by a second person.

Like the New Jersey man who shot these two officers, the man who selected the guns was a convicted felon. The guns were paid for entirely in cash, several thousand dollars. The gun purchase was about the second in 3 weeks from the same two buyers from that dealer.

These were significant allegations that were brought by two police officers who were severely injured by that gun, claiming that the action on the part of the gun dealer was negligent and reckless behavior. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that it was.

A West Virginia judge refused to dismiss this case that these two police officers brought saying there was sufficient evidence to go to a jury; that is, evidence of recklessness or negligence on the part of the defendants. It was their recklessness, their negligence which was the proximate cause, allegedly, of the damage.

We have heard a lot about whether people should be held accountable for somebody else's illegal action. That is not what this amendment is about. That is not what this bill is about. What this bill is about is to immunize a certain industry from their own reckless and negligent behavior, not somebody else's, but from their own reckless and negligent behavior, unless the people who are injured can also show that they acted illegally.

This is special treatment for one particular industry.

We owe a great debt to these police officers who put their lives on the line, and it seems to me it is an insult for the response to their bravery to be: You cannot bring an action against a gun dealer who acted negligently or recklessly and whose negligence or recklessness was a proximate cause of your injury. Sorry, you have to prove that gun dealer acted illegally; that he acted reckless is not enough; that you were injured as a proximate result of that recklessness is not enough. We are going to immunize that particular gun dealer and anyone like him from their own reckless, negligent behavior unless you can carry an additional burden that they also acted illegally.

That is the response to officers who are gunned down and where their injuries were a proximate result of the recklessness and negligence of that gunshop.

Those are the allegations. Should they be allowed to prove them? The intention of the legislation in front of us is that they not be allowed to prove them unless they can also allege there was illegal action on the part of that gunshop. I think we can see why so many associations of police officers are very much opposed to this legislation and its purpose.

A number of law enforcement officers wrote Senators a letter opposing what this bill intends. In it they said police officers like Ken McGuire and David Lemongello put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their service, this bill would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens to prove their case in a court of law.

Manufacturers and dealers of guns have a right to make and sell guns, but that right also is not unlimited because it comes with some responsibility. Like every other business in this country, people who are in the gun business have a responsibility to conduct that business with reasonable care. If a gun manufacturer or gun dealer fails to do so, and their negligence or recklessness leads to someone being killed or injured, they should not be immune from suit.

According to a recent report, 57 percent of crime guns in the United States could be traced back to 1 percent of the gun dealers in this country. We should not let that 1 percent off the hook. We should not single out one industry for these special protections.

Earlier this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee, considered an amendment to exempt class action lawsuits filed against the gun industry from the diversity and removal provisions of the class action bill. The committee rejected that amendment and in its report on the bill the majority put it this way:

Simply put, there should not be one set of rules for one

category of defendants and another for another group of

defendants.

Well, if that holds true in the case of a class action bill, it should be true also relative to this legislation. This bill not only singles out one industry for special favored treatment, but in the process it undermines long-standing principles of tort law.

Traditionally, tort law has been left to the States to define, and if changes have been necessary Congress has usually deferred to State legislatures to make those changes. This bill seeks to impose a Federal tort regime that would virtually eliminate the ability of State courts to hear and decide cases involving even grossly negligent or reckless conduct by gun dealers and manufacturers, even where existing State law would permit such cases.

A Georgetown University Center law professor by the name of Heidi Feldman put it this way about this bill:

. . . one of the most radical statutory revisions of the

common law of torts that any legislature--Federal or State--

has ever considered, let alone passed.

I have looked at a lot of Federal laws that affect the civil liability of various industries, and I, too, have seen nothing that comes close to what this bill would do.

Whatever we are going to do, it seems to me we ought to do it knowingly. We ought to understand what it is that we are being asked to do. What the bill says is, unless someone who is injured by somebody else's reckless or negligent conduct, unless that plaintiff can also show that the conduct was illegal, they will not be able to recover damages for their injuries. That is a radical departure from fairness, not just from the common law. That is a radical departure from protecting victims and trying to preserve their rights.

We should not take that step without at least understanding what we are doing. The purpose of my amendment is to make sure that we at least have an opportunity to vote on a central proposition: Whether or not when somebody is injured as a proximate result of somebody else's gross negligence or recklessness that that person who is injured should have an opportunity to recover damages, even if they are unable to show that the defendant's reckless or negligent conduct was also illegal.

That is the central issue this bill addresses. It is the central issue my amendment addresses. I think it is important that this Senate not only understand what the central issue is but have an opportunity to vote on that specific issue, and that is what my amendment is all about.

My amendment will give us the opportunity to vote on whether we intend to give immunity to persons who cause injuries to others through their own--and I emphasize ``their own''--reckless and grossly negligent behavior, where that behavior is a proximate cause of somebody else's injuries.

I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment. I hope we will modify the bill in front of us so that we can protect victims, and that is really what the amendment and the bill is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every February nationwide we celebrate the diverse and monumental contributions African Americans have made not only for the advancement of African Americans but for all people of our Nation.

This celebratory month was made possible by Dr. Carter G. Woodson, an African-American studies scholar, who proposed such a recognition as a way of preserving African-American history. In keeping with the spirit and vision of Dr. Carter G. Woodson, I would like to pay tribute to one courageous woman, Sojourner Truth, who lived and died in Battle Creek, MI, and who played a significant role in addressing injustice and inequality in America. Sojourner Truth was a leader in the abolitionist movement and a powerful voice in the women's suffrage movement, playing a pivotal role in ensuring the right of all women to vote. Sojourner Truth changed the course of history.

Sojourner Truth was unable to read or write, but she mesmerized others by her speeches addressing the inhumanity and immorality of slavery. In 1851, Sojourner delivered her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, OH. She spoke from her heart about the most troubling issues of her time. Her words on that day in Ohio are a testament to Sojourner Truth's convictions and are a part of the great legacy she left for us all.

I am proud and the people of my State are proud to claim this legendary leader as our own. In September 1999, we honored Sojourner Truth with the dedication of the Sojourner Truth Memorial Monument, which was unveiled in Battle Creek, MI.

Sojourner Truth was a political and social activist who personally conversed with President Abraham Lincoln on behalf of freed, unemployed slaves, and campaigned for Ulysses S. Grant in the Presidential election in 1868. Sojourner was a woman of great passion and determination who was spiritually motivated to preach and teach in ways that have had a profound and lasting imprint on American history.

Sojourner Truth was born Isabella Baumfree in 1797 in Ulster County, NY, and served as a slave under several different masters. She bore four children who survived infancy, and all except one daughter were sold into slavery. Baumfree became a freed slave in 1828 when New York State outlawed slavery. She remained in New York and instituted successful legal proceedings to secure the return of her son, Peter, who had been illegally sold to a slave-owner from Alabama.

In 1843, Baumfree changed her name to Sojourner Truth and dedicated her life to traveling and lecturing. She began her migration west in 1850, where she shared the stage with other abolitionist leaders such as Frederick Douglass. In October 1856, Truth came to Battle Creek, MI, with Quaker leader Henry Willis to speak at a Friends of Human Progress meeting. She eventually bought a house and settled in the area. Her antislavery, women's rights, and temperance arguments brought Battle Creek both regional and national recognition. Sojourner Truth died at her home in Battle Creek, November 26, 1883, having lived quite an extraordinary life.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Sojourner Truth ``Ain't I a Woman'' speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, extending unemployment benefits would be one of the most important and significant action Congress takes this year. The economy and jobs are consistently the top areas of concern back home. The people that I speak to are far more interested in extending unemployment benefits than extending tax cuts to the wealthy. The House recently acted in strong bipartisan fashion and passed an amendment to extend unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have exhausted their state and federal benefits. Now it is time for the Senate to act as well.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the number of individuals exhausting their regular State unemployment benefits and not qualifying for further benefits is higher than at any other time on record--about 90,000 workers a week. Painful history is being made. This Senate cannot stay silent. In January alone, about 375,000 unemployed workers exhausted their regular state benefits and are not eligible for any Federal unemployment aid. This is on top of the 395,000 unemployed workers who exhausted their state benefits last December 2003.

Action is needed now. President Bush predicted that in 2003, we would create 1.7 million new jobs. Instead, the Nation lost 53,000 jobs. On Monday, President Bush said he thought the current unemployment numbers are ``good.'' Not where I'm from.

In earlier slow economic times, previous Congresses have acted. In the 1974-75 recession, Congress provided 29 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 1981-82 recession, Congress provided 26 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the 1990-91 recession, Congress provided 26 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. In the program that expired on December 31, 2003, Congress provided 13 weeks of Federal unemployment benefits. That was below previous levels of Federal weeks but it was something.

The Federal extended benefits program implemented during the last recession was not allowed to end until the economy had produced nearly three

million jobs above its pre-recession levels. The current program has ended when there are 2.4 million fewer jobs than when the recession began.

The recently expired Federal unemployment program was closed to new enrollees last December 31, 2003. Workers currently receiving federal unemployment benefits will be phased out by the week of March 29, 2004. The recently expired federal unemployment program not only provided an added 13 weeks of Federally funded unemployment benefits for workers who have run out of State benefits--it provided an additional 7 weeks in States with the highest unemployment. Renewing this program--and hopefully expanding it to more traditional levels--is crucial.

The Federal unemployment trust fund has over approximately $15 billion in it--for this exact purpose--to allow unemployed workers who contributed to the fund while working to now use it in their time of need. The trust fund is the workers' money, made up from their contributions. Keeping money in consumers' hands will help sustain the economic recovery, too. Without it, more families will postpone medical care, watch their savings dry up, and lose their homes.

The Bush administration has told us that a .1 percent national unemployment rate drop is proof positive that his tax cuts and other economic initiatives are beginning to work. However, what President Bush did not tell the American people that factory employment declined for the 42th consecutive month by eliminating approximately 24,000 manufacturing jobs. Despite last month's growth, America's manufacturing core has shed an average of 53,000 jobs per month for the last 12 months. If a recovery is going on, it is essentially a jobless recovery. A jobless recovery is no recovery at all. The term is an oxymoron.

The Labor Department statistics also reveal that five million Americans work part time jobs because they cannot find full-time jobs. Since President Bush took office, about 3 million private sector jobs have been lost and a total of almost 9 million Americans are now unemployed. We have also reached record levels of long-term unemployment.

Manufacturing jobs, which helped to build and sustain America's middle class, are disappearing. A total of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since January 2001, 11,000 last month alone. Manufacturing jobs are good jobs that pay high wages, provide good health benefits and retirement security. We cannot afford to let these good jobs leave our country or be lost.

Michigan has been particularly hard hit, losing approximately 225,000 jobs since January 2001 of which 185,000 were manufacturing jobs. Our states and our nation cannot sustain such losses. On Labor Day President Bush acknowledged that ``thousands'' of manufacturing jobs were lost in recent years. He was off by about 2.6 million.

Let us pass an extension of unemployment benefits now. It is simply the right thing to do. It is the traditional thing to do in times like this.

I ask unanimous consent that the following chart be printed in the Record, illustrating previous Congressional action.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure to speak in commemoration of the 35th anniversary of Focus: HOPE and to support this concurrent resolution commemorating its many achievements. Focus: HOPE has served as an invaluable, multifaced resource for the people of Detroit and Michigan and is a model of success for the entire Nation. From its inception, Focus: HOPE has been committed to taking ``intelligent and practical action to overcome racism, poverty, and injustice.'' For three and a half decades, Focus: HOPE has worked toward that goal.

In 1968, Father William T. Cunningham, a Roman Catholic priest, and Eleanor Josaitis, a housewife, joined to form Focus: HOPE as a positive reaction to the devastating Detroit riots the previous year. While having few material resources at their disposal, Father Cunningham and Ms. Josaitis possessed a singular and indefatigable desire to help residents of Detroit take control of their lives. Their faith has been matched by a love for all of humanity, irrespective of religion or race. That love has helped Focus: HOPE flourish as it seeks to assist many in metro-Detroit.

Focus: HOPE has been involved with myriad activities that address both the immediate and long-term needs of our people. In the 1970s, Focus: HOPE began several innovative programs to provide nutritious food to young children, their mothers and senior citizens. Through its USDA Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the largest of its kind, monthly supplemental food is provided to 43,000 low-income pregnant and postpartum mothers, infants, preschool children and seniors throughout Southeast Michigan. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program can now be found in 32 States.

While caring for the basic needs of individuals, Focus: HOPE also seeks to lift the dreams and spirits of all who study, work at, or visit its 40-acre Detroit campus. Father Cunningham was a firm believer in the ability of education and technology to inspire people and bring out the best in them. By helping people to harness their dreams and imagine what is possible, he sought to develop a series of training and educational programs that challenged students to fulfill their dreams while learning marketable career skills.

To achieve this end, Focus: HOPE developed a four-part educational and training system that requires that students meet rigorous competency standards before they are able to proceed to the next academic program. The first two parts, fast track and the Machinist Training Institute, opened in the 1980s during a time of radical evolution for Focus: HOPE. Fast rack, is a computer assisted course which improves the reading and math skills of high school graduates or GED holders to prepare them for advanced study in the Machinist Training Institute where individuals prepare for careers in advanced machining and precision manufacturing. Fast track ensures that all those who enter the MTI program have the skills needed to succeed in this program and industry. The MTI uses a unique combination of classroom instruction and hands-on manufacturing experience producing high quality products in industry.

By maintaining clear and rigorous standards, MTI is able to train individuals that industry wants to hire. Since its foundation, nearly 2,500 graduates have learned high-demand skills and gain access to the financial mainstream. One indication of the success of this program is that industry often seeks to hire the students ever before they have completed their training.

In 1993, Focus: HOPE expanded its educational programs by adding a third education and training program--the Center for Advanced Technologies, CAT. At the center, ``candidates,'' as all students are called at Focus: HOPE, are able to continue their education by working toward an associate's or bachelor's degree in manufacturing engineering. Through a unique partnership with several universities, CAT students are awarded their degrees in a rigorous process that combines hands-on manufacturing experience and academic instruction within a leading edge technology environment while working and studying at Focus: HOPE. These candidates produce the highest quality and precision parts for the auto industry--a very demanding challenge. This innovative Focus: HOPE program has been cited as enrolling the largest number of African Americans studying manufacturing engineering in the Nation.

In 1999, Focus: HOPE was able to further diversify its training resources through the establishment of the Information Technologies Center, which provides industry-certified training in network administration, network installation, and desktop server administration enabling students to gain employment in the growing Information Technology sector of our economy.

These innovative and successful programs have caused Focus: HOPE to receive considerable national attention for its efforts. As a result of its many successes, Focus: HOPE has been visited by many national, State and local officials who wanted to examine this remarkable place in person. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have visited Focus: HOPE as well as Energy Secretary Spence Abraham, Army Secretary Thomas White, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the Honorable Colin Powell when he served as Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many others. These quests quickly learned as I have on many visits there, that the achievements of Focus: HOPE can hardly be described in just a few minutes or digested in even several visits.

Focus: HOPE has provided practical and compassionate assistance to people of all ages, from young children who receive quality child care at their Center for Children, to young adults who receive vital training through hands-on manufacturing projects, seniors who are fed by the Commodity Supplemental Food Program as well as those who are still young at heart who continue to persevere in the never-ending fight against racism, poverty, and injustice.

I have been privileged to witness and support Focus: HOPE's extraordinary achievements throughout the years. Like thousands of others, I have also been inspired by its positive energy and tireless commitment to providing opportunity for all people. For 35 years, Focus: HOPE has repeatedly amazed me with its spirit, grace, and vision.

Although Focus: HOPE lost a great mentor in 1997 with the passing of Father William Cunningham, Eleanor Josaitis continues to inspire and lead Focus: HOPE as its co-founder and chief executive officer. Today, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to Ms. Josaitis and her colleagues on the 35th anniversary of Focus: HOPE. I am sure that my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives will join Senator Stabenow and me in commemorating this invaluable resource by supporting the passage of this concurrent resolution.

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

Madam President, there is now confirmation from the administration's own leading weapons inspector that the intelligence community produced greatly flawed assessments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It is my opinion that flawed intelligence and the administration's exaggerations concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction resulted from an effort to make the threat appear more imminent and the case for military action against Iraq appear more urgent than they were.

However, regardless of whether one thought the threat was imminent or not to proceed as unilaterally as we did, our intelligence was so far off the mark and the descriptions of that intelligence by the administration were even further off the mark that for the sake of the future security of this Nation, there needs to be an independent assessment not just of the intelligence but also the characterization by the administration of that intelligence.

Today, I want to raise a related issue: how the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, misled the American people before the war about the status of our sharing of U.S. intelligence information with the United Nations inspectors.

Director Tenet, after 12 months of indefensible stonewalling, recently relented and declassified the material that I requested, which makes clear that his public testimony before the Congress on the extent to which the United States shared intelligence with the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs was false.

Prior to the war, the CIA identified 550 sites in Iraq as possibly having weapons of mass destruction or prohibited WMD materials or equipment. They were called ``suspect sites.'' Madam President, 150 of those sites were so-called ``top suspect'' sites where the CIA believed it would be more likely to find such items. The 150 top suspect sites were, in turn, divided into three categories: High priority, medium priority, and low priority.

At two public hearings shortly before the war on February 11 and February 12, 2003, I pressed Director Tenet on the issue of how many suspect WMD sites were shared with the United Nations. On February 12, Director Tenet said the following:

When the inspections began, we drew up a list of suspect

sites which we believe may have a continuing association with

Iraq's WMD programs. The list is dynamic. It changes

according to available intelligence or other information that

we receive.

Of this set number of suspect sites, we identified a

specific number as being highest interest, highest value, or

moderate value because of recent activities suggesting

ongoing WMD association or other intelligence information

that we received.

And here is his bottom line:

As I said yesterday, we have briefed all of these high

value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

Mr. Tenet did not say ``some;'' he did not say ``most;'' he said ``all.'' We have briefed ``all'' of these high value and moderate value sites to the U.N.

I told Director Tenet at the time in two public hearings that he was wrong and that classified numbers told a different story. On March 6, 2003, Director Tenet again stated in writing that:

We have now provided detailed information on all of the

high value and moderate value sites to UNMOVIC and the IAEA.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made the same representation in a letter to me on March 6, 2003, in which she said:

United Nations inspectors have been briefed on every high

or medium priority weapons of mass destruction, missile, and

UAV-related site the U.S. intelligence community has

identified.

On January 20, 2004, the CIA, after a year of resistance, finally declassified the number of ``high and medium priority 'top suspect' WMD sites'' where the CIA shared information with the U.N. inspectors prior to the war in Iraq.

In doing so, they finally acknowledged that 21 of the 105 high and medium priority top suspect sites on the CIA list were not shared with the United Nations before the war. So the record is now clear that Director Tenet twice gave false information on this matter to the public and to the Congress shortly before the war.

The January 20, 2004, letter from the CIA states their position. The position of the CIA is that it provided the United Nations ``with the intelligence that we judged would be fruitful in their search.'' History will, and a thorough investigation would, determine the accuracy of that statement. But the public can now judge the accuracy of Director Tenet's public statements before the war that all high and medium priority top suspect sites were shared with the United Nations. All such sites were not shared and Mr. Tenet's repeated statements were false.

Last February, Director Tenet could have answered honestly and said: We have not given the U.N. inspectors all the high and medium priority top suspect sites and this is why, Senator.

Instead, he chose a different path, one of misstating the facts. I can only speculate as to Director Tenet's motive. If he had answered honestly and said that there were 21 high and medium priority top suspect sites that we had not yet shared with the United Nations, it would have put an obstacle in the path of the administration's move to end U.N. inspections and proceed to war. It would have been more difficult for the administration to proceed to war without first having shared with the U.N. our intelligence on all high and medium priority top suspect WMD sites and it would have reinforced widely held public and international sentiment that we should allow the U.N. to complete their inspections before going to war.

In other words, honest answers by Director Tenet might have undermined the false sense of urgency for proceeding to war and could have contributed to delay, neither of which fit the administration's policy goals. For the last year, I have attempted to have declassified the number of high and medium priority top suspect sites that the U.S. did not share with the United Nations. The CIA stonewalled doing that for no reason that I can think of except that the facts are embarrassing to them. Surely, that is no reason to withhold information from the American people and to give inaccurate information repeatedly to Congress in public testimony. We rely on our intelligence agencies to give us the facts, not to give us the spin on the facts.

The accuracy and objectivity of intelligence should never be tainted or slanted to support a particular policy. What is badly needed and what is lacking so far is candor about how we were so far off in the assessments of Iraq's possession of WMD. The lack of candor is one of the many reasons an independent commission should be appointed by Congress, not just by the President, to look at not just how the intelligence came to be so flawed but

how that flawed intelligence came to be further exaggerated by the administration in order to support its decision to initiate military action.

One small part of this picture is this recent letter from the CIA that finally makes clear the truth. The CIA did not share all of the top suspect WMD sites in Iraq that Director Tenet said twice publicly before the war that it had shared with U.N. inspectors. It is more evidence of the shaping of intelligence to fit the administration's policy objectives.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the CIA that I have referred to on this matter be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in making this request. Michigan has tremendous transit needs. There are bus systems operating in every one of Michigan's 83 counties, from the urban Wayne County to rural counties in the Upper Peninsula. Despite covering all counties, service in many areas is minimal, creating a real hardship for working families who cannot afford to own a car. This shortfall exists despite the significant contribution by Michigan taxpayers. Michigan ranks sixth, behind five States with rail, in direct support for its public transit systems. Under TEA-21, Michigan ranked last in Federal transit funding among the Great Lakes States, and only received 43 cents back on every transit dollar it contributed to the highway trust fund. To help close this equity gap, I would also urge the chairman and ranking member to work with us in conference to provide these critical transit funds for Michigan.

Mr. President, Michigan is a long time donor State that for 50 years or so has sent more gas tax dollars to the Highway Trust Fund in Washington than are returned back in transportation infrastructure spending.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004, SAFETEA, addresses this inequity by returning more money to donor States which for years have seen a portion of their highway trust fund contributions shifted to ``donee'' States. These ``donee'' States have benefitted from antiquated Federal highway formulas which give them more Federal highway funding than they paid into the highway trust fund.

I have been fighting to correct the inequity faced by donor States like Michigan for decades. We have made some progress, but we won't be satisfied until we get the full return on our gas tax dollars after the costs of administering the program are allocated. For instance, in 1978, Michigan was getting somewhere around 75 cents on our gas tax dollar. The 1991 ISTEA bill brought us up to approximately 80 cents per dollar and the 1998 TEA-21 bill guaranteed a 90.5 cent minimum return for each State.

SAFETEA moves us in the right direction toward correcting the inequity in the distribution of highway funding. I cosponsored an amendment that would have, if adopted, provided additional funding to donor states to bring them more quickly to equity. While the inequity should be corrected immediately rather than gradually over the life of the 6-year bill, it is an important step forward that donor States will all achieve a 95 cent return by the sixth year of this bill, a level that is much better than in prior bills.

Under this legislation, Michigan will get more than $2.1 billion additional dollars over 6 years to pay for badly needed transportation infrastructure improvements. In all, under the formula portion of this bill, Michigan will get over $7.4 billion over 6 years which represents more than a 40 percent increase over TEA-21, plus additional funds from other sections of the bill.

Our Nation has significant infrastructure improvement needs. For instance, according to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, congestion at border crossings can lead to delays of over 80 minutes. The lost productivity from this congestion has a negative impact on the Nation's economy. It also causes environmental problems in the border regions. We need to get trucks and people across the borders more quickly and with greater safety.

I am pleased the bill managers have accepted my proposal to distribute funding for the bill's enhanced and expanded Border Planning, Operations, and Technology Program based on documented usage and trade flows at individual border crossings. Under my proposal, border infrastructure funding would be distributed using criteria that is based on the cargo weight, trade value and the number of commercial and passenger vehicles crossing the particular border. This means our Nation's busiest border crossings will get the Federal funding needed to improve this important economic infrastructure. Distributing the funds by this formula gives border projects more stability and predictability and is good public policy. It will also enhance U.S. economic activity and growth by facilitating the more efficient flow of goods, services and people at U.S. border crossings. Michigan, home to our Nation's top two commercial vehicle

crossings on the northern border, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, would receive approximately $204.5 million from this account over 6 years to improve its border infrastructure.

SAFETEA also makes an important change to the ethanol tax subsidy that will benefit my State of Michigan. At issue is the fact that the current ethanol subsidy comes at the expense of the highway trust fund and those States such as Michigan and Ohio that consume ethanol. Under current law, ethanol consuming States end up, under the formula, getting less back in federal highway funds. The Michigan Department of Transportation estimates that Michigan's annual revenue loss is $37 million a year in Federal aid because of the way the taxes on ethanol are credited.

To fix this, this bill shifts the cost of the ethanol tax subsidy from the highway trust fund to the general fund. Once ethanol taxes are credited at the same rate as gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon compared to the current 13.2 cents a gallon on ethanol, for the purposes of calculating inputs into the highway trust fund, the highway trust fund will grow. So, too, will the size of Michigan's and other ethanol consuming States' contributions credited to the trust fund. The bottom line is with the ethanol fix, Michigan will receive more Federal highway dollars over the life of the 6-year bill.

This legislation provides $56 billion for mass transit over 6 years, a significant increase over the prior reauthorization bill. Under the transit title, Michigan would get $656 million over 6 years, an increase of $230 million or 53 percent over TEA-21. This moves us in the right direction on mass transit.

There are few Federal investments that will have such a large and immediate impact on job creation and economic growth than investments in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. The efficient functioning of our economy depends on a reliable multimodal interstate system that is made up of highway, bus, rail, shipping and air transportation. We need to maintain and improve these systems and we need to address the costs and frustration of increased traffic congestion. This bill goes a long way to improve the operation of our transportation system and to keep us competitive in a global marketplace.

The Federal infrastructure investment of $318 billion contained in this bill, while increasing the efficiency of our transportation system, will also spur the creation of thousands of jobs in every State across this Nation. The Department of Transportation estimates that every $1 billion in new Federal investment creates more than 47,500 jobs. With Michigan standing to gain over $7.4 billion dollars over the 6-year bill, an increase of more than $2.1 billion over the last 6 years, this bill would mean almost 100,000 new jobs in Michigan and the retention of almost 250,000 jobs. These are good paying jobs and jobs that Michigan needs for economic recovery and to replace some of the jobs we have lost in manufacturing. These are jobs that we need in Michigan and throughout our country.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago a 17-year-old student was shot and killed at Ballou High School in Washington, DC. This shooting was the second in a 4-month period at the school. Earlier this week, in Albany, NY, another school shooting took place, and while only minor injuries resulted, the incident is another example of the impact of gun violence on students.

School violence, or even the threat of school violence, instills fear in our students, and limits their ability to learn. It also threatens and intimidates teachers and makes instruction more difficult. Violence in our schools puts the learning environment in jeopardy.

That is one reason why I am troubled by President Bush's fiscal year 2005 budget. The President's budget proposes a total elimination of funding for the COPS in Schools Program. As my colleagues know, the COPS in Schools program is designed to help law enforcement agencies hire school resource officers to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. COPS in Schools provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

Since 1994, in my home State of Michigan, police departments have received more than $210 million, hired more than 3,300 officers, and the COPS in Schools program has added 143 school resource officers, but with the President's cuts to the COPS program, additional Federal assistance would not be on the way. The President's $900 million in cuts to COPS funding would require local police departments around the country to stretch even further the limited number of dollars they have to protect our schools and communities.

I urge my colleagues to support efforts to reinstate COPS funding so that we might ensure a safer environment for our children to learn.

Mr. President, more than 1200 high school students from across the Nation will come to our Nation's capital this summer to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the history and philosophy of our Nation's most important documents: the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These ambitious students will be participating in the annual national competition of ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.'' This laudable effort, which is federally funded, is the most extensive educational program in the country designed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At a time when a study by the National Association of Educational Progress shows that three-quarters of America's students are not proficient in either American history or civics, the importance of this program is unquestionable.

``We the People . . .'' helps our students not only appreciate our constitutional democracy, but it allows them to ``participate'' in it. Students start with an instructional program where they learn about our Government's primary institutions while they discover the relevance of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to their daily lives. Their lessons then simulate real-life when the students participate in a ``Congressional hearing'' where they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. By using the principles and knowledge they've learned in the classroom to role play, these students have the opportunity to delve into and appreciate both historical and contemporary issues facing our Nation.

This program is not just reserved for high school students. ``We the People . . .'' recognizes that civic education should not wait until the students are almost able to vote. Teachers are encouraged to engage their students in simulated hearings at the elementary and middle school levels. In fact, more than 24 million students and 75,000 educators have participated in the ``We the People'' program since its inception in 1987. Throughout the years, several of my staff members have served as judges in the State competition.

This year, I am proud to inform the Senate that East Grand Rapids High School will represent Michigan in this prestigious event. These students demonstrated their exceptional command of issues relating to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the state competition held in Lansing.

The ``We the People . . .'' program continues to be one of the best efforts to counteract the feelings of political apathy and cynicism amongst our Nation's youth. I wish the students at East Grand Rapids and all the students across the Nation who will be competing in this year's competition the best of luck. I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing the contributions the ``We the People . . .'' program has provided to students across the country.

Mr. President, earlier this month, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, united with the Million Mom March and the Nation's leading State-based gun violence prevention groups, published the annual gun safety report cards for every State in America. The report cards are the culmination of a comprehensive analysis of each State's gun safety laws.

The report cards rate each State on seven types of laws that protect children from gun violence. Extra credit and demerits are also assigned for other State gun laws. The Brady Campaign includes in its analysis such questions as: is it illegal for a child to possess a gun without supervision? Is it illegal to sell a gun to a child? Are gun owners held responsible for leaving loaded guns easily accessible to children? Are guns required to have child safety locks, loaded-chamber indicators and other childproof designs? Do cities and counties have authority to enact local gun laws? Are background checks required at gun shows? Is it legal to carry concealed handguns in public?

The report awarded 10 States with Sensible Safety Stars for protecting children from gun violence. Nine other States were sent to the ``Time-Out Chair'' for weakening State gun laws. Unfortunately, 31 States received grades of D or F in this year's report cards. Not surprisingly, according to the report, States receiving Ds and Fs tend to have child and teen firearm death rates that are higher than the national average. For example, the average firearms death rate of youth in the 8 States that received an F grade was 33 percent higher than the average firearms death rate for the 10 States that received an A or a

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today, people in Israel and around the world are joining in solidarity to commemorate January 27, 2004, as a ``National Day to Combat Anti-Semitism.'' At a time when many Jewish communities are facing a rising tide of anti-Semitism, it is important that all people of goodwill work together to educate and fight anti- Semitism. This insidious form of hatred has lingered in this world for so long that it has been dubbed ``the longest hatred.''

Today marks the 64th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. While six decades have passed since the genocidal regime of Adolf Hitler fell, the urgency of combating anti-Semitism has never ceased. In the past year, numerous anti-Semitic acts have occurred across the world. In many European countries, including several countries that are amongst our closest allies, the frequency of anti-Semitic attacks are increasing. Jewish cemeteries, schools, synagogues, and individuals have been the center of an increasing number of violent incidents.

These targets have essentially remained the same over the millenia. Such attacks seek to intimidate and threaten individuals and desecrate institutions. We face an increasing array of groups who would perpetrate these acts.

In November 2003, people across the world were horrified when suicide bombers targeted two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey. At least 25 people were killed and almost 300 people, both Jewish and Muslim, were wounded. One of the synagogues was Neve Shalom, the center of Turkey's Jewish community. This crowded congregation was celebrating a young boy's Bar Mitzvah at the time of the bombing. This attack was, without question, a specific and politically charged choice, given Turkey's close ties with Israel, the United States and NATO as well as its commitment to democracy.

Another widely reported anti-Semitic act came a month earlier when former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Muhammed stated that, ``The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.'' That a leader would make allusions to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, one of the foremost claims of anti-Semitic hatred, is particularly appalling. It is unconscionable to think that a longtime leader of a sovereign nation would fan the flames of hatred and recrimination against people of the Jewish faith. It is more disconcerting that 57 leaders of the countries in the Islamic conference stood and applauded his speech. Mahatir's rhetoric was both ignorant and dangerous.

Even while these two events splashed the front pages of newspapers worldwide, numerous other incidents that hardly received notice caused irreversible damage all the same.

During an exhibit held in Australia last month called ``Courage to Care,'' two extremist groups sprayed a museum with anti-Semitic and racist slogans and covered it with swastikas. This was an exhibit that commemorated Australian survivors of the Holocaust. The criminals also left papers at the scene that portrayed a skull and crossbones and said, ``Death to Israel.''

In an attack in a suburb of Paris that coincided with the synagogue bombings in Turkey, a Jewish school was set on fire. Just a month earlier in Paris, a rabbi was verbally and physically attacked on his way to synagogue. In October, tombstones in a Jewish cemetery east of Berlin, Germany, were defaced by vandals who painted swastikas and anti-Semitic statements such as ``you got what you deserved,'' and ``Heil Hitler.''

The United States has not been free from such attacks, either. Earlier this year, a Holocaust Museum in Terre Haute, IN, was destroyed by arson, with only the words ``Remember Timmy McVeigh,'' left behind.

In April 2002, I joined with 99 of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush that requested that he and his administration ``make every effort possible to raise, at the highest level, our concerns about anti-Semitic acts in Europe and anti-Semitic portrayals in the Arab media.''

I was heartened by German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer's statement at a conference on anti-Semitism last fall that, we are firmly committed to countering every kind of anti-Semitism, every kind of racism and xenophobia.'' In addition, French Prime Minister Chirac announced that ``attacking a Jew in France is an attack on all of France.'' Such remarks fully acknowledge the threat posed by anti- Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not merely the enemy of Jews. It is the enemy of tolerance, freedom and openness; the very core values of all democracies.

Attacks on one religion, race or ethnicity threaten all of us. We have learned that when hatred is allowed to fester and grow, it can spread with a frightening degree of rapidity and virulence. It is imperative that the global community work to address not only the continuing prevalence of anti-Semitism, but also hatred against all religious and ethnic minorities.

I hope all my colleagues will join with me in commemorating Israel's ``National Day To Combat Anti-Semitism,'' and in rededicating their commitment to fight hatred wherever it may be found.

Mr. President, last week, Americans for Gun Safety, AGS, published a report entitled ``Selling Crime: High Crime Gun Stores Fuel Criminals.'' This report identifies gun stores around the country that sell the most guns used in crimes.

Federal law requires gun stores to be licensed to sell firearms by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, ATF. However, according to Americans for Gun Safety, until recently, the ATF had never released information on the number of crime guns traced back to gun stores. AGS acquired all of its data via Freedom of Information Act requests. The data reveals some troubling facts. According to the report, 96 of the 120 dealers named in the report remain open, and only 24 have been inspected by federal agents during the past 3\1/2\ years. When inspected, 18 of these 24 dealers were cited for at least one violation of federal gun laws and seven high crime dealers were cited more than five times.

The AGS study focuses attention on negligent and irresponsible gun dealers. However, language included in the Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill will make it impossible for this data on such dealers to be made available to the public in the future. Language included in the omnibus specifically prohibits the release of information related to tracing requests on guns used in crimes.

And that is not the only problem. Even more importantly, language in the bill mandates that the Justice Department destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 hours of the gun purchase. Under current regulations, the ATF can retain the records from gun purchases for up to 90 days. This 90-day period gives law enforcement the opportunity to review and audit gun purchase records for illegal activity and problems with the background check system. The provision requiring the destruction of records within 24 hours was inserted into the bill without a debate or discussion of its potential impact. It is incomprehensible that, at a time when we are in a heightened state of alert to guard against terrorism, we are not providing law enforcement with more than 24 hours to examine information on weapons purchases.

The gun provisions in the omnibus were never the subject of Senate hearings and are not supported by major law enforcement organizations. They undermine the efforts of the ATF to meet its responsibilities, weaken the public's right to know, and make it more difficult for other law enforcement agencies to do their job.

Mr. President, it is difficult to oppose this bill because it funds many programs that I support and contains a number of provisions that I worked to have included. However, once again we are being asked to vote on legislation that does not reflect the will of the House and Senate. This bill cuts funding for important programs, while at the same time includes provisions not approved in either the House or Senate, while failing to include provisions passed by both chambers.

Manufacturing has been hit hard in this country. Of the 3 million private sector jobs lost during this Administration, the vast majority, about 2.6 million, are in manufacturing. This bill drastically cuts one of the few programs we have to spur manufacturing. This is intolerable. The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program, which cofunds a nationwide system of manufacturing support centers to assist small and midsized manufacturers to modernize to compete in a demanding marketplace, is cut by 60 percent in this legislation.

Although the program was funded at $105.9 million last year, the President requested an 88 percent cut in the program to only $12.6 million in his fiscal year 2004 budget. The House approved $39.6 million and the Senate $106 million in their appropriations bills. This conference report adopts the House level of $39.6 million, a 60 percent cut to the program. The President and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives didn't even compromise with the Senate, despite the support of 58 Senators pressing for a funding level of $110 million. They are not willing to assist small and medium sized manufacturing companies who are facing strong import competition and job losses.

Further, this bill will deprive over 8 million workers of overtime pay. The administration proposed a regulation to end overtime pay for millions of working men and women. Although the House and Senate both voted to oppose this regulation, their will was ignored because of White House pressure and the language was dropped in conference. This omission will negatively impact such public servants as police

officers and firefighters, including our military personnel who return home to become police officers or firefighters.

Both the Senate and House versions of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce- Justice-State spending bill included language prohibiting the FCC from implementing its decision to allow a single company to own more TV stations in the same market. The current cap is 35 percent. Despite the expressed will of both houses, the bill before us allows more media concentration and raises the cap to 39 perecent. Allowing this kind of media consolidation could be harmful to consumers.

Further, language in the bill mandates that the Justice Department destroy background check records for the purchase of guns within 24 hours of the gun purchase. Under current regulations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms can retain the records from gun purchases for up to 90 days. This 90-day period gives law enforcement the opportunity to review and audit gun purchase records for illegal activity and problems with the background check system. The provision requiring the destruction of records within 24 hours was inserted into the bill without a debate or discussion of its potential impact. It is incomprehensible that we are in a heightened state of alert to guard against terrorism yet we are not providing law enforcement with more than 24 hours to examine information on weapons' purchases.

Language in this bill will also postpone the country-of-origin labeling, COOL, rule that was previously enacted. The House bill would have delayed that provision for one year. This conference report contains a 2-year delay. Not only did the Senate strongly reject this provision previously, but, more importantly, this delay undermines efforts to ensure the safety of our nation's food supply. The recent mad cow incident in Washington underscored the importance of being able to trace the origin of agricultural products. If the infected cow had not been voluntarily marked as being of Canadian origin, we would not have been able to determine the origin of the disease in such an expeditious fashion. Making COOL mandatory will ensure that such incidents can be traced more quickly.

The omnibus bill also denies many struggling Americans much-needed support services. For example, Section 105 of the Labor-HHS portion of the bill will allow the government to rescind unspent, though already obligated, welfare-to-work funds. By instructing the Secretary of Labor to recapture ``unexpended'' funds rather than ``unobligated'' funds, Michigan and several other states could lose a significant amount of this important funding. Michigan is threatened with losing $16 million that it has obligated in welfare-to-work funds for FY04. If Michigan loses these funds, Detroit alone will be unable to provide 6,000 welfare recipients with job search services, education and training programs, and other employment-related services.

We need to protect our citizens from terrorism and crime, yet this bill fails to adequately fund the COPS program, an invaluable tool in making our streets and schools safer. To date, the COPS program has helped add thousands of police officers and school resource officers in Michigan. Unfortunately, this legislation cuts the COPS hiring program by $80 million--a 40 percent cut from 2003 levels and a more than 60 percent cut from 2002 levels.

At a time when we are asking so much of our military, this legislation provides inadequate funding for our nation's veterans. This legislation cuts nearly $2 billion from the budget passed by the Senate in the spring allocated $63.77 billion for services at the Veterans Administration including health care, burial services and other commitments. This shortfall shortchanges our nation's veterans after we have made great demands on them and strong commitments to them.

This bill also fails our children by mandating a .59 percent across- the-board cut which would reduce funding for No Child Left Behind programs by over $73 million, resulting in 24,000 fewer kids being served by title I. Overall, the Title I Education for the Disadvantaged Program would be $6 billion below the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act that the President signed in January of 2002. This cut in funding would also reduce Head Start funding by $40 million, resulting in 5,500 fewer kids attending Head Start.

I am also concerned about the private-school voucher program that this omnibus bill would create in the District of Columbia. This is a proposal that was stripped from the Senate's D.C. Appropriations bill, but squeaked through the House by just a couple of votes. I do not believe we should take our scarce taxpayer dollars away from public schools, where over 90 percent of our nation's children are educated, and divert them to private schools. Furthermore, in the No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110, Congress included strong accountability standards to demand better results from administrators, teachers, and students for all public schools. I believe we should concentrate on improving the educational level of all students at all DC public schools, rather than take some students out.

This bill severely underfunds Great Lakes and other environmental programs, highway construction projects, law enforcement programs and funding to our veterans. I cannot support this legislation as it has been brought to the floor on a ``take it or leave it'' basis, violating procedures which assure the Senate's input. I hope that we can work out some corrective legislation which will have the broad bipartisan support many of these important programs deserve.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I wonder if the Senator might add to that UC--about how long does the Senator plan to speak, so I could then try to amend that UC to place myself in order?

Madam President, I ask the Senator if he would modify his unanimous consent request to allow the Senator from Michigan, and then I believe the Senator from Washington, to each have 10 minutes following his remarks?

Madam President, after the Senate adjourns for the year, the plan is for the Senate to reconvene on January 20 of next year. Unless Congress acts to extend Federal unemployment benefits, the so- called Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program, before we adjourn, hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans face the holidays with the prospect of losing their unemployment benefits on January 1. This lack of action would put us in exactly the same situation as last year: going home to our loved ones without helping jobless Americans during the holiday season.

At a minimum, we should extend the current Federal Unemployment Assistance Program for 6 months. At a minimum, we should stand by America's workers and help the unemployed during this holiday season.

According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, in January, about 90,000 current unemployed workers are likely to exhaust their regular State benefits each week. Absent congressional action, starting January 1 next year, workers who exhaust their regular State benefits will no longer be eligible for the additional Federal benefits. The only people who will continue to receive those benefits will be those who have begun to receive their Federal benefits by January 1.

This chart shows where we are in terms of the Federal benefits. In the recession of 1974-1975, there were Federal benefits accumulating to 29 weeks. That is in addition to the 26 weeks of State benefits. In the 1981-1982 recession, again, 29 weeks of Federal benefits. In the 1990- 1991 recession, 26 weeks of Federal benefits. Currently, until December 31 of this year, there will be 13 weeks of Federal benefits that are offered in addition to the 26 weeks in each of our States. That is what will disappear December 31.

This is a very modest program we have going. This is half of what we have done in the prior two recessions in terms of Federal benefits, slightly less than half of what we did in the recessions of 1974-1975 and 1981-1982, but exactly half of what we did in the 1990-1991 recession.

Currently, we only have 13 weeks of Federal benefits. This is going to run out on December 31 unless we act before we leave.

Some contend the issue of whether or not to extend the program and in what form can be dealt with when we return on January 20. I believe, however, by the time January 20 rolls around, it is going to be too late. In fact, we know it will be too late for thousands of unemployed who will have exhausted their benefits. So action is needed today. It is needed now or else this Federal benefit program, which is a modest program--again, I emphasize, half of what we have done in prior recessions--unless this is reauthorized today, it is going to run out and hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans are going to see their benefits exhausted without the benefit of the Federal program.

In the month of January alone--this coming January--as many as 400,000 unemployed workers are going to exhaust their State benefits if we don't act.

The number of long-term jobless--that is the people who have been jobless 6 months or more--grew in October to over 2 million workers for the first time since this recession began. That represents an increase of over 700,000 workers compared to March 2002 when the current Federal unemployment program was most recently authorized.

The Federal extended benefits program which was implemented in the last recession did not end until the economy had added nearly 3 million jobs to the prerecession level. The current unemployment program is scheduled to end, although there are 3 million fewer private sector jobs than when this recession began.

Renewing this Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program, this Federal benefits program, is essential under these circumstances. The comparison on this chart is dramatic between what we did in prior recessions and this recession.

In prior recessions, we had twice the level of Federal benefits as we do now. We have a modest 13 weeks, half the level, and in the prior recession we waited to end the Federal program until millions of new jobs had been created.

Unless we act today, we will have lost 3 million jobs and still will be ending a Federal program which is so critically essential to those people who are unemployed.

The Department of Labor's announcement that 125,000 jobs were created in October and that the unemployment rate dropped to 6 percent, the first decline since I don't know how long--I don't have the exact date here, but in a long time--presents a glimmer of hope. It is a glimmer of hope at least in some places, but in my home State of Michigan the unemployment rate is 7.6 percent.

We, like most other States, are very dependent upon a minimum level of unemployment benefits. It would be unconscionable for this Congress to leave without renewing this program.

Factory employment in America declined for the 39th consecutive month by eliminating approximately 24,000 manufacturing jobs. So even though we had that slight increase in jobs in October, for the first time really, we are seeing a slight up-tick in the total number of jobs. We have at least some jobs being created. In the manufacturing sector, for the 39th consecutive month, we lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

America's manufacturing core has shed an average of over 50,000 jobs a month for the last 12 months. These manufacturing jobs, which build and sustain America's middle class, are disappearing. A total of over 2.5 million

manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last few years. These are jobs that are good paying jobs, provide good health benefits and good retirement security. We simply cannot afford to let these jobs leave our country or be lost for good.

In the meantime, while we are fighting the battle for manufacturing jobs, we should not go home for the holidays having failed to act to maintain the very modest Federal unemployment benefits program. I know there are many in this body who are determined to see us have the opportunity to act to extend this program before we leave for the recess.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.