Floor Statements

Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on a measure that has a direct impact on the lives of thousands of people in Connecticut and around the country. By voting yes today on the bipartisan S.J. Res. 20, Congress can reverse the EPA decision to not regulate mercury emissions under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Under Section 112, powerplants would be required to reduce emissions of mercury and other pollutants by the maximum achievable level of control by installing stringent pollution control equipment. In March 2005, EPA issued a rule rescinding an earlier 2000 finding that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury from power plants. Instead, EPA advocates a cap-and-trade system over plant-specific controls.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the heart, brain, and immune system. By putting forth this irresponsible rule, EPA is putting the lives of millions of people at risk, especially those of children and pregnant women. Scientists have well-documented evidence of mercury toxicity. In the Northeast, a public health crisis is looming as there are estimates that over 84,000 newborns each year will be at-risk for irreversible neurological problems and cardiovascular abnormalities.

While mercury is prevalent in many household, medical, and industrial products, the largest U.S. source of mercury emissions are powerplants. The mercury is carried by the wind from powerplants and settles in the lakes and rivers hundreds of miles from the source of pollution. The pollution knows no boundary and that is the problem facing Connecticut. We do have a few less-than-perfect powerplants, but the majority of our mercury pollution comes from sources outside the State and region.

So prevalent is the pollution that 44 States have issued fish consumption advisories. In some States, no lake or river is habitable. In Connecticut, pregnant women and small children are advised to eat no more than one meal of freshwater fish per month. All others are advised to eat no more than one meal of fish per week. With statistics like this, it is clear to see that in addition to the public health consequences, there are clear economic challenges as well. Fishing is a big contributor to our local economies, contributing nearly $116 billion to the national economy.

In 2002, Connecticut took the first step in reducing mercury from the waste stream and by prohibiting the sale of many mercury products. Further, the State has implemented a comprehensive public education, outreach and assistance program. But individual States cannot address the problem of mercury emissions on their own because emissions travel far and wide. The EPA has dropped the ball and we will all suffer for it.

The EPA had a chance to take a stand for the public health and economic well-being of citizens across this country. Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, a nearly 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2008 could have been achieved. Instead, the EPA chose to pursue an emissions cap-and-trade program that will likely achieve only a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2018--ten years later. Because the cap-and-trade system does not require plant-specific controls, there are even some estimates that the reductions may not occur until 20 years out. We can simply not afford the delay. The Northeast States for Coordinated

Air Use Management, NESCAUM, have determined that cost-effective technologies to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent or greater are already commercially available.

Today, we have a chance to undo what the EPA is championing and stand up for the people of this country. There is widespread opposition to the EPA rule from states, localities, health professionals, groups of faith, and many sportsmen and women. I urge my colleagues to vote for S.J. Res. 20.

Before the Senator from North Dakota leaves the floor, I commend him for his comments. I am prepared to share some thoughts as well about the events in our country over the last week or so, but the Senator's comments about the energy crisis are tremendously timely in light of what has occurred in prices over the last number of days all across our country. And I join him in introducing legislation at least by tomorrow I hope in a bipartisan effort.

Again, he makes a very significant point that any of these resources, additional dollars that are pouring into the coffers of the industries that would go for exploration, research, refining capacity, are not included. In fact, we wish they would do more in developing new sources of energy. But if they are pocketing these resources at the expense of our economy, then I think it is incumbent upon us in this institution to respond and to not allow this gouging to occur at a time when the country is suffering. As someone who has paid a lot of attention over the years to the fuel cell industry, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say the capital of the fuel cell industry has been the State of Connecticut over the last number of years. United Technologies, to their great credit--aside from being a large defense contractor--has worked aggressively in the fuel cell area. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct that fuel cells offer tremendous opportunity. It is not like inventing some new technology. It is out there. If we would put the resources behind it, make it a bit more efficient than it is today, which is not a great deal, not a very difficult thing to do, then we could make some giant steps forward in reducing our dependency on foreign countries and our dependency on nonrenewable sources of energy.

I commend the Senator for his comments and his ideas.

I am happy to yield.

I commend my colleague from North Dakota. I know my colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, has offered the legislation in the other body. I think it was a bipartisan proposal that she made over there on this issue. So again my compliments to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes this afternoon if I could and express my sympathy and the sympathy of my family, I know the sympathy of all of us in this Chamber, to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flooding that occurred particularly in Louisiana. I thank the leadership for giving us an opportunity today to express ourselves as a national body about this devastation that has occurred. There will be a lot of discussion about what happened, what did not happen, the shortcomings of our Government in responding in a timely fashion to this situation. But today is a time to offer our prayers and our sincere and deep sympathies to those who have suffered as much as they have.

There will be hearings next week. The President, I gather, has announced an investigation at the executive branch level. I think an independent investigation is probably the best way to proceed. Having the Government investigate itself is interesting but not

always the best way to get to the bottom of the information we ought to have about what happened. Because we will have events like this-- hopefully nothing of this magnitude--again. There will be other events that require our Nation to respond far more expeditiously, far more thoughtfully, far more humanely than we did in this situation.

First, it obviously goes without saying that the thoughts and prayers of all of us and the entire country are with the people of the Gulf region at this hour. This is a disaster of unspeakable and unprecedented proportions, and we are still struggling to comprehend the magnitude of this event. Certainly the attacks of September 11, 2001 come to mind in terms of the damage done to life and property.

At the same time the devastation wrought by this act of nature is quantitatively and qualitatively different. As we speak here this afternoon, an entire American city, between a half a million and a million people, is uninhabitable. Its mayor tells us it will remain in that state for many months to come. Hundreds are believed to be dead and he predicts that the number will soar in the days to come--possibly into the thousands.

In Mississippi over 100 are known dead. According to that State's Governor, the destruction of the Gulf communities such as Biloxi, Gulfport, and Bay St. Louis is nearly total. Let me be clear and repeat what I said. I said destruction, not damage. Thousands of homes and places of business are a total loss and will have to be completely rebuilt in the coming months. I know that our colleague, Senator Lott of Mississippi, lost his own home. Nearly a million homes in his State have been without power for days.

In Alabama more than 400,000 homes and businesses have lost power. Mobile and the surrounding environs suffered severe flooding. In western Florida the situation is similar. The Presiding Officer certainly knows of what I speak. Hundreds of thousands were without power and with scant access to the basic necessities of life--clean water, sanitary facilities, food, and shelter.

The upshot of all this destruction and damage is that millions of our fellow American citizens are now literally refugees in their own country.

We don't like to use the word refugee and I certainly have stayed away from it. But as you watch pictures of people walking along railroad tracks, along highways, of people perched on rooftops waiting patiently for aid, and enduring deprivation that we have never seen in this country on such an immediate and immense scale as we have in this event, then certainly the word refugee is appropriate in these circumstances.

We are receiving reports of looting, shooting, and chaos that has interfered with rescue and relief efforts. We all struggle to remember a comparable amount of destitution and destruction in our Nation. And so far we struggle in vain in that effort. We cannot believe what we are seeing is taking place in our own Nation, our beloved America. Nothing like this has ever happened in the United States.

And we are reminded as well that America is not a loose collection of States or regions. We are a single indivisible nation. What happens in one State or region is felt all across our country in the concerns of loved ones, the charitable contributions, and the secondary deprivations that all Americans will experience as a result of this catastrophe.

The Gulf region is a principal source of domestic and foreign goods that are consumed by all of us--natural gas, oil, lumber, poultry, coffee, and bananas. It is the departure point for the export of billions of dollars worth of goods made in our own Nation--corn, soybeans, wheat, and other commodities.

The Army Corps of Engineers tells us it could take as long as 6 months to drain the water from the basin in which the city of New Orleans lies. It will take months if not years before that city and other areas damaged by this hurricane and flood return to some semblance of normalcy. The aid package we considered last Thursday evening is the first installment of emergency aid for the national Government but by no means will it be the last. This Senator pledges his support for delivering all appropriate aid as expeditiously as possible to those in need in the gulf region. This is a time requiring unity and urgent action.

There will be a time, as I said earlier, in the days and weeks to come to examine what went wrong. And a lot went wrong before as well as after this hurricane and flood.

Our citizens are already asking the tough questions about what we could have done to prevent the full extent of this tragedy. They are outraged, not just in the Gulf area. I spent yesterday in my home State of Connecticut. I went to the State armory in that city to help organize food assistance packages that were being shipped to the Gulf region. I can tell you people in the city of Hartford, as well as people throughout my State are outraged and appalled by what they saw as incompetence and indifference at the very highest levels of our national Government. And I think they are right to be incensed and to demand better action and answers to what occurred.

They want to know why there has been a 44-percent cut in funds for flood prevention in New Orleans since 2001, even though a 2001 FEMA report told us that a hurricane flooding New Orleans was one of the three most likely major disasters facing the United States, along with a terrorist attack in the city of New York.

Citizens want to know why the administration, despite promising there would be no net loss of wetlands, has allowed their development, including those in the Gulf region, which are better flood prevention mechanisms than any dam or levy built by man.

Citizens all across this country want to know why, despite knowing for days before the hurricane that it could cause major devastation, it took so long for the Federal agencies to mobilize relief, rescue, and law and order operations.

Citizens want to know all across our Nation whether nationwide spikes in the price of gasoline are normal under these circumstances or the result of price gouging by unscrupulous profiteers who always stand ready to take advantage of tragedy. And they want to know that our President and Attorney General are doing everything possible to prevent price gouging.

These are very important issues--not the only ones--but they are some of the ones being asked by our fellow citizens at this very hour.

As I said a moment ago, now is the time for us to pull together as a nation to support one another, to do what we can to help the people of the Gulf region get their lives back to some semblance of normalcy.

Eight days after the hurricane first hit the gulf region and 9 days after it became a storm stronger than the New Orleans levees could hold, there are still critical needs that must be addressed immediately.

Right now as we speak here today in this Chamber, New Orleans is coated with a layer of toxic sewage that endangers the health of both those left stranded and the relief workers themselves. It has been estimated that there are thousands of bodies that have yet to be recovered on the streets and bayous of Jefferson Parish. There are public safety concerns. There is not enough food and water. And the city remains without power.

They need our help now, and they need more than the direct assistance we have just begun to deliver. Last week, as I mentioned earlier, this body approved over $10 billion in emergency aid. That is a fraction of what will be required in the coming months and years to rebuild the lives and communities affected by this tragedy.

Our first concern must, of course, be the health of those who still remain.

We need to guarantee all displaced victims access to comprehensive health care coverage, to Medicaid, including waiving residency, assets, and copayments requirements. Those who survive remain at great risk for illness and disease. They need and deserve medical care.

We need to provide resources to help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and local public health authorities monitor and respond to disease outbreaks and to help treat victims. We need to work closely with the pharmaceutical industry to get badly needed medication to these affected areas.

We need to make sure that this is a long-term effort. We must provide funding for continued monitoring of

those in the region, as exposure to environmental hazards could have lifelong consequences.

We should invest in the public safety net and support mental health providers to help victims cope emotionally with the disaster. We need to offer Federal support for communities and tax incentives for individuals to incorporate displaced victims.

We also must provide basic services and support for those who now literally live as refugees in other States.

The New Orleans school district has been decimated. Only 2,500 of the 7,000 employees have been accounted for. The central office has been destroyed, and all of the school records in New Orleans are gone.

Thankfully, there are over 30 cities that have stepped forward to take in the 20,000 children who have so far been identified as in need.

We have to get direct financial assistance to the school districts absorbing these students so they can adequately care for them in addition to the students they already serve.

We also must provide financial assistance for college students as they relocate to other universities and provide incentives for those universities that have already offered students a new home.

And we must make sure that victims are not penalized by rules, regulations, and responsibilities that may work well under normal circumstances but can be debilitating in times of an emergency.

We should waive income requirements for Head Start displaced children. We should give States that have offered childcare to refugees flexibility on their subsidy payments. And we should waive TANF work requirements for victims of the hurricane and flood.

We should also offer tax relief to victims so they can begin rebuilding their lives and expand and extend unemployment assistance so they can get back on their feet more quickly.

We should mobilize volunteers through AmeriCorps and other organizations in a unified rebuilding effort. And we should encourage private industry to participate with their own resources and expertise.

We also need to guarantee that the brave military personnel who continue to carry out operations in the gulf region with characteristic precision and professionalism will have all the resources that they need.

Last week, the U.S. Coast Guard crews rescued over 22,000 people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, but we are not properly supporting them, in my view. Their costs in both operations and reconstruction are estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are being forced to divert funds from their already strapped 2005 accounts. This should be simply unacceptable to all of us.

We also must start discussing long-term solutions. We must be prepared as a nation to prevent or mitigate the effects of tragedies of this magnitude. We must invest in viable and sufficient flood control projects. We must examine building codes to consider if they can be strengthened to limit damage in the future. Perhaps most importantly, we must develop disaster relief plans throughout our Nation so that we will not again be caught off guard as we were this time.

We must restore the ability of the Federal Government to respond to a disaster of this magnitude whether manmade or natural.

During the 1990s, FEMA evolved to fulfill this role and demonstrated through several disasters its ability and confidence, I might add, to quickly mobilize resources and other aspects of relief efforts. By all accounts, that is no longer the case. We should consider whether FEMA should be made a Cabinet level agency and whether there are other steps that the national Government can take so that in the future we can fully mobilize our resources to respond to national catastrophes.

I am also going to revisit shortly, when the appropriations bills come up, what I have recommended on three different occasions, along with my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, to fully fund the first responders. It was strongly recommended by our former colleague, Warren Rudman, who, along with a very distinguished commission financed and supported by the Council on Foreign Relations, reported that we should be spending some $20 billion every year for 5 years to see to it that we have the adequate resources in place to respond.

Now, they were talking about a terrorist attack when they talked about first responders. They did not have in mind natural disasters of this magnitude. But clearly we need to anticipate both. We have narrowly lost that amendment on three different occasions. But I would hope in light of what has occurred in the Gulf region of our own Nation over the last week and a half that we would be able to find the necessary support to see to it that our first responders in this country have the tools, the equipment, and the preparation so that we never ever again find ourselves in this situation, ill prepared to respond to a crisis of this kind.

Lastly, I want to pay a little special tribute to my own constituency. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I spent a good part late yesterday morning at the armory in Hartford, CT, where people in my office were gathering these supplies to send down to the gulf region. It was Labor Day, and I went over half expecting there might be a handful of people there to process and handle the contributions. There were hundreds of people there. It was really rather an emotional moment to drive up and see literally hundreds of people, volunteers from various churches and organizations in my State, gathering the materials. There was a line of automobiles that went around the block several times. People with their families in the car, with young children, arrived, opened up their trunks and the backs of their cars, and pulled out food, clothing, supplies of all kinds to be delivered to the victims of Katrina in the Gulf region. And then to watch volunteers sorting it out, packaging it up again. This was at one armory. Today they are opened up across the State, and again we are seeing the same reaction today--literally thousands of people pouring out in our small State of Connecticut to provide assistance. What I know is that it is occurring all across the country.

While we are talking about the failures of Government to respond well, how proud all of us ought to be in this Chamber of our fellow citizens because they are not sitting down. They are reacting. They are involved in telethons and charitable giving, doing everything they can to assist the people of the Gulf region. It is a great picture of America. It is what all of us believe about our country. In moments like this I did not hear a person in Connecticut talk about the South or southerners or differences in red States and blue States. I watched good people in the city of Hartford, CT, doing everything they can to help out people in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. That is our America. That is the country we represent, and we are all deeply proud of our fellow citizens. We will get through this. We will put these people back on their feet again, but we need to be better prepared so we can minimize the kind of hardship that these communities have suffered through in the last 10 days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the conference report that accompanied the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act reauthorization bill. The Senate adopted this measure earlier today and I voted in support of it.

I would like to begin by thanking the principal Senate authors of this important legislation: Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords of the Environment and Public Works Committee; Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes of the Banking Committee; Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee; and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I commend them and their staffs for their hard work over these past 3 years in crafting this legislation.

I would also like to thank my colleagues who served on the conference committee during these past 2 months. Reconciling legislative differences with the other body over a bill of this large, complex and important nature is no easy task; I appreciate all of their hard work.

The conference report that passed the Senate funds our Nation's transportation infrastructure at $286.4 billion between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009. This includes all of our Interstate highways, the National Highway System, secondary roadways, intercity passenger rail, local transit systems and transportation safety programs. Taken together, these elements form one of the most essential factors that determine the well-being of our country and our country's national economy: ensuring the safe and efficient passage of people and goods.

The conference report provided $233.8 billion for our Nation's roadways. Included in this amount was $25 billion for the maintenance and expansion of our Interstate highway system, $30.5 billion for the maintenance and expansion of our larger National Highway

System, $21.6 billion for the replacement of defunct or obsolete bridges, $32.5 billion for discretionary projects under the Surface Transportation Program and $5 billion for highway safety programs. Out of these funds the conference report provided my home State of Connecticut with nearly $2 billion between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2009--a 19 percent increase over the original authorization bill's amount. Included in these resources were on average $51 million a year for Interstate highway maintenance, $48 million a year for roads included in the National Highway System, $91 million a year for bridge replacement, $61 million a year for large and small-scale road improvement projects under the Surface Transportation Program and $7 million a year for highway safety programs. Beyond these resources the bill provided over $160 million for several dozen highway initiatives across Connecticut. All of these initiatives, from the reconstruction of I-95, municipal streets and bridges to multi-use recreational trails, stand to improve the quality of life in the communities and regions where they are taking place.

The conference report also provided $52.6 billion for our Nation's transit systems. Out of these funds the report provided Connecticut--a State heavily- dependent on mass transit services--with nearly $485 million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2009--a 33 percent increase over the original authorization bill's amount. In addition to these resources the report included nearly $150 million for local transit agencies across Connecticut to improve their infrastructure and services, thereby working to alleviate congestion that continues to plague my State's roadways.

Overall I believe that the resources provided in this conference report will help improve our Nation's transportation infrastructure over the next 4 years. They will allow for critical maintenance and capital improvement projects to go forward on our roadways; they will allow for dangerous overpasses to be replaced; they will allow for transit systems to meet more efficiently the needs of their riders; and they will allow for a greater degree of safety on our roads and rails. Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to discuss some of the shortcomings I see in this conference report--shortcomings that, in my view, threaten to undermine the very goals this legislation tried to accomplish.

First, I do not believe that the level of investment provided in this conference report is fully adequate to meet the growing needs of our transportation infrastructure. When the Senate originally debated this legislation, I was pleased to support a bipartisan measure that provided $295 billion between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2009. This funding level was considerably higher than the House level of $283 billion and the Bush administration's original recommendation of $256 billion.

Therefore, when the conference report was completed earlier this week, I was disappointed to learn that the conference committee provided $286.4 billion--a figure only marginally higher than the House figure and significantly lower than the Senate figure. I have been told by the Connecticut Department of Transportation that this level of investment is barely adequate to keep pace with expected inflation over next 4 years and wholly inadequate to meet the growing crises facing our transportation systems both in Connecticut and across the country.

Second, I remain concerned over how the levels of guaranteed funding for highways and transit were determined in this conference report. Earlier this year, I strongly opposed a unilateral move by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to reduce transit's share in the Senate bill from the previously-negotiated ratio of 18.82 percent to 18.18 percent. Unfortunately, this new ratio prevailed in the Senate version of the bill. In conference it was raised to 18.57 percent. While this conference agreement is higher than the Senate version's ratio and higher than the ratio in the original authorization bill, it still underfunds transit activities by $700 million compared to the original agreed-upon ratio in the Senate.

Highway and transit interests should not be working against each other. They should be working together. The best transportation systems in the world are those that feature a sound, safe, and efficient balance between various modes of transportation. Disrupting that balance by favoring one mode over another ultimately causes road congestion, unreliable transit service, and higher transportation costs--three problems that many parts of this country, including Connecticut, are experiencing today. If we are to overcome these problems and support a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation network in this country, then we must adequately and equally invest in all modes, whether they are highways, transit, airports, or seaways. We must recognize that each mode is an important and integral part of a larger transportation network.

From reviewing the funding allocations provided for both transit and highways in this bill, it concerns me that inadequate resources are going to areas of the country, such as Connecticut, where the transportation needs are the greatest. I find this rationale inconsistent with the way our national government usually addresses matters of national significance that affect particular regions of our country. When a drought plagues a certain part of this country, we always stand ready to provide drought relief to the affected States. When a hurricane slams into our coastline, we always stand ready to provide emergency disaster relief to the affected States. When farmers are experiencing financial difficulty, we always stand ready to provide them with vital subsidies. And when forest fires burn mercilessly over hundreds of square miles, we always stand ready to provide emergency assistance to the affected States. Why then, when key components of our national transportation system are plagued by aging and obsolete infrastructure, do we not seem to stand ready to provide adequate assistance to the most affected States?

A transportation system in crisis is more than a transportation problem; it's an economic problem. Without a balanced, safe, and efficient transportation system, goods cannot be delivered to their destinations in a timely manner, services cannot be rendered efficiently, and people cannot get to their jobs conveniently. Over time, the environment worsens, the quality of life declines, and the region suffers as a whole.

Today, the transportation system serving Connecticut and the surrounding region is in need of assistance. In Connecticut alone, a rapidly aging infrastructure routinely causes significant disruptions to our transportation network--disruptions that have had a negative impact on the region and country as a whole.

The busiest commuter rail line in the country is located in Connecticut. It runs over 70 miles between New Haven and New York City--carrying over 33 million riders annually along our southwest coast. Last year, a combination of cold weather and rapidly aging rail cars--many of which are a decade or more beyond their operational lifetimes--caused one-third of the line's fleet to be taken out of service for emergency maintenance. In fact, about 37 percent of the fleet was taken out of service for most of last February--230 cars out of the 800-car fleet. Needless to say, this occurrence put an enormous strain on thousands of commuters who rely on the service daily to get to and from work, travel to and from school, and to see their families.

The nation's seventh busiest highway is also located in Connecticut. Our segment of Interstate 95 is a major artery for commercial vehicles and other interstate traffic. In March of 2004, an accident caused an overpass in Bridgeport to collapse. While there were thankfully no fatalities, the accident did force the closure of Interstate 95 for 4 days until a temporary overpass could be built. Needless to say, this closure created enormous burdens on the already beleaguered highway and transit systems in Connecticut, New York, and New England. It also created an adverse economic effect that was felt far beyond our region as people and goods were unable to reach their important destinations on time.

These are the types of incidents that speak to an acute transportation need in Connecticut and in our region of the country. These are the types of incidents that should be considered closely when vital transportation resources are being allocated in a reauthorization bill. It is my hope that Congress in

future years will take these considerations more into account when drafting transportation authorization measures. The problems facing my State and others will not go away on their own.

In closing I thank again the authors, managers and conferees of this legislation. I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues on future initiatives that seek to ensure the long-term well-being of our Nation's transportation system.

Mr. President, during the consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill, several of our colleagues offered an amendment concerning the treatment of prisoners. It was an important amendment. It was offered by Senator McCain and Senator Graham. Senator Warner offered a related amendment. The McCain Amendment made it clear that the United States would not engage in conduct related to detainees and prisoners which could be characterized as ``cruel, inhumane or degrading.''

I salute my colleagues for their courage in stepping forward to address this very difficult and controversial issue. I hope when we return to the Department of Defense authorization bill, we will give them a resounding vote of support. They speak for all in their dedication to make certain that we live up to the rules of law and to the standards of American values which have guided us for so many decades.

I look forward to that debate. I thank them for their political courage in offering this to the Department of Defense authorization bill.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I would like to briefly mention three items in these closing minutes before the Senate takes its traditional August break. One has to do with the legislation Senator Lugar of Indiana and I have introduced in this Senate and its companion which has been introduced by Congressman Pence and Congressman Boucher on a bipartisan basis in the other body. I refer to the so-called shield law bill, which we have offered to the Congress as a Federal proposal to complement the statutes that exist across the United States in 31 States as well as the District of Columbia. Eighteen other States have rules of law that provide some protections for reporters who rely on confidential sources for their stories.

This law Senator Lugar and I are proposing in the Senate is only nominally about reporters. It is fundamentally about those who rely on the free flow of information in our society to gather important information that is critical for our democracy.

As we are about to take this recess for the next 4 or 5 weeks, we would do well to remember that a few short miles from where we are this evening, there is a reporter who sits in a prison cell. Her only offense is that she has steadfastly refused to reveal a journalistic source. In a society such as ours, this should not be, in my view, an imprisonable offense. A free society obviously requires a free press. Thomas Jefferson once said that given the choice between a free government and a free press, he would choose the latter. Others, such as Madison, have suggested that in a nation where you do not have the free flow of information, it puts a nation at great risk.

That has been the tradition of our society for more than 200 years. We are entering dangerous territory in the 21st century when a reporter gets thrown in jail because she or he honors a commitment to keep a source confidential.

I believe it is time we enact a Federal shield law to mirror what 49 States and the District of Columbia have done by law or rule.

It is thought that our bill would absolutely guarantee under any and all circumstances that a reporter's sources ought to remain confidential. It does by and large protect that confidentiality. However, we create exceptions for national security. Obviously when there is no other means by which you could glean important information, the reporter should release the information that may be critical in a prosecution. But we try to keep sacrosanct that relationship between the source and the reporter. Again, not for the sake of the reporter, but for the sake of our citizenry, for the sake of the free flow of information which is critical in a democracy.

The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee on which the Presiding Officer today serves held a very good hearing a few days ago. I commend the members of that committee. It was a very good participation by members of the Judiciary Committee who listened to various witnesses talk about a shield law.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue. As I mentioned, we have Congressman Pence and Congressman Boucher in the House of Representatives. Congressman Pence, a conservative from Indiana, Congressman Boucher a Democrat from Virginia, along with Senator Lugar and I and others have introduced this legislation because as Senators and Congressmen, as American citizens, we believe it is important in our society that we have this free flow of information. Therefore, we are hopeful this body in the coming months before we adjourn sine die would enact a shield law.

I sat with an executive in the news business who told me the incarceration of Judith Miller, the reporter who is in jail tonight in Alexandria, is having an impact in his own newsroom. Reporters and their editors are thinking twice about going forward with stories, important stories, stories in the public interest, because they fear the harshest sanctions should a prosecutor knock on their door one morning and demand to know the sources of those stories. This

should not be happening in our country.

I hope we as a Senate will give this matter the attention it deserves. Senator Lugar and I do not claim that the bill we have introduced is perfect. We welcome advice and counsel of our colleagues on how we might craft a good shield law. It is not a partisan issue. Senator Lugar and I have a bill that has support on both sides of the aisle. We want to work with our colleagues to see this law be enacted. It is of fundamental importance to our country that we enact a strong and good and viable shield law at the national level.

Mr. President, the second issue I will mention briefly, in addition to the shield law issue, is terrorism risk insurance legislation. I speak as the author of the original legislation 3 years ago, which provided a backstop, not a bailout, for businesses in this country that rely on having terrorism risk insurance in major real estate developments and other major projects that are potentially vulnerable to attack.

That bill expires on December 31. It is critically important for American businesses and consumers that we enact this backstop legislation. It is important for our country, important that we provide the kind of insurance coverage that would allow some protection against a major catastrophe. Without that, we run the risk of major projects not going forward.

We had a briefing from major industries and others calling upon the Congress to extend the terrorism risk insurance law for the next 2 years. We need to sit down and try to determine whether we can establish some permanent partnership between public and private sectors in which we can guarantee to some extent, should a catastrophic event occur, we would be in a position to provide a backstop, some relief, under those circumstances.

None of us want to think about those events, but certainly the events in Spain in March of 2004 and Great Britain over the last several weeks and Sharm el Sheik over the last several days clearly indicate to all of us that we are living in a different world today.

Terrorism risk insurance is not like insurance against other hazards. By the very nature of terrorism, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to develop accurate models for terrorist events. They are inherently and extremely unpredictable. Good, solid business people will say a federal backstop is absolutely critical to sustain the kind of economic growth that is important to our nation's future. Jobs are at stake, major developments are at stake, major public gatherings at sporting events and the like are at stake without the ability to provide this critical insurance, terrorism risk insurance.

We have approximately 32 cosponsors of the bill I have introduced with Senator Bennett of Utah. Most of the members of the Banking Committee are supportive. The chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, indicated he would like to work out a proposal in September to go forward. My hope is that will happen. We need the backing of the White House as well as the House leadership if that law is going to be enacted.

Terrorism risk insurance legislation will require real emphasis over these coming weeks and months if we are going to succeed in enacting this bill before December 31 when the present law expires.

Lastly, I urge that when we return in September, the top item be the Defense authorization bill. I was terribly disappointed that we put aside that bill this week. I don't recall another event quite like that where we literally pulled the Defense authorization bill for special interest legislation. With men and women in harm's way, when we are at war, it was stunning to me we would replace that effort with the proposal to provide immunity, in effect, to gun manufacturers and dealers with the legislation that was enacted earlier this afternoon.

Putting aside my view on that bill, which I have expressed earlier this week, I am stunned that the Senate would prematurely cease action on legislation to help our men and women in uniform would get everything they possibly need--not to mention provide support for veterans, for survivors' families, and for the weapons systems that are essential to our national security. I found it unbelievable we would set aside that legislation in order to provide legal immunity for gun dealers and gun manufacturers in the United States. I have never seen anything like it in my service.

I recall once, last year, there was an effort to cease work on the Defense authorization bill in order to consider the class action reform bill, which I supported and was deeply involved in crafting. We succeeded in dissuading those who wanted to make that move. We went forward and completed the work on the Defense authorization bill. We did not do that this time.

I hope when we return in September the first order of business will be to complete the Defense authorization bill. It is critically important that people who serve in the military, those who are our veterans, those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have served and given their lives for our country, that they understand how important we think that legislation is. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to place that item as the No. 1 item when we return in September.

In closing, Mr. President, the shield law, terrorism risk insurance legislation, and the Defense authorization bill are three pieces of legislation I hope will become priority bills when we return this fall.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in honor of U.S. Army SPC Christopher Hoskins, of Danielson, CT, who was killed in Iraq on June 21, 2005. He was 21 years old.

Specialist Hoskins was killed along with another soldier when his unit came under small-arms fire in Ramadi, Iraq.

Growing up, Christopher was known as quiet, passionate, and full of energy. He competed on the wrestling team at Killingly High School and was interested in graphic arts. He carried a sketchbook with him in Iraq.

Christopher enlisted in the Army simply because he thought it was the right thing to do. He was proud to be a soldier. In Iraq he drove Bradley fighting vehicles and humvees.

He served with valor and humanity. He often said that the Iraqi people are just like us. They have many of the same basic needs--food, water, clothing, and shelter. And he knew that he had extra and that they are wanting. It would have been easier for him, serving in a dangerous region, to shut himself off from the populace, but he didn't. He often shared his extra non-military supplies with Iraqi civilians.

Christopher also formed a special bond with those in his unit. Even during the short amount of time that he was able to come back home to Connecticut, he would swap pictures over the Internet with those in his unit who were still in Iraq. He sent them care packages of magazines and junk food. He had recently signed up for a second tour.

Christopher's life was defined by unselfish service to his community and his country, and that selflessness continues after his death. He asked his mother a few months ago that, if he died, donations be made to his former school system in lieu of flowers. He was concerned about his younger brother, Sean, who is a special needs student, and the students in the art department, who do not have up-to-date software.

People like Christopher Hoskins make it possible for us to live each and every day in freedom, peace, and security. Their sacrifices, in lands thousands of miles away, keep us safe here at home. We must never forget those sacrifices.

So today I salute the courage and commitment of Christopher Hoskins, a young man who lost his life fulfilling the noblest of callings, defending our Nation and the values we hold dear. And I offer my heartfelt sympathies to his parents, Richard and Claudia, his siblings, Kristin, Erin, and Sean, and to everyone who knew and loved him.

Steve Reich

Mr. Dodd. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in tribute of U.S. Army MAJ Steve Reich, of Washington, CT, who lost his life on duty in Afghanistan on June 28, 2005. He was 34 years old.

Major Reich, a member of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment known as ``The Nightstalkers,'' was killed along with 15 other soldiers in a helicopter crash in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan. His service to his country will not be forgotten.

Steve was respected in his small home town both for his abilities on the baseball diamond and for his caring personality.

He was a star pitcher before entering the military. With the rare combination of a blazing fastball and uncanny control, Steve was an All-Star at every level. He pitched in two championship games for Shepaug Valley High School before moving on to West Point. In his debut against the Naval Academy, he pitched a one-hitter.

He was a member of the U.S. National baseball team in 1993 and played for it in Italy, Nicaragua, and Cuba. He was rightly very proud of having carried the American flag for the team in the World University Games. He later signed with the Baltimore Orioles farm system and pitched two games before being recalled to active duty.

Major Reich was as accomplished in the military as he was on the baseball field. He learned to pilot three models of Army helicopter and became a company commander in his regiment. He was serving his fourth tour of duty after having already been stationed in Korea, Hungary, Bosnia, and Albania.

He was known in his unit for his willingness to serve by example and his composure, something that, no doubt, made him a great leader and kept those who served with him safer.

Despite the fact that he was a hero to those in his hometown, Steve was modest. He had won a bronze star for service, but he never told his family what

heroic acts he performed to deserve the award. He went out of his way to show his appreciation for the warm welcomes that he received from his community on the rare occasions that he was able to return home. On Christmas, he and his sisters would deliver treats to say thanks to his friends and neighbors.

Countless members of his community said that they admired Steve's selflessness and that they felt safer knowing that he was watching out for them.

His friends and family took great joy in the fact that he met and married Jill Blue during the past year. It warmed the hearts of those around him that he found someone to marry because he had always had so little time for a personal life. They said that his wedding day in March was the happiest day of his life. My heart truly goes out to Jill, who has suffered the kind of loss that is difficult for most of us to comprehend.

And I offer my deepest sympathies to his parents, Ray and Sue, and his sisters, AnnMarie and Megan, whose loss is too great for words.

Mr. President, today the Senate is acting to fill a vacant seat on the Election Assistance Commission EAC with the confirmation of Ms. Donetta L. Davidson, of Colorado. Ms. Davidson was nominated by President Bush to serve the remainder of the 4-year term of DeForest B. Soaries, Jr, resigned. Her term will expire on December 12, 2007.

I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Lott, for facilitating and expediting action on this nomination. By confirming Ms. Davidson at this time, the Senate is ensuring that the Commission will have a full complement of members as it faces action on some of the most important provisions of the Help American Vote Act this fall.

Nearly 3 years ago, President Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act--HAVA. For the first time in our history, this landmark legislation recognizes the need for a Federal partnership in the conduct of Federal elections by the States. While this partnership respects the authority of State and local governments to administer Federal elections, it also provides Federal leadership and support through the establishment of minimum requirements that all States must meet in all Federal elections.

One of the primary goals of HAVA is to bolster public confidence in our system of Federal elections by addressing the problems and irregularities that arose in the November 2000 general election. And this is why, following that election, a bipartisan group of Senators and Members of Congress came together to enact the Help America Vote Act. Although the original bipartisan authors of HAVA initially viewed the outcome of the 2000 elections very differently, in the end, we all agreed that the Federal Government had an appropriate role to play to ensure that in our democracy, we made it easier to vote and harder to defraud the system.

HAVA established a number of requirements for election administration and voting technology in Federal elections, including requirements for voting systems, provisional ballots, and statewide voter registration lists. To date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion in Federal funding for payments to the States for nationwide implementation of these requirements.

The Act also established a new Federal agency, the Election Assistance Commission--EAC. Among other things, the EAC serves as a clearinghouse to identify best practices for State and local election officials to use to conduct elections. The EAC is designed to bring together all stakeholders who play a role in elections--from voting machine manufacturers to voter registration organizations and other civil rights and disability rights groups to State and local election officials and administrators--to facilitate fair and transparent Federal elections throughout America.

Ms. Davidson joins the EAC at a crucial time. In less than 6 months, by January 1, 2006, all States are required to fully implement two of the most significant requirements in HAVA: the voluntary voting system standards and the statewide voter registration list. Taken as a whole, these two requirements promote accurate, accessible, nondiscriminatory, user-friendly and transparent elections. They serve as the mechanisms by which all eligible voters can cast their votes and have their votes counted.

Ms. Davidson's qualifications will serve her well at the EAC and reflect years of experience as both a State and local election official as well as an active participant on numerous national and State professional organizations. She currently serves as the Secretary of State for Colorado and previously served as the Arapahoe Country Clerk and Recorder in Littleton, CO and as the Director of Elections at the Colorado Department of State. In addition, she also currently serves as the vice chair of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Her background will bring to the EAC the election administration and technology skills and experience that will help facilitate the nationwide implementation of HAVA, in particular the voluntary voting system guidelines expected to be approved by the EAC this fall. Her involvement with the existing voluntary voting system standards, first issued by the Federal Election Commission, dates to the mid-

1990s and her support for those standards contributed to their adoption in Colorado.

Most recently, Ms. Davidson served as one of the 15 experts on the Technical Guidelines Development Committee TGDC established under HAVA to develop an initial set of recommendations for the voluntary voting system guidelines with technical support and expertise from the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST. At the end of the public comment and revision process, these recommendations are expected to form the bases of the new Federal voluntary voting system guidelines issued by the EAC.

Ms. Davidson's confirmation today ensures that the EAC has a full and permanent complement of commissioners as we move toward the full implementation of HAVA and the November 2006 Federal elections. The EAC will be well served by Ms. Davidson's expertise on election issues and her broad experience working with all stakeholders in Federal elections, including local election officials and their voters.

I congratulate Ms. Davidson on the honor of being nominated and confirmed to the Election Assistance Commission. It is an awesome responsibility and one that her background has prepared her well to meet.

To ensure that our Federal partnership gives voice to all Americans and their very diverse experiences on election day, the Commission's work must reflect more than just the perspectives of any single State or local election official. Commissioners must represent all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories--all of America and its diversity. I am confident that Commissioner Davidson will meet that goal.

While political races among candidates may be partisan, Federal elections cannot be. The Help America Vote Act is appropriately the first civil rights act of the 21st Century, and Congress must fulfill its commitment to the American people to provide the States sufficient resources to fund the mandated reforms.

In order for the EAC to meet its obligations under HAVA, it is critically important that Congress fully fund the agency and its requirements for fiscal year 2006. To support States in the nationwide implementation of HAVA, the Act authorized nearly $4 billion to pay for the requirements and tasked the EAC with several responsibilities. To date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion to the States and territories.

For fiscal year 2006, the EAC submitted an appropriations request at the funding level of $17,612,000, including four new staff positions to, among other duties, establish an Inspector General Office to monitor the Federal payments. The House-passed version of the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, District of Columbia appropriations bill provides only $15,877,000 for the EAC, and no funds for State requirements payments, with an earmark of $2.8 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Complicating matters more, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a slightly lower funding level for the EAC at $13,888,000, with $4 million earmarked for NIST. An average of both Senate-House bills will not produce enough funding for the EAC to maintain its current level of operations.

Without appropriate funding, the EAC will be unable to fulfill its obligations to the States and the voters for the Federal elections in 2006. To date, the EAC has been underfunded by over $822 million, including a funding gap of $600 million for requirements, $95 million for disability access grants and $127 million for other HAVA programs such as research and development for voting systems. When we return from the August recess, the Senate will complete its work on the Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill. It is my hope that we will be able to find the necessary resources to ensure the full implementation of HAVA without creating an unfunded mandate on the States.

In the meantime, I congratulate Commissioner Davidson on her appointment and look forward to working closely with her as she oversees the implementation of the most critical requirements of HAVA for the upcoming 2006 Federal elections and beyond in America.

Mr. President, I don't know how many of our colleagues during this past number of hours have had the time to listen to the comments of our colleague from Rhode Island. I know we all have busy schedules and appointments in our offices and with the hearings we attend. I have had those meetings in my office as well. One thing I have not done today, which I do under normal circumstances, is put on the mute button when constituents come to my office. In the last couple of hours, I have not done that. I have been transfixed, listening to our colleague from Rhode Island.

I have witnessed a lot of people over my 24 years in the Senate make a case for or against a piece of legislation, and I do not recall another instance when someone has been as eloquent, as thoughtful, as well prepared as Jack Reed of Rhode Island has in presenting his case here today as to why this bill is a bad idea. I publicly commend him for his well-prepared, well-thought-out, passionate arguments on why this is a troublesome piece of legislation. I thank him for being a good educator on this subject matter.

Let me take a few minutes, if I can, to express some views. It is not every day that I question at all the majority leader's decision to seek to bring a particular piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate. As someone who has been in this body for almost a quarter of a century, I have great respect for the role of majority leader and how difficult a job it is. In fact, it is the job of the majority leader to set the agenda and to exercise his or her prerogatives to move that the Senate proceed to a particular matter. So I am not questioning his right to do so. I am questioning the wisdom of having made this decision.

In this case, I cannot let pass the decision the majority leader has made to bring us to consideration of a gun liability bill. By his actions, the Senate has been prevented from concluding consideration of the Defense authorization bill. We were making very good progress on that bill on a number of issues that were very important to our men and women in uniform, to the families of our service men and women, to their survivors, and to the veterans of this country who were also the subject of numerous amendments that would have been offered on the bill had it remained on the floor of the Senate for another couple of days.

In my years here, good debates on a Defense authorization bill, which is what this body is all about, have gone on 9, 10, and 11 days before a cloture motion would be filed. There have been other occasions when it has been filed in less time, but never in less than 5 days of debate. You always look forward to the week or two prior to the August break when we gather to debate and discuss the Defense authorization bill.

For the good part of the last 24 years, we have not had a debate on the subject matter of that legislation at a time of war. This time, of course, we were. Therefore, it was stunning to me to know, at a time when our men and women are in a dangerous place, when there are literally hundreds who have lost their lives, thousands who have been injured, and thousands every day who are putting themselves in harm's way, that the decision was made by this body, by the leadership of this body, to put aside that bill, which might do some things to make their lives safer, provide some security for the survivors of those who lost their lives, and be of some help to veterans. It is stunning that we would set aside those issues to take up this bill that is now before us. In my quarter of a century in this body, I don't recall the Senate ever being forced off of a Defense bill in this manner.

The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee put it simply and succinctly several months ago in this Chamber. Senator Warner of Virginia said the following--when confronted, by the way, with a similar fact situation. There was a movement a year or so ago to take up the class action reform bill, of which I was the principal author at that time. I am a strong supporter of tort reform. There was a movement to bring up the class action reform bill.

In fact, I wrote a letter, with several other Members of this body, urging the leadership, as strongly as we felt about class action reform, not to set aside the Defense authorization bill in order to bring up the class action reform bill. That point of view prevailed and we stayed on the Defense authorization bill. But during consideration of that motion or that effort, the chairman of

the Armed Services Committee said, ``We are at war.''

We have men and women wearing the uniform of the United States Armed Forces who are this very moment being hunted by enemies of our Nation. They are in combat. They are under siege. They are enduring some of the harshest conditions ever faced by American soldiers.

That is exactly where we are today. Yet, unlike a year or so ago when we turned back the efforts of those who would have put aside the Defense authorization bill to deal with a class action bill, this time when it comes to the gun lobby we said no, the gun lobby is more important than the men and women in uniform, more important than the people who are putting their lives on the line every day.

So here we have now the majority of the Senate saying those soldiers will have to wait a while. This is evidently a higher priority, and it is this bill, a bill that would confer special privileges on a small but very powerful industry. I am frankly incredulous, to say the least, that we will apparently recess for an entire month having spent barely 2 days to decide on the critical needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, veterans, and their survivors. I think we should finish our job. It is the least the Senate could do for our troops before we take a month-long break from our work.

Our business is about choices, sometimes very difficult choices. You can't do everything at the same time. But I don't know how you could possibly draw the conclusion that this immunization bill for the gun industry is a more important piece of legislation than the Defense authorization bill, to provide additional protection and the needs of the people in uniform, for veterans, for survivors. I do not know how anyone could possibly draw that conclusion at a time we are at war. What do people think happened in London a few days ago, in Sharm el- Sheik a few days ago? What event has to occur to convince this body that we ought to be about the business of doing everything we can to protect this Nation? Instead, we decide it isn't quite that important, that this is more important.

I am stunned in many ways that anyone would even suggest this legislation in lieu of the Defense authorization bill. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if I were to come to this Chamber and offer a similar amendment that would exclude another entire industry from exposure to potential liability for wrongdoing.

I have more than a passing knowledge of the gun industry. The State of Connecticut, which I am proud to represent, has been, and to my knowledge remains, home to more gun manufacturers than any other State in America. I know of nine such companies that currently call Connecticut their home: Colt Manufacturing, Sturm Ruger, U.S. Repeating Arms, Marlin Firearms, U.S. Firearms Manufacturing, Charter Arms, L.W. Seecamp, Wildey, and O.F. Mossbert and Sons. From 1972 to 1997, more guns were manufactured in my home State of Connecticut than any other State. More than 25 million in all were produced in my small State of Connecticut. These are good people. These are good companies. And I represent good people who work in this industry. We produce fabulous guns. They are well constructed. They are the envy of the world.

Eli Whitney, of course, is best known as the inventor of the cotton gin. He also built a musket armory in New Haven, CT in the late 1700s. Since then, Connecticut has been the gun manufacturing capital of the country of our Nation, if not the world, for that matter. The first revolver was developed and mass produced in Connecticut in the 1830s by Samuel Colt and his wife Elizabeth who ran that company after Sam passed away at a very young age. That company today bears his name and that revolver became known as ``the gun that won the West.''

I also represent probably more insurance companies and more pharmaceutical companies in the State of Connecticut than almost any other State in the Nation. I am very proud to represent these industries. They do a first-rate job. But even though I support the people who work in these businesses and respect what they do, the idea that we would take any one of these industries in this Senator's State and absolve it from its legal responsibilities is stunning to me.

I have been a strong advocate of legal reform. I authored the securities litigation reform bill with the Senator from New Mexico. I wrote the uniform standards litigation bill. I coauthored the tort reforms on the Y2K litigation with Senator Bennett of Utah. I have been a proponent of asbestos litigation reform. I coauthored the Class Action Fairness Act. I am proud of the work I have done in the area of tort reform. We need it. It is necessary. In my view, these bills have struck the right balance between frivolous lawsuits, while retaining citizens' rights to seek the redress of wrongs in a court of law.

But the idea that we would take an entire industry and give it immunity from wrongdoing is simply wrong, in my view. We are saying to this industry, if you act irresponsibly or wrongfully, and if you can foresee the consequences of your irresponsible or wrongful conduct, you do not have to worry about being held accountable for your actions. No matter how much harm you may cause, no matter how many people die or are injured at least in part as a result of your wrongful conduct, you will not be held responsible. In this day and age that this body would so overwhelmingly endorse an idea such as this is breathtaking. And it is little more than ironic that such an idea would be put forward by some who routinely lecture others about the need to take ``responsibility'' for their actions.

Evidently, taking responsibility is a fine philosophy for some, the poor, the elderly, schoolchildren, and men and women who struggle each and every day to put food on the table for themselves and their families. But the gun industry is being absolved in this legislation of virtually all responsibility for its actions.

Let's consider some of the consequences of enacting this legislation. First, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on reducing the rate of gun violence in our Nation. In fact, this bill ignores the devastating toll firearm violence continues to take on our fellow citizens.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were more than 30,000 deaths in the United States from firearms in the year 2002 alone--30,000 deaths. That is, of course, 10 times the number of lives that were tragically lost on September 11 at the World Trade Center, here in Washington, and in a field in Pennsylvania. In fact, a year of gun violence in America nearly equals the number of Americans who died in the Korean war and almost half the Americans lost in the entire Vietnam conflict. The numbers are staggering. These numbers exceed by a huge margin the number of firearms-related deaths on a per capita basis in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France.

Among those individuals most affected by gun violence are children. Firearms are the second leading cause of death among young Americans age 19 and under. Approximately 2,700 children under the age of 19 are killed each year as a result of gun violence or the improper use of guns.

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

Let me repeat that. The firearms death rate of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations in the world. One study noted the firearms injury epidemic among children is nearly 10 times larger than the polio epidemic in the first half of the 20th century.

Yet we are about to exclude an entire industry from even being brought to the bar to question whether they might be liable for some of these deaths.

The human cost of gun-related deaths and injuries is tragic in itself, but the economic loss is also significant. According to a study published in the year 2000, the average cost of treating gunshot wounds was $22,000 for each unintentional shooting and $18,000 for each of the gun injuries. These costs would undoubtedly be much higher today. The total societal cost of firearms is estimated to be between $100 billion and $126 billion each year. Who pays these expenses? By large measure, the American taxpayer does.

My colleagues speak against unfunded mandates, and yet this bill, if

enacted, burdens the Nation's cities and counties with billions and billions of dollars in medical care, emergency services, police protection, courts, prisons, and school security. It is shameful that, while tens of thousands of people are dying each year due to firearms and while the American taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to cope with the effect of gun violence, the Senate is doing absolutely nothing to make our streets and homes safer, in my view. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite through our actions today.

Second, the legislation will give this industry special legal protections no other industry in the United States has. Neither cigarette companies nor asbestos companies nor polluters have such sweeping immunity as we are about to give this industry.

Let me quote from a recent letter sent to all Senators and Representatives from over 75 law professors from across our Nation. According to them the bill:

. . . would represent a sharp break with traditional

principles of tort liability. No other industry enjoys or has

ever enjoyed such a blanket freedom from responsibility for

the foreseeable and preventable consequences of negligent

conduct.

Gun manufacturers and sellers are already exempt from Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation, despite the fact that firearms are among the most dangerous and deadly products in our society. We have more regulations on toy guns than we do on the ones that fire real bullets. Imagine a toy gun that you buy from Mattel. The Consumer Product Safety Commission issues literally pages of regulations on what must be included in the production of that gun. There is not a single word in the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the production of guns that may kill 30,000 people each year in this country.

The National Rifle Association made sure of this exemption 30 years ago, just as highly addictive tobacco products are not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

I have supported tort reform in specific areas where I believe it is appropriate. My colleagues know I worked with many of them on these issues. At the same time I recognize that litigation has been a powerful tool in holding parties accountable for their negligence and providing them with the incentive to improve the safety of their products. It has been employed on behalf of other potentially dangerous products such as automobiles, lawnmowers, household products, and medicines to protect the health of the American people. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason enough, in my view, why we can't afford to grant the firearms industry legal immunity.

Third, this legislation is likely to increase criminal behavior, in my view, in our Nation. Consider the views of the people who know best, our Nation's law enforcement officers. Yesterday some 80 sheriffs, police chiefs, and others wrote to each and every Senator that this bill will ``strip away the rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers.''

This legislation will do nothing to help our Nation's law enforcement officers to stop these criminals or to receive justice if they are shot or killed. Who better to listen to than our own police chiefs? Law enforcement officers will tell you this is a bad bill. It is a bad bill, and it is going to cause more problems in the streets of our country. And here is what two former Directors of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had to say about this bill:

To handcuff ATF, as this bill does, will only serve to

shield corrupt gun sellers, and facilitate criminals and

terrorists who seek to wreak havoc with deadly weapons. To

take such anti-law enforcement action in the post 9/11 age,

when we know that suspected terrorists are obtaining

firearms, and may well seek them from irresponsible gun

dealers, is nothing short of madness.

If this legislation is enacted, it would remove any incentive under current tort law for gun manufacturers to make their firearms safer. Studies have shown that the technology is both readily available and very inexpensive to help avoid future gun-related tragedies. For example, a load indicator could be included to tell the user that the gun is still loaded. That is never going to happen now, I promise you. A magazine disconnect safety could be installed by the manufacturers to prevent guns from firing if the magazine is removed. Even childproofing the gun with safety locks can be done relatively easily. However, if this bill is enacted into law, gun manufacturers will lose the huge incentive to include such reasonable safety devices in their products.

Evidence has been uncovered that reveals that the gun industry has been engaged in irresponsible behavior for many years. Senator Reed and others have already mentioned one such industry actor, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Takoma, WA.

This gun store claims it ``lost'' the gun used by the Washington, DC, snipers, John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo, as well as more than 200 other guns. Many of these firearms were traced to other crimes. Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had no record of the gun ever being sold and did not report it until the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms recovered the weapon and traced it back. After the rifle was linked to the sniper shootings and the newspaper reported on the disappearance of the gun from Bull's Eye, the rifle manufacturer, Bushmaster, still considered Bull's Eye a good customer and was happy to keep selling to that shop.

The judge in this case has since ruled twice that the suit brought by the families of the DC area sniper victims against Bull's Eye and Bushmaster should proceed to trial, and a preliminary ruling has been rejected.

Nevertheless, this case, as well as other important pending and future lawsuits against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers, would be banned if this bill becomes law, as I suspect it will, according to the opinion of some of our Nation's most prominent legal scholars.

There are many more instances of the gun industry not taking steps to prevent guns from reaching the illegal market. According to Federal data from the year 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Undercover sting operations in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana have found that such dealers routinely permit gun sales ``to straw purchasers,'' individuals with clean records who buy guns for criminals, juveniles, or other individuals barred by law from purchase.

If the Senate bill is enacted, police officers shot by a gun bought by a ``straw purchaser'' would no longer get his day or her day in court.

Gun shows are also an important source of guns for criminals. Studies have shown that unlicensed dealers often sell large quantities of weapons at these shows without having to run criminal background checks or keeping records. Many of my colleagues might recall that a gun show was the source of the firearm purchased by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they went on their murderous rampage at Columbine high school, but the Senate bill would not hold such gun dealers responsible for the injuries and deaths their firearms cause.

Supporters of this legislation contend that there is a gun litigation crisis in America and that many of the cases being brought against the gun industry are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are no massive backlogs of claims against the gun dealers and manufacturers burdening our court system. About 10 million tort suits were filed in State courts from 1993 through the year 2003; 57 of them were against gunmakers or dealers, 57 out of 10 million cases. Is that a litigation crisis, with 57 lawsuits out of 10 million other suits filed in the same relevant area? And the result of those 57 cases. The impact on the gun industry has hardly been crushing. Some of these suits have been dismissed. Some have been settled. Some have been appealed.

The industry claims it is spending $200 million a year on litigation costs. Yet it offers absolutely no data to support this. There is evidence that litigation costs are virtually insignificant: 57 cases in 10 years out of 10 million tort cases being filed. That alone ought to tell you this is a frivolous piece of legislation. This is what is frivolous, to suggest we need to clean up a problem involving 57 cases, many of which were dismissed.

One major gun manufacturer in a filing last November with the Securities and Exchange Commission--a filing, by the way, that it made under the pain and penalty of perjury--said this:

It is not probable and is unlikely that litigation,

including punitive damage claims, will have a material

adverse effect on the financial position of the company.

Another gun manufacturer said this to the SEC in March of 2005:

In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred

$4,535 in defense costs . . . relative to product liability

and municipal litigation.

That is a litigation crisis? It is outrageous to claim it is.

Of the small number of lawsuits filed against this industry, none to my knowledge have been dismissed as frivolous. On the contrary, there have been favorable rulings on the legal merits of many of these cases. Courts have recognized such cases are based upon well-established legal principles, negligence, product liability, and public nuisance. Important information on the gun industry's wrongful actions, which has been cloaked in secrecy for many years, has been revealed and injured parties have been compensated, fairly and justly. These cases, however, will be precluded, and the information gleaned from them will be lost if the gun industry is granted immunity, as it seeks with this legislation.

Rather than giving special immunity to those manufacturers and dealers who wrongfully make and sell guns to criminals, the Senate should be today or at some point--again I wish we were back on the Defense authorization bill--at some point we should work to protect our police officers and the people they protect every single day. Instead of zeroing out the COPS program we ought to take our time to do something about strengthening the police departments of our Nation. Rather than placing more guns on the streets, the Senate should be considering more responsible gun legislation such as making the ban on assault weapons permanent and closing the gun show loophole.

Rather than encouraging reasonable and safe gun use, the Senate is destroying any incentive for gun manufacturers to improve the safety of their deadly wares. This legislation, to this Senator, is an outrage. And, I represent more of these manufacturers than any other Member of this body. I know it is not common for a Senator to get up and speak against an industry in his State, and I have at least nine of them, as I said earlier, that have produced 25 million guns in the last 12 or 13 years. I respect my manufacturers. They are good people. But the idea that I would immunize nine industries in my State from their wrongdoings is incredible. While it may seem strange to have the Senator from the largest gun-producing State making these statements, I feel strongly. It is wrong to be doing it. It is an outrage.

You can say this is wrong, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for taking an entire industry and not holding it liable for the harm it may cause to people across the country. Thirty thousand people die every year, almost 3,000 kids, and we are about to say to the manufacturer of the products that kill them to take a walk and that you never have to show up again in court. That is shameful.

I yield the floor.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I cited statistics between 1993 and 2003. There were 10 million lawsuits brought in the United States for wrongful death under the tort system. Of those 10 million, we have been able to find 57 in 10 years, 57 cases brought against gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Is the Senator telling me those are frivolous, 57 lawsuits out of 10 million? Is that a crisis in litigation?

I am happy to yield.

So what is the problem?

For 24 cases in 10 years?

You are going to have your way if this bill is adopted, but that is the only industry in America with this special status. You would not do it for the automobile or chemical industry.

Reserving the right to object.

Parliamentary inquiry: Is it not also true in a postcloture environment, had cloture been invoked, many of the amendments dealing with veteran benefits and other issues would have been denied consideration?

Mr. President, we are a nation at war. I can think of no other legislation deserving of this body's complete attention than the Defense Authorization bill. What could be more profound than debating critically important amendments on the very issues of war and peace? What could honor our men and women in uniform fighting in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan than a full and complete discussion of amendments that will promote the safety and well-being of our troops, their families, our veterans, and our national security. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to shut down this critically important debate. And so I rise today to urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of terminating such discourse. When the time comes tomorrow, I ask my colleagues to vote against cloture to end debate on this important piece of legislation.

I am not a member of this committee. And I commend the distinguished chairman from Virginia and the ranking member from Michigan and the other members of this committee who have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor.

In my more than 20 years as a Member of this body, I can tell you, historically, the Defense authorization bill has come up at about this time, and has generally been subject to between five and ten days of unlimited debate over its amendments. From the time that John Stennis was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to the tenure of its current Chairman, Senator Warner, I have observed the great care that this body has taken to ensure adequate consideration of amendments that would serve the national security interests of our nation. And we in this body have done so because of the importance of this legislation-- particularly at times, such as now, when the Nation faced down grave threats around the globe.

As a matter of tradition as well as law, the Armed Services Committee has always produced an authorization bill. Unlike any other government agencies, the Defense Department has always been subject to both an authorization and appropriations bill.

Other than some expenditures that occur as a result of our demands under Medicaid, Medicare, and the like, nothing consumes as much of our Treasury as does the Defense appropriations bill. Therefore, Mr. President, I rise because of my concern that we are about to vote tomorrow after little more than a day and a half of debate on this Defense authorization bill. Here we are bringing up one of the most critically important pieces of legislation we ever consider here, and we are going to potentially truncate this debate down to a few hours.

Here we are, a nation at war, with literally thousands of our fellow citizens in uniform serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are facing major questions about the conduct of a war and considerable strain is being placed on our military personnel--with active duty, reserve, and national guard members. Are constituents are asking How well protected are our troops? How much do we provide for them when they come back?

We have listened to my colleague from Florida, my colleague from Illinois, and my colleague from Michigan, who raise serious issues about whether we are going to provide additional benefits for our veterans. I am told by many who have analyzed these amendments that there is a very good likelihood that those amendments would not survive a post-cloture environment. If we do invoke cloture tomorrow, at 10 or 10:30 tomorrow morning, I am told that those amendments would require a supermajority to consider them, and there is little or no likelihood they would ever have any chance of being even considered by this body.

I do not understand that. I do not quite understand the logic that would suggest somehow we ought to so truncate this debate that these very important amendments would not be considered or at least potentially not be considered. There are a number of amendments being offered on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that has been formed.

I know the Presiding Officer, like this Senator, has more than a passing interest in what happens with the Base Closure commission. Facilities in both of our States are listed for closure. There are those of us who have deep concerns about how this process is working. If, in fact, cloture is invoked tomorrow, I suspect, based on what I have been told, that any effort by the Presiding Officer or this Senator or others to bring up these amendments, to talk about those issues, to at least debate them here and ask our colleagues whether they are sympathetic to our proposals would fail. We would not be allowed to consider those amendments.

Again, I am not suggesting that every idea we have ought to be adopted by this body. But the fact that we wouldn't even be allowed to debate these matters strikes me as a breach of our obligations to our constituents back home as well as American troops fighting on the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I realize you have to close the debate at some point. You can't go on endlessly. We are getting near the end of this session before we take the August break. So clearly over the next several days, we have to conclude these debates. But there ought to be ample enough time, short of 10:30 tomorrow morning, for us to conclude our deliberations, going through amendments, dropping those which may be redundant. At least there ought to be a fair consideration of those matters before we just cut off the debate, slam the door shut on matters as important as the safety and well-being of our troops, American veterans, the BRAC process, the future of new nuclear weapons programs and a whole host of issues that would no longer be viable under a postcloture environment.

For example, Senator Stabenow would like to offer a critically important amendment to guarantee adequate funding levels for veterans health benefits; Senator Murray would like to offer an amendment on childcare for troops based overseas; Senator Kerry has an amendment on the GI bill. And Senators McCain and Graham have a number of issues related to the treatment of detainees held in U.S. military facilities.

For those who care about BRAC amendments, those who care about the Geneva Convention, those who care about whether we can have a good debate regarding our veterans, the base-closing commission, all of that discussion would be precluded from having a final consideration if, in fact, cloture is to be invoked.

The Presiding Officer, when queried whether these amendments would fall, properly responded that you would have to see the amendment before you could make a categorical statement. But for those who have been through these amendments and examined whether they would survive postcloture, the conclusion has been that this list of amendments, including many more that I have in front of me, would not survive a postcloture environment.

I urge my colleagues, regardless of how you may feel about these amendments, give this body a chance to do its

job. Otherwise, by closing off the debate, we deprive our members and the American people of critically important discourse at a time when our nation is at war.

Throughout my tenure here, I do not ever recall a debate that would last about a day and a half on a Defense authorization bill, particularly when our troops were engaged in combat overseas. Some of the best debates I have ever witnessed as a Member of this body have occurred on the Defense authorization bill because the chairs of this committee, Republicans and Democrats, have insisted that authorization bill be considered by this body in its entirety. We made better decisions because we had those debates about the direction in which our country ought to go.

Arguing over the wisdom of certain weapons systems, arguing over whether we ought to be involved in certain military conflicts, it has been educational for the country.

And in the end, no other issue was more important than those impacting our troops deployed in harm's way. We have lost somewhere between 1,700 and 2,000 of our men and women in uniform, battling in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is for them and their families that we ought to continue to take into serious consideration the various amendments proposed to support their operations at home and abroad.

What matter could possibly trump the importance of having a full debate about the national security needs of our country? I can't think of another subject matter that is more important than this one. Allowing this body to be heard on these issues is the patriotic thing to do. It would be unpatriotic to cut off debate prematurely. There should be a time certain on final passage and not to delay going on endlessly in this discussion. But these are important amendments my colleagues have drafted.

I have no amendment on this list. I am a cosponsor of a couple of them. But I have no matter that I am insisting be brought up here. But there are others here who do have amendments that ought to be heard. But I would hope that the leadership would ask to vitiate the cloture vote, work out the arrangements we traditionally do here so that amendments could be brought up and debated and discussed in a reasonable amount of time, and try to limit the number of amendments so we don't have duplication.

I hope this evening as the leadership considers its game plan for tomorrow and the coming days, they will decide that the Defense authorization bill ought to be the business of the day, of every day this week to finish this debate and to do so in the kind of spirit that I think is warranted, when Members of both bodies get a chance to fully debate and discuss the importance of these issues.

We ought to have a debate about the Base Closure Commission. There are important issues. Is it wise for us to be shutting down major military facilities at a time of war? Would it not be wiser maybe to delay those decisions a few months to determine whether we truly are going to need these facilities in the coming months? That is a legitimate debate to occur. When else is it going to occur if not on this bill? When can it come up? After September 8, when the decisions are made, when we are already just coming back from an August break and people look back and say, Why didn't you raise it then, why didn't you debate it on the floor of Senate to let the American public know what the choices ought to be?

If we cut off this debate, I am told that those amendments that would deal with the Base Closure Commission would not be allowed under a postcloture environment.

I think that is an important debate. Our colleagues may decide to vote against those amendments, may decide they are all wrong, but at least give us a chance to be heard and to vote up or down on whether you think it is the right time to close these facilities.

Certainly, when it comes to veterans' benefits and some of the other issues that my colleagues are offering--Senator Dorgan from North Dakota wants to form a special committee dealing with contracting. Lord knows, given the amount of waste and abuse that there have been reports of that have occurred, that certainly is a good amendment, in my view. I think we probably ought to have such a committee to determine whether taxpayer money is being wasted. That amendment, I am told, would fall.

Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein want to offer an amendment on dealing with the robust nuclear earth penetrator. We have had a good debate here. I listened intently to both sides as they argued the wisdom of having that system or not. I am told that amendment would fall as well. That is an important debate to have, regardless of your view. We ought to be debating the wisdom of that weapons system. If that debate does not occur here, where does it occur, if not on the Defense authorization bill? Is it unpatriotic to have a debate about a weapons system that will cost millions and millions of dollars when there are strong feelings on both sides? If we cut off that debate, we will never have an opportunity to understand the wisdom of having a system or not having that system.

It is not my intention to go down and list every single one of these amendments that I am told would fall. My colleague from Connecticut, would like to propose an amendment increasing Army end strength, he is offering that amendment with several of our colleagues. That is a very important amendment. That is a very important debate, for it gets to the core of the readiness of the American Armed Forces. What is the appropriate personnel level for our forces to both fight wars on two fronts while staying prepared to mobilize against threats that have not yet emerged? If you don't have that debate on this bill, when do you have it? If you don't authorize it, you can't appropriate it. If you can't appropriate it, then we never can decide whether that end strength ought to be increased. Again, there may be those who will offer very strong arguments against the Lieberman amendment about why we don't need to increase the end strength, but let's have the debate and let's have the vote, if you think it is important. I believe it is.

I feel strongly about this and many other issues. Some have suggested that there will be those who will be accused of being not patriotic if they appear to be having an extended debate on the Defense authorization bill. I think just the opposite. It is unpatriotic not to have the debate. Not unlimited debate, not debate that goes on forever, but is it unlimited debated to go on for the next 2 or 3 days to discuss this issue which is in the headlines every day we pick up the paper? Terrorists attacking the transit system in London, hotels in Egypt. We find soldiers dying from suicide bombers every day. What could be more important than this subject matter, to be discussing how best to prepare our troops and our country for what needs to be done to support our veterans when they come back from these conflicts?

It is unpatriotic to cut off the debate. The patriotic thing to do is to have a good discussion, a good civil debate over the important issues that confront our country when it comes to the Defense authorization. I commend the chairman of the committee for insisting that there be a debate on the Defense authorization bill. That is the great tradition of this committee. It is one of the few committees that is an authorizing committee that insists every year that there be a Defense authorization bill. I commend every member of that committee for insisting that we take the time to do it. I wish other authorizing committees were insistent as well so that we would have these debates about policy before deciding on the appropriations levels. That is the way it ought to proceed. My commendations to Senators Warner and Levin and other members of the committee. I thank them for giving us the opportunity to at least discuss these matters tonight.

Every year we have had a good debate on Defense authorization. Armed Services is one of the few committees that insist upon it. I wish others did as well. It is the way we are supposed to proceed.

It is the tradition of this great body to have good discussions, educate our constituents about the difficult choices with not unlimited resources. Where do we go? What do we invest in? How far do we go in helping veterans and in the support structures we need? That debate occurs because there has been a

tradition in the committee of insisting that we have that discussion. I hope, as I said in the absence of the chairman, we have a reasonable amount of time this week--call for a time certain on Thursday or Friday, whenever it would occur, to end debate and come to final passage.

Why don't we stay in tomorrow night and Wednesday night later than we normally retire here, and we can come in a bit earlier. Say you have an hour or half an hour for debate on amendment. Let's have that good discussion.

The country would be better for it, and our men and women in uniform deserve it. They want to know where we are and where we are going. There is no vehicle other than the Defense authorization bill for us to have that kind of discussion and to consider these important amendments. It has been the history of this great body, and I hope it will continue to be after tomorrow. And I would suggest, that at a time when this Nation is engaged in a war on terrorism, it is important that we take as much care as possible to consider these critically important matters.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

I thank my friend. Enthusiasm at any hour of the night is appreciated.

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