Floor Statements

For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on S. 150, the Internet tax moratorium bill. It is anticipated that the first amendment to the bill will be offered early tomorrow morning. It is the intention of the managers to work through as many amendments as possible tomorrow. Therefore, Senators should make themselves available for rollcall votes throughout the morning and into the afternoon.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, we usually go back and forth, I tell my friend.

Yes.

Mr. President, I don't mind waiting a few minutes if the Senator from California wishes to proceed.

Mr. President, a creeping coup against the forces of democracy and market capitalism in Russia is threatening the foundation of the U.S.-Russia relationship and raising the specter of a new era of cold peace between Washington and Moscow. The new authoritarianism in Russia is more than a test of America's ability to defend universal values that have taken shallow root since the Soviet empire collapsed. It presents a fundamental challenge to American interests across Eurasia. The United States cannot enjoy a normal relationship, much less a partnership, with a country that increasingly appears to have more in common with its Soviet and czarist predecessors than with the modern state Vladimir Putin claims to aspire to build.

On October 25, masked Russian security agents from the FSB, the successor to the KGB, stormed Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky's private plane during a stop in Siberia. He now sits in prison awaiting trial, accused of tax evasion, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement. Russia's richest man, founder and chief executive of its most successful private company, a leader in incorporating Western principles of accounting and transparency into business practice, and a generous donor to charity, Khodorkovsky had committed what in the Kremlin's eyes is the worst crime of all: supporting the political opposition to President Putin. Such an alternative center of power could threaten the Kremlin's supreme political control.

Upon assuming power in 2000, President Putin announced a now-famous ultimatum to Russia's top business leaders, whose fortunes were made by acquiring control of Russian assets privatized at fire-sale prices in the 1990s. President Putin said to them: stay out of political life and keep your fortune, or risk it by engaging in political activity. Most of the oligarchs chose to remain quiet. Three did not. Business tycoons Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were forced into exile as a result of their support for opposition political parties and free media. Mikhail Khodorkovsky actually attempted to exercise basic political freedoms guaranteed, in theory, for all Russians. He has been thrown into jail as a result.

Admittedly, Messrs. Gusinsky, Berezovsky, and Khodorkovsky may not provide to proponents of democracy and free markets in Russia the most laudable personal histories upon which to wage a resolute defense of our democratic principles. But failure to defend them would acknowledge exactly what the Kremlin cynically alleges: that they are being prosecuted because of the way they made their money. What has caused these three Russian tycoons to be singled out are their activities in support of opposition political parties and free media. In reality, a concerted campaign to clean up Russian politics and society would reach into every corner of the Kremlin and every boardroom in Russia, but that is not happening. For better or for worse, there is a consensus in Russian society that the past should remain in the past as Russia moves forward. If Russian business and government leaders are in fact going to be prosecuted for their conduct a decade ago, then perhaps the former KGB officer named Vladimir Putin who assisted Stasi leaders and Eric Honnecker in oppressing the German people should answer for his crimes.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky's arrest, like the politically motivated indictments of Berezovsky and Gusinsky, should be seen not as prosecution for financial dealings done a decade ago--which would implicate thousands of Russian businessmen and political figures--but as part of a larger contest between the forces of statist control and a liberal-oligarchic elite. Who wins will go a long way toward determining whether Russia reverts to the traditions of its czarist- imperial past or charts a new course as part of an integrating, liberal international order. The consequences of this struggle, for both the Russian people and the world, will be profound.

For the Russian people, President Putin's rule has been characterized by the dismantling of Russia's independent media, a fierce crackdown on the political opposition, and the prosecution of a bloody war against Chechnya's civilian population. The ascent of former KGB officers throughout Russia's ministries and in the Kremlin has enabled Putin to use the long arm of the state to crush internal dissent, silence opposing political voices, and subdue free media. During the first Chechen war, more Russians got their news from Vladimir Gusinsky's independent NTV than from state media. Today, there is almost no free media in Russia. Intimidation, coercion, assassination of journalists, and armed raids by the security services have put most independent media outlets out of business. Beatings and assassinations of journalists recall not the new Russia but the dark legacy of the Soviet past. Those independent media outlets that remain feel forced to practice the kind of self-censorship that characterized the Soviet Union. Today, most Russians who read newspapers or tune into television or radio hear only the voice of the Russian state--as they did under totalitarian rule.

In a land where financial support for opposition political parties comes largely from business, the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, like the indictments of Berezovsky and Gusinsky, sends a chillingly clear message to Russia's business community that their assets are safe only if they steer clear of politics. Putin himself made this same threat to the oligarchs in 2000; it is clear that his government is carrying it out, and that Khodorkovsky is the latest victim.

Political assassinations also demonstrate the risk of speaking out against state power. Earlier this year, State Duma deputy Sergei Yushenkov, who had been investigating potential connections between the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings and the start of the second Chechen war, was killed outside his Moscow apartment. State Duma deputy Yuri Shendoshokhtin, who had been looking into the role of the FSB in the Moscow bombings as well as a scandal surrounding the involvement of FSB officers in illegal trade, was also killed in mysterious circumstances. Both crimes remain unsolved. In today's Russia--as in Soviet Russia, as in czarist Russia--the state uses its power to suppress political dissent. The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky fits in a long tradition of political arrest and persecution stretching across the vast dictatorial tundra of Russian history.

Under President Putin, Russian citizens in Chechnya have suffered crimes against humanity at the hands of Russian military forces. It was during Mr. Putin's tenure as Prime Minister in 1999 that he launched the Second Chechen War following the Moscow apartment bombings. There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks. Mr. Putin ascended to the presidency in 2000 by pointing a finger at the Chechens for committing these crimes, launching a new military campaign in Chechnya, and riding a frenzy of public anger into office. Since then, between 10 and 20,000 Chechen civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by Russian security forces. At Putin's direction, the Kremlin recently stage-managed an ``election'' in Chechnya that put Moscow's hand-picked candidate in power. The principal voters were Russian conscripts forced to serve in Chechnya. Moscow has made no effort to address the political grievances of a population increasingly radicalized by the brutality of Russian rule. Yes, there are Chechen terrorists, but there are many Chechens who took up arms only after the atrocities committed by Russian forces serving first under Boris Yeltsin's and then Putin's orders.

In short, Mr. President, I am worried that what we are seeing in Mr. Putin's government is a continuation of 400 years of autocratic state control, and repression. Since the end of the Cold War, many Western observers have optimistically argued that the way Russia is governed has fundamentally changed. Sadly, this appears not to be true. Whether ruled by the czars, Stalin, Brezhnev, or Putin, the Russian state has remained supreme within Russian society. It seeks fundamentally to control society, not to answer to it. The people serve the government,

not the reverse. This is not the behavior of a modern European nation; it is a form of unenlightened despotism cloaked in the mantle of international respectability, which Russia derives principally from its relations with other great powers--particularly the United States.

The ascent of former KGB officers to positions of power throughout the structures of the Russian state underscores this trend. Apparently KGB veterans Igor Sechin and General Viktor Ivanov, both deputy chiefs of presidential administration in the Kremlin, masterminded the assault on Mr. Khodorkovsky. I would like to congratulate the KGB for arresting one of the most pro-Western business figures in Russia today--someone whose personal and corporate behavior, through charitable giving and adopting Western standards of business, have brought more credit to Russia in the last three years than anything the Russian government has done. Meanwhile, the FSB has been unable to solve the murder of leading independent journalists. It has failed to bring to justice any suspects in the murder of democratic politicians. It has not been able to identify a single case of corruption inside the Russian government. Not a single Russian has been held to account for committing crimes against humanity in the Soviet Gulag. The FSB can't do any of that--but it can arrest Mikhail Khodorkovsky. What brave men they must be to kick down the doors of a private airplane and arrest an unarmed man.

The FSB's dominance in the Russian Government has renewed the specter of the imperial temptation that has guided Russia's external relations for centuries. For too many of Russia's neighbors, it is like the old Beatles song: ``Back in the USSR.'' Under President Putin, Russia has refused to comply with the terms of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Russian troops occupy parts of Georgia and Moldova. Russia has effectively annexed the Georgian province of Abkhazia, which it has occupied for a decade. Moscow has supported attempts to overthrow neighboring governments that appear too independent of Russia's embrace. Russian naval forces recently attempted to assert control in the channel connecting the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea from Ukraine. Russian secret services are credibly accused of meddling in elections in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Russian agents are working to bring Ukraine further into Moscow's orbit. Russian support sustains Europe's last dictatorship in Belarus. And Moscow has attempted to cynically manipulate Latvia's Russian minority and enforced its stranglehold on energy supplies into Latvia in order to squeeze the democratic, pro- American government in Riga.

Under President Putin, Russia has pursued a policy in its ``near abroad'' that would create an empire of influence and submission, if not outright control. On October 9, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that Russia reserves the right to intervene militarily within the Commonwealth of Independent States in order to settle disputes that cannot be resolved through negotiation. At the same press conference, President Putin declared that the pipelines in Central Asia and the Caucasus carrying oil and natural gas to the West were built by the Soviet Union, and said it is Russia's prerogative to maintain them in order to protect its national interests, ``even those parts of the system that are beyond Russia's borders.'' In the runup to the war in Afghanistan, President Putin was given great credit for ``allowing'' the United States to use the military facilities and airspace of sovereign countries in Central Asia. But Russia has no more right to speak for these countries than we do. The Putin Doctrine, asserting a right to imperial intervention in Russia's ``near-abroad,'' coupled with the ascendancy of the FSB, recalls a discredited Russian imperial past whose victims number in the millions. Russia's assertion of political control over its neighbors speaks not to a modern vision of Russian reform and renewal, but appears to reflect a czarist impulse to dominate neighboring populations. It is the international dimension of rising state control at home.

The dramatic deterioration of democracy in Russia calls into question the fundamental premises of our Russia policy since 1991. American leaders must adapt U.S. policy to the realities of a Russian Government that may be trending towards neo-imperialism abroad and authoritarian control at home. It is time to face unpleasant facts about Russia. Russia is moving in the wrong direction--rapidly. While the United States undertakes a necessary and comprehensive review of our policy, I believe Russia's privileged access to critical Euro-Atlantic institutions should be suspended. This access was obtained with the understanding that President Putin was committed to free markets, the rule of law, pluralist democracy, journalistic freedom, and the lawful constraint of the intelligence and security services. These now appear to be false premises.

The Russian Government is not behaving in a manner that qualifies it to belong in the club of industrialized democracies. The United States is hosting the next G-8 Summit at King Island, Georgia, in June 2004. Russia has been invited to participate and has been working its way in, but President Putin's conduct at home and abroad has worked Russia out. Putin's Russia should have no place at the next G-8 Summit.

Congress should not consider the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Russia. It would be incomprehensible to consider easing a law created in response to Soviet repression when the Russian Government is continuing a similar pattern of behavior. I will oppose any effort to repeal Jackson-Vanik as long as Russia is moving in the wrong direction.

To any American businesses contemplating investment in or trade with Russia, I would simply say that this is not a place where the rule of law and Western codes of conduct prevail. You invest at your peril. Many Members of Congress have heard from U.S. businessmen who have lost money in Russia due to the absence of the rule of law. The American business community should consider itself warned: the Kremlin's recent behavior is a clear signal that your investments are not safe. I call on my own Government, including the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to cease all guarantees of investment in Russia due to the unacceptable risk of state interference and expropriation, as demonstrated by the Russian Government's actions. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize U.S. investment in Russia as long as the rule of the FSB prevails over the rule of law.

Clearly, in personal meetings, the President of Russia attempts to reassure the President of the United States that he is a fellow democrat. An accumulation of evidence forces me to draw the opposite conclusion. I hope I am wrong, but I am increasingly concerned that in Mr. Putin's soul is the continuity of 400 years of Russian oppression. Under President Putin's leadership, Russia looks to the West for prosperity, technology, and modernity, but seems to be striving in every way to keep the values of the West out of Russia. Far from having a vision for Russia in which democracy and freedom and the rule of law thrive, I fear President Putin may have a vision for Russia in which the capricious power of the police at home, and the menacing weight of subversion and intimidation abroad, guide the state. Administration policy must recognize the cold realities of Putin's Russia.

The responsibilities that follow from this are clear: it is time for a hardheaded and dispassionate reconsideration of American policy in response to the resurgence of authoritarian forces in Moscow. It is time to send a signal to President Putin's government that undemocratic behavior will exclude Russia from the company of Western democracies. The wholesale suppression of free media and political opposition cannot be ignored. American policy must reflect the sobering conclusion that a Russian Government which does not share our most basic values cannot be a friend or partner and risks defining itself, through its own behavior, as an adversary.

Mr. President, I thank the forbearance of my colleagues. I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take a backseat to no one in my support of Second Amendment rights. But this right, which Americans have fought and died for, does not extent to terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens. That is why I am pleased to announce today a landmark agreement on gun show legislation that I have reached with Senators Jack Reed, Mike DeWine, and Joe Lieberman.

The bill accomplishes two critical goals: It protects gun shows as a viable business and ongoing enterprise, and it slams the door on criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who have successfully exploited a loophole in our gun

safety laws to acquire firearms at gun shows for nefarious purposes.

I know the gun safety issue is controversial in Congress and that there is a great deal of passion on both sides. This legislation replaces passion with pragmatism. It stakes out a sensible middle ground to solve the real problem of criminals and terrorists getting guns at gun shows without burdening gun show operators with punishing paperwork or treating enthusiasts who attend these shows as pariahs.

For gun rights advocates like myself, this bill does not retreat one inch in the battle to protect our Second Amendment rights. It treats gun show operators and patrons with respect and requires simply that background checks be performed on all firearms sales at gun shows. For those who are rightly concerned about gun violence, this bill simply and straightforwardly accomplishes the goal of closing a loophole that has fueled illegal gun trafficking in America.

I am a gun owner and I have attended many gun shows in my state of Arizona. More than most people, I know that the majority of gun show patrons and sellers are honest, law abiding citizens. But I also know that there is a sinister element that attends these shows and exploits this loophole.

Defenders of gun shows, like myself, cannot ignore the staggering statistic that gun shows are the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations conducted by ATF. Just this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that ATF agents seized 572 firearms from five unlicensed sellers who were exploiting the gun show loophole in ways that threaten the safety of American citizens. The same article quoted an ATF agent saying ``crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.''

The fact that gun shows are a leading source of crime guns is reason enough to close the gun show loophole, but we also know of at least three cases where alleged terrorists used the gun show loophole to purchase firearms and that makes closing this loophole imperative.

On September 10, 2001, a Federal court in Detroit convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges for smuggling shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, and assault weapons parts to Lebanon.

FBI agents followed Boumelhem to at least three Michigan gun shows in October 2000. According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the shipment in which he was finally arrested was part of a pattern-- Boumelhem ``traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.'' According to the Associated Press, ``Federal agents say they watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas.''

On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national with suspected al-Qaeda ties, pleaded guilty in Federal court in Texas to firearms-related charges. He was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988.

Asrar was arrested after an anonymous informant told authorities that Asrar had asked him whether he would smuggle a foreign national across the border from Mexico. Asrar also allegedly asked the informant if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him during his travels. Police seized several photos of tall buildings from Asrar's store.

Asrar admitted to authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun shows over the previous 7 years, including a copy of a Sten submachine gun, a Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle.

Despite the final adjudication of the ammunition and immigration charges, which can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal grand jury. According to the New York Times, Asrar is being investigated for possible links to al- Qaeda.

Connor Claxton is an Irish national and an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army who is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle guns bought in Florida to Ireland. At his trial he testified about how he came to the United States on IRA orders to buy weapons and ammunition for shipment back to Ireland and that he chose to come to Florida because ``we don't have gun shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.''

According to his co-conspirator Siobhan Browne, Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi- and fully automatic weapons in sales from private dealers'' who are not required to perform background checks. Browne also said that Mickey Couples, a senior IRA leader, told her that ``the gunrunning mission had been going on for four years and that there were 50 IRA volunteers involved.''

In an era where America is right to be concerned about security, it is absolutely imperative that we close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens to claim a right that they don't deserve.

The McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman bill requires instant criminal background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. For licensed dealers selling at gun shows, this bill creates no new burdens. For unlicensed sellers, they will simply need to have an instant background check performed before they transfer a firearm. The instant check could be performed by a licensed dealer, local law enforcement, or by a new entity created by this bill called a special licensee--an individual or gun show employee who may perform instant background checks at gun shows only.

The bill also defines a gun show in a fair and rational way. Any public event where 75 or more firearms are offered for sale is defined in the legislation as a gun show. Collectors who sell their own guns from their own homes are exempt. In addition, private hunt clubs that buy, sell, or trade firearms between members are also free from the requirements of this bill.

Paperwork requirements under the bill are the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I made sure that gun show operators would not be buried under an avalanche of paper.

Finally, the bill allows States to seek a waiver to make the instant check even quicker for unlicensed sellers at gun shows once that State has automated the records necessary to make the check as accurate as possible. I am aware that some sellers are concerned that the law allowing up to three business days to complete a background check is burdensome for weekend gun shows.

Currently, because of improvements made by Attorney General John Ashcroft, 91 percent of all background checks are completed within five minutes and 95 percent are completed within two hours. For all intents and purposes, we now have a viable instant check system. But I would like to get that 95 percent success rate up to 100 percent and this bill will help entice States to get their felony, domestic violence and mental health records in order so that no one has to wait days to be approved or denied a firearm under instant check.

This legislation should appeal to all but those who either hate guns and believe that no one should own them or those who believe that even terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens are protected under the Second Amendment. In 1999, every member of the Senate voted for some form of a bill to close the gun show loophole, but neither side was willing to compromise for the sake of America. Let's stop playing politics with guns and support a bill that closes a serious loophole while respecting the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. This is our chance.

Mr. President, I take a backseat to no one in my support of Second Amendment rights. But this right, which Americans have fought and died for, does not extent to terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens. That is why I am pleased to announce today a landmark agreement on gun show legislation that I have reached with Senators Jack Reed, Mike DeWine, and Joe Lieberman.

The bill accomplishes two critical goals: It protects gun shows as a viable business and ongoing enterprise, and it slams the door on criminals, terrorists and illegal aliens who have successfully exploited a loophole in our gun

safety laws to acquire firearms at gun shows for nefarious purposes.

I know the gun safety issue is controversial in Congress and that there is a great deal of passion on both sides. This legislation replaces passion with pragmatism. It stakes out a sensible middle ground to solve the real problem of criminals and terrorists getting guns at gun shows without burdening gun show operators with punishing paperwork or treating enthusiasts who attend these shows as pariahs.

For gun rights advocates like myself, this bill does not retreat one inch in the battle to protect our Second Amendment rights. It treats gun show operators and patrons with respect and requires simply that background checks be performed on all firearms sales at gun shows. For those who are rightly concerned about gun violence, this bill simply and straightforwardly accomplishes the goal of closing a loophole that has fueled illegal gun trafficking in America.

I am a gun owner and I have attended many gun shows in my state of Arizona. More than most people, I know that the majority of gun show patrons and sellers are honest, law abiding citizens. But I also know that there is a sinister element that attends these shows and exploits this loophole.

Defenders of gun shows, like myself, cannot ignore the staggering statistic that gun shows are the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations conducted by ATF. Just this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that ATF agents seized 572 firearms from five unlicensed sellers who were exploiting the gun show loophole in ways that threaten the safety of American citizens. The same article quoted an ATF agent saying ``crime guns do originate at gun shows. That's been documented.''

The fact that gun shows are a leading source of crime guns is reason enough to close the gun show loophole, but we also know of at least three cases where alleged terrorists used the gun show loophole to purchase firearms and that makes closing this loophole imperative.

On September 10, 2001, a Federal court in Detroit convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges for smuggling shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, and assault weapons parts to Lebanon.

FBI agents followed Boumelhem to at least three Michigan gun shows in October 2000. According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, the shipment in which he was finally arrested was part of a pattern-- Boumelhem ``traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.'' According to the Associated Press, ``Federal agents say they watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas.''

On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national with suspected al-Qaeda ties, pleaded guilty in Federal court in Texas to firearms-related charges. He was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9mm ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988.

Asrar was arrested after an anonymous informant told authorities that Asrar had asked him whether he would smuggle a foreign national across the border from Mexico. Asrar also allegedly asked the informant if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him during his travels. Police seized several photos of tall buildings from Asrar's store.

Asrar admitted to authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun shows over the previous 7 years, including a copy of a Sten submachine gun, a Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle.

Despite the final adjudication of the ammunition and immigration charges, which can carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal grand jury. According to the New York Times, Asrar is being investigated for possible links to al- Qaeda.

Connor Claxton is an Irish national and an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army who is currently serving a prison term for attempting to smuggle guns bought in Florida to Ireland. At his trial he testified about how he came to the United States on IRA orders to buy weapons and ammunition for shipment back to Ireland and that he chose to come to Florida because ``we don't have gun shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.''

According to his co-conspirator Siobhan Browne, Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi- and fully automatic weapons in sales from private dealers'' who are not required to perform background checks. Browne also said that Mickey Couples, a senior IRA leader, told her that ``the gunrunning mission had been going on for four years and that there were 50 IRA volunteers involved.''

In an era where America is right to be concerned about security, it is absolutely imperative that we close this dangerous loophole that allows criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens to claim a right that they don't deserve.

The McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman bill requires instant criminal background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. For licensed dealers selling at gun shows, this bill creates no new burdens. For unlicensed sellers, they will simply need to have an instant background check performed before they transfer a firearm. The instant check could be performed by a licensed dealer, local law enforcement, or by a new entity created by this bill called a special licensee--an individual or gun show employee who may perform instant background checks at gun shows only.

The bill also defines a gun show in a fair and rational way. Any public event where 75 or more firearms are offered for sale is defined in the legislation as a gun show. Collectors who sell their own guns from their own homes are exempt. In addition, private hunt clubs that buy, sell, or trade firearms between members are also free from the requirements of this bill.

Paperwork requirements under the bill are the minimum necessary to ensure compliance with the law. I made sure that gun show operators would not be buried under an avalanche of paper.

Finally, the bill allows States to seek a waiver to make the instant check even quicker for unlicensed sellers at gun shows once that State has automated the records necessary to make the check as accurate as possible. I am aware that some sellers are concerned that the law allowing up to three business days to complete a background check is burdensome for weekend gun shows.

Currently, because of improvements made by Attorney General John Ashcroft, 91 percent of all background checks are completed within five minutes and 95 percent are completed within two hours. For all intents and purposes, we now have a viable instant check system. But I would like to get that 95 percent success rate up to 100 percent and this bill will help entice States to get their felony, domestic violence and mental health records in order so that no one has to wait days to be approved or denied a firearm under instant check.

This legislation should appeal to all but those who either hate guns and believe that no one should own them or those who believe that even terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens are protected under the Second Amendment. In 1999, every member of the Senate voted for some form of a bill to close the gun show loophole, but neither side was willing to compromise for the sake of America. Let's stop playing politics with guns and support a bill that closes a serious loophole while respecting the rights of those who enjoy gun shows. This is our chance.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Who is the minority side?

How much time is controlled by Senator Inhofe and how much time is controlled by Senator Lieberman?

Mr. President, I would like to use 8 minutes of my 10 minutes.

My favorite author is Ernest Hemingway, as he is of many millions of people throughout the world. One of his most famous short stories is entitled ``The Snows Of Kilimanjaro.'' At the beginning of the short story he says:

Kilimanjaro is a snow covered mountain 19,710 feet high,

and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western

summit is called by the Masai ``Ngaje Ngaje,'' the House of

God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and

frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the

leopard was seeking at that attitude.

As the photograph shows here, the snows of Kilimanjaro may soon exist only in literature.

There has been a lot of debate here about the scientific evidence-- 17,000 scientists say this, 10,000 scientists say that, my scientist says this--although clearly the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations including the World Meteorological Organization, I think, and others, should have some weight with my colleagues.

If I might quote the punch line from an old joke, ``You can believe me or your lyin' eyes.''

These are facts. These are facts that cannot be refuted by any scientist or any union or any special interest that is weighing in more heavily on this issue than any issue since we got into campaign finance reform.

That is the Arctic Sea. That is the Arctic Sea. If you look at the red line, that is the boundary of it in 1979. Look at it now. You can believe me or your lyin' eyes.

Look at Mount Kilimanjaro. That picture was taken in 1993. That picture was taken in February of the year 2000.

All of us cherish our national parks. Have a look at the Glacier National Park, which will have to have its name changed. The picture above was taken in 1932. That is a glacier ice cake. This picture is from the Glacier National Park archives. That is from 1932. Look at it 50 years later. It is not there. There will be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park, so we may have to give it a different name.

We see devastating fires across California. It is very interesting that we have this debate while devastating fires, unprecedented in nature, are sweeping across California, fueled by unusual drought conditions. I don't have to tell people what the consequences of that are.

An ice dam lake drained recently when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which a century ago rimmed the coast, broke up along the coast of northeast Canada. NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen year round has been shrinking at a rate of 10 percent per decade since 1980. At a conference in Iceland in August, scientists told senior government officials the Arctic is heating up fast, disclosing disturbing figures from a massive study of polar climate change.

Dr. Robert Corell, who heads the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Team, said:

If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of

the world 25 years from now, look at what is happening in the

Arctic.

Destruction of 70 percent of heat-sensitive coral reefs, in the world--70 percent of the heat-sensitive coral reefs in the world due to increases in water temperatures--places reef fisheries in jeopardy. I don't know what happens when the beginning of the food chain disappears.

There is increasing coastal damage from hurricanes. Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University, and Stanford University earlier this year reported in the journal Nature that global warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or altered habitats that could disrupt ecosystems.

In an article in the July 3 Journal of Hydrology, ``Winters In New England Are Getting Shorter,'' according to the USGS scientists, northern New England winters have receded by 1 to 2 weeks during the past 30 years.

Paul Eckstine, Harvard Medical School:

Concerns about climate change are often mistakenly placed

into the distant future but as the rate of climate change

increases, so do the biological responses and costs

associated with warming and unstable weather. The influence

of intensifying drought on the spread of west Nile virus in

the U.S., and the impacts of rising carbon dioxide levels on

allergies and asthma, demonstrate that global warming has

come into our backyards.

Finally, Dr. Adare of the Climate Research Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, says:

The planet has a fever and it is time to take action.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues not to listen so much to the opinions of labor unions, business special interests, or even scientists. Look at what is happening around the world. Use your eyes to see what is happening. The devastation wrought by climate change so far has been remarkable.

There is a long series of happenings around the world. Key reports have been issued in the last few years by a number of bodies composed of the world's most eminent climate scientists, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, and these experts all reached the same conclusions:

No. 1. Greenhouse gasses are increasing in the atmosphere because of human activities and they are trapping increasingly more heat.

No. 2. Increased amounts of greenhouse gases are projected to cause irreparable harm as they lead to increased global temperatures and higher sea levels.

No. 3. The gases we emit to the atmosphere today will remain for decades or longer. Every time we emit now will require greater reductions later, making it more difficult to protect the environment.

It is interesting to me that in July of the year 2003, Governor Pataki of New York announced that 9 States had formally agreed to join New York in developing a regional strategy in the Northeast to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--10 States. The States agreeing to participate are Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The cap-and-trade initiative recommended by Governor Pataki would include developing a market-based emissions trading system that would apply to power generators emitting carbon dioxide, and it is modeled after the highly successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

This amendment is modeled on the highly successful acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act. It is modest in its proportions.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I thank my friend. Since I will not speak again, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for engaging in a spirited and, I hope, informative debate. I thank, of course, my friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman.

Briefly, as to this petition that keeps being referred to--the petition was led by Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences--an article in the New York Times on April 22, 1998, entitled ``Science Academy Disputes Attack On Global Warms,'' states:

The National Academy of Sciences has disassociated itself

from a statement and petition circulated by one of its former

presidents which disagrees with the scientific conclusions

underlying international efforts to control greenhouse gas

emissions.

By the way, Virginia Spice of the Spice Girls, BJ Hunnicutt of ``Mash,'' and Perry Mason were among the signatories to that. They are all respected in their individual fields.

I do not believe that 10 States in the Northeast would agree to a proposal that this is exactly modeled on, if there was going to be some devastating effect on the economies of 10 Northeastern States.

Let's get real. This is a very minimal proposal, one that is a first step. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma because it does not begin to comprehensively address the problem, but we have to start somewhere. We have to start somewhere. We have to begin to address this issue.

This debate is important. I assure my colleagues, we will be back because those pictures that I showed are going to get worse and worse until we begin to address this issue.

I thank my colleagues and yield the remainder of my time.

I commend Senator Bingaman for his thorough analysis of the budgetary impediments to effective federal action to protect communities and our public forest lands from catastrophic wildfire. I am in agreement with many of the points that he makes because of what I have learned from numerous people in Arizona who have extensive hands- on experience with forest management and wildfire issues.

With the compromise reached on Title I of 1904, we struggled to find common ground in our understanding of the nature of the problem in each of our states. However, the budget issues and inadequacy of funding that Senator Bingaman has discussed has not been addressed in this legislation. The practice of borrowing program funds to fight wildfires will continue to undermine our efforts to increase protection of communities in the wildland-urban interface and enhance forest health on at-risk public lands.

Everyone involved in these endeavors at the federal, state, and local levels agrees that bankrupting essential program activities until they can be replenished at a later time with a supplemental is self- defeating. There is no disagreement on this score, it's simply a matter of putting the right funding mechanism in place to accomplish the objective of preserving the integrity of the forest land management agencies' programs.

It is my understanding that Senator Craig and Senator Bingaman have

come to an agreement that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will carefully consider this issue early next year. I look forward to following these proceedings to develop effective measures to ensure that the federal agencies have adequate resources to maintain essential program activities as well as fighting wildfires that occur with increasing frequency. I thank my colleagues for their commitment to addressing this widely recognized budgeting problem to allow our mutual community protection and forest restoration objectives to be achieved.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware the major attack on this legislation will be related to the validity of the entire issue of climate change?

Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Is he aware there is widespread agreement on the occurrence of global warming and the human source of the observed and predicted changes? To make a long story short, there was a study conducted in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A third assessment report represented a collaborative, scientific endeavor involving 700 scientists worldwide, peer-reviewed by another 700 scientists. The Bush administration requested an independent review of the IPCC report by the National Academy of Sciences. Now everybody can shop around for their expert. This is the National Academy of Sciences. The resulting 2001 national research report, which is delegated by the National Academy of Sciences, said the following in their summary, and I will ask my colleague just to comment on this. We need to keep coming back to this and coming back to this and coming back to this during this debate. Again, the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, says greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that a significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

The point is we are going to hear--in fact, in the course of debate we will hear of a couple of scientists whose views were misinterpreted by the Senator from Oklahoma and by the Republican Policy Committee. We have their

rebuttals and we will be going into those. They state--not I state-- that their views were completely distorted. The fact is, the overwhelming body of scientific opinion in America and the world believes that human activity is causing climate change in the world, and that is an irrefutable fact.

The opponents of this can shop around for the scientists of their choice, but the overwhelming majority of scientists say this and every year that evidence becomes more compelling and every year it becomes more of a compelling problem because of the manifestations of it. The manifestations of climate change are occurring, as we see on the west coast of the United States of America.

I ask my friend, won't you hear that the emperor has some beautiful clothes on during this debate; that there are some scientists who will refuse to admit this, who will say that pigs fly and up is down and black is white, but the majority opinion is that of the most respected body in America, the National Academy of Sciences, and they are the ones who come forward with the views that are corroborated by thousands of scientists all over America and the world?

I ask my colleague to comment on that.

Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.

That was a well-written presentation by my colleague from Missouri. Unfortunately, his analysis of the bill is not the bill that is before the Senate. But other than that, it was a pretty convincing case.

Our bill is different from the analysis he provided. In fact, it is significantly different. But even those facts on which we had the previous analysis were incorrect as well. But it was certainly an interesting presentation.

Will the Senator yield for one question?

I have a letter entitled ``The State of Climate Science: October 2003, A Letter from U.S. Scientists''--1,010 scientists from across America. I want to go into it later on, but they say, in summary: The main conclusions of the IPCC and the NRC--that is the National Academy of Sciences--reports remain robust consensus positions, supported by the vast majority of researchers in the fields of climate change and its impacts.

The body of research carried out since the reports were issued tends to strengthen their conclusion, 1,010 scientists.

We will probably hear it again, but they are relying on an analysis of a bill, because it is what was handed out, that is not even before the Senate. I argue to my friends, it is a waste of the Senate's time to argue statistics, as the Senator from Ohio just did, about a bill that is not before us.

If the Senator will yield for a question, I will stand on the floor of the Senate and ask what climate change is doing to future generations of Americans--the fishing industry and the farming and the climate and the forest fires that are taking place in California as we speak. If the Senator will yield for a question, I will stand up--

Mr. President, devastating fires across California fueled by unusual drought conditions have already claimed the lives of 18 people, destroyed nearly 2,000 homes, consumed nearly 600,000 acres roughly the size of Rhode Island, and caused over $2 billion in damages. Glaciers in Glacier National Park have dwindled from 150 more than a century ago to about 35 today. Some scientists estimate that the park will have no glaciers in 30 years. An ice-dammed lake drained recently when the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which a century ago rimmed the entire northern coast of Ellesmere Island, broke up along the coast of northeast Canada. NASA has confirmed that part of the Arctic Ocean that remains frozen year-round has been shrinking at a rate of 10 percent per decade since 1980.

We can talk about the impact of the Kyoto Treaty, as Senator Inhofe just did. I call the attention of my colleagues to this picture. Here is the Arctic Sea ice boundary in 1979. There it is today. I am sure that that will be natural causes and have nothing to do with man-made activity, human activities, but the fact is, as the Senator from New York showed, Kilimanjaro is now without snow.

At a conference in Iceland in August, scientists told senior government officials that the Arctic is heating up fast, disclosing disturbing findings from a massive study of polar climate change. Dr. Robert Corell, who heads the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment team, said: If you want to see what will be happening in the rest of the world 25 years from now, just look at what is happening in the Arctic.

Look at what is happening in the Arctic. The destruction of 70 percent of heat-sensitive coral reefs due to increases in water temperatures places reef fisheries in jeopardy, increases coastal damages from hurricanes, and hurts local economies supported by tourism.

Researchers at the University of Texas, Wesleyan University and Stanford University earlier this year reported in the journal Nature that global warming is forcing species around the world, from California starfish to Alpine herbs, to move into new ranges or alter habits that could disrupt ecosystems.

The end result of these changes could be substantial ecological disruption, local losses in wildlife, and even extinction of certain species.

From an article in the July 2003 Journal of Hydrology: The winters in New England are getting shorter. According to U.S. Geological Survey scientists, northern New England winters have receded by 1 or 2 weeks in length over the last 30 years.

The list of what is happening goes on and on.

The chair of the Climate Research Committee of the National Academy of Sciences stated very clearly during an October 1, 2003, hearing before the Commerce Committee: The planet has a fever, and it is time to be taking action.

I caution my colleague from Oklahoma about statements that he attributes to certain members of the scientific community. Specifically, I am referring to two scientists that he referred to before, Dr. Wigley and Dr. Schneider. Dr. Wigley has written to Senators Frist and Daschle about the misrepresentation of his work by Senator Inhofe. He writes a long letter: Senator Inhofe urges that Congress should put stock in scientists who rely on the most objective scientific data. He characterizes me as someone whose credentials cannot be trusted.

Yes, but not to take my time.

Pardon me?

Dr. Wigley was mentioned by the Senator in his statement on the floor.

He goes through several misrepresentations. Perhaps the most serious one, and this is a quote from his letter: the third representation made by Senator Inhofe concerns the observed record of global mean temperature changes over the past 100 years. This data show a warming to about 1940, little change from 1940 to the mid-1970s, and then further warming. Senator Inhofe implies that these changes are inconsistent with the global warming hypothesis and with climate models. This is categorically incorrect. In order to understand these observed changes, it is necessary to consider all likely causal factors, both human-induced and natural. Human-induced factors include the warming effects of greenhouse gases and the cooling effects of sulfate aerosols. Natural factors include changes in the output of the sun, effects of explosive volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo in 1991. When all these factors are considered, models give an expected pattern of 20th century temperature changes that is in remarkable agreement with the observations, and the models clearly show the three phases as noted above, in particular the leveling off, the warming trend over 1940 to 1975, turns out to be explained largely by the cooling effects of sulfate aerosols, temporarily offsetting the warming due to increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, something which was first pointed out in the paper of mine published in Nature in 1989, which has been clearly stated in a subsequent IPCC report. This remarkable agreement shows quite clearly that human factors have been the dominant cause of global scale climate change over the past 50 years, contrary to the assertion by Senator Inhofe that all observed changes are merely manifestations of natural viability.

For his part, Dr. Schneider had the following to say about Senator Inhofe's statement: It is misrepresenting my views to characterize them as even implying that IPCC is exaggerated or failed to describe the state of the science fairly at the time the assessment reports were completed in the year 2000.

So Dr. Wigley and Dr. Schneider take some exception to how their views were characterized on the floor of the Senate.

I want to point out again that the 17,000, or whoever they were, scientists or those who claimed to be scientists--and there are some interesting signatures to that--were in opposition to the United States signing the Kyoto Treaty.

I know that my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, would like to say a few words, but I again want to read a letter from 1,010 preeminent scientists who write:

Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: Two years have elapsed

since the publication of the reports by the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council on

the state of the science of climate change and its impacts on

the United States and the rest of the world. As scientists

engaged in research on these subjects, we are writing to

confirm that the main findings of these documents continue to

represent the consensus opinion of the scientific community.

Indeed, these findings have been reinforced rather than

weakened by research reported since the documents were

released. In brief--

And he goes through a number of aspects of it.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

The letter further states:

Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to

warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit, depending

on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity--a

sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last

10,000 years.

Temperature increases in most areas of the United States

are expected to be considerably higher than these global

means because of our nation's northerly location and large

average distance from the oceans.

Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in

projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond

the end of this century, and

Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere--

Those are the ones that cause no harm in the view of the opponents of this legislation.

the longer emissions increase, the faster they will

ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous

interference with the climate system.

Evidence that climate change is already underway includes

the instrumental record, which shows a surface temperature

rise of approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the 20th

century, the accelerated sea level rise during that century

relative to the last few thousand years, global retreat of

mountain glaciers, reduction in snow cover extent, earlier

thawing of lake and river ice, the increase in upper air

water vapor over most regions in the past several decades,

and the 0.09 Fahrenheit warming of the world's deep oceans

since the 1950s.

Evidence that the warmth of the Northern Hemisphere during

the second half of the last century was unprecedented in the

last 1,000 years comes from three major reconstructions of

past surface temperatures, which used indicators such as tree

rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments for years prior

to 1860, and instrumental records for the interval between

1865 and the present.

On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC

report stated that the IPCC's conclusion that most of the

observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been

due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific

community on this issue.

What the Senator from Connecticut and I are doing is an incredibly modest proposal to try to at least stop the increase of greenhouse gases. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community in the United States of America agrees that climate change is taking place. How serious that is, how significant it is, and how longlasting its effect could be the subject of significant debate and discussion.

But the fact is that the loss of jobs, which I do not believe is accurate, is an issue that needs to be addressed. But what about the loss of our environment? What happens if the coral reefs die? What happens if the Arctic icecap melts? What happens if we continue to see increased temperatures?

I don't know all the answers as to what happens. I leave that in the hands of people who are smarter than I am. But if this picture doesn't concern you, then nothing will. I hope we will be able to pass this legislation as a very modest and a very humble beginning to addressing the issue of climate change.

I assure my colleagues of one thing. I will talk about this again tomorrow. We will be back on this issue, just as we were back on the issue of campaign finance reform. We will be back on it because this is not stopping. This is not stopping. More and more evidence will be accumulated and more and more people will become concerned because we love this great country of ours and we love this world and we do not want to see it destroyed.

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates we are placing our globe in jeopardy and the lives and futures of our children and our grandchildren. We may have lived in a very nice time in the history of the world. Our children and grandchildren may be condemned to a much less happy world.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

As sponsors of the amendment, traditionally, we speak last.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma have an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to all who

have engaged in this debate tonight. I wish we had more time. This press of end-of-year business prevents us from doing so. We will be revisiting this issue. I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma for an articulate presentation of his views. I look forward to our additional 2 hours together tomorrow.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar Nos. 329 through 331 and Calendar Nos. 333 through 345, en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, and any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 254 submitted earlier today by Senators Nelson and Graham of Florida.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. Thursday, October 30. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 405, the nomination of Charles Pickering to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; provided further that there then be 60 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member with the final 10 minutes divided with the first 5 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the final 5 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee; further, that following that debate the Senate proceed to the cloture vote on the nomination.

I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate return to legislative session and resume consideration of S. 139, the climate change bill; provided further that there be 2 hours of debate remaining under the provisions of the previous order to be equally divided between Senator Lieberman and Senator Inhofe or their designees.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of S. 139, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests legislation.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow there will be 1 hour of debate on the nomination of Charles Pickering to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit prior to a cloture vote on that nomination. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 139, the climate change bill. Under the previous consent, there will 2 hours of debate remaining prior to a vote on that measure. Following that vote, the Senate will resume debate on H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests legislation. It is the leader's intention to complete action on this measure during tomorrow's session. Senators should expect amendments to be offered and debated throughout the afternoon. Therefore, votes should be anticipated throughout the afternoon as well.

Following completion of the Healthy Forests legislation, the Senate will resume debate on H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. We have locked in a final list of amendments during today's session, and it is anticipated that we can complete action on the bill in short order.

The Senate may also consider other conference reports that became available.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.