Floor Statements

Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry.

May I ask that the parliamentary inquiry be done outside the time constraint? I pose this inquiry to our distinguished floor leader, the Senator from Idaho. I am reading from the Record of the Senate on Thursday of last week when the distinguished Senator from Idaho said the following:

I am sure there are some Members on both sides who might

have amendments that were not listed to be considered for

votes today and/or Tuesday. What I would ask them to do is to

come to the Chamber and talk to Senator Reed and myself to

see if we might work those out. Certainly, we are happy to

take a look at them. There may be an opportunity late Tuesday

and possibly Friday to offer additional amendments. The

unanimous consent request does not preclude any Member from

doing that.

I wrote the distinguished majority leader a letter on November 18 last year indicating that I wanted to offer an amendment on this bill, and I received back a reply from Mr. Schiappa, who had the authority to address this, that said it has been noted. So I have tried to diligently follow the rules and procedures by which to bring up an amendment. On Friday morning----

I ask unanimous consent the parliamentary inquiry be addressed by the Chair outside the time agreement.

Fine. Then if I could quickly ask the distinguished floor leaders----

I see my colleague from Michigan. He, likewise, offered an amendment on Friday morning. My understanding is his is the pending amendment following the Bingaman vote; is that correct?

Could I then ask unanimous consent my amendment, also offered on Friday morning in good faith, pursuant to the instructions you laid down, be the pending amendment following that?

Following the Senator from Michigan?

That is correct, whatever disposition the Senator makes on that.

I thank the chairman.

Could the Senator speak up a bit?

Mr. President, that is how I so stated my UC.

That is correct. I hear no objection.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, at this time I am not trying to seek in any way by my UC to modify that request. It is simply that I be considered after the disposition of the Levin amendment. It is a very simple procedural request.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I think we clarified among ourselves the parliamentary situation of this matter. I therefore ask, at the conclusion of the disposition of the Levin amendment, whatever that may be, is the amendment by the Senator from Virginia in order?

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I thank my colleagues.

I rise today in support of the Feinstein/Warner amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban.

Signed into law in 1994, the assault weapons ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer and possession of high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.

For a number of years, President Bush has indicated that he supports renewing the assault weapons ban for another decade. Although his administration has not presented a bill to date, it recently reiterated his support for the renewal. Consequently, we introduced a bill, S. 2109, that achieves his goal: extending the law, without any changes, for another 10 years.

The Feinstein/Warner amendment that we debate today is the exact text of S. 2109.

Some in the Senate, myself included, opposed the ban a decade ago, fearing it would do little to reduce crime, and could threaten the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners and hunters.

However, a decade of experience has provided us with key facts. The assault weapons ban has made our communities safer. Recent Department of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in crimes has declined measurably--by 65 percent in one analysis--since the measure took effect.

Moreover, it is clear that the assault weapons ban has in no way challenged legitimate gun-owners' rights. Let me state, without hesitation, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who responsibly keep their guns. As a gun-owner myself, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. I remember well the day my father gave me my first gun, and I have spent most of my life around guns, both with antiques and in hunting.

The assault weapons ban only bans a small percentage of all weapons-- those military-style assault weapons, that have no hunting or sporting purpose, and that are just used to create mass destruction.

Furthermore, our world has changed dramatically from 10 years ago. September 11, 2001, has taught us many lessons; among them that terrorism lurks in our own cities and communities. Given the current world situation, it defies logic to let a good law expire, and in so doing let suicidal terrorists and others simply walk up to a counter and buy these weapons for potential attacks.

It is for these reasons that my thinking on the assault weapons ban has evolved over the last 10 years, and for these reasons that I join with Senator Feinstein in sponsoring legislation to extend the assault weapons ban another 10 years.

Not only does President Bush support the continuation of these protections; men and women of law enforcement across the Nation join him, because, being on the front lines, they know it makes communities safer. I note that several sheriffs and chiefs of police, all across Virginia, have written to me indicating their support for reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, as has the Virginia State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate.

I know that reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is the right thing to do.

I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because I think everyone has been very straightforward in the presentations on this issue, I hope I would

be given a few minutes before we close down tonight to speak on my situation and put some material into the Record. Is there objection to that--less than 5 minutes before we close tonight?

I will need less than 5 minutes.

I rise to speak to an amendment to address the issue of tort reform. While today, the Senate is debating tort reform for the gun industry, I wish to take a few moments to raise the issue of tort reform with regard to another industry--the health care profession.

My father dedicated his life's work to medicine as a surgeon gynecologist. As a youngster, I watched first-hand how he caringly watched over his patients. As a result of my father, I have always had a great deal of respect for the medical profession.

For one reason or another, though, I did not follow in my father's footsteps. Rather than become a doctor, I became a lawyer.

Upon graduation from law school, I served as a law clerk for Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Subsequently, I worked as a Federal prosecutor and then moved to private practice with a major law firm.

I have direct experience with two professions--the medical profession and the legal profession. I admire both professions and believe the overwhelming majority of doctors and lawyers are dedicated people who work hard to serve their patients and clients.

Soon, the Senate will vote on S. 1805, legislation that provides certain legal protections to the gun industry. Legal protections which are denied almost across the board to every other industry in the private sector, including the medical profession.

Proponents have argued that this legislation is necessary because lawsuits are driving gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business. Well, the same is happening to our doctors.

Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals are leaving the practice of medicine due to the astronomical costs of malpractice insurance and due to the constant battle against frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury verdicts. In my view, if we are going to protect the gun industry from lawsuits, we at least ought to provide some measure of protection for doctors and nurses as well.

We have all heard the real stories from doctors about the rapidly increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. In some States, malpractice insurance premiums have increased as much as 75 percent in 1 year. As a result, the fact is that those doctors, unable to afford ever-increasing premiums, are leaving the profession altogether and patients are losing access to quality health care.

I have received numerous letters from medical professionals in the Commonwealth of Virginia that share with me the very real difficulties they are encountering with malpractice insurance and the consequences of this problem. Let me read part of one those letters that was sent to me by a doctor in Virginia. The doctor writes:

I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the

acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a

48-year-old single parent of a 14 and 17 year old. After all

the time and money spent training to practice Ob-Gyn, I find

myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment and

unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have

been employed by a small Ob-Gyn Group for the last 7 years. .

. . Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60% in May

2003. . . . The prediction from our malpractice carrier is

that our rates will probably double at our next renewal date

in May 2004. The reality is that we will not be able to keep

the practice open and cover the malpractice insurance along

with other expenses of practice.

Out of respect for this doctor's privacy, I will not share the doctor's name, but I do keep her letter in my files. Unfortunately, though, this doctor's experience is not unique.

Both Time Magazine and Newsweek have thoroughly detailed the crisis doctors are facing across America.

In June of 2003, Time Magazine had a cover story on the affects of rising malpractice insurance rates. The story, entitled ``The Doctor is Out'' discusses several doctors, all across America, who have had to either stop practicing medicine or have had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums.

One example cited in Time's article is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports:

Dr Mary-Emma Beres, a family practitioner in Sparta, N.C.,

has always loved delivering babies. But last year Beres, 35,

concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her

$17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop. With just one

obstetrician left in town for high risk cases, some women who

need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride.

Dr. Beres case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical malpractice insurance crisis, patients are as well. With increased frequency, due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.

Newsweek also recently had a cover story on the medical liability crisis. That cover story was entitled, ``Lawsuit Hell.'' I was particularly struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in one year from $12,000 to $57,000 a year. As a result, this doctor, and I quote from the article, ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher-risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones and delivering babies even though obstetrics was his favorite part of the practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to a wall in his office, `I miss that terribly,' he says.''

While these stories are compelling on their own, the consequences of this malpractice crisis can even be more profound.

On February 11, 2003, Ms. Leanne Dyess of Gulfport, MS, shared with both the HELP Committee and the Judiciary Committee her very personal story about how this crisis has affected her.

Ms. Dyess told us how on July 5, 2002, her husband, Tony, was involved in a

single car accident. He was rushed to the hospital in Gulfport where he had head injuries and received medical attention. Tony could not be treated at the Gulfport hospital because they did not have the specialist necessary to take care of him. After a 6 hour wait, he was airlifted to the University Medical Center. Today, Tony is permanently brain damaged.

According to Mrs. Dyess, no specialist was on staff that night in Gulfport because rising medical liability costs had forced almost all of the brain specialists in that community to abandon their practices. As a result, Tony had to wait 6 hours before the only specialist left in Gulfport could treat Tony to reduce the swelling in his brain.

Without a doubt, the astronomical increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.

The President has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him as does almost every doctor in Virginia who I have discussed the issue with.

The President of the AMA, Dr. John Nelson, has publicly stated, ``We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until the liability crisis gets worse to take action. Too many patients will be hurt.''

The American College of Surgeons concurs by stating, ``More and more Americans aren't getting the care they need when they need it. . . . The `disappearing doctor' phenomenon is getting progressively and rapidly worse. It is an increasingly serious threat to everyone's ability to get the care they need.''

Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia. That is why I am offering my amendment today.

My amendment is simple, like other measures that have come before the Senate, my amendment provides a nationwide cap on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

My amendment differs from other measures that have been voted on in the Senate in one key aspect--whereas these other bills would have applied to doctors, nurses, insurance companies, drug companies, and others, my amendment is solely limited to the caring medical professionals who take care of each and every one of us when we need medical care.

It is a common sense solution to a serious problem.

Now that I have laid out the amendment, I would like to reiterate one important point. The gun immunity bill provides broad protection to gun manufacturers and gun dealers in both federal and state court. The bill is aimed at protecting the manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits that result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. The basic idea is that if a manufacturer or dealer follows the statutory law in the manufacturing and sale of a legal product, they should not be held responsible for the actions of a third party.

While some may claim that this gun immunity bill might be an important component of tort reform, in my opinion, health care liability reform is even more important. We must protect the medical profession and the patients it serves.

How can we give near absolute protection from litigation for one industry, the gun industry, and do absolutely nothing for another industry that is solely dedicated to saving lives?

Let's ask ourselves, in the event that a bullet from a firearm is shot into an innocent victim, is our healthcare system prepared to help that victim? Without healthcare liability reform, it may not be, as there might not be the appropriate doctor in the area to tend to the patient. That is why my amendment goes hand-in-hand with the gun immunity bill.

So now it is up to my colleagues in the Congress. It is their choice. If we are going to give legal protections to the gun industry, all I say is let's give it to the doctors as well.

If this choice is given to the American people, there is no doubt that the doctors would win by a 100-1 margin.

Now, I clearly recognize my situation. I want to compliment the leadership of both the majority and the minority. They were eminently fair. They explained to me the situation, and I am not able to obtain a vote on my amendment tonight. It comes as a matter of considerable disappointment to me. Nevertheless, I think there are times when frankness and honesty have to be shared. Under the current parliamentary situation on this bill, it is not possible for me to achieve the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the magnificent communications I have received from a number of groups, physicians and their organizations, that have strongly supported the initiative the Senator from Virginia has taken on their behalf, be printed in the Record.

I feel very strongly that we have to recognize, as a nation, that the medical profession must, at some point in time, be given protections not dissimilar to those protections sought in this particular legislation. In this humble Senator's view, I feel it is far more important that the medical profession be cared for now, and it should be the top priority. The situation is, though, that I cannot get a vote on my amendment. I feel this vote would be a very strong one, if I could get a vote, because I have stripped out all other beneficiaries that were included in previous efforts, such as insurance companies and drug manufacturers. I have limited it purely to physicians and nurses. I think they need help now because they are not able to deliver that quality of medical care they want to give to Americans throughout the fifty states.

With a great sense of disappointment I say that tonight I will not withdraw the amendment, it will remain, but under the standing order it will, unfortunately, expire automatically. I say to my colleagues, though, that I will continue this fight another day.

I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the full text of the statement I made Friday on the Senate floor in support of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those remarks. We have been together in the Senate for 25 years. We have a responsibility together on the Armed Services Committee and so we know how to work together. I intend to support the distinguished Senator from Michigan in his efforts. The fact is, it is a good amendment and I urge all Members to take a look at the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his personal comments. No one works harder for people than the Senator from Michigan.

Following the Senator from Michigan, that is correct.

Madam President, no, it is a freestanding amendment in no way related to the amendment of my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Might I seek a clarification from the distinguished floor manager?

Well, I do not seek to take the floor, but if the Senator carried out his objection to the full meaning, it would prohibit any amendments coming up today unless the Senator agreed to laying his amendment aside so that another amendment could come up. Is that the desire of the Senator?

Madam President, there is no intention of this Senator to weaken. As a matter of fact, I intend to vote in favor of the Senator's amendment, subject to a colloquy we will have to clarify a question I have in my mind. But the Senate must go forward today on amendments. I am trying to figure out what is the procedure by which we do it so that my colleague from Michigan is protected.

I believe that is correct, yes.

I thank my colleagues. I ask that amendment No. 2624 be the pending business.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I want to make it eminently clear that I desire in every way to cooperate with the joint leadership which, in a bipartisan way, has indicated their desire, together with expressions of the President, that this bill move forward. This is not a dilatory tactic on my part, nor is it to be construed in any way as a political tactic. The subject of this amendment simply is a very heartfelt, personal matter for me.

Each of us counts our joys and benefits through life. I was blessed with two very strong and wonderful parents. My father devoted his life to the medical profession. He served in World War I as a very young doctor in the trenches. He returned a decorated soldier, and established his practice as a surgeon. He concluded a lifetime of total dedication to the profession of medicine, his patients, and the healing of those who have the misfortune of illnesses and other diseases. It is for that reason I bring up this amendment for consideration in the Senate. In brief, this amendment states that if the Senate believes certain protections from lawsuits should be afforded to the gun industry, then certain protections should be likewise afforded to the medical profession. It is as simple as that.

Earlier this week, we dealt with a similar piece of legislation. But this amendment differs in the sense that I have purposely removed any reference to insurance companies or to those companies engaged in the manufacture of healing drugs. I have done this to point out with absolute clarity in the minds of all Senators that if the underlying bill does move forward, then should comparable fair treatment be extended to the medical profession that serves every single American.

The gun industry has a narrow following, in terms of those served under this bill. I don't say that with any disrespect. I, throughout my life, have owned and enjoyed guns. My father gave me my first gun when I was 9 years old, and I have a modest collection to this day. I enjoy the fields and the streams. I pride myself as being a hunter and an outdoorsman. In no way, do I make any personal affront against those who similarly follow the joys of the outdoors.

But, I believe it is essential that if this mighty institution of the Senate move forward with the underlying bill, they carry with it an amendment which accords the same protections to the medical profession, whether it is an emergency room or the doctor's office.

With that in mind, I hope my colleagues look upon my effort as one of purity of heart, and not for political reason. I have no reason to try to impede the underlying bill, but I simply want to give the medical profession such benefits as the Senate is now contemplating in giving to a very narrow segment of our industry; namely, the gun industry and the gun dealers.

I rise today to offer an amendment to address the issue of a form of tort reform. Today the Senate is debating tort reform for the gun industry. I wish to take a few minutes to raise the issue of tort reform with regard to another industry--the health care profession.

I have indicated my father's lifework was in medicine. I had often thought as a young man to pursue that profession. But without getting too personal about this, I served briefly in World War II in the Navy. My father died just months after I returned home. I think had he lived I might well have followed in his profession. But nevertheless, I went on to law school, and had a modest career in the practice of law and in one thing and another. And here I am today, proud to represent my great State in the Senate.

Soon, the Senate will vote on S. 1805, legislation to provide certain legal protections to the gun industry--legal protections which are denied almost across the board to almost every other industry in the private sector, and certainly the medical profession.

It is a very selective piece of legislation for a very selective group. Proponents have argued this legislation is necessary because lawsuits are driving gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business.

It is very simple. The same thing is happening to the medical profession. Simply stated, the same situation, although far more serious in my judgment and in the judgment of others, is happening to the medical profession. Doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals are leaving the practice of medicine due to the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance, frivolous lawsuits, and what is regarded as runaway jury verdicts where awards, by any standard of fairness, far exceed the damages which some may have suffered as a consequence of receiving medical attention.

In my view, if we are going to be protecting the gun industry from lawsuits, we at least ought to protect the medical profession. We have all heard the real stories from doctors about the rapidly increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. Some States' malpractice insurance premiums have increased as much as 75 percent in a single year.

As a result, the fact is these doctors, unable to afford ever increasing premiums, are leaving the profession altogether and patients are losing access to health care.

Again, my father's profession was surgery primarily, but he also practiced gynecology.

I was astonished to learn that in many medical schools today those young people studying to go into the various segments of medical practice are shunning gynecology. Some medical schools are not even graduating those engaged in gynecology. They have just stopped that segment of the profession because they know of the difficulties to practice gynecology as a result of medical malpractice suits.

I have here today the front pages of two of the leading magazines we all read. There it is. One: ``The Doctor Is

Out.'' The other: ``Lawsuit Hell--How Fear of Litigation Is Paralyzing Our Professions.''

There is the story.

All I am asking is if this bill passes the Senate that doctors, nurses, and other practitioners in health care are given the same equal treatment as the gun dealers and the gun manufacturers. It is as simple as that.

I have received numerous letters, as have every single Member of this body, from medical professionals in the Commonwealth of Virginia that share with me the very real difficulties they are encountering with malpractice insurance as a consequence of this problem.

I myself went through a modest medical procedure the other day. The radiologist literally cornered me as I was exiting the examination, and stopped to talk to me--not one, not two, but about eight came in knowing the Senator from Virginia was in the facility. They had me flat on my back. I listened very carefully as they explained--not complaining nor whining in any way, but in a factual way--how the radiologists in their profession have watched the astronomical increase in cost of their insurance.

Let me read a letter I just received. I will withhold the name. But the letter is in my office. This young doctor writes:

I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the

acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a

48-year-old single parent of a 14- and 17-year-old. After all

the time and money spent training to practice OB-GYN, I find

myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment and

unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have

been employed by a small OB-GYN Group for the last 7 years.

Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60 percent in May

2003. The prediction from our malpractice carrier is that our

rates will probably double at our renewal date in May 2004.

The reality is that we will not be able to keep the practice

open and cover the malpractice insurance along with other

expenses of practice.

Colleagues, that is happening in just about every State in this great country of ours. We have here and now the chance to address this crisis in a fair and constructive way.

I mentioned the two magazines: The June 2003 edition of Time magazine had a cover story on the effects of rising malpractice insurance costs. The story, entitled ``The Doctor Is Out,'' discusses several doctors all across America who have had to either stop practicing medicine or have had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums. One example cited in this magazine is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports this doctor, a family practitioner from Sparta, NC-- incidentally, the distinguished Presiding Officer represents this State with great distinction. That doctor in Sparta, NC ``has always loved delivering babies. But last year, Beres, 35 years old, concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her $17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop'' caring for those women going through perhaps the greatest joy of life; that is, childbirth.

The article continues:

``With just one obstetrician left in town for high-risk cases, some women who need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride'' to other communities to try to get that service.

Dr. Beres' case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical practice insurance crisis, but patients are as well. With increased frequency, due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.

The second magazine, Newsweek, also recently had a cover story on the medical liability crisis entitled ``Lawsuit Hell.''

I was particularly struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in 1 year from $12,000 to $57,000--1 year. As a result, this doctor ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher-risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones and delivering babies--even though obstetrics was his favorite part of the practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to his wall in the office. 'I miss that part of the practice terribly,' he says.''

While these stories are compelling on their own, the consequences of this malpractice crisis can be more profound. On February 11, 2003, a young woman in Gulfport, MS, shared with both the HELP Committee in the Senate, on which I serve, and the Judiciary Committee her personal story about how this crisis affected her.

This woman told us how on July 5, 2002, her husband Tony was involved in a single car accident, in which he had a head injury, and was rushed to a hospital in Gulfport where he received medical attention. He could not be treated at the Gulfport hospital because they did not have the specialist necessary to care for him. After a 6-hour wait, he was airlifted to University Medical Center.

Today, Tony is permanently brain damaged. According to the person delivering this story, no specialist was on staff that night in Gulfport because overriding medical costs forced almost all the brain specialists in that community to abandon their practice. As a result, Tony had to wait 6 hours before the only specialist left in Gulfport could treat him to reduce the swelling of his brain.

Without a doubt, the astronomical increases in medical malpractice premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem. It is time for a fair and national solution. This moment in the life of this great Senate is the chance to address that.

The President has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him as does almost every doctor in Virginia who I have discussed the issue with.

The president of the AMA, Dr. John Nelson, has publicly stated, ``We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until the liability crisis gets worse to take action. Too many patients will be hurt.''

The American College of Surgeons concurs by stating, ``More and more Americans aren't getting the care they need when they need it. . . . The `disappearing doctor' phenomenon is getting progressively and rapidly worse. It is an increasingly serious threat to everyone's ability to get the care they need.''

Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia. That is why I am offering my amendment today.

My amendment is simple, like other measures that have come before the Senate, my amendment provides a nationwide cap on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits.

My amendment differs from other measures that have been voted on in the Senate in one key aspect--whereas these other bills would have applied to doctors, my amendment is solely limited to the caring medical professionals who take care of each and every one of us when we need medical care.

It is a commonsense solution to a serious problem.

Now that I have laid out the amendment, I would like to reiterate one important point. As you know, the gun immunity bill provides broad protection to gun manufacturers and gun dealers in both Federal and State court. The bill is aimed at protecting the manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits that result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. The basic data is that if a manufacturer or dealer follows the statutory law in the manufacturing and sale of a legal product, they should not be held responsible for the actions of a third party.

While some may claim that this gun immunity bill might be an important component of tort reform, in my opinion, health care liability reform is even more important. We must protect the medical profession and the patients it serves.

How can we give near absolute protection from litigation for one industry--the gun industry--and do absolutely nothing for another industry that is solely dedicated to saving lives?

Let's ask ourselves, in the event that a bullet from a firearm is shot into an innocent victim, is our healthcare system prepared to help that victim? Without healthcare liability reform, it may not be, as there might not be the appropriate doctor in the area to tend to the patient. That is why my amendment goes hand-in-hand with the gun immunity bill.

So now it is up to my colleagues in the Congress. It is your choice. If we are going to give legal protections to the gun industry, all I say is let's give it to the doctors as well.

If you gave this choice to the American people, there is no doubt that the doctors would win by a 100 to 1 margin.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2631

Could I ask my distinguished colleague a question, because Virginia was hard hit, as were Maryland and other States, by that sniper case, which the Senator recounted in the opening remarks.

It is my understanding--and I have followed the debate very carefully on all aspects of this legislation--but the legislation, if it were to pass, would put in doubt, to some considerable extent, the right of the many families. The greater community of the Nation's Capital was in semiparalysis. Schools closed. People could not conduct their normal activities because of the sense of lack of safety. They could not even do something simple such as filling the gas tank of the car.

It seems to me unless we let the full force and brunt of all the legal remedies available to citizens of our Nation be utilized to bring to justice, either civilly or criminally, all those who may have contributed--as the Senator says, by gross negligence--then we are denying, particularly to these sniper victims' families and others across the Nation, some very fundamental rights.

I commend my distinguished colleague from Michigan. It is my intent to support the Senator.

Am I correct in my premise, in my question?

Mr. President, for clarification, when my distinguished colleague from Michigan refers to ``victims,'' we should make it clear that oftentimes victims perish, so it is their spouses, their families we are talking about. I think in our discussion we ought to make it clear it is a class of people we are trying to protect.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban.

Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.

For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years.

I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia.

Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters.

Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law abiding gun-owners.

Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my thoughts on the ban have evolved.

Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and recreational rifles.

Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our country and has taught us many lessons.

No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in our neighborhoods.

Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate for five terms.

I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing to do.

I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban.

Signed into law in 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods.

For a number of years now, President Bush has indicated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban. To date, though, no legislation has been introduced in the Senate to accomplish the President's goal. While measures have been introduced to make the ban permanent or to even expand the ban further, no legislation has been introduced to simply reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another ten years.

I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, legislation that models exactly what the President has indicated he would sign into law: a straight 10-year reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia.

Now, admittedly, I have not always been a supporter of the Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban legislation came before the United States Senate for a vote in 1993, I opposed it. At the time, I believed Senator Feinstein's legislation would do nothing to help reduce crime in this country, and I believed it would be a back door way to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding gun-owners and hunters.

Ten years have since passed from the day of that vote. Over the course of those ten years, I have watched the bill be signed into law, and I have watched its implementation. I have studied the law and its affect on crime, and I have watched carefully to see how it affects law abiding gun-owners.

Based on the ten years of history of the Assault Weapons Ban, my thoughts on the ban have evolved.

Ten years of experience provides us with key facts. The Assault Weapons Ban has helped to dramatically reduce the number of crimes using assault weapons. It has made America's streets safer, and it has protected the rights of law abiding gun-owners better than many of us predicted. In fact, the law explicitly protects 670 hunting and recreational rifles.

Moreover, we all know that the world has dramatically changed since that Senate vote in 1993. September 11, 2001, has forever changed our country and has taught us many lessons.

No longer is America protected by the great oceans. The war on terror is not only being fought abroad, but now here at home. September 11 showed us that terrorism lurks in the shadows of our own backyard. Given the world today, now is not the time to make it easier for terrorists to acquire deadly rapid fire assault weapons and use them in our neighborhoods.

Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate for five terms.

I know that reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban is the right thing to do.

I am pleased to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this legislation, and it is my hope that the Senate will act expeditiously and send this legislation to President Bush to sign into law.

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator did that because it was to strike a provision I worked on in the bill.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Bond to strike the Committee's stormwater mitigation program.

The full committee adopted an amendment I offered with many of my colleagues to begin to address--for the first time--an unfunded Federal mandate on our localities.

I regret that my colleague opposes helping our localities with the serious financial burdens imposed by the Clean Water Act to correct stormwater runoff problems. I have heard him tell the Senate that this stormwater provision is a mandate on our state highway departments, but he has not told you the rest of the story.

The rest of the story is that the existing Clean Water Act regulatory program requires all of our communities to obtain a permit for their stormwater discharges and flood control projects. According to many organizations who are on the front lines in dealing with this problem, they strongly support this modest provision to begin to address pollution problems from existing highways.

This modest program of $160 million annually is a very small part of this massive $311 billion bill. It begins to fund an unfunded Federal mandate. Most importantly, our states want this program.

The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators--our state officials responsible for improving the water quality of our rivers, lakes and streams--have written urging that the Senate retain this small program.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I refer to a portion of the State officials letter:

Communities throughout the nation, including numerous

smaller towns and counties are required under the Clean Water

Act to obtain discharge permits for stormwater. Even those

communities, which have long understood the value of

protecting their drinking sources and recreational waters

from stormwater impacts, are already hard-pressed to cope

with the cost, as they have been absorbing the costs of

discharges from highways. This represents an unfair burden to

these communities and we believe it is fair for the

transportation funding system to remedy this problem where

existing highways and other roads cause significant runoff

problems.

The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies has written that

``This amendment marks a crucial step toward addressing the billions of dollars in expenditures that state and local governments are required to make in controlling stormwater generated by our nation's highways. . . .

Similar letters of strong support have come from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the American Water Works Association, and the Association of State Floodplain Managers, and numerous other groups.

The support for the Committee's provision is strong because everyone recognizes that stormwater runoff from highways is a known impediment to good water quality. Some have calculated that this runoff is the leading cause of pollution for nearly 50 percent of our national rivers, lakes and streams.

Roads collect pollutants from tailpipe emissions, brake linings, oils and other sources. During storms they mix with other contaminants of heavy metals and road salts that wash into our waters. This result is seriously degraded water quality of our rivers, lakes and streams.

Today, every new highway must include methods to control this runoff. But, there is a large need for our states and local governments to construct stormwater mitigation projects on existing roadways to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under federal regulations, even our smallest communities and counties will be required to implement projects to control stormwater runoff.

The modest program in the Committee bill requires States to dedicate 2 percent within the Surface Transportation program--one category of highway funding--to control stormwater runoff from our roads.

It is true that stormwater mitigation projects are eligible for funding under the NHS and Transportation Enhancements program. However, the funding demand for these programs is great.

I have also heard the author of this amendment that will punish our local governments say that we will work to fund these stormwater activities under the Clean Water Act. The Environment and Public Works Committee, however, has struggled unsuccessfully with financing our Nation's multi-billion dollar water infrastructure needs. We've come to no consensus or new financing package.

In 2000, EPA estimated at least $8.3 billion over 20 years in local funding needs to address stormwater requirements. The modest program in the bill before us provides approximately $958 million over 6 years. This is simply some small relief to our localities to address pollution from existing highways.

Our States want this program. Our communities deserve to have some relief from this unfunded Federal mandate.

For the benefit of all of my colleagues--make no mistake--this is not the only requirement on how States spend Federal highway dollars. The bill before us is full of mandates on our States. Even the proponent of the amendment has offered his own mandate in the bill. It requires that States divert 2 percent of the National Highway System funding to connector roads that are not even on the National Highway System map. Perhaps this is a worthy goal, but again, it is a mandate on our States on how they use their Federal highway funds.

I ask my colleagues to carefully consider this amendment and ask that they not move to take away this critically needed funding from our localities and work to meet unfunded mandates.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, for his hard work, fairness, and responsiveness that he showed to me as he worked to resolve issues involving the preservation of parks, recreation areas, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and historic sites.

In 1970, it was a privilege for me to serve as the chairman of America's Bicentennial Celebration. During that time I had an opportunity to visit many historic sites across this country. In Virginia we have a proud heritage that is enriched by the preservation of hundreds of historic properties. These sites have witnessed the shaping of our Nation. Today, they serve as our outdoor classrooms that bring alive the history of our democracy and our communities. They are living treasures of our past and are the foundations for our future.

For these reasons, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague on the intent of his amendment. I understand that the amendment directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations clarifying the factors to be considered and the standards to be applied in determining whether alternatives are ``prudent and feasible'' under section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49. Would the amendment by my colleague that is included in the managers substitute alter or weaken the standards established in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in the Overton Park case?

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator, my dear friend, yield for some questions?

I think as the two of us are here on the Senate floor, I am reminded that when Ben Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention, a reporter asked him: Well, what have the delegates to the convention rendered America? He said: A republic, if you can keep it. And this is the very essence of the Republic, if we can keep it, because here we are, two of the best of friends, proud to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 90 percent of the time we are aligned. Yet our system allows the two of us to debate opposite positions on a piece of legislation I offered. I think that is magnificent, not only for our State but for the country.

I believe there would be somewhat greater notoriety, but I think some of the folks down in Virginia would be rather amused that here we are, the two elected Senators, having an honest and forthright debate, and in a friendly spirit.

But I picked up on one or two of your words. I know you love that word, Congress being the ``nanny.'' But, first, I ask my junior Senator, have I ever been a nanny toward you?

Fine.

So be it. Let's put that to one side.

Nor will I ever because I have tremendous respect for the Senator. We come to the Senate with different career backgrounds: You, a very distinguished State legislator, then Governor, and now U.S. Senator. How well I know that. I campaigned as a U.S. Senator when you were a State legislator, when you were running for the governorship, and then for the Senate. I am privileged and delighted that the Senator is here.

But you used one word I have to ask you to reconsider: This will establish a dangerous precedent. I ask my good friend--Virginia has the .08 drinking law, which has been very effective. It has saved lives. That is the purpose of this legislation, to save lives. To me, a little less concrete, a little less asphalt, and we may save a life, and we may save thrusting expenses on the local communities--whether it is the small community of Hopewell, VA, or the large community of Richmond. When an accident happens, they are the ones who bear the cost of sending out the police, the rescue squads--fortunately, Virginians volunteer in many instances--to attend to the wounded, the sick, and, indeed, the dying as a consequence of the accident.

That is costly, and it is clearly documented that we save lives with the increase in the use of seatbelts. The Secretary of Transportation, on behalf of the President, wrote this body a letter, addressed to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, which is in the Record. It explicitly says the increase in the use of seatbelts saves lives. I do not think throughout this debate--I have been here throughout this debate--not one single Member of the Senate has taken the floor and addressed this legislation that it does not save lives. That is a given.

So let's go back to the .08 law. Is that not a direct precedent for this piece of legislation? This legislation is drawn, sentence by sentence, comparable to the .08 law. That was my objective.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I full well know, having had the privilege of working with you throughout much of our public service careers, your strong feeling about States rights. And I have mine also. But I have to tell the Senator, the facts do not bear out the assumption that that individual driving without the seatbelt is of minimal danger to an innocent person, be it a pedestrian or one in another car, for this reason: It is very clear that if an accident occurs with an individual driving under the restraint of a seatbelt, he or she has, in that split fraction of a second, better control over the car than one who is totally jostled out of the driver's position and loses the ability to operate the controls of the car because of the absence of a restraint to keep that individual in the position of the driver.

Now, the record is replete with those facts. Secondly, yes, you think the people of Virginia--and we love them dearly and they will be on your side, not on mine; they will be on your side--should make the decision. But, tragically, for children, 6 out of 10 die who do not have the seatbelt put on them.

By the driver putting on his or her seatbelt, there is more of an inclination, then, to do the same with the other passengers in the car. The death on our highways today cuts into the young people, the younger generation coming along behind us far more deeply than our age group. The main category of deaths in this country, on the highways, is between the ages of about 17 and 30. There is the preponderance of deaths.

How well you know and I know when we were that age, you know: The laws be damned; we can handle anything.

That is the magnificence of youth, the exuberance, to meet the challenges, whatever they are, and ``don't tell me.'' I always admire that flag of New Hampshire that says: Don't tread on me. But now and then we have to tread ever so lightly upon our citizens to induce them to take those fundamental steps, not only to protect themselves but to protect that innocent victim on the streets or in another vehicle.

This formula is drawn up, yes, that some funds are withheld if the State does not go ahead. We only lost by one vote in the Virginia General Assembly on two occasions to get this very piece of legislation. You acknowledge that fact.

One vote. All I am saying to you is, if you just require the State, all right, if you don't do it, you will have to give up a little asphalt, a little more concrete, but in return we are saving lives, not only the lives of the young people in that car but the innocent victims, the passengers of another vehicle, or the pedestrian. For a very few cubic yards of concrete and asphalt, we may well save a life.

I can answer that, the distinguished junior Senator has the floor.

Will the Senator yield for one further point?

He enumerated a number of States that still do not have it. If you go back, as I have done, and studied the .08 law, it was vigorously resisted here on the floor of the Senate repeatedly for the very same reasons you have given. But once it was passed and it became mandatory, suddenly the States joined up. There are now 49 States that have the .08 law as a direct consequence of the Congress having given the impetus for those additional States that were hanging out, all of which you just enumerated; in this instance they joined.

Lastly, I think it is also important in the debate to mention your own personal experience of an individual who was concerned that it would begin to have cars pulled over by virtue of race. But one of the most interesting individuals who attended a press conference the day before yesterday was a black legislator from Arkansas who is chairman of the National Conference of Black State Legislators. He brought with him that organization's endorsement of this bill. So I do believe there is some legitimate difference within one minority with respect to the question of how this law will be felt.

Five States had 21 minimum drinking age, when President Reagan, your idol and mine, signed that into law. So I am just telling you, .08 is an example of how Congress finally acted, and then all the States, save one--I won't mention the one; somebody can do their homework; it is rather curious which State it is--have accepted the .08 law.

I say to my good friend, we have had a marvelous debate. I have enjoyed it. My respect for him as a consequence of the debate has increased, my dear friend.

Yes.

If I could just make one reply to my colleague and then we will yield the floor. This bill is carefully crafted, that, yes, there is a withholding of those yards of concrete and asphalt, but once the State complies, what has been withheld by way of funds comes back to them to go right into the mainstream of their funding, not unlike .08.

Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to offer the amendment which is now pending before the Senate and to engage in debate with my colleagues on the important issue of increasing the use of seatbelts in this country.

At the request of my colleague, the manager of the bill, Chairman Inhofe, my amendment was modified last night to give States a full 2 years before it takes effect.

I wish to take a few moments to summarize this amendment and be sure that my colleagues understand precisely what this amendment is and what it is not.

To the point, this amendment is not a mandatory seatbelt law.

This amendment sets as our national policy that States are to reach a 90-percent seatbelt use rate by 2006--a full 2 years from now.

States can meet this goal in two ways. First, they can meet this goal by any means or programs they devise. They can implement new programs or modify their existing occupant protection programs. Funding is also provided to assist States with implementing or expanding their existing programs. This language is identical to the provisions recommended in the administration's bill, but it is not included in the bill before us.

States can also meet the requirements of the amendment by enacting a primary seatbelt law.

This 90-percent belt use rate is not a number that I have invented. It is the figure recommended in the President's highway reauthorization bill.

Wearing seatbelts is a critical public health and safety issue. For the first time in a decade, highway deaths are on the rise. In 2002, nearly 43,000 persons were killed on our highways and over half of these deaths involved people who were not wearing their seatbelt.

If for no other reason to support this amendment, we must protect our Nation's youth. Today, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 2 to 34.

These tragic statistics are reversible if we take action today.

That is why over 130 organizations are endorsing this amendment. The support includes major national organizations such as the American Medical Association, law enforcement officials, major insurance companies, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the list goes on.

These are the people who deal every day with the wasteful and avoidable deaths on our highways. They are on the front lines in responding to a crash. They are in our hospitals providing care to those who have sustained serious injuries because a seatbelt was not worn. They are the ones who see ever-increasing insurance costs for all Americans because seatbelts are not used. They are the ones who know that safety devices in our cars--such as air bags and enhanced bumpers--are less effective when seatbelts are not worn.

My colleagues who do not support this amendment have read letters of concern from State groups and others. That is no surprise. At every turn in our Federal transportation policy for the past 15 years these same groups have opposed every public safety initiative. They opposed raising the minimum drinking age to 21, they opposed the zero tolerance for minors alcohol program, and they opposed the .08 BAC drunk driving level.

My only interest is to ensure that this critically important legislation contains some meaningful protections for drivers and passengers.

In TEA-21, there was a 40-percent increase in construction funding, which I proudly supported, to make our roads safer. Yet, traffic deaths are increasing. In SAFETEA, there is a $65 billion increase for highway construction, yet inadequate protections for our drivers. No engineering features of our roads will protect against reckless driving behavior. That is what causes a majority of our accidents.

Unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol remain the three biggest safety problems on our roads--not unsafe roads. We are taking meaningful steps to get tough on those who irresponsibly use alcohol and drive. Now it is time to do what we know works to address the other major problem-- unbelted drivers.

For the benefit of my colleagues, let me summarize the amendment. States are to achieve a 90 percent belt use rate by 2006--2 years from now--or have a primary seatbelt law enacted.

If a State does not meet either of these two provisions, 5 percent of one category of their construction funds are transferred to their highway safety programs. The purpose of this transfer is to provide States with additional funding to dedicate to their own programs to encourage drivers and passengers to wear their seatbelts.

If by 2008--4 years from now--a State has not met the 90 percent belt use rate or has not enacted a primary seatbelt law, 2 percent of a portion of their construction funds are withheld. For each of the following years, 4 percent of a portion of their funds are withheld.

States will receive any funding that is withheld when they reach the 90 percent belt use rate, or enact a primary safety belt law. This is the same provision that is law today for the .08 BAC drunk driving standard. Since it was enacted in 2001, 47 States now comply.

There is a solution to the tragic deaths that are occurring on our highways every day. This amendment is the beginning. Let's do what we know works to save lives on our highways.

Let's not pass the buck by believing that it is the responsibility of others to take action. It is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues not to support the motion to table.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I submitted the other day on behalf of myself, Senator Clinton, and Senator DeWine of Ohio. It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to 90 percent, a concept that is well known to the Members of the Senate. This amendment is identical to the legislation I introduced last year,

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I see other hands.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

He is always so courteous about matters such as this, and particularly with reference to our dear friend, John Chafee, who felt very strongly about this legislation. It is more than a technicality, but this is not a sanction in the sense that we simply say each State should achieve 90 percent. Now, there may be ways by which States can achieve that other than following this path which, as the Senator correctly points out, has a certain sequence of penalties. They would meet the law and completely avoid the other path, where there are penalties.

My question is this: When America was faced with the problems of alcohol, which is still prevalent on the roads in our Nation, we, the Congress, enacted what we call the famous .08 law; am I correct?

Didn't we have an identical series of steps in that law that I have put into this law?

I assure the Senator it is almost identical. You can come down to where it has worked in the case of alcohol, and now 47 States out of the 50 have adopted the alcohol legislation. I think, quite frankly, that we can see a similar number of States quickly adopt this legislation--a primary seatbelt law to avoid the penalties. So it is not without precedent, and it also gives the State the alternative of doing it by some other means than going down the path I have outlined.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague that we selected that time period because of the language the Secretary of Transportation forwarded to the Congress. If there could be a means, if you would be willing to help me devise a formula by which you think a greater degree of fairness can be achieved, I am open to that.

Well, Mr. President, I will take into consideration the views of my distinguished chairman and see what we might do to make that accommodation. I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy, and that of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Inhofe.

I say to my dear friends: What price do you put on life? No one disputes this legislation will save lives. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber who wouldn't put the highest possible priority on saving lives.

This legislation follows, in many respects, what this Chamber did not too many years ago when it was faced with the problem of trying to reduce the actions and loss of life or injury occasioned by the abuse of alcohol and then driving the automobile.

As a consequence of that, 47 States now have complied with that statute. It is a success in terms of the limited goals that could be set realistically by the .08 drinking level. It achieved the goals in 47 States.

We are asking the average American, about 79 percent of our constituents in

the 50 States--it varies from State to State but overall average, nationally, 79 percent--who use the seatbelt, we are just trying to take it from 79 percent up to 90 percent.

That is the purpose, to save lives, very often innocent lives. It is a well-known, documented fact that in a collision, those who have safety belts on have a higher degree of physical control over the vehicle with the hope of trying to reduce the consequences of the inevitable accident. Without a seatbelt, the driver is often jostled in such a way that he or she loses total control of the car and often an innocent individual is injured.

It is the youth of this Nation who will be the principal beneficiaries of this legislation because, regrettably, it is the young people who are so often involved in these frightful accidents. For whatever reason, macho or otherwise, they do not wear their seatbelts.

This law would simply say that law enforcement in the several States, when they observe a car passing and the driver does not utilize their safety belt, can pull that driver over. In my State today, that driver cannot be pulled over unless he or she is committing an offense other than not wearing their safety belt. Law enforcement can then pull that driver over if he or she is not wearing their safety belt and levy whatever penalties are appropriate. But it is that fear of being pulled over, particularly among those young people, who always seem to be fighting accumulated points for driving infractions, who will be the principal beneficiaries.

The men and women of the Armed Forces, regrettably--so many of them, again, ages 18 to 30--are involved in these accidents. So we are helping our military because they will comply with this law of the several States if there is a mandatory seatbelt law.

When my colleagues cast their vote momentarily, stop to think, what price do you put on a life? I bet if you go back--perhaps I can resurrect how you voted on the .08 legislation for alcohol; this is a direct parallel in almost every way.

This is not mandated because the State, on its own initiative, can devise a program to go to 90 percent. It does not have to follow this track. Go ahead, there might be a better idea in your State to reach 90 percent. Then there is no problem under this law; you have met the criteria.

As that bell rings and you approach the Chamber, just ask yourself the question, What price do I put on a life? Because no one in this Chamber can stand up and say this law would not save lives, would not save injuries, would not save money now expended by your local community to care for those in an accident, many of whom do not have insurance. And the bill stops at your local hospital, unpaid. We did it for .08; we can do it for this.

I thank my colleagues for patiently listening to me. My distinguished colleagues from Missouri read off a list of endorsements and I have 135 groups here. The American Medical Association--I listened very carefully yesterday at a press conference when this was addressed by their representative--is strongly in favor of this. My colleague from Missouri mentioned the chiefs of police. I am proud to say my State, the Virginia Chiefs, endorse this statute. As I say, the President, through his Secretary of Transportation, while not directly addressing this specific piece of legislation, said:

I believe that increasing safety belt usage rates is the

single most effective means to decrease highway fatalities

and injuries.

I have two cosponsors on this bill. I wonder if the distinguished manager would enable me just to contact them?

Yes.

That is a reasonable request. I think the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, would require, say, 10 minutes and the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, and the distinguished Senator from Washington, 10; I will take 5 more minutes; maybe 40 minutes on this side prior to the vote.

Also, Mr. President, we discussed the possibility that I could amend this because I think the distinguished chairman pointed out that 8 months is a short time. So if we could have a gentlemen's understanding that perhaps I could amend it in such a way to take that clause and revise it to enable States to have more time.

Mr. President, we are accommodating the desires of the managers of this bill. Certainly as the chief proponents of this amendment, as long as my cosponsors have an opportunity to speak to it, this matter will be handled fairly.

I yield the floor.

motorcycle safety

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

Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has at the desk an amendment which is the pending amendment, and I desire to modify it. Consequently, I ask unanimous consent to modify the pending amendment to reflect the concerns raised by the managers of the bill requesting that more time be given to States to meet the 90-percent seatbelt use rate on their own initiative, with their own plans. I now send my modified amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and the Senate for accommodating me.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, first, I say to the distinguished manager and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I have been privileged to serve some 16, 18 years, I commend him for his diligence and commitment to try to get this highway bill through the Senate and hopefully enacted into law. I had much the same responsibility some 6 years ago. I know the complexity of this particular piece of legislation.

I have worked with the distinguished chairman and the distinguished Senator from Missouri in the preparation of this particular measure. It is badly needed by America. I hope we can work our way through this situation.

I send to the desk an amendment.

I address the distinguished manager of the bill and ask unanimous consent to have this amendment called up and possibly agreed to.

Mr. President, the distinguished manager had the courtesy to advise me that he would object. Given the situation which I think I understand, I would just like to speak to the bill and develop a record for today and hopefully eventual consideration of this amendment in the not distant future can be arranged.

This amendment is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. DeWine. It is an amendment to increase our national seatbelt use rate to some 90 percent. This amendment is identical to the text of legislation I introduced last year, S. 1993.

If my colleagues examine the highway bill and what it means to each of our States, our foremost responsibility, in my judgment and in the judgment of many, and in the judgment of the President of the United States, must be to improve highway safety for the driving public.

Today we had a very impressive press conference. I will give further details about it shortly. We must have had a dozen or so representatives who spoke on behalf of their respective organizations endorsing this bill.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of organizations endorsing this bill.

Mr. President, this is a list of 135 organizations across America that advocate their support for this particular piece of legislation.

This chart is an enumeration of those organizations. It is not readable, but the list is in the Record for all to see.

Simply by increasing the number of Americans who will buckle up is the most effective step that can be taken to save their lives and the lives of others. That is the single most important step.

I am privileged to serve on this committee, as I said, that has the primary responsibility for reauthorizing TEA-21. The bill addresses, as it should, highway safety measures, such as how to build safer roads or how to use new technologies to improve safety. But--and I underline ``but''--statistics show that the greatest measure of safety again to drivers, passengers, and possibly third parties, many of them innocent third parties, not connected with the bill is through the use of the seatbelt. It is remarkable the lives that have been saved through the use of this simple device over the years.

America has about a 79-percent use rate of seatbelts. That has been translated into the saving of tens of thousands of lives and injuries in automobile accidents, but we can do better. Those are the facts. Are we just going to have a standstill or are we going to move forward? Senators Clinton, DeWine, and myself think we should move forward with a firmer approach with achievable goals and funding.

We have debated the benefits of seatbelt use on many occasions in this body and elsewhere across America. Whether it is in the town forums we conduct, the town meetings, or on the floor of the Senate, there is always that individual who comes back: Don't tell me what I have to do. What does it matter to you--they will often say, or to any other colleague with whom I have had the privilege to serve--what does it matter to you whether I buckle up? It matters a great deal to me and to all those who share the joys but often the burdens--the increasing burdens--of driving and using our road system and the risks.

Let's take a look. No one disputes that the absence of wearing a seatbelt causes more loss of life and serious injury. Statistics solidify that assumption. The statistics show that the impact associated with a crash, to the extent a driver can maintain control of the vehicle in those fatal seconds, the severity of the crash, and perhaps the loss of life can be reduced significantly by the use of the safety belt. It is as simple as that.

Accidents involving unbelted drivers result in a significant cost. Many people are rushed from the accident scene to various emergency facilities. All of that has the initial cost of the law enforcement and the rescue squads that respond, and eventually the cost to the emergency room or whatever medical facility you might have the good fortune to be taken to hopefully save your life. That does not come free. How well we know that.

There is a cost. It is borne by the local community often or the county or the State. Regrettably, a number of persons who suffer these types of injuries are uninsured. Again, the cost often devolves down on the good old hard-working taxpayers and, in most instances, the taxpayers who otherwise would buckle up.

That is lost time for your mission on the road, be it for business, family, or pleasure. That is lost time in productivity. Behind you are often trucks and other vehicles involved in commerce. That is lost time in delay due to the serious occasion of injuries and accidents from the lack of use of seatbelts. It is simple as that. Often the highway is shut down, and it is just incalculable the inconvenience and cost to others while your safety and perhaps your survivability is attended to more often than not by volunteer fire departments or others who come to the rescue.

The legislation that we three Senators are introducing today will take an important step for the States to adopt either a primary safety belt law or take steps of their own devising to meet a 90-percent seatbelt use rate, not the Warner amendment or the legislative measure put forth by the administration upon which Senator Clinton and I draw for concepts of certain portions.

The States can decide for themselves--I wish to underline, we are challenging the States to decide for themselves how they achieve a 90- percent goal of the use of seatbelts in their respective States. They could have a far better idea than we have. That is the purpose of this legislation, to move every State to a 90-percent use rate for safety belts.

In a letter dated November 12, 2003, to Chairman Inhofe of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, on which, again, I am privileged to serve, Secretary Mineta states:

President Bush and I believe that increasing safety belt

usage rates is the single--

I repeat, the single--

most effective means to decrease highway fatalities and

injuries.

That is explicit and clear. The Secretary goes on in that letter to say:

. . . the surest way for a State to increase safety belt

usage is through the passage of a primary safety belt law.

I have had this debate with Governors, former Governors, even in this Chamber with former Governors. I think they would all say that a primary safety belt law is tough legislation to pass solely on its own in the State legislatures. Those in this Chamber who have been members of State legislatures know best. Those of us who have worked with State legislatures, as I have over the 25 years I have been privileged to be a Senator, I have some idea of how those legislatures operate. Certainly, those who have been Governors--and many of my colleagues in this Chamber have been Governors--know full well the difficulty confronted at the State level in getting this type of law through.

Frankly, it needs the cover, one might say the political cover, the impetus, given by the Congress--that is us, Uncle Sam--of the United States to move that process in the States forward.

So the local politicians can shake their fists at old John Warner, they can shake their fists, hopefully, at those who will join in passing this legislation and say it is Washington that has done it again--more regulation, more direction. We know the arguments. We have all heard them. But lives and injuries and costs to the community can be saved.

I think quietly, in the hearts of those State legislatures, is the thought that we will improve safety in our State. We will improve the chances of survivability on the roads of our State.

I ask unanimous consent the full text of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

As provided in our amendment, States can increase seatbelt use by enacting, as I said, a primary seatbelt law. Everybody knows what a primary seatbelt law is and how it works.

I want to explain the basic laws as shown on this chart. The white State has a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Those are the existing States. The red State needs a primary enforcement seatbelt law. So my colleagues can see the magnitude.

Here is my State, Virginia. Twice now that primary seatbelt law has gone through the legislature up to the point of a final vote, and by one vote only, twice, the General Assembly of Virginia has rejected that primary seatbelt law. That is a clear reason that impetus by the Federal Government can help achieve that one vote and hopefully many more.

Now, let's talk about the mechanics. It means a law enforcement officer can literally stop a vehicle if they observe that the individual is not wearing his or her seatbelt. It is as simple as that. But a State, if they decide not to enact a primary seatbelt law, can, by implementing their own strategies, whatever they may be--and there is a lot of innovation out in the States--that would result in a 90- percent seatbelt use rate. So that is a challenge to the States.

It can be achieved by other means other than having the officers under law be given the right to stop the vehicle when he observes that the driver is not using a seatbelt.

The current national seatbelt use, as I said, is 79 percent. But many States, those that have the primary law, are sometimes at 90 or even above 90, but those that do not have the primary seatbelt law are down somewhere in the 60 percentile. Just think, only 60 percent of the drivers in some States utilize that seatbelt. It is the weight of the primary States that carries the percentile and brings it up to 79 from those States that do not have an effective law. States with their primary safety belt law have the greatest success for drivers wearing seatbelts.

On an average, States with the primary seatbelt law have a 10 to 15 percent higher seatbelt use compared to those with a secondary system. This demonstrates that secondary seatbelt laws are far more limited in their effectiveness than a primary law.

Essentially, the secondary laws say if a law enforcement officer has cause other than a perceived or actual seatbelt violation, namely the driver did not have it buckled, if they have cause to stop that car, for example, for a speeding offense or a reckless driving offense or indeed an accident, and they observe there has been no use of the seatbelt, then in that circumstance, in the course of proceeding to enforce the several laws of that State as regards speeding and reckless driving or whatever the case may be, they can add a second penalty to address the absence of the use of the seatbelt in that State.

Drivers are gamblers, unfortunately, but that is the way it is. They say: Oh, well, don't worry. I will not buckle up--State law does not require it--unless they stop me, and they are not going to stop me today.

It is that gambling attitude that more often than not will cause an accident. Then it is too late.

So we come forward today to build on our national program. We are building on what we did in TEA-21. I was privileged to be on that committee at that time. I was then, as I said, chairman of the subcommittee 6 years ago. I worked with the late Senator John Chafee. What a distinguished and able Senator he was, and those who were privileged to serve with him have fond memories of working with him. He was chairman of the full committee. We drove hard to make progress for the seatbelt laws, and we did it. This chart shows the result.

We basically put aside a very considerable sum of money to encourage States, again, by using their own devices, to increase usage. As a direct consequence of what we did in TEA-21, there has been an 11- percent increase in these 6 years in the use of seatbelts. Now, that is significant, but it could be much greater and stronger.

Sadly, traffic deaths in 2002, just one fiscal year, rose to the highest level in over a decade. It is astonishing. Of the nearly 43,000 people killed on our highways, over half were not wearing their seatbelts. Now, that is a considerable number of individuals. That is according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In the judgment of the people who responded to the accidents, they considered that 9,200 of these deaths might have been prevented if the safety belt had been used.

Those are the alarming statistics. Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 2 to 34. Stop to think of that, age 2. That means a child. That means a parent neglected to buckle up the child. Automobile crashes are the leading causes of death for Americans age 2 to 34. That is our Nation's youth. So many of them are in the Armed Forces of the United States. Passage of this will be helpful to the Armed Forces.

Do we have a higher calling in the Congress than to do everything we can to foster the dreams and ambitions and the productivity of our Nation's youth? I think not. And this is one of the most effective means to do it.

Last year, 6 out of 10 children who died in car crashes did not have the belt on; 6 out of 10. That is over half. I plead with colleagues to join me, join with the President of the United States, join with the Secretary who has taken this initiative.

My primary responsibility in the Senate--and this is one of the reasons I got interested in this subject--is the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces, as I mentioned. I say to colleagues again, the statistics are tragic. Traffic fatalities are the leading noncombat cause of death for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines. They are in that high-risk age category, 18 to 35. I repeat, it is the largest noncombat cause of death.

Someone even took a look at the statistics and totaled the fatalities last year and said that represents in deaths the size of an average U.S. Army battalion. That is a lot of folks. That is one of the principal incentives I have. I cannot think of any reason why we all cannot join behind this effort. That alone is the driving impetus for this Senator.

The time is long overdue for a national policy to strengthen seatbelt use rates. I said a national policy, and that is what this bill represents, either through States enacting a primary seatbelt law of their own conception and devising or passing this law, giving far greater attention to public awareness programs that result in more drivers and passengers wearing safety belts. Our goal is 90 percent for the Nation.

I have been privileged to serve on this committee 17 years and I, together with many others, notably my dear friend, the late chairman, Senator John Chafee, addressed this issue. Our committee is rich in the history of focusing revenue from highway trust funds on effective safety programs. It goes back through many chairmen and members of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

With jurisdiction over the largest share of the highway trust fund, our committee has had the vision to tackle important national safety programs. The legislation before us does provide more funding to help build safer roads. That is a step forward. But it does not have, in my judgment, that provision which represents a step up from what we did in TEA-21, that provision that would represent a recognition for the President's initiative.

The President has taken a decidedly strong initiative to increase the use of seatbelts. It is absent from the bill, and that is why we need a provision, by virtue of this amendment, to strengthen and move forward the position of the Congress on the position of increased use of safety belts on America's highways and roads. That is the purpose of this amendment.

It is just unfortunate that those with reckless intent quickly disregard responsible behavior and drive unbelted at excessive speeds, and many times with the use of alcohol. So no increased dollars for improving road engineering, which is in this bill--and I commend them for that, but that alone cannot defy, in many instances, the type of personal conduct that results in reckless behavior. In other words, engineering can quickly be overcome by the reckless driving, and particularly that associated with alcohol.

Automobiles now come equipped with crash avoidance technologies and are more crashworthy than ever before. But these advances are only a very small part of the solution. In repeated testimony before the Environment and Public Works Committee from the administration, from our States, safety groups, and the highway insurance industry, we are told three main causes of traffic deaths and injury are unbelted drivers, speed, and alcohol.

The formula we have devised in this legislation does have a reduction in the amount which the State receives under the proposed bill that we will consider next year when they fail to achieve the 90 percent safety belt use rate. It is as simple as that. But the formula is patterned directly after the law that is on the books now with respect to the .08 legal blood alcohol content level.

In other words, the formula we have in this amendment is identical, in terms of that what I call inducement--carrot/stick type of legislation--that we did for the .08 legal blood alcohol.

The net effect of this legislation is simply to recognize we are asking the same type of sanction policy with regard to one of the three major causes of death--alcohol--be equated to a second cause of death and injury, and that is the absence of the use of seatbelts, bringing into parallel two of the three principal causes of death and injury on the highways: .08 and mandatory use of seatbelts.

The administration put forward an innovative safety belt program, as I said, under the leadership of the President, and that was a major component of a new core transportation program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, submitted to the Congress. Our amendments incorporate the administration's bill and include additional incentives for States to increase seatbelt use rates.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record today a deeply moving statement delivered by the representative of the American Medical Association, strongly in support of this legislation, and a letter from the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, strongly in favor of this legislation. Of course, the letter to the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inhofe, from the Secretary of Transportation is already a part of the Record.

I am pleased to say Senator Murray has asked to join as a cosponsor and I so request that be noted on the amendment.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I am privileged to serve on the committee with the Senator. There has been criticism, raising the inference that we have not in the Senate been addressing this with the depth and sincerity and interest we should.

I take great umbrage at that. Under the leadership of the chairman and, indeed, myself, we are the ones who brought David Kay up. We are the ones who put David Kay on the stand, the Intelligence Committee first, and before the Armed Services Committee immediately following, and subjected him to cross-examination after the delivery of his report. His report is a mixed one in certain ways, in my judgment, but nevertheless in no way were we not taking the initiative to bring this to the forefront.

I say also, yesterday the Armed Services Committee heard from the Secretary of Defense. The distinguished chairman was present. He is a member of that committee. Again, the first questions on WMD and precisely the question of whether or not there was any manipulation or distortion came from the Chair, myself, addressed directly to the Secretary.

Any objective analysis of the reports out of that hearing this morning--it was covered by the press--he faced it head on and answered those questions.

As we are speaking, I just departed the television where Director Tenet is now addressing the Nation. So I think the President and his principal deputies are facing square on these complex issues, as is the Senate.

I commend the chairman, and perhaps he will agree with my observations.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.