Floor Statements

Mr. President, on June 8, 2009, a brilliant physician, humanitarian, intellectual and caring person passed away. I knew Ken Gorelick and his extended family for almost 50 years and fully believe that more physicians like him would make health care more effective for many. With all of his intelligence he had a unique belief that his principal responsibility was to devote as much energy as he could muster to help those who needed professional care recover from their illnesses. He was daring in his choices of treatment for his patients always searching to reach beyond conventional methodology for the best outcome.

To commemorate his life I ask that a eulogy which was prepared for his funeral be printed in the Record. It so fully describes the unusual character of this great human being who will be missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him.

The eulogy follows:

Kenneth Paul Gorelick, M.D.

Psychiatrist, essayist, poet, and leading poetry therapist

Dr. Kenneth Paul ``Joshua'' Gorelick has left us and this

world, after two years of valiant efforts to overcome brain

cancer. He was 67.

When recently asked why he had chosen psychiatry as a

career and life pursuit, Ken responded that he had been

fascinated by psychology's promise of a ``way to understand

the invisible parts of life'' and ``to understand life

stories.'' This great fascination was driven by Ken's

intrinsic love of life and people and the human narrative,

which, in turn, propelled him on the lifelong journey of an

insatiable learner, an inspired teacher, and a caring doctor.

He read widely and avidly; he relished the arts and supported

them; he wrote extensively, both prose and poetry; he

instructed and lectured; he ministered to those in need and

healed those he could. Ken possessed that rare Renaissance

mind that brought a rich and textured approach to his daily

life, his practice as a psychiatrist, and his teaching of

psychiatry at St. Elizabeth's Hospital and George Washington

University (GWU), where he was awarded Professor Emeritus

status, and numerous national and international conferences.

Yet, throughout his life of great academic and professional

pursuits and accomplishments, he never stopped his joyful

appreciation and examination of human behavior and the human

condition, and he never stopped attempting to improve that

condition through is work and his daily interactions with

others.

Born and raised in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Russian

Jewish immigrant parents, Ken was inspired to become a doctor

early on. When he was four, his father had a heart attack and

the daily doctor visits left an indelible impression. A

favorite story of his recalls the compliment he received

early in his training from a medical school professor for

conducting a skillful psychiatric interview. He explained

that he had asked just what he had learned to ask customers

during his childhood in Gorelick's Bakery, ``How may I help

you?''

Ken's academic life testified to his fervent desire for

learning and understanding. He was first in his class at

Montclair Academy (New Jersey) and at Rutgers College. He was

awarded the Phi Beta Kappa Prize, as well as General

Electric, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Henry Rutgers

scholarships, and he graduated summa cum laude. Accepted at

Columbia, Yale and Harvard Medical Schools, Ken chose instead

to accept a Fulbright scholarship to Bordeaux in order to

research French literature and study French language,

continuing what had by then become a lifelong passion for the

beauty and power of the written and sounded word.

Again applying to Harvard, Ken was accepted, and he then

graduated in 1967. After his medical internship at Mount Zion

Hospital and Medical Center in San Francisco, he returned to

Harvard in 1968, completing his residence in 1971 at the

Massachusetts Mental Health Center. During this period, he

also served on the Harvard University faculty as Clinical

Instructor in psychiatry.

At St. Elizabeth's, the first Federal mental health

facility, Ken was an expert in the Hospital's history. He

gave numerous lectures and keynoted the St. Elizabeth's 150th

Anniversary celebration in 2005. He was a founder of the

Historical Museum. Ken was deeply moved and inspired by

founder Dorothea Dix's commitment to ``the most humane care

and enlightened curative treatment.'' Ken brought this

commitment to his private practice and hospital work,

encouraged a patient enterprise program, and led DC

Council members and others on a visit to Bethel, Germany

to see model humane treatment of patients.

Ken was a noted pioneer and widely respected leader in the

use of literature in the field of psychotherapy, particularly

poetry therapy, serving on the executive boards of the

National Federation for Biblio/Poetry Therapy, as president

of the National Association for Poetry Therapy, and on the

National Council of Creative Therapies. In recognition of his

many contributions to the field, he received the Outstanding

Achievement Award and the Morris Morrison Education Award in

2004. With colleague Arleen Hynes, he established the first

standardized training curriculum for poetry therapy, founded

the Bibliotherapy Training Program at St. Elizabeths, and

served as its co-director and clinical supervisor, training

hospital staff and community mental health professionals in

the use of poetry and other literature in the treatment of

hospitalized patients with severe and persistent mental

illness. From 1993 to 2007, he co-directed the Wordsworth

Center for Poetry Therapy Training.

A much sought-after speaker and workshop leader, Ken

presented workshops, seminars, and Grand Rounds lectures

nationally and internationally at hospitals, universities,

and organizational meetings. His articles on mental health,

psychopathology, and literature were published in the

American

Journal of Social Psychiatry, Arts in Psychotherapy, Journal

of Poetry Therapy, and Expressive Therapies, to name just a

few of the many publications he contributed to over his

lifetime. In fact, Ken's contributions as a speaker, writer,

organizer, editor, advisor, and leader were extremely

numerous and a testament to a man who had amazing erudition

and energy.

Ken was also an exceptionally generous mentor and colleague

and friend, who readily shared his resources, ideas, time,

and energy to educate and empower. He had a superb sense of

humor and a laugh that was unrestrained and utterly gleeful,

and he had the endearing ability to bring smiles and laughter

to other people, no matter how difficult their circumstances.

His voice's melodic, pleasant lilt communicated a special

combination of maturity and caring and welcome that

immediately put people at ease, disarming them, and opening

them up to the possibilities of life. He possessed deep

wisdom and insight into human nature, and he showed

exceptional levels of kindness, compassion, and gentleness

toward those who are most vulnerable and in need of care.

And, despite his intellectual brilliance and considerable

professional accomplishments, he had that rare gift to make

all those he encountered feel respected and worthy.

Never once did Ken Gorelick lose his appreciation of what

is essential: each single day, each single person. In an

article after a childhood of fear-defying, successful scuba-

diving experience, he wrote: ``This day, like every day, has

had something to celebrate. And to be grateful for,'' and he

went on to quote William Stafford's lines, ``Will you ever

bring a better gift for the world/than the breathing respect

that you carry/wherever you go right now?''

He valued each moment and each person around him. In his

touching eulogy for his beloved friend and mentor, Arleen

Hynes, Ken praised what he deemed as her superb talent

of ``finding the dazzling part of each person, and letting

that person know she saw it.'' Ken, too, had that talent

and used it to its fullest.

There can be no greater example of Ken's sacred, lifelong

commitment to serve humanity and his immeasurable generosity

of spirit than how he used his own life-threatening brain

cancer diagnosis as a powerful means to teach his students,

future doctors, the power of human empathy. He openly shared

with them how this diagnosis feels to a patient, allowing

them to question, sharing his story of how he was treated by

doctors, and, through this intimate personal revelation, he

taught them how necessary it is to have genuine empathy and

what this means to the patient. He taught them the great

power of the simple words, ``I'm sorry.'' In Leslie Milk's

interview with Ken which is transcribed in her article ``The

Doctor as Patient,'' Washingtonian, May 2009, Ken disclosed

his story of coping with his brain cancer diagnosis, his

awareness of its typical course, his experience with the

medical community and the limited status of research, and, so

typical of Ken, his determination to enjoy life's riches. He

again underscored the value of a doctor's simple ``I'm

sorry.''

Ken continued, to the very last, to teach medical students

and residents to use the power of literature, the words that

tell the story of humanity, in their endeavors to help

others. He believed in the connection of all people through

all time and how that connection can be accessed in the

stories, great and small, of each and every person. And, in

the end, he even offered the story of his own experience with

terminal illness to encourage them to always make the human

connection.

A poem--written after the first surgery to remove the brain

tumor--shares some of his deepest reflections: ``I feel my

life has been right . . . I put into each act more thought

and mindfulness . . . The trees have been challenged by

dryness and lack of cold/ Out of this dearth has come such

beauty/ Still clinging with all its tenacity.''

Ken's immense joy of being alive and his savoring of each

moment of life are reflected in his verses and are echoed by

two of his favorite poets, Stanley Kunitz and Mary Oliver.

Kunitz wrote in his poem ``The Round'': ``I can scarcely wait

till tomorrow/ when a new life begins for me,/ as it does

each day,/ as it does each day.'' And Oliver wrote in her

poem ``Peonies'': ``Do you love this world?/ Do you cherish

your humble and silky life?/ Do you adore the green grass,

with its terror beneath?'' Ken's answer, our answer with him,

is ``Yes! Forever!''

Ken's passing is a great sad event which is for us a time

to feel not only the deep loss of a man who gave so much to

all, but also the joyful celebration that he lived, a man

whose spirit and actions will continue to influence the many

people he touched during his time on earth.

Dr. Gorelick is survived by his beloved wife, Cheryl

Opacinch Gorelick, a retired international policy analyst; a

sister and brother-in-law, Arlene and Joseph Taub of New

Jersey; a niece and nephew, Michelle Taub Tesser and Scott

Tesser; and Marc Taub and Karen Taub, great-nieces and great-

nephews, other relatives, friends and colleagues.

Looking back I feel my life has been right

No second-guessing that this or that might have been better,

No ache that I might have climbed higher mountains.

I am in a generous leisurely mood with myself

Filled with gratitude and awe for what has been,

The gifts, the luck, the love.

My hunger now is different.

I put into each act more thought and mindfulness.

Eventually the true cliches come to pass: like ``living in

the moment.''

Time has slowed to a crawl.

That is a good thing.

Every grain counts as it drops

My being, my spirit are pulled by gravity.

And they soar.

Moment to moment I try to solve, ignore, or transcend the

frustrations

My big eye on the big picture.

And that picture is beautiful.

This fall foliage has not been spectacular.

But here, at my back door, there is a city forest

No flaming colors

Yet the palette is subtle and exquisite

A harmony of golds, greens, rusts.

The trees have been challenged by dryness

And lack of cold

Out of this dearth has come such beauty

Still clinging with all its tenacity

--Ken Gorelick 11/14/07

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is being offered, because it would override our safety laws, gun safety laws in my State and other States across the country. The Thune amendment is an outright violation of States rights.

The fact is this vote is not about the Second Amendment, it is not about gun rights, this is about respecting local communities and letting them make their own decisions about how to keep their streets, their homes, and their businesses safe.

As this dangerous amendment gets pushed to a vote, we are seeing opposition grow across this country. In addition to newspaper editorials, we are seeing Governors and mayors and local law enforcement calling on the Senate to vote against this amendment.

This placard shows the wide-ranging groups opposing this amendment, groups opposed to the Thune amendment: Over 450 mayors, people who have responsibility for those in their community, Major Cities Chiefs Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, National Network to End Domestic Violence.

In a letter to the Senate, the International Association of Chiefs of Police implored Congress to:

Act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this

dangerous and unacceptable legislation.

That is from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They know what to do about concealed guns, and they will decide within their own communities. But the Thune amendment

does not just steal States of their right to create their own laws, it abolishes State laws that are on the books right now. The Thune amendment throws State laws out the window.

For the 35 States that have chosen to keep criminals with misdemeanor convictions from carrying concealed weapons, this amendment abolishes their laws. For the 31 States that have chosen to keep alcohol abusers from carrying concealed weapons, this amendment abolishes their laws.

The Thune amendment would force States to accept the weakest standard in the country and brings about a race to the bottom. Many of us represent States that do not want lax standards on who can walk around our communities with a weapon hidden in their garments.

To make matters worse, the Thune amendment not only overrides a State's concealed weapons laws, it could also override a State's assault weapons ban. That means if we have a ban in my State and someone gets a concealed weapons permit, they could bring an assault weapon into our State. This means even if a State has a ban on assault weapons, under this amendment, someone could legally enter that State with a hidden Uzi or assault weapon and travel around with it. Think about it. If a State's residents are not permitted to carry a particular weapon, someone can come into that State with a weapon that now is prohibited in that State.

That is one of the reasons more than 450 mayors across the country have expressed alarm about the Thune amendment. As these mayors explained in a letter to the Congress:

Each state ought to have the ability to decide whether to

accept concealed carry permits issued in other states.

I don't want it in New Jersey, and I think Members across this Chamber will say: No, I don't want it in my State as well.

Supporters of this amendment like to claim that only law-abiding citizens get their hands on concealed weapons permits. But that is not true. In Alaska, for example, criminals who have repeatedly committed violent misdemeanors are permitted to carry concealed weapons. In Alaska, criminals who have repeatedly committed sex offenses are permitted to carry concealed weapons. According to a new study, during the 2-year period between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least 7 police officers and 44 other innocent people across the country.

Recently we have seen several gruesome examples of senseless murders committed by people holding concealed weapons permits. A few months ago, a 28-year-old concealed weapons permit holder went on a murderous rampage in Alabama. First he shot and killed his mother. Then he gunned down 10 others, including 2 young mothers and a father and an 18-month- old girl.

A few weeks later, another concealed weapons permit holder went on a killing spree in Binghamton, NY. This gunman drove a car up to a citizenship services center and barricaded the back door with his car so the innocent people who were inside would be trapped as he proceeded to kill those who were in his sights. The gunman sprayed gunfire throughout the center, killed 13 people, and wounded several more before taking his own life.

The next day another concealed carry permit holder destroyed more lives. In Pittsburgh, two police officers arrived at a house to quell a domestic conflict. The two officers were ambushed and killed by the gunman who held a concealed weapons permit. Minutes later, the gunman shot and killed a third officer who arrived at the scene.

The special interest gun lobby is hanging its hopes on the prospect that this Chamber will abandon common sense and pass the Thune amendment. But this gun lobby's dream is a nightmare for our country. It violates States rights and it will make it easier for gun traffickers to move firearms. If the Thune amendment becomes law, traffickers could now load up a car and take guns across State lines legally, as long as the driver has a concealed weapons permit in any State.

History will record that this Senate was asked to decide whether to put families further in danger or keep them safe, whether to savage State laws or honor them, and whether to usurp States rights or preserve them. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing. I urge them to vote no, no, no, on the Thune amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I commend the Secretary from Texas for her commemoration of this spectacular day when Americas went to the Moon. One of them was a fellow named Buzz Aldrin, who lived in the town of Montclair, NJ, the town that I inhabited for many years.

It looked as though it were a fairly simple mission. Now as we study it more thoroughly and realize what conditions were like there--the dust was threatening to the people, to the machinery, to the ship that took them there, to the spaceship that took them there--it was a remarkable event. I join the distinguished Senator from Texas in her tribute.

Madam President, this past Friday, five policemen from a city in New Jersey, Jersey City, were shot by a single gunman. On the previous Wednesday, only a few hundred feet from the steps of this Senate, a gunman fired an assault weapon at Capitol policemen. Despite this point in time, after all of that mayhem last week, we have seen the prospect for more gun violence offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

He has offered an amendment that would gut State public safety laws and make it easier to carry concealed weapons across State lines, regardless of the laws of that State. Currently 48 States do allow some sort of concealed carried weapons. The standards vary from State to State based on each State's law enforcement needs and challenges. But under this new idea, this amendment would permit a concealed carry permit from one State to simply override the rules in other States. If I get a permit in State A, I can go to State B, C, D, any one I choose, with a weapon on my back, on my hip, wherever I want it. And I don't think it matters how many guns one carries.

Understand this thoroughly, that despite a State's laws on availability of concealed guns, Congress would override them. The State says no. Congress would say: No, we want the Federal Government to be able to tell you what to do. That is unusual, because I think the offeror of this amendment is more often a States rights person. But now he wishes Congress to override State laws and make one's own State follow this mandate. It would deprive one's State from making its own decisions on the issue. One's constituents would not be able to say they don't want this to happen. In fact, this amendment would allow some people to carry concealed assault weapons, multifiring, multishell firing weapons in States where those assault weapons are not even permitted.

The amendment before us is more about the right of States to make their own decisions about how they keep families in their States safe from gun violence. This amendment would allow almost anyone anywhere to carry a concealed firearm regardless of that State's law. Strangers coming into town carrying a hidden weapon have an open sesame opportunity to go anywhere they darn please--into town, into a school, into a sporting event, into a shopping mall, anywhere they wish to go regardless of what that State's laws are. Because under this amendment it is clear: If you have a license for a permit from a State in the Far West and you want to carry it to the eastern part of our country, you can do so. Just take away the public safety laws in that State and essentially erase the fact that they are now in the laws.

The amendment declares to State governments that they don't know how to take care of themselves. The gun lobby in Washington is the best place to go to find out what you should or can do. We can't tolerate such an insult.

Here are some of the State concealed weapon requirements that would be wiped out by the amendment. Eighteen States prohibit alcohol abusers from receiving carry permits, including South Dakota. Under the Thune amendment, these 18 States would have to allow alcohol abusers from other States to carry a weapon into their State. Twenty-four States prohibit those convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, including Pennsylvania, which does not allow those convicted of impersonating a police officer, to carry concealed weapons. Under this amendment, those prohibitions would be violated. Nineteen States require those seeking concealed carry permits to complete gun safety programs. Under this amendment, those States would have to allow untrained, untested gun users from other States to carry concealed firearms. It is an outrage.

The proponents of this amendment claim they are respecting each State's concealed carry laws. That is simply not true. Not only does the Thune amendment override a State's concealed weapons law, it also overrides State laws restricting the type of guns that can be possessed in that State, such as assault weapons. Think about that; the type of guns that are restricted in the State, that rule would be obviated, and you would have to permit the licensed gun owner from a far different State to come in.

I have a letter from 400 mayors opposed to the Thune amendment. Over 400 mayors wrote to the Congress and said: Vote no on the Thune amendment, including 106 from Pennsylvania, 51 from Florida, 50 from Ohio, 13 from Wisconsin--the list goes on--from Louisiana, from Missouri, from South Carolina, from almost every State in the country that has its own gun laws. They have written and said: Don't do this.

As these mayors explained in their letter:

Each state ought to have the ability to decide whether to

accept concealed carry permits issued in other states.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

As the mayors make clear, the Thune amendment savages the rights of States to enact their own laws. Unfortunately, this dangerous amendment doesn't end there. It would unleash total havoc by suddenly letting dangerous and unstable people carry weapons into other States and across State lines. Supporters of this amendment claim that only ``law-abiding citizens'' get their hands on concealed weapons permits. That is not true. Over the 2-year period from May 2007 to April 2009, concealed carry permit holders killed seven law enforcement officers with guns. In fact, the Florida Sun Sentinel did an investigation of concealed carry permit holders in Florida and found that Florida granted concealed carry weapons to more than 1,400 people who pled guilty or no contest to a felony; 216 people with outstanding warrants were allowed to carry a gun; 120 people with active domestic violence injunctions; and 6 registered sex offenders.

I worked very hard some years ago--going back to 1996--to get a rule on issuing guns that would say to those convicted of misdemeanor spousal abuse should be unable to get guns. It was scoffed at by some who were here at that time who said: This isn't a gun matter. It is nothing too serious and why bother. I am pleased to tell the Senate that with Supreme Court affirmation about 6 months ago, saying that the law prohibiting gun permits to spousal abusers stood, 150,000 of these people were denied guns.

When I look at these things, it raises a question. While a State such as Florida works to correct these problems, should every other State be forced to allow felons, domestic abusers, and sex offenders to carry guns within their States? I don't want it in my State.

This is a reckless amendment that would force States from coast to coast to comply with the weakest conceal carry laws. A few months ago in Alabama, a person holding a concealed carry license went on a murderous rampage that lasted almost a full hour and spanned two communities. First he shot and killed his mother in Coffee County, AL. He then put on a vest loaded with firearms and ammunition, got into his car and drove into town. Once there he shot and murdered 10 innocent people--we can't forget that--including two young mothers, a father, and an 18-month-old child. It was later discovered that this killer had qualified and been issued a concealed weapons permit from the Coffee County sheriff's department.

A few weeks after Mr. Mclendon's murderous rampage in Alabama, there was a premeditated shooting spree in upstate New York. The gunman drove his car up to a citizenship services center in Binghamton, NY, barricaded the backdoor with his car, and then burst through the front entrance with two handguns and a bag full of ammunition. In what would become the worst mass shooting since the tragic assault at Virginia Tech, the assailant opened fire, killing one receptionist and wounding another.

He then entered a classroom where he sprayed gunfire, killing 12 more innocent people and wounding 7 others. The gunman then committed suicide. The killer was no stranger to guns. He was a firearms enthusiast and even though he had been convicted of a misdemeanor, he held a license to carry concealed weapons.

The day after the city of Binghamton was terrorized by a gunman, two police officers arrived at a house in Pittsburgh to quell a domestic conflict between a man and his mother. When the two officers entered, they were ambushed and killed. The assailant was carrying three firearms and wearing a bulletproof vest and murdered the policemen with an AK-47.

Minutes later, the gunman shot and killed a third officer who arrived at the scene. The attacker held the police at bay for 4 hours before surrendering. It was later learned the killer had been arrested for domestic abuse against his girlfriend but held a concealed weapons permit.

We have to face up to this. This amendment would let more brutal people carry concealed weapons legally--

and not just in their own town or in their own State but in other States and across State lines.

This amendment would also open the floodgates for gun trafficking. A gun dealer who sells firearms to criminals would be free to travel across the country with a car full of loaded weapons as long as the driver had a concealed weapons permit from some other State. The fact is, if the police were to discover the pile of guns in the trafficker's trunk, the police could do nothing about it.

The prospect of this scenario is no exaggeration. Last year, a report showed that one-third of firearms sold on the black market came from States with weak gun safety laws. The Thune amendment would simply exacerbate this problem and make it easier for gun traffickers to supply known criminals--including terrorists--with weapons.

The scourge of gun violence and gun deaths is a menace this Chamber must take seriously. Think about it. All of us here represent a State-- all of us, two per State--and we are being told by one of our Members that what we ought to do is let the Federal Government decide how we care for our people: decide, the Federal Government, how safe our streets ought to be; decide, the Federal Government, to ignore or obviate laws we have on our books, and say: We are going to override your books. We know best what is good for you.

Well, those in other States--whether Illinois or San Francisco, CA, or Houston, TX--do not know better about what we ought to do in New Jersey than we do about them, and we should not allow this to take place.

Just look at the toll gun violence takes on our most innocent and defenseless in our country. Every single day, 8 children die because of gun violence, while another 48 kids are shot. They, however, manage to survive their gun injuries. Think about it: over 50 kids shot each and every day. It is a tragedy in America.

The Thune amendment would place our communities in danger in further danger than we already have. That is why law enforcement leaders--the very people who put their lives on the line to combat criminals and keep families safe--are against the Thune amendment. I have a letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police opposing this amendment. As the letter explains, the police chiefs urge Congress to ``act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this dangerous and unacceptable legislation.'' The Association of Chiefs of Police--if anybody ought to know what is good for their communities, it should be the chiefs of police.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record directly following my remarks.

It is no wonder that when police departments are in charge of issuing concealed weapons permits, they are very conservative about whom they allow to have these permits. Nevertheless, the amendment from Senator Thune would defer to the weakest--think this through--would defer to the weakest concealed permit laws. So now untrained, amateur gun owners will be free to carry a hidden firearm in other States and across State lines.

Do we want to completely disregard State law enforcement officers' decisions or do we want criminals wandering our streets with pistols in their backpacks or carrying them on their sides or do we want unstable drivers stuck in rush hour with guns in the front seats of their cars? I do not.

These are critical questions, and they should not be resolved by an amendment tacked onto a Defense authorization bill--defense. We have our soldiers, and the toll keeps rising in Afghanistan. By no means is Iraq a safe place to be. They should not have to be further jeopardized or have their health threatened. We see what conditions are like. We see the reports from the war front. This bill ought to be moved along just on the Defense authorization.

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee is going to hold hearings on Senator Thune's proposal. That hearing will give everyone a fair opportunity to get all the facts, hear from both sides of the issue, and learn from the testimony of experts. The hearing will include law enforcement officers testifying against this legislation. They deserve to have their voices heard. We should not shortcut the legislative process and the vital work of the Judiciary Committee.

Before I close, I wish to make one thing crystal clear: This amendment has nothing to do with individuals' rights to protect themselves in their own homes. A concealed weapons permit is a separate and special privilege that lets gun owners hide their firearms in a jacket or a bag as they travel in the community and go out in public. Whether they are riding in a bus or a car or walking down the street, they can have that weapon.

Why in our world is it necessary to make sure those who want to carry a concealed weapon can go anyplace they want with this weapon? You know what happens. We read about fights occurring in cafes all the time. To just allow people to come in there with weapons and see what happens after alcohol or too much celebration? Bad idea, and we should not allow it.

States and local communities must be allowed to choose who has earned this privilege, based on what is in the best interest of that particular State or community. Unfortunately, this amendment takes the power away from the local community, away from the State capitals, and leaves the decision about what is in the public interest to the gun lobby and the politicians here in town--lobbyists in many cases.

The Thune amendment poses extreme danger to our country, and it blatantly nullifies State laws and State rights in favor of a radical agenda. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the Thune amendment.

I recently was traveling with my wife out West, and we were interested in seeing a particular baseball team play. We know the owners of the team. The hotel had a gun show.

By the way, I carried a gun. It was not concealed. I did it in a uniform during a war, and I loved that weapon. But it had a mission. It had a mission to kill somebody else before they killed me. That is not what we typically see with concealed weapons.

In this case, we were at this hotel gun show, and people were buying ammunition for their purpose. There was lots of activity. Lots of ammunition was being put in the back of cars. The State, though, in that case permitted it. There could not be any objection. The State decided what was best for its citizens and its communities, and they did just that. I do not agree with that, but I cannot object. If that State wants to do it that way, they are entitled to do it that way, and who am I, from the State of New Jersey, to tell them how they should conduct themselves in those moments? I have no right to do that.

So here we are. We are faced with an amendment that says nobody in the State knows what is better for their people than does the gun lobby, the NRA, the gun manufacturers. We disagree with that, and I hope we will show the American people we care enough about them and respect their intelligence--respect the fact they have their own structure in their States to take care of their needs as they see them. We do not want to see intruders carrying guns coming into those States--not mine, not yours, not anybody's--who do not pass the test that is required within that State's jurisdiction before they go around town with their weapons.

Exhibit 1

International Association

of Chiefs of Police,

Alexandria, VA, July 17, 2009.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Reid: On behalf of the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to

express our strong opposition to S. 845, the Respecting

States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009.

This bill would weaken existing state laws by allowing an

individual to carry concealed firearms when visiting another

state or the District of Columbia as long as the individual

was entitled to carry concealed firearms pursuant to the laws

of his or her home state.

It is the IACP's belief that S. 845 would severely

undermine state concealed carry licensing systems by allowing

out of state visitors to carry concealed firearms even if

those visitors have not met the standards for

carrying a concealed weapon in the state they are visiting.

For example, some states require a person to show that they

know how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards

before obtaining a concealed carry license. These states

would be forced to allow out of state visitors to carry

concealed weapons even if they do not meet that state's

concealed licensing standards.

It is the IACP's belief that states and localities should

have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms

in their communities. It is essential that state, local and

tribal governments maintain the ability to legislate

concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their

communities--private citizens as well as active and former

law enforcement personnel.

The IACP urges you to act quickly and take all necessary

steps to defeat this dangerous and unacceptable legislation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me

know how we can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Russell B. Laine,

President.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today we are being asked to defend the very core of our American democracy; that is, the right of people to live freely, to move freely, to do what they would like to do as long as they do not bring harm to others. People want to be free from violence, free from fear, free from intimidation. And all too often we hear of crimes committed against innocent people based almost solely on bigotry and hatred. This Senate needs to send a message, a message that this is unacceptable conduct in our society, that these crimes are especially heinous, that these crimes must be severely punished, because it tears at the basic fiber of being freedom-loving Americans.

An example of the horror that accompanies this kind of hatred is that on a day last month, someone turned killer because of religious hatred. This individual walked through the doors of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which was then filled with visitors from all around the world, many of them children. His name: James Von Brunn. He raised a rifle and opened fire, killing Steven Johns, a security guard who was simply doing his duty, and wounding others before the individual was shot and subdued. Not only did Mr. Von Brunn take a man's life and terrorize bystanders, but he wanted to destroy this vivid reminder of how vicious man's hatred and bias could be against an entire group of people. Over 6 million Jews died as a result of the Holocaust. Millions of others died also as a result of the Holocaust, stemmed primarily by prejudice and hate.

The tragic fact is that our history is replete with examples of terrible hate crimes. In October of 1998, two men attacked and savagely beat Matthew Shepard, a student who was gay and was there at the University of Wyoming. Shepard died of his wounds a few days later, simply because he was a gay person. In June of the same year, who can forget that a Black man, James Byrd, Jr., was chained to a pickup truck, dragged along a Texas road, and was killed by declared racists.

More recently, we have seen vulgar acts committed in the wake of a historic happening in America. President Barack Obama, an African American, won the Presidential election. In my

home State of New Jersey, after the November election, a cross was placed and set afire on the front lawn of a couple, Alina and Gary Grewal. The cross was wrapped in a homemade banner that the Grewals had hung outside their home that simply read ``President Obama, Victory '08''--pride filled, honoring this incredible accomplishment that took place within America.

At a time when our Nation should be celebrating the progress we have made, we must bring the full weight of the law to bear on those who commit such atrocious crimes. Unfortunately, existing Federal law hampers prosecutors from trying hate crimes effectively. Right now, current Federal hate crimes law applies only when a victim is involved in particular activities, such as serving on a jury or attending a public school. This legislation would protect victims of hate crimes in all situations, not just when a victim is involved in certain federally protected ones. This amendment would also finally expand Federal hate crimes protection to those victimized based on sexual orientation or disability. Some 15 percent of all reported hate crimes are linked to sexual orientation. Gay Americans should not be afraid to walk about freely, and violent individuals should know that the Federal Government will prosecute you if you commit a crime with hatred as the principal motivator. Hate crimes are the ultimate expression of ignorance and hate, and we must strengthen our Federal laws to protect people against them.

Senator Kennedy first introduced this legislation in 1997, a year before Matthew Shepard and James Byrd were killed because of bigotry. It is time to pass this critical amendment and stand up for Americans who are victims of vulgar and senseless acts of violence that should not be happening in America without severe punishment, without the reminder that we are a nation comprised of many different ethnicities, different religions, different habits. It should not go without severe penalty if someone is attacked because their habit, their face, their color, their religion is different from the ones most popular.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Joseph Mastrangelo during consideration of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act.

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

Madam President, I rise today because there is a reckless amendment on the floor of the Senate to strip this country of an important infrastructure element to protect us against terrorism. This amendment is intended to strip the State of New Jersey of critical antiterrorism programs.

In poll after poll, the people across our country are still deeply concerned about what might happen in the event of a terrorist attack. Everyone knows we have people fighting against terror in other countries, but we also have a huge assignment here. Just today, we saw that an attempt to smuggle bomb parts into some government buildings was successful. My God, what do we have to do to say to people in this place: Our primary function is to protect our citizens, and New Jersey is one of the 50 States in this country; that if it is a dangerous event that occurs, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a terrorist attack, we have an obligation to see that these States have the tools to protect themselves.

Eliminating funding for these programs will make families in New Jersey more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I point out that this area we are particularly focused on--9/11, the largest catastrophe that happened on American soil--is one area, which I will describe in just a minute, that is one of the most densely populated in the country, and the risks are very high.

Eliminating funds for these programs makes families in New Jersey more vulnerable, and we are concerned about it. Without these investments, when a terrorist strikes or a hurricane hits, there is a good chance that emergency generators might not go on, firetrucks will not arrive on time, and medical crews might not know where to go.

Let's be absolutely clear. New Jersey is no stranger to terrorism. We lost 700 New Jersey residents on 9/11, and dozens more still retain illnesses that developed as a result of their attempt to protect the citizens who survived.

New Jersey is home to what has been labeled by the FBI as the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in America for terrorism--that 2-mile distance between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport. And New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation. In the area around this 2- mile stretch terrorists could injure or kill almost 12 million people.

Because of the real possibility of an attack, cities and counties throughout New Jersey have created local emergency operations centers. What else could we ask for? What have the States where there are droughts or hurricanes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in this country had the right to ask for? They have a right to ask for help. But why only provide the help after something has happened if we can prevent things from taking place?

Because of the real possibility of an attack, we have these local emergency operations centers in New Jersey. These centers coordinate information during an attack and manage the immediate response to cataclysmic emergencies. Both the 9/11 Commission report and the Department of Homeland Security have identified these centers as imperative to people's safety and security when a community crisis occurs. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel, if there had been a functional emergency operations center after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, lives would have been saved that day.

Here is what will happen if the amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold is passed: The emergency operations center in Union County, in my State, will not have an interoperable communications network that connects fire, police, and medical officers. The emergency operations center in South Orange--one of our cities--will not have a working emergency generator.

We can't afford to be without this infrastructure of emergency equipment as well as services. And the emergency operations center in Hackensack will not be able to properly train police officers and firefighters. Make no mistake, emergency operations centers save lives. That is preventive. That is its purpose.

The amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold defies common sense. By jeopardizing emergency operations centers in my State and other States across the country, this amendment would make us less secure, and I hope my colleagues will say: No, we can't permit that. We can't permit it in New Jersey and we can't permit it in other places in the country.

We have to, as the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. It is the simplest lesson we could learn. Prevention is far better than cure.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, recent attempts by the tobacco industry to sell and market candy-flavored cigarettes are a real threat to our Nation's children. With flavors such as cherry, grape, and strawberry, these cigarettes are intended to get our children addicted to a deadly product that kills more than 400,000 people a year. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act section 907 prohibits the use in cigarettes of flavors, herbs, spices, such as strawberry grape, orange, clove and cinnamon, when used as a ``characterizing flavor'' of the tobacco product or smoke. I applaud you along with Senator Kennedy for prohibiting these products.

However, it is my understanding that the language in section 907 is not meant to prohibit the use of any specific ingredient that does not produce a ``characterizing flavor'' in a cigarette or its smoke; is that correct?

I thank the Senator for this clarification.

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

Mr. President, basic instinct in humankind directs so much attention to the well-being of our children. We do it in various ways. Now you see it creeping into better nutrition. We see it in our attention to environmental conditions, to global climate change. We see it in our attention to deal with violent behavior against children. We do whatever we can to protect our kids, to protect them and do whatever it takes to do what we can to make sure they grow up healthy, they have long lives.

One of the ways we can be effective is to protect our kids against addiction. I use the word deliberately. ``Addiction'' immediately conjures up a view of drugs--prescription drugs, prohibited drugs. We are not talking about that addiction. I am talking about a serious addiction, an addiction to tobacco--to tobacco--that has such a devastating effect on the people who smoke and often on those who are around the people who smoke.

We heard from Senator Dodd earlier about what happens from smoking. It kills more than 400,000 Americans each and every year. Many of them are of younger ages. In addition to the lethal dose, there is that kind of attack on health that disables people--emphysema, conditions that affect the heart, all kinds of things. We know lung cancer is among the most dangerous.

Senator Durbin, who was a Member of the House at the time, and I decided to take up the fight against big tobacco and their powerful special interests more than 20 years ago when we wrote the law banning smoking on airplanes. We stood up to big tobacco because smoking on airplanes was so unhealthful. We learned the dangers of secondhand smoke. Many of the people who were cabin attendants were subjected to terrible respiratory discomfort and danger.

As a matter of fact, there was a study that was done, and it said even those who never smoked--people who worked in the cabin of the airplane--would show nicotine in their body fluids weeks after they had worked a trip. That is how pervasive this was. But big tobacco fought back. They fought back ferociously. They unleashed their forces. Money flowed to protect their addicted clientele and to keep them there. They brought phony science and high-paid lobbyists to squash this assault on behalf of public health. They had phony experts testify to Congress, up here on television, saying unashamedly that there was no evidence that secondhand smoke was dangerous, even though they knew in the tobacco companies. In the 1930s they learned that nicotine was so addictive and that it would continue to help them earn enormous profits. We fought back, and we succeeded in banning smoking on airplanes. It was a tough fight because of all of the misinformation that the industry spread. That then started a smoke-free revolution, and it did change the world culture on tobacco.

Some years later I authored a law that banned smoking in buildings that provided services to children, any building that had Federal funds. It could have been a library, a clinic, a daycare center; whatever it was, there was no smoking allowed in those buildings, except if it was in a separate room that ventilated directly to the outside. They fought us on that, but the people won. It is as clear to me today as it was then that this industry has not earned the trust to regulate itself. That is a plea they make, but no one believes they mean it.

Ten years ago, I was able to gather unpublished, internal reports by the tobacco industry showing that so-called

``light'' and ``low-tar'' cigarettes were a poor disguise of the true harm that these cigarettes brought. The cigarette makers were seducing smokers into thinking that these cigarettes were a healthier choice than those previously generally sold.

Real government oversight was essential to protect the public, especially our young, from this deadly product. As we know, since the 1980s, the tobacco industry has continued to engage in one sophisticated marketing campaign after another to get youngsters addicted to nicotine--just get them started and they are yours--even though selling and marketing cigarettes to children is generally against the law. It is our obligation, our responsibility to end the recruitment of kids as the next generation of smokers.

If there was ever any doubt about how effective and real this unlawful marketing is, just consider that more than 3 million young people--people who are under the age of 18--in our society are smokers. What is more, currently 3,500 kids every day try smoking. That, for many, is the first step to a life of addiction.

When I served in the Army, we were given an emergency pack in case we got in trouble, in case we were isolated from our units, and the emergency pack had some food, including a high-nutrition chocolate bar, but it also had four cigarettes in a little sleeve. Everybody got cigarettes free, even if you didn't use them before. The temptation to use them then was great, and it was right down the addiction alley.

The legislation we are talking about now that is being debated in this Chamber would finally grant some supervision and give a Federal agency--the Food and Drug Administration--the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. The bill, very simply, would give the FDA jurisdiction over the content and the marketing of tobacco products, and more explicit warning labels would be required. President Obama supports this effort, and it is now our turn and our obligation to safeguard families and children by passing this critical bill.

The legislation would give us more and better information about cigarettes. The fact is that we still don't know a cigarette's exact contents. That means 40 million Americans--the number of people in this country who are addicted to smoking--burn and inhale a product whose real ingredients are a mystery. Think about it. We see evidence of the fact that these people are typically locked in a vice, a vice so embarrassing that they sneak into hallways, they stand outside in a huddle in the rain, or in all kinds of weather conditions, whatever they are, to get the puffs on cigarettes. I know people who work in the Capitol here whom I see frequently going down the hall to get outside in inclement weather. Why? To smoke. So we have a situation we can't deal with. We have to understand what is in these products. The real ingredients are a mystery. To lead so many Americans on a dangerous path to a debilitating disease, and often lethal, is not simply wrong, it is the definition of negligence. If this legislation is successful, the FDA would monitor the content of cigarettes and could call for the reduction or removal of the toxic substances.

FDA oversight would also ensure that cigarette makers don't deceive Americans through trick advertising and promotional campaigns. History has proven how untrustworthy the tobacco companies are. Just think: More than 20 percent of twelfth graders said they have smoked in the last 30 days--20 percent of kids in the twelfth grade, typically 16, 17, 18 years old, have had a cigarette in the last 30 days.

For years, we have set our sights on getting the FDA to regulate cigarettes. Why? To protect our kids. No other government agency is as qualified to get this job done. In fact, one out of every five products that Americans purchase is regulated by the FDA. They watch over all kinds of things. Now they are looking at chemicals that are in products that very small children have contact with. The agency currently oversees prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines, and medical devices, and it already regulates a number of well-known nicotine delivery products, such as the Nicorette gum and the patch.

For the last 45 years, ever since the Surgeon General's office began issuing warnings about cigarettes, big tobacco has used every tactic imaginable, including sham organizations, influential lobbyists, and powerful lawyers, to avoid public scrutiny. It is time to make big tobacco accountable to the public. It is time to make it accountable so that we can protect our children from the danger that kills more than 400,000 Americans every year.

I, too, was a smoker at one time, until over 30 years ago. Many times I thought about quitting, but the temptation to light up was always there and overcame any decision that could persuade me to stop from lighting up and taking a few drags. What happened? One night after dinner my third daughter, who was about 7 or 8--she was in maybe second grade--said, Daddy, why are you smoking? I said, well, because it makes me feel relaxed. It feels good when I am doing it after I have eaten. This little kid looked at me and she said, Daddy, today in school we learned that if you smoke, you get a black box in your throat. She was 7 years old. She said, I love you and I don't want you to have a black box in your throat. That convinced me. Within days I had my last cigarette.

I will close with another hideous reminder about the woman who appeared in front of one of my committees. She had already had an operation on her esophagus, I think, but in her throat, she actually had a hole in her throat. She admitted that despite the fact that she had essentially lost her voice box, she still smoked through the hole in her throat. She said her doctor got angry with her when after this serious surgery she was asking for a cigarette. The hold on people is almost unbreakable. But we can do our part here in the Senate if we pass this bill.

I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. It is good for your constituents, it is good for your families, it is good for America's financial well-being. We spend over $100 billion a year as a result of premature death and disability from tobacco use.

With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Regina McCarthy, President Obama's nominee to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for Air and Radiation. Ms. McCarthy has decades of experience administering environmental programs at the state level under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Her qualifications are unquestionable, and her confirmation will help move our country toward a safer environment and a healthier economy.

We are at a critical point in the history of our Nation and indeed our planet. New science appears seemingly every month showing the danger posed by climate change. Already this year, new peer-reviewed studies revealed that the Arctic will likely be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012-- not 2050, as predicted by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--IPCC--in 2007. Another peer- reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that global emissions, if they continue at current rates, would increase global temperatures by 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is on the extreme high end of temperature projections by the IPCC. Finally, two new studies found that ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland will likely raise sea levels by five to six feet by the end of the century, far above the two feet predicted by the IPCC, which did not consider melting from those two sources.

Regina McCarthy will be on the front lines of our Nation's battle to stabilize the climate. The office she will manage is responsible for improving air quality and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Congress must act quickly to place strong, science-based limits on emissions, and force polluters to pay to clean up the damage they have done to our environment and our health. We must do so in a way that creates jobs, allows businesses and individuals to save money through efficiency, and pulls the country out of this recession and into a clean energy future.

The coal and oil industries are powerful, and are spending billions of dollars fighting the science and fighting any policies that would break their stranglehold on our Nation's energy policy. In the first 3 months of this year alone, the oil and gas industry spent $37.3 million to lobby the Federal Government. That is money that could be going toward cleaning up their operations. Instead it goes toward impeding our progress toward a clean energy jobs bill to stop climate change.

Despite those obstacles, the House has reported legislation out of committee and we are working toward a bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, as Congress works toward comprehensive legislation, our planet cannot afford to wait to begin reducing emissions. That's why President Obama's EPA recently found that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This will allow the EPA to use existing authority to regulate some of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, refineries, and automobiles.

Just as the EPA does not use the Clean Air Act to regulate small sources of air pollution such as residential buildings, churches, or hospitals for pollutants like smog and soot, it will not regulate these sources for greenhouse gases. Our economy grew rapidly as we dramatically reduced emissions of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and I am certain we can use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases while creating clean energy jobs and reviving our economy.

Ms. McCarthy is supremely qualified to succeed in that task. Throughout her 25 years of experience at the State level, she has proven to be practical and intelligent in her approach to protecting the environment. She most recently served as the commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection--DEP--and was appointed to this post by Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell in December 2004. Prior to serving in this capacity, Ms. McCarthy worked on environmental issues for 20 years at the State and local level in Massachusetts. She served as the deputy secretary of operations for the Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development, a ``super Secretariat'' that coordinates policies and programs of that state's environmental, transportation, energy and housing agencies. She was appointed to this position by then-Governor Mitt Romney.

Ms. McCarthy is known for her active role as Connecticut DEP commissioner in promoting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, a cooperative initiative by 10 Northeastern States, including New Jersey, to implement a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from powerplants. That experience will serve her well when she is tasked with implementing the climate legislation that Congress must--and will--pass.

Our planet cannot wait any longer for lower emissions from cars and power plants, American workers cannot wait any longer for clean energy jobs, and our economy cannot wait any longer for the technological innovations and improved efficiency that will lay the groundwork for lasting, sustainable prosperity. Confirming Regina McCarthy will let her get to work cleaning up our environment, and we in the Senate will begin the work of passing a bill that makes polluters pay, creates clean energy jobs, and revives our economy.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Eric F. Ross who will celebrate his 90th birthday on June 25, 2009. A loving grandfather, great-grandfather, and husband, Eric has been dedicated to educating the public about the Holocaust and is a passionate supporter of educational and cultural institutions in the United States, Germany, and Israel.

Born in Dortmund, Germany, Eric fled Nazi Germany and arrived in the United States when he was 20 years old. He courageously returned to Europe in 1942 as a soldier in the U.S. Army and a member of the ``Ritchie Boys,'' a group of young men who escaped Nazi Germany and joined the Army. These men were specially trained to fight the Nazis and because of his service, Eric was awarded a Bronze Star. He went on to become a successful businessman, establishing Alpha Chemical & Plastics in Newark, New Jersey and Mercer Plastics Company, which is based in Florida.

Holocaust remembrance and education are extremely important to Eric. In 2003, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and he remains actively involved with the museum. He and his beloved wife Lore, who recently passed away, are the museum's largest individual donors and the museum's Ross Administrative Center is named in memory of his parents, Albert and Regina Rosenberg, who perished during the Holocaust.

I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 90th birthday of this remarkable man. His passion for education and dedication to philanthropy has touched countless lives and should serve as an example to others. I thank him for his tireless work and would like to extend my warmest wishes on this momentous occasion.

Mr. President, another 5 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Record.

Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on November 20, 2008, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 123 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten and today I submit their names into the Record:

LCpl Ray A. Spencer II, of Ridgecrest, CA; PFC Richard A. Dewater, of Topeka, KS; CPL Francisco X. Aguila, of Bayamon, Puerto Rico; SGT Raul Moncada, of Madera, CA; SPC Michael J. Anaya, of Crestview, FL; SSG Gary L. Woods Jr., of Lebanon Junction, KY; SFC Bryan E. Hall, of Elk Grove, CA; SGT Edward W. Forrest Jr., of St. Louis, MO; CPL Jason G. Pautsch, of Davenport, IA; PFC Bryce E. Gautier, of Cypress, CA; A1C Jacob I. Ramsey, of Hesperia, CA; LCpl Blaise A. Oleski, of Holland Patent, NY; LCpl Stephen F. Dearmon, of Crossville, TN; SPC Adam M. Kuligowski, of Arlington, VA; SPC Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico; SGT Daniel J. Beard, of Buffalo, NY; TSgt Phillip A Myers, of Hopewell, VA; SGT Devin C. Poche, of Jacksonville, NC; LCpl Nelson M. Lantigua, of Miami, FL; LTJG Francis L. Toner IV, of Narragansett, RI; LT Florence B. Choe, of El Cajon, CA; SSG Raphael A. Futrell, of Anderson, SC; SGT Jose R. Escobedo Jr., of Albuquerque, NM; Cpl Michael W. Ouellette, of Manchester, NH; Cpl Anthony L. Williams, of Oxford, PA; LCpl Daniel J. Geary, of Rome, NY; PFC Adam J. Hardt, of Avondale, AZ; SPC Gary L. Moore, of Del City, OK; SGT Christopher P. Abeyta, of Midlothian, IL; SGT Robert M. Weinger, of Round Lake Beach, IL; SPC Norman L. Cain III, of Oregon, IL; SSgt Archie A. Taylor, of Tomball, TX; SSgt Timothy L. Bowles, of Tucson, AZ; PO1 Theophilus K. Ansong, of Bristow, VA; LCpl Patrick A. Malone, of Ocala, FL; PFC Patrick A. Devoe, II, of Auburn, NY; 1LT Daniel B. Hyde, of Modesto, CA; SPC Jessica Y. Sarandrea, of Miami, FL; SGT Jeffery A. Reed, of Chesterfield, VA; Cpl Donte J. Whitworth, of Nobelsville, IN; SGT Simone A. Robinson, of Dixmoor, IL; CPL Brian M. Connelly, of Union Beach, NJ; CPT Brian M. Bunting, of Potomac, MD; SGT Schuyler B. Patch, of Owasso, OK; SGT Scott B. Stream, of Mattoon, IL; SGT Daniel J. Thompson, of Madison, WI; 1LT William E. Emmert, of Lincoln, TN; CPL Michael L. Mayne, of Burlington Flats, NY; CPL Michael B. Alleman, of Logan, UT; CPL Zachary R. Nordmeyer, of Indianapolis, IN; SSG Mark C. Baum, of Telford, PA; SSG Jeremy E. Bessa, of Woodridge, IL; MSG David L. Hurt, of Tucson, AZ; PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, of Honolulu, HA; SSgt Timothy P. Davis, of Aberdeen, WA; SFC Raymond J. Munden, of Mesquite, TX; SSG Daniel L. Hansen, of Tracy, CA; CPL Stephen S. Thompson, of Tulsa, OK; SSG Sean D. Diamond, of Dublin, CA; SSG Marc J. Small, of Collegeville, PA; LTC Garnet R. Derby, of Missoula, MT; SGT Joshua A. Ward, of Scottsville, KY; SPC Albert R. Jex, of Phoenix, AZ; PFC Jonathan R. Roberge, of Leominster, MA; LCpl Kevin T. Preach, of Bridgewater, MA; SSG Jason E. Burkholder, of Elda, OH; 1LT Jared W. Southworth, of Oakland, IL; SPC Christopher P. Sweet, of Kahului, HI; SGT James M. Dorsey, of Beardstown, IL; SGT Darrell L. Fernandez, of Truth or Consequences, NM; CW4 Milton E. Suggs, of Lockport, LA; CWO Phillip Windorski Jr, of Bovey, MN; CWO Matthew G. Kelley, of Cameron, MO; CWO Joshua M. Tillery, of Beaverton, OR; CWO Benjamin H. Todd, of Colville, WA; Sgt David W. Wallace III, of Sharpsville, PA; Sgt Trevor J. Johnson, of Forsyth, MT; PVT Grant A. Cotting, of Corona, CA; LCpl Julian T. Brennan, of Brooklyn, NY; SGT Kyle J. Harrington, of Swansea, MA; SPC Matthew M. Pollini, of Rockland, MA; SGT Ezra Dawson, of Las Vegas, NV; SSG Carlo M. Robinson, of Lawton, OK; PFC Ricky L. Turner, of Athens, AL; SSG Roberto Andrade Jr., of Chicago, IL; SSG Joshua R. Townsend, of Solvang, CA; SrA Omar J. McKnight, of Marrero, LA; Sgt Marquis R. Porter, of Brighton, MA; LCpl Daniel R. Bennett, of Clifton, VA; PVT Sean P. McCune, of Euless, TX; SGT Joshua L. Rath, of Decatur, AL; SPC Keith E. Essary, of Dyersburg, TN; SSG Justin L. Bauer, of Loveland, CO; MAJ Brian M. Mescall, of Hopkinton, MA; SPC Joseph M. Hernandez, of Hammond, IN; SGT Jason R. Parsons, of Lenoir, NC; LCpl Jessie A. Cassada, of Hendersonville, NC; SSG Anthony D. Davis, of Daytona Beach, FL; LCpl Chadwick A. Gilliam, of Mayking, KY; LCpl Alberto Francesconi, of Bronx, NY; PFC Christopher W. Lotter, of Chester Heights, PA; PFC Benjamin B. Tollefson, of Concord, CA; SPC Tony J. Gonzales, of Newman, CA; LCpl Robert L. Johnson, of Central Point, OR; CPL Charles P. Gaffney Jr., of Phoenix, AZ; MASA Joshua D. Seitz, of Sinking Springs, PA; MAJ John P. Pryor, of Moorestown, NJ; SSG Christopher G. Smith, of Grand Rapids, MI; SPC Stephen M. Okray, of St. Clair Shores, MI; SPC Stephen G. Zapasnik, of Broken Arrow, OK; LCpl Thomas Reilly Jr., of London, KY; PFC Coleman W. Hinkefent, of Coweta, OK; SSG Jonathan W. Dean, of Henagar, AL; PVT Colman J. Meadows III, of Senoia, GA; SSG Solomon T. Sam, of Majuro, Marshall Islands; SGT John J. Savage, of Weatherford, TX; CPT Robert J. Yllescas, of Lincoln, NE; MSG Anthony Davis, of Deerfield, FL; Capt Warren A. Frank, of Cincinnati, OH; 1LT William K. Jernigan, of Doraville, GA; SFC Miguel A. Wilson, of Bonham, TX; PVT Charles Yi Barnett, of Bel Air, MD; GySgt Marcelo R. Velasco, of Miami, FL;

We cannot forget these men and women and their sacrifice. These brave souls left behind parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends. We want them to know the country pledges to preserve the memory of our lost soldiers who gave their lives for our country.

Staff Sergeant Gary Lee Woods, Jr.

Mr. President, I rise because yesterday marks 10 years since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, and on this 10th anniversary, we need to speak about the problems with our Nation's gun laws.

Whether it is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Mexican gun trafficking or the recent killings in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, and Oakland we are reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, and it is time we said--not another day.

Not another day should we allow the gun show loophole to stand.

Not another day should we allow gun dealers to sell firearms without conducting a background check.

Not another day should we allow terrorists, criminals, gun traffickers and the mentally ill to buy firearms.

It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card.

What happened at Columbine High School 10 years ago was a tragedy none of us can forget.

Two shooters went on a rampage and killed 12 students and 1 teacher.

But here is what a lot of people do not realize: all of the firearms used by the shooters were bought at gun shows.

That means, because of the gun show loophole, they were bought without a background check, and they were bought ``cash and carry,'' no questions asked.

Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns.

Just think: the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it had a background check been required.

In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

In the aftermath of Columbine, the Senate passed my legislation, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

It was a great victory, but it was short lived. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference.

Ten years later, this gap in our law still remains.

We were reminded of that last Thursday when we marked the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history.

The Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain his guns from licensed gun dealers because the records of his mental illness were not in the background check database as they were supposed to be. But if a background check stopped him from buying his guns from a gun dealer, he could have walked to a gun show and purchased the guns with no background check.

Yesterday we marked the 14th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing--the Nation's worst domestic terrorist attack.

The men responsible for that despicable act frequently bought and sold firearms at gun shows.

Gun trafficking to Mexico is another reminder of the dangers of the gun show loophole.

We know that as many as 30 percent of the firearms traveling across our border into Mexico originate from gun shows.

We have an opportunity to save lives--and that is why I am reintroducing legislation today to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

Closing the gun show loophole will not adversely affect licensed gun sellers and it will not place a burden on law-abiding gun owners.

It simply ends a dangerous, unnecessary exemption so that the Brady Law is applied equally.

But that difference--the difference between buying a gun with a background check and not--is everything.

It is the difference between saving lives and putting more at risk, between keeping guns out of the wrong hands and letting terrorists and others have easy access to guns, and the difference between upholding the rule of law or allowing loopholes to undermine it.

Specifically, my legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.

Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations.

The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, FFL. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction.

FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, NTC. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

I am proud to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Reed, Whitehouse, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Cardin, Gillibrand, Feinstein, and Menendez.

Ten years ago we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO.

One of the best ways to honor those we lost and those who have suffered is

to make sure a tragedy like Columbine never happens again.

We owe that--and nothing less--to the young people who died 10 years ago and the young people who count on us today.

Mr. President, I rise because yesterday marks 10 years since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, and on this 10th anniversary, we need to speak about the problems with our Nation's gun laws.

Whether it is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Mexican gun trafficking or the recent killings in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, and Oakland we are reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, and it is time we said--not another day.

Not another day should we allow the gun show loophole to stand.

Not another day should we allow gun dealers to sell firearms without conducting a background check.

Not another day should we allow terrorists, criminals, gun traffickers and the mentally ill to buy firearms.

It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card.

What happened at Columbine High School 10 years ago was a tragedy none of us can forget.

Two shooters went on a rampage and killed 12 students and 1 teacher.

But here is what a lot of people do not realize: all of the firearms used by the shooters were bought at gun shows.

That means, because of the gun show loophole, they were bought without a background check, and they were bought ``cash and carry,'' no questions asked.

Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns.

Just think: the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it had a background check been required.

In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

In the aftermath of Columbine, the Senate passed my legislation, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

It was a great victory, but it was short lived. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference.

Ten years later, this gap in our law still remains.

We were reminded of that last Thursday when we marked the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history.

The Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain his guns from licensed gun dealers because the records of his mental illness were not in the background check database as they were supposed to be. But if a background check stopped him from buying his guns from a gun dealer, he could have walked to a gun show and purchased the guns with no background check.

Yesterday we marked the 14th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing--the Nation's worst domestic terrorist attack.

The men responsible for that despicable act frequently bought and sold firearms at gun shows.

Gun trafficking to Mexico is another reminder of the dangers of the gun show loophole.

We know that as many as 30 percent of the firearms traveling across our border into Mexico originate from gun shows.

We have an opportunity to save lives--and that is why I am reintroducing legislation today to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

Closing the gun show loophole will not adversely affect licensed gun sellers and it will not place a burden on law-abiding gun owners.

It simply ends a dangerous, unnecessary exemption so that the Brady Law is applied equally.

But that difference--the difference between buying a gun with a background check and not--is everything.

It is the difference between saving lives and putting more at risk, between keeping guns out of the wrong hands and letting terrorists and others have easy access to guns, and the difference between upholding the rule of law or allowing loopholes to undermine it.

Specifically, my legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.

Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations.

The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, FFL. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction.

FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, NTC. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request.

I am proud to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Reed, Whitehouse, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Cardin, Gillibrand, Feinstein, and Menendez.

Ten years ago we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO.

One of the best ways to honor those we lost and those who have suffered is

to make sure a tragedy like Columbine never happens again.

We owe that--and nothing less--to the young people who died 10 years ago and the young people who count on us today.

Mr. President, I want to offer a straightforward amendment that recognizes that investments in our transportation infrastructure system must be a priority for our country. The amendment would simply add transportation, including passenger and freight rail, as an eligible project under the ``Investments in America's Infrastructure'' reserve fund. It is already included in the budget.

Our highways and skyways are so congested and crowded that passengers and freight are routinely delayed. The estimates show these problems will only get worse with the growth of freight traffic, expected to double its size by 2025. Railroads are the one mode of transportation that can grow to help alleviate the congestion.

Amtrak needs more and better passenger and freight rail service. I ask support for this amendment.

I call up the amendment and ask for its immediate consideration, amendment No. 957.

I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places.

This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.