Replies

----

Senate Floor Schedule for Tuesday, March 2, 2004.

The Senate will convene at 9:30am to resume consideration of S. 1805, the Gun Liability bill. At 11:35am, the Senate will proceed to a stacked series of Roll Call Votes culminating in a vote on final passage of S. 1805.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Assault Weapon Ban extension PASSES (Senate amendment to gun industry protection bill)

Senate Floor Schedule for Wednesday, March 3, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

10:30 a.m.: Begin consideration of S. 1637, the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) bill.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues, led by Senator REED of Rhode Island, to express the strongest opposition that I possibly can to the legislation before the Senate. I want to say, Mr. President, that enough is enough.

In doing so I am proud to not only stand with many of my colleagues but many of my fellow Americans who are on the front lines trying to keep our communities safe, such as our chiefs of police, other law enforcement, and mayors from around the country, as well as the tens of thousands of victims of gun violence, including my friends Jim and Sarah Brady.

Here in Washington, there is a lot of talk about responsibility and accountability. Yet, this legislation does just the opposite. It does nothing but shield irresponsible gun makers and gun sellers from accountability.

Gun owners are asked to act responsibly and the vast majority of them do. Gun makers and gun sellers should be held to the same standard. And yet, the legislation before us--the gun immunity bill--says to gun makers and gun sellers that they don't need to meet the same standards as every as other business is required to meet, and that is to conduct one's business in a reasonable and non-negligent manner.

No other industry has the kind of protection that the NRA is seeking on behalf the gun industry with respect to a relatively small number of lawsuits that have been filed or may be filed in the future. I simply cannot understand why the Congress would give this extraordinary and unprecedented liability protection to the gun industry.

Mr. President, we must do all we can to defeat the gun immunity bill which, among many other things, will give legal protection to the gun dealer--Bull's Eye Shooter Supply--who armed the D.C. area snipers and will take away the right to sue from the victims.

[Page: S1966] GPO's PDF
What an injustice to the DC sniper victims and the American people. What a real shame.
Let me be clear, Mr. President. Despite protestations and suggestions to the contrary, this bill isn't about helping people. This bill is not about the rights of hunters.

Not one single gun owner will be helped by this immunity legislation. This bill is also not about jobs. This is about serving the will of the gun industry first, and the interest of the American people a distant second.

As noted by Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, Mayor Daley of Chicago, Mayor Kahn of Los Angeles, and Mayor King of Gary, in an op-ed in the New York Times opposing this bill, federal data from 2000 shows that a little more than 1 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Responsible gun sellers should be angry about this. They should demand action to clean up their industry. Yet, the legislation the Senate is considering now would say to the small group of irresponsible gun dealers, ``don't bother running a responsible business,'' and ``you are not responsible for your actions no matter how reckless or negligent they may be.''

Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, let me clear up some other misinformation about how criminals get their guns. Many falsely believe that criminals and drug dealers steal most of their guns and that gun dealers are not responsible in any way for the vast majority of guns that end up being used in violent crime, that it is the fault of criminals. This is simply not true.

In 1998, a Northwestern University study of records maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms demonstrated that more criminals buy their guns new than steal them. Specifically, the ATF determined that while more than 11,000 of the weapons traced were stolen from licensed gun dealers or residences, almost four times as many--more than 40,000--were sold by licensed dealers. This number is astounding.

Almost four times as many guns recovered from criminals by the ATF were gained through licensed traffickers and not through theft.

This is an important point to note because if most guns used in crimes in our country are not stolen but in fact are purchased, manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition can greatly influence the degree to which guns flow get in the hands of criminals.

Gun dealers hold an enormous and unparreled power over the supply of guns in America. While most gun dealers who wield this power act responsibly, the negligence and irresponsibility of a few bad seeds, like the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, are the cause of the problem. These bad gun dealers, the 1 percent of dealers who account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations, need to be held accountable. Yet this bill removes that accountability.

This legislation removes that accountability through section 3 of the bill, which precludes even the bringing of civil actions against gun manufacturers, gun dealers, distributors, sellers of ammunition, and even trade associations in any Federal or State court.

By the way, the prohibition on commencing an action applies not just to individuals, but to states, local governments, and, incredibly, even the federal government.

Section 3 also states that pending civil actions ``shall be immediately dismissed'' by the court in which the action was brought.

This bill is particularly disturbing to me because it directly and significantly affects New Yorkers. Currently, the City of New York has a suit pending--initially commenced by Rudy Giuliani when he served as Mayor of New York. Given that bill proponents have argued that this legislation is needed to protect against frivolous lawsuits, are they suggesting that Rudy Giuliani would file such a lawsuit against the gun industry. I don't think so.

It would be a shame if New York City's suit were to be dismissed because New York City--under the Giuliani administration--filed suit to try and protect the health and safety of New Yorkers by getting the gun industry to change its practices.

Indeed, a New York federal court has already found in another case that gun manufacturers improper sales and distribution practices contribute to the illegal gun market in NY State, and there is ample evidence, including a study conducted by the National Economic Research Associates, that if gun manufacturers and sellers change their practices and use care and act responsible in their selling practices, many fewer guns wind up in the hands of criminals and used in committing crimes.

And the New York Police Department--the largest and one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the world--has had to expend enormous resources to control gun-trafficking. I don't want their work--none of us should want their work--to be conducted in vain by failing to hold accountable irresponsible gun dealers.

As New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said: ``The nation's law enforcement officials struggle every day against the scourge of gun crimes, and we look to Congress to assist us in that fight, not make our jobs harder. By providing broad immunity to the gun industry, this bill will endanger the very police officers who place their lives on the line to protect all Americans.''

In addition to New York City, a small number of New Yorkers who have been severely injured because of the negligence of others have also commenced actions against certain gun manufactures and gun dealers. I am not going to prejudge the merits of these cases, but the bottom line is that they deserve their day in court. This law would deny them that basic right.

One of these suits arose out of what has been referred to as the ``Wendy's Massacre.''

In May of 2001, two criminals armed with an allegedly illegally acquired semi-automatic pistol went into a Wendy's restaurant, ordered all of the employees into the basement, marched them single file into a walk-in refrigerator, duct taped their mouths, tied them up, covered their heads with plastic bags, and one by one, shot them execution style in the back of the head. These workers were brutally gunned down for a total of $2,400.

One of those injured individuals fortunate enough to have survived the tragedy was Jaquione Johnson, who now has a suit pending against Bryco Arms. Johnson sustained serious injuries including brain damage and paralysis.

Jaquione contends that the defendant's distribution practices created, contributed to, and maintained the illegal secondary gun market through which the handgun passed until it did its deadly work. This underground market, the complaint asserts, depended upon defendants' irresponsible business practices, such as multiple firearms sales and straw purchases.

The complaint further asserts that because the gun dealers could gain significant revenue from illegal firearms sales, they failed to adopt basic policies and practices that would greatly decrease the number of guns reaching criminals despite the knowledge that it was reasonably foreseeable that individuals like the plaintiff and the public at large would be harmed.

No one in the Wendy's case is arguing that the defendant gun manufacturer and dealer pulled the trigger that killed and maimed the Wendy's workers. Instead, the victim is simply seeking to be compensated for serious injuries that were caused by the negligence of another.

If the defendants were not negligent in distributing the deadly weapon used here, they will not be held liable by the court. However, if the defendant gun dealers were negligent in their distribution of the guns and that negligence helped cause the plaintiff' harm, then they will be held accountable.

A suit like Jacquoine's, despite what others would have you believe, is not frivolous. This is a meritorious suit that must be heard in our courts to ensure accountability.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, on February 3, a Federal judge in New York denied the defendant's motion to dismiss Jaquione's suit, making clear that Jaquione claim is anything but frivolous. Yet, the NRA believes that it, by legislative fiat, should pre-ordain the result in Jaquione's case.

This New York case and the case commenced by the City of New York

[Page: S1967] GPO's PDF
under the Giuliani administration are not outliers. Gary, IN has a suit pending and the Supreme Court of Indiana has held that city had a valid legal claim. The Illinois Court of Appeal held similar with respect to a case brought by the city of Chicago. The bill before us, however, would override the decisions of these appellate State courts.
Similarly, in New Mexico, a teenager who was shot in the face has brought suit against Bryco Arms alleging that the pistol's design was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its failure to incorporate safety devices like a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect safety that would prevent a pistol from being fired with the magazine removed.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the suit stated a valid legal claim and should go to trial. Further, the court stated, ``application of our tort law can be expected to enhance [gun] ownership by tending to increase the safety of guns.'' This legitimate and worthy claim would be in danger of dismissal if this bill is passed.

There are a number of other suits just like the ones I have just mentioned and they are before our State and Federal courts. That Congress, rather than these courts, would make the decision by legislative fiat to dismiss these cases, regardless of the facts and the law, is extraordinary and unprecedented and a real shame. It should not be countenanced.

The proponents of this legislation point to the exceptions contained in section 4 of the bill and have argued that the exceptions are sufficient to allow non-frivolous lawsuits to be maintained.

First of all, despite all the talk of frivolous suits, the proponents point to not one court that has deemed any lawsuit brought in any federal or state court against a manufacturer or gun dealer as frivolous. The proponents of this special interest legislation cannot point to such a decision because there is none. No frivolous lawsuits have been filed. That assertion is simply devoid of merit.

As to the purported exceptions in the bill, they are so narrowly crafted as to be illusory.

The first exception provides that a lawsuit can be brought by the party ``directly harmed'' against a defendant who has been convicted of the crime of ``knowingly'' transferring a firearm ``knowing'' that the guns would be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

In other words, this exception would not apply to a dealer who is extraordinarily reckless or negligent as to how it markets or sells its guns unless the dealer knew it was selling a gun to someone who would commit a violent crime.

This is an extraordinarily high burden because it says that you can only sue a dealer if the dealer engaged in a criminal act--if the dealer is, in affect, an accomplice to a violent or drug trafficking crime.

The second exception provides that an action may be brought ``against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''

``Negligent entrustment'' is defined in the bill to mean ``the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.''

In other words, according to the Congressional Research Service, this exception would appear to allow a suit to be maintained against an entity that supplied a firearm or ammunition to a person who, because of age, mental disability, intoxication, or violent propensity, seems likely to use the product in a dangerous manner.

That may be all well and good, but I wondered why the crafters of the bill went to the trouble of defining ``negligent entrustment,'' when such a cause of action is defined by state law.

Well, it's because ``negligent entrustment'' has been defined in this legislation much more narrowly than how it has been defined by many states under state law.

In fact, in the case brought by the victims of the DC snipers against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, the Washington state court held that ``negligent entrustment'' also occurs when a firearms manufacturer sells firearms to a retail store that it ``knew or should have known ..... was operating its store in a reckless or incompetent manner, creating an unreasonable risk of harm.''

Indeed, one of the allegations in the complaint brought by victims of the DC sniper against the manufacturer of the gun used by the DC snipers was that the manufacturer knew or should have known that the retailer--Bull's Eye--had a ``history of a large number of weapons for which it could not account.''

The Washington state court found that if the plaintiff could prove this, then the manufacturer ``may be liable for plaintiff's injuries under the theory of negligent entrustment.'' The court, therefore, denied the defendant manufacturer's motion to dismiss.

So the bottom line is that this supposed ``exception'' in the bill is not really an exception because it dramatically narrows the State law definition of negligent entrustment.

To make matters even worse, the exception does not cover manufacturers; it only covers ``sellers,'' such as gun dealers. So even if there were a broader definition of negligent entrustment in this exception, it would still prohibit such a cause of action from ever being brought against a manufacturer. This is one of the major objections to the bill made by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Lastly, as to this second exception in section 4 of the bill, including ``negligence per se'' doesn't add much because the common law definition of ``negligence per se'' means that a person or entity is negligent per se, 1, if the party violated a state or federal statute; 2, if it demonstrated that the person bringing the action was the member of the class of persons that the statute was intended to protect, and 3, that the party's injuries suffered were the kind that the statute was enacted to prevent.

But the bottom line is that violation of a statute is required. That's not very much of an exception to the gun immunity's general provision that no civil action can be brought in any federal or state court and that all pending cases must be dismissed.

There has been much discussion about the third exception because it was recently added to this legislation, but this exception, like the others in the bill, is extraordinarily narrow as to be almost meaningless.

The third exception provides that an action may be brought in which a manufacturer or a seller of a gun violated state or federal law concerning the sale or marketing of guns or ammunition and the violation of the statute was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including, 1, any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made a false entry in, or failed to make an appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under federal or state law; 2, any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any material factor concerning the lawfulness of the sale; or 3, any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with some to sell or otherwise dispose of a gun or ammunition, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the gun or ammunition was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsections (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18.

I know this section has already been discussed at some length, but I want to underscore that two esteemed lawyers, Lloyd Cutler and David Boies, after reviewing this language extensively and the complaint filed by the DC sniper victims against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, stated that in two separate legal opinions that this suit could not be maintained under this exception and would have to be dismissed.

The fourth exception is an action for breach of contract or warranty in the connection with the purchase of a gun.

This exception is also of no moment, however, because as troubling and out of the mainstream as this legislation is, one would hope that the United States Congress would not seek to render null and void contracts and warranty agreements entered into between the sellers and purchasers of guns.

The fifth and final exception to the general provision requiring the dismissal of pending cases and the prohibition on bringing any future cases is

[Page: S1968] GPO's PDF
an exception for ``an action for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable.''

``Reasonably foreseeable'', however, is defined to exclude any criminal or unlawful misuse--violation of a statute, ordinance, or regulation--of a gun or ammunition, other than possessory offenses. What does this mean?

Contrary to what some of my colleagues have said during this floor debate, it does not mean that all design or manufacturing defect cases can be brought or maintained.

This is so for a number of reasons. First, the product would have to be used as intended. If there is a defect in the gun, for example, but an unintended use is that a child uses the gun and accidently maims or kills himself, this legislation would prevent the child or his parents from even filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer to seek recovery and, equally important, from trying to hold the manufacturer accountable so that the defect could be fixed and such injuries to other children could be prevented.

This exception is also extraordinarily narrow in that even if there is a design or manufacturing defect and even if someone is harmed because of the defect, no recovery can even be sought if the gun was used in any criminal activity or misused in any way.

I know I have taken a fair amount of time to talk about the exceptions contained in section 4 of this bill, but I felt it important because proponents of this legislation have constantly said ``look to section 4,'' suggesting that these exceptions will enable legitimate cases to be brought and/or maintained against negligent manufacturers and gun dealers.

As I have laid out in great detail, the assertion made by the proponents of this legislation is unequivocally--simply--not true. And I want to make sure that the American people who are watching and listening to this debate understand that.

I also want to take a moment to correct some other misstatements that have been statements in support of this bill.

As noted above, one of the assertions is that there are thousands of frivolous lawsuits--including I guess the one filed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--that have been filed. Well, as we now know, that statement is simply not true because not one court has deemed any case filed to be frivolous.

In fact, a respected senior Federal judge in New York, Judge Jack Weinstein, actually dismissed a case brought by the NAACP because he held that the NAACP wasn't the proper plaintiff. However, in his 178-page ruling, Judge Weinstein found that gun manufacturer's improper sales and distribution practices contribute to the illegal gun market in New York State. His conclusion was based on previously unavailable data from the ATF and from the gun industry that established a connection between the gun industry's marketing practices and access to guns by criminals.

He also found that the data demonstrated that a ``handful of `bad apple' retailers in the industry supply a disproportionate share of guns used in crimes.''

Indeed, according to Robert Haas, the former Senior Vice President for marketing and sales for defendant Smith & Wesson, the gun industry knows that the criminal market is fueled by the industry's distribution practices, but does nothing.

Haas has said: ``The company and the industry as a whole are fully aware of the extent of the criminal misuse of firearms.''

``The company and the industry are also aware that the black market in firearms is not simply the result of stolen guns but is due to the seepage of guns into the illicit market from multiple thousands of unsupervised federal firearms licensees. In spite of their knowledge, however, the industry's position has consistently been to take no independent action to insure responsible distribution practices.''

This failure to take action is particularly disturbing because the problem can be fixed. If all gun manufacturers took reasonable measures in distributing their guns, then there would be significantly fewer guns in the hands of criminals.

This is consistent with Judge Weinstein's finding that the data in the case before him showed that the handgun industry could have done something about these dealers, including implementing obvious common sense solutions such as data gathering and monitoring regulations, but chose not to do so.

Another assertion by proponents of this legislation is that these lawsuits--less than 100 of them--are bankrupting the industry. Well, from what I can tell, the gun industry is doing anything but hurting. That's not my view, but the view of gun manufacturers that have filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Manufacturer after manufacturer has reported to the SEC that it is financially stable and that ``it is not probable and is unlikely that litigation, including punitive damage claims, will have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Company.''

Another claim made is that these suits are going to cause jobs to go overseas. Now, I would love it, and more important, the American people would greatly appreciate it, if instead of considering this bill, the Senate was seeking to address in a comprehensive way the more than 3 million jobs lost in the past 3 years. But the Senate has chosen not to do so.

I have worked hard to support the development of jobs in my state and appreciate that there are New Yorkers in my state who help to manufacture guns at Remington Arms.

But the truth is that Remington Arms is not in financial trouble based on this litigation. Remington Arms produces long guns primarily and the vast majority of the victims of gun violence and crime are shot by hand guns, not long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Remington Arms does not need this protection; it is financially strong. Instead, it is the victims of gun violence that need protection from this legislation.

In short, these suits are not about putting the gun industry out of business. They are about responsible business practices, they are about keeping the guns out of the wrong hands through responsible distribution practices.

In fact, it is because of some of the lawsuits that have been filed that some gun manufacturers have improved their marketing and distribution practices.

In March of 2000, for example, the gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson reached a settlement with a number of government entities, including the State of New York.

This settlement demonstrates why the gun immunity bill will actually make guns less safe.

As part of the agreement, Smith & Wesson agreed to change the ways it distributes guns it manufacturers. It promised to sell only to authorized distributors and dealers who adhere to a stringent code of conduct and it agreed to terminate sales to any dealer who sells a disproportionate number of guns used in crime. The settlement makes us safer because it helps to ensure that guns won't end up in the hands of criminals.

Smith & Wesson also agreed that their guns will be shipped with external safety locks, that all pistols will have a chamber loaded indicator, that new gun designs will include smart gun technology, and that all guns must pass performance tests to ensure safety and quality.

These are reasonable agreements that all gun manufacturers should follow. They make guns safer for everyone, especially those who own and operate them, especially for the children of gun owners. This settlement demonstrates the great possibilities that exist to improve the safety of guns.

This settlement underscores how much manufacturers and dealers can do to keep Americans safer without unduly affecting the bottom business line.

If the bill before us becomes law, however, don't expect to see any similar settlements in the future. If gun makers cannot be held liable, they will have no incentive to enter into a settlement. If they cannot be held liable, gun makers will have absolutely no financial incentive to make their guns safer. Indeed, they will actually have a financial disincentive to develop new safety mechanisms and distribution practices.

As a Senator from a State with millions of law abiding gun owners, I want

[Page: S1969] GPO's PDF
guns to be as safe as possible. I want new safety features and improvements developed. And I want--we should all want--the victims who are injured or killed because of defective guns or bad marketing and sales practices to not have the courthouse doors slammed in their faces.

Gun violence is a dangerous threat throughout our nation claiming the lives of thousands of people every year across America and New York State.

In 2001, the number of deaths in the U.S. from firearms was 29,573. In addition, for every firearm fatality in the U.S., there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.

A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.

In 1999, New Yorkers suffered 1,652 hospitalizations and 965 deaths at the hands of gun violence. 291 of those deaths were individuals below the age of 24.

In 2000, there were 1,093 deaths in New York State from firearms.

We should be talking about how we can reduce gun violence and prevent deaths of American men, women, and children, not how to slam the courthouse door shut to gun victims and while at the same time giving bad gun dealers blanket immunity from irresponsibly and negligent conduct.

Although this very bad bill is currently before the U.S. Senate, all of my colleagues, including the bill's proponents, have an opportunity to help make our communities safer by supporting a number of amendments currently pending, including the amendment offered by Senators FEINSTEIN, WARNER, and SCHUMER that reauthorizes the assault weapons ban and the amendment offered by Senators MCCAIN and REED that seeks to close what has been called the ``gun show loophole.''

I must say that it is astonishing to me that we even need to debate the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because there is no reasonable argument that can be made against it. People do not hunt with assault weapons. Instead, assault weapons are designed for one purpose and for one purpose only and that is to kill people.

Extending and improving upon the assault weapons ban is essential because assault weapons are a clear threat to law enforcement. Assault weapons kill police officers.

One in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon. I would hope that everyone would agree that we need to put the interests of law enforcement officers far ahead of the interests of the NRA. If we are to remain true to our support for law enforcement officials, we need to extend and improve the assault weapons ban because it is our duty to protect those who risk their lives to protect us.

In addition, a report released yesterday by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, ``On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Act,'' demonstrates that the assault weapons ban passed 10 years ago has been working. The report shows that the assault weapons banned by name in the Act have declined substantially, 66 percent, as a percentage of overall crime gun traces since the assault weapons ban was enacted in 1994. The study concludes that the ban has contributed to a substantial reduction in the use of assault weapons in crime, despite the industry's efforts to evade the law through the sale of copycat guns.

The assault weapons ban has been successful keeping these killing machines off our streets but it is set to expire later this year. To protect our law enforcement officials, to protect our safety, we cannot let this law expire. We must reauthorize the ban on assault weapons.

We must also do all we can to close the ``gun show loophole'' because the loophole enables those who are otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms under federal law to easily obtain guns.

Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers at gun shows because they know that they can simply put down their money and walk away with deadly weapons. Additionally, because these unlicensed sellers are not well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show firearms that turn up at crime scenes. Gun shows are now the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations.

The gun show loopholes in our laws allow individuals otherwise prohibited from legally purchasing firearms to easily gain access to potentially deadly weapons. Both the City and State of New York have enacted laws regulating gun sales and the possession of guns within the City and State. Yet, because of the gun show loophole, these laws have been unable to stop guns from coming into New York. Expert studies by Dr. Howard Andrews of Columbia University show almost 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in NY were purchased out state.

If our background checks on gun purchases are going to have meaning and value, we must close the gun show loopholes and that is why I support the McCain-Reed-DeWine-Lieberman amendment and I hope the entire Senate will do the same.

In closing, Mr. President, I want to implore my colleagues to examine the legislation before us that will give blanket immunity to bad gun manufacturers and dealers and to support the amendments designed to make our country safer.

I can't even begin to imagine what this nation will be like at the end of this September if the assault weapons ban is not renewed, the gun show loophole is not closed, and the gun immunity bill becomes law.

Unscrupulous and negligent gun manufacturers and dealers--both licensed and unlicensed--will be able to sell guns of all kinds, including assault weapons, and incredibly, no matter what happens, no matter how many Americans will be maimed and killed, they will be immune from liability.

Senate Floor Schedule for Thursday, March 4, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

10:30 a.m.: Resume consideration of S. 1637, the Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) bill.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Floor Calendar for Friday, March 5, 2004

The Senate is not in session.

DON'T MISS THIS!

C-SPAN, Washington Journal

07:45 am

LIVE

0:45 (est.) Call-In

Rumsfeld's War

Rowan Scarborough , Washington Times

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Senate Floor Schedule for Tuesday, March 9, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.Con.Res. 95, the FY 2005 Budget Resolution.

I expect the real fireworks will be at the SASC meeting. I hear Kennedy is going to ask Tenet why in his(Tenet) speech recently he said "Saddam wasn't an Immediate Threat".(I'm not saying Tenet said that, I watched the speech a few times, this is just what Kennedy is going to try and assert.)

I hope Tenet tears Kennedy apart.

Today 9:30 am EST C-Span1

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

There will be a meeting of the Committee on

ARMED SERVICES

Tuesday, March 9, 2004

9:30 AM

Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building

OPEN/CLOSED*

To receive testimony on current and future worldwide threats to the

Warner, John W., U.S. Senator, R-VA

Tenet, George, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Jacoby, Lowell, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Senate Floor Schedule for Wed., March 10, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.Con.Res. 95, the FY 2005 Budget Resolution.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

Floor Schedule for Thursday, March 11, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S.Con.Res. 95, the FY 2005 Budget Resolution.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - March 10, 2004)----- Worth looking at.

Some choice bits I heard last night.

[Page: S2524] GPO's PDF

CLINTON:"But instead of acting to prevent these (Medicaid)cuts, and stanch the bleeding, this budget turns the knife further and forces $11 billion in unspecified cuts to Medicaid at a time when such cuts would cripple states' ability to serve American families in hard times. "

Mr. NICKLES: I am going to embarrass our colleagues by getting into this in detail. I will show people how some States have been ripping off this system--probably to a much greater extent than even what has been bantered about. It is happening today. Many States are doing it.

I will tell my colleagues that we found we had payment abuse in Medicaid in years past. You might remember the program. We had to tighten it up. There has been some tightening of the intergovernmental transfer but not very much. A lot more could be done.

[Page: S2525] GPO's PDF

The Federal Government should not be taking Medicaid dollars and giving it to States to pave roads. In some cases, Medicaid money is being used by States for a lot of things other than Medicaid. I am telling you, I come to this Senate with, I hope, a little bit of credibility. I am not making this up. Maybe a more thorough evaluation in the committees would expose some of this. The earned-income tax program, people don't want to touch it. Yet the GAO says there is an error rate, a fraud rate in 27 to 30 percent, or a 32-percent fraud in a program that spends $36 billion a year, and we cannot direct the committee to say, Can you not come up with some savings? I am embarrassed.

Now get this.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

(DEM) Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my understanding of the Baucus amendment is that he has not taken out the savings at all. All he does is take out the reconciliation instruction. The savings are still there.

Let me comment for a moment, if I can, on what Chairman Nickles is saying, because he is talking about something where I entirely agree with him.

In Medicaid, there are States that are engaged in scams. I don't know how else to say it. What Chairman Nickles has said is entirely accurate. There are States that have figured out ways of tapping into the Federal Treasury and replacing what should be State funds with Federal funds. There is nobody who studies this who doesn't know what the chairman has said is true. (This is a DEMOCRAT talking?)

There are a number of States that have almost made a science out of playing games with Federal programs, to tap into the Federal Treasury, to advantage their States to the disadvantage of Federal taxpayers and to the disadvantage of other States.

But I repeat, in looking at the amendment of Senator Baucus, he has not taken out those savings. Those savings remain in the underlying resolution. It does take out the reconciliation instruction. So I have concluded that the Baucus amendment is worthy of support.

What the chairman has said is something I join in, especially with respect to Medicaid Program abuses. I am very hopeful we will have a hearing on these issues once we get past the budget resolution and the negotiations in which the chairman will have to be involved in the coming days. We ought to put a bright light on some of these States that are engaged in a scam operation.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I speak in regard to this amendment, I would like to comment on the discussion that was going on with regard to Medicaid. There is no question that as a former Governor I observed my colleagues around the country gaming the system, and I was very upset about it. I made it very clear as chairman of the National Governors Association that this was an understanding we had with the Federal Government and that we ought not to game the system.

[Page: S2526] GPO's PDF

I will never forget while I was Governor there was a management company, which is no longer in business, that went out to the school districts and showed them how they could use the money they were spending for health care and use it to game the Medicaid system. They would charge a percentage of the money they were able to bring into the school district. When I found out about it, I went beserk, to put it as nicely as I can, and that stopped. But I do think it is not a sacred cow that ought not be looked at. Just like a lot of mandatory spending we have, it should be reviewed to see if there are ways we can save some money.

G. GORDON LIDDY on C-span WJ right now.

BILL GERTZ on WJ(C-span1) now!

Floor Schedule for Thurs., March 25, 2004.

9:30 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

10:30 a.m.: Begin consideration of H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

Yes, we're going to be talking Abortion today(in a round-about way), I expect some heated exchanges.

Maybe by now BOXER knows what a baby is and when it is one. Because after all "It's not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital."

Freepmail me if you want on/off this ping list.