Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to address, if I may, the subject matter of Haiti and the events that have occurred there over the last several days, now going back a week or more, in that country, that beleaguered nation only a few hundred miles off the southern coast of Florida. On Sunday morning, as we now all know, the democratically elected government, the President of Haiti, was forced out of office. The armed insurrection, led by former members of the disbanded Haitian Army, and its paramilitary wing called FRAPH, made it impossible for the Aristide government to maintain public order, without assistance from the international community--international assistance that was consciously withheld, in my view. President Aristide left Haiti on Sunday morning aboard an American aircraft. President Aristide reportedly has gone into exile in the Central African Republic, where I am now being told he is not allowed to communicate with others outside of that country. Members of the Black Caucus of the other body, and others who had an opportunity to speak with President Aristide yesterday, have publicly restated his claim that he was forcibly removed from Haiti by U.S. officials. I quickly point out that Secretary of State Colin Powell and others have emphatically denied that charge. Such an allegation, if true, is extremely troubling and would be a gross violation of the laws of the U.S. and international law. Only time will tell. I presume there will be a thorough investigation to determine exactly what occurred from late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, regarding the departure and ouster of the President of Haiti, President Aristide. Over the coming days, I believe an effort should be made to reconstruct what happened in the final 24 or 48 hours leading up to President Aristide's departure so we can resolve questions of the U.S. participation in the ouster of a democratically elected leader in this hemisphere. Let's be clear that whether U.S. officials forcibly removed Aristide from Haiti, as he has charged, or he left voluntarily, as Secretary of Powell and others have stated, it is indisputable, based on everything we know, that the U.S. played a very direct and public role in pressuring him to leave office by making it clear that the United States would do nothing to protect him from the armed thugs who are threatening to kill him. His choice was simple: Stay in Haiti with no protection from the international community, including the U.S., and be killed or you can leave the country. That is hardly what I would call a voluntary decision to leave. I will point out as well, if I can--and I know that international agreements are not always thought of as being terribly important in some people's minds. But in 1991, President Bush, the 41st President, along with other nations in this hemisphere, had signed the Santiago Declaration of 1991. That declaration, authored by the Organization of American States, said that any nation, democratically elected in this hemisphere, that seeks the help of others when they are threatened with an overthrow should be able to get that support. Ten years later, the Inter-American Charter on Democracy was signed into law, a far more comprehensive proposal, again authored by the Organization of American States, the U.S. supporting. The present President Bush and our administration supported that. That charter on democracy stated that when asked for help by a democratically elected government being threatened with overthrow, we should respond. President Aristide, a democratically elected President made that request and, of course, not only did we not provide assistance, in fact we sat back and watched as he left the country, offering assistance for him to depart. I cite those international agreements because we think of our Nation as being a nation of laws, not of men. These agreements either meant something or they didn't. The Santiago Declaration and the Inter- American Charter on Democracy, apparently both documents mean little or nothing when it comes to supporting democratically elected governments in this hemisphere--not ones that you necessarily like or agree with or find everything they do is in your interest, but we do adhere to the notion that democratically elected governments are what we support in this hemisphere. When they are challenged by violent thugs, people with records of violent human rights violations, engaged in death squad activity, in the very country they are now moving back into and threatened, of course, successfully the elected government of President Aristide, then I think it is worthy of note that we have walked away from these international documents signed only 3 years ago and 10 years ago. There is no doubt, I add, that President Aristide has made significant mistakes during his 3 years in office--these last 3 years. He allowed his supporters to use violence as a means of controlling a growing opposition movement against his government. The Haitian police were ill trained and ill equipped to maintain public order in the face of violent demonstrations by progovernment and antigovernment activists. Poverty, desperation, and opportunism led to wide government corruption. President Aristide, in my view, must assume responsibility for these things. But did the cumulative effect of these failures amount to a decision that we thought we could no longer support this democratically elected government? If that becomes the standard in this hemisphere, we are going to find ourselves sitting by and watching one democratically elected government after another fall to those that breed chaos and remove governments with which they don't agree. They are being told by the Bush administration now that the Haitian Government was a government of failed leadership. That is a whole new standard when it comes to engaging in the kind of activity we have seen over the last several days. Having been critical of President Aristide, I point out that he was elected twice overwhelmingly in his country. He was thrown out of office in a coup in the early 1990s. Through the efforts of the U.S. Government and others, he was brought back to power in Haiti. Then he gave up power when the government of President Preval was elected. During those 4 years, President Aristide supported that transitional government. He ran again himself, as the Haitian Constitution allowed, and was elected overwhelmingly again, despite the fact the opposition posed little or no efforts to stand against him. There was a very bad election that occurred in the spring of 2000, in which eight members of the Haitian Senate were elected by fraud. Those Senators were removed from office. Six months later, President Aristide was elected overwhelmingly again. It is the first time I know of in the 200-year history of Haiti as an independent nation where a President turned over power transitionally peacefully to another democratically elected government. Whatever other complaints there are--and they are not illegitimate about the Aristide government--there was a peaceful transition of democratically elected governments in Haiti. That never, ever happened before. What has happened there repeatedly is one coup after another--33 over the 200-year history of that nation. Whatever shortcomings they may have had, President Aristide provided for the first time in Haiti's history a democratically elected government transitioning power to other people peacefully. I will also point out that he abolished the military and the army, an institution that did nothing but drain the feeble economy of Haiti of necessary resources. Haiti did not have a need for an army. There were no threats to Haiti. In retrospect, he may regret that. But the army, in my view, was a waste of money in Haiti, served no legitimate purpose, and President Aristide should be commended for abolishing an institution that had been the source of constant corruption and difficulty on that nation. Blame for the chaos does not rest solely on the shoulders of President Aristide. The so-called democratic opposition bears a share of the responsibility for the death and destruction that has wreaked havoc throughout Haiti over the past several weeks. The members of CARICOM, with U.S. backing, put on the table a plan calling for the establishment of a unity government to defuse the political crisis. The opposition rejected this proposal on three different occasions, despite the fact that President Aristide said he was willing to have a government of unity, to give up power, to share governmental functions with the opposition. The opposition said no on three different occasions, despite the fact that the nations of the Caribbean region urged the opposition to avoid the kind of transition that we have seen over the last several days. A hundred or more Haitians already have lost their lives. Property damage may be in the millions. Given the direct role the U.S. played in the removal of the Aristide government, it is now President Bush's responsibility, in my view, and moral obligation to take charge of this situation. That means more than sending a couple hundred marines for 90 days or so into Haiti. Rather, it means a sustained commitment of personnel and resources for the foreseeable future by the U.S. and other members of the international community that called for the removal of the elected government. If the Bush administration and others inside and outside of Haiti had been at all concerned over the last 3 weeks about the fate of the Haitian people, perhaps the situation would not have deteriorated into near anarchy, nor would the obligation of the U.S. to clean up this mess now loom so large. We are now reaping what we have sown. Three years of a hands-off policy left Haiti unstable, with a power vacuum that will be filled in one way or another. Will that vacuum be filled by individuals such as Guy Philippe, a former member of the disbanded Haitian Army, a notorious human rights abuser and drug trafficker, or is the administration prepared to take action against him and his followers, based upon a long record of criminal behavior? It is rather amazing to this Senator that the administration has said little or nothing about its plans for cracking down on the armed thugs who have terrorized Haiti since February 5. Only with careful attention by the United States and the international community does Haiti have a fighting chance to break from its tragic history. In the best of circumstances, it is never easy to build and nurture democratic institutions where they are weak and nonexistent. When ignorance, intolerance, and poverty are part of the very fabric of a nation, as is the case in Haiti, it is Herculean. Given the mentality of the political elites in Haiti--one of winner take all--I, frankly, believe it is going to be extremely difficult to form a unity government that has any likelihood of being able to govern for any period of time without resorting to repressive measures against those who have been excluded from the process. It brings me no pleasure to say at this juncture that Haiti is failing, if not a failed state. The United Nations Security Council has authorized the deployment of peacekeepers to Haiti to stabilize the situation. I would go a step further and urge the Haitian authorities to consider sharing authority with an international administration authorized by the United Nations in order to create the conditions necessary to give any future Government of Haiti a fighting chance at succeeding. The United States must lead in this multinational initiative, as Australia did, I might point out, in the case of East Timor; not as Secretary Defense Rumsfeld suggested yesterday: Wait for someone else to step up to the plate to take the lead. It will require substantial, sustained commitment of resources by the United States and the international community if we are to be successful. The jury is out as to whether the Bush administration is prepared to remain engaged in Haiti. Only in the eleventh hour did Secretary of State Colin Powell focus his attention on Haiti as he personally organized the pressure which led to President Aristide's resignation on Sunday. Unless Secretary Powell is equally committed to remaining engaged in the rebuilding of that country, then I see little likelihood that anything is going to change for the Haitian people. The coming days and weeks will tell whether the Bush administration is as concerned about strengthening and supporting democracy in our own hemisphere as it claims to be in other more distant places around the globe. The people of this hemisphere are watching and waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in honor of Dr. Felix G. Sheehan, of Middletown, CT. Next week, on March 13, 2004, Dr. Sheehan will be receiving the ``Irish Person of the Year'' award from the Middletown division of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the oldest and largest Irish Catholic society in the United States. Dr. Sheehan retired 2 years ago after 47 years in the medical practice. As a doctor, he was, in so many ways, a treasure from a bygone era. Even as health care became more and more of a business, and even as Americans increasingly dealt with the complicated world of copayments, referrals, and coverage networks, Dr. Sheehan was a doctor who built lifelong relationships with his patients and made house calls at all hours of the day and night. His tremendous dedication, warmth, and kind spirit are legendary in Middletown, where many of his patients became just as devoted to him as he was to them. One of those patients described him as ``the best doctor in the world.'' Dr. Sheehan was born in Belfast and came to America with his family at the age of 6. He served his new country in the Pacific during World War II. During his service, he had an experience that would change his life--and the lives of many others. While stationed aboard the USS Wasp, he was asked one day to help out a nurse who was having trouble treating a patient. It was then that he first realized that medicine would be his calling. After attending college at St. John's University in New York, Felix Sheehan spent the next 5 years in his native Belfast earning his medical degree from Queen's University. It was happenstance, he says, that he found Connecticut. But after seeing the slogan on Middlesex Hospital that read, ``Caring and Kindness Always, All Ways,'' he knew that Middletown would be his home. Because although that motto belonged to the hospital, it could have easily been written to describe Felix Sheehan. To Felix Sheehan, being a doctor meant so much more than examining patients and prescribing medicines. He offered complimentary medical services to local parochial schools. He took on needy patients free of charge. He hosted a wedding for one of his employees who couldn't afford it. He retained legal counsel for the child of one of his patients. And as his own career drew to a close, he served as a mentor and role model to young doctors entering the profession. From the day he took up his practice until the day he retired, Dr. Sheehan gave so much of himself to so many people. In the words of his daughter Laureen, ``in a very real and special sense, he was more than a physician--he was and is a healer.'' From one Irishman to another, I offer my warmest congratulations to Dr. Sheehan on the honor he will receive next week. I wish him, his wife Marie, and their children many more happy years together.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, what sort of time--I want to get a few minutes in morning business, myself.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Arizona for their courtesies. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I strongly support the extension of the assault weapons ban. I want to commend Senators Feinstein and Schumer for championing this important legislation for many years. We need to close a number of loopholes in the current assault weapons ban that have allowed gun manufacturers to make minor design changes to evade the law. One gun maker in my State has skirted the ban by replacing the prohibited flash suppressor on one of its assault weapons with non-prohibited muzzle breaks or compensators, which ironically reduce ``muzzle climb'' during rapid firing. The actual functional elements of this assault weapon, however, have remained the same. The gun still fires a high volume of bullets over a large area. Such loopholes need to be closed, and I am pleased to co- sponsor legislation authored by Senator Launtenberg to further strengthen the existing assault weapons ban. The current assault weapons ban will expire in September. There are many powerful reasons why extending the assault weapons ban must be a top priority for the Congress this year. First, assault weapon bans do work. According to the Department of Justice, the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by nearly two-thirds since 1995, the first year that the Federal ban went into effect. Between 1988 and 1991, assault weapons accounted for nearly 8 percent of guns used in crimes. In 1995, it plummeted to 3.6 percent. In 2002, it dropped even further to 1.2 percent. The ban on assault weapons is therefore clearly making a difference in reducing crime and saving lives. Second, assault weapons have a devastating impact on people's lives and on the safety of their communities. These aren't hunting weapons we are talking about. Nor are they for recreational or sporting use. We have heard it said before that one does not need an AK-47 or an Uzi for duck hunting. Quite simply, assault weapons are weapons of war. They are designed with one purpose in mind--for slaughtering human beings over a wide area. They belong on a faraway battlefield, not on our Nation's streets. However one feels about the Second Amendment, assault weapons have no place in a civilized society. If assault weapons end up in the wrong hands, the results can be horrific. The increased firepower of these weapons has a particularly devastating impact on its victims, who often suffer multiple gunshot wounds and severe penetrating trauma. It often takes longer for victims to recover from such injuries, placing significant burdens on scarce medical resources. Law enforcement officers are particularly vulnerable to assault weapons fire, since they are on the front lines protecting our communities from those gangs, drug traffickers, and even terrorist groups who have made such firearms their weapons of choice. In the years leading up to the enactment of the Federal ban, assault weapons accounted for 8 percent of all guns traced to crime, although they comprised only 1 percent of privately owned guns in America. Even with the Federal ban in place over the last decade, assault weapons have been implicated in the death of one in five police officers killed in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001. It is no coincidence then that numerous law enforcement organizations, including groups devoted to protecting children's rights and stopping domestic violence, support extending the ban on these deadly weapons. In fact, it is really a matter of homeland security that these weapons must be taken out of the hands of criminals. A May 2003 editorial in The San Antonio Express News had it right when it said that just as it is a priority for allied officials in Iraq to get AK- 47s out of the hands of Iraqi civilians, Congress shouldn't let such military-type weapons back on the streets of American cities by failing to extend the assault weapons ban. If terrorists can turn a jet aircraft into instruments to kill Americans, does anyone think they would hesitate for even one second to use an assault weapon for the same purposes? In addition to police officers being vulnerable to assault weapons, so are our children. These firearms were used to kill 5 children and wound 29 others in a Stockton, CA, schoolyard in 1989. The AK-47 used in this incident held a staggering 75 bullets. A TEC-9 assault weapon was also used in the 1999 killing of a teacher, 12 students, and the wounding of more than 20 others at Columbine High School. Connecticut was the fourth State in the Nation to ban assault weapons, after California, New Jersey and Hawaii. The National Rifle Association challenged the ban in Connecticut State court and it was upheld as constitutional in 1994. Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Federal ban on assault weapons as well. Extending the ban for another 10 years will save lives, prevent serious injuries and make our communities safer from the tragic consequences of gun violence. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. One more point, one of the most surprising things I have learned in this debate is that firearms, which are responsible for 29,000 deaths a year, are specifically exempt from regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act. Section 3(a)(1)(E) of the Act exempts firearms and ammunitions from the definition of ``consumer products.'' This provision was inserted into the Act in 1972 at the behest of the gun lobby. As a result, guns are among the only consumer products, along with tobacco, exempt from Federal health and safety regulations. This fact is shocking. Even more shocking is the fact that firearms cause more deaths a year than the 15,000 consumer products regulated under the Act combined. Other potentially dangerous products--from cars to lawnmowers to household products to medicines--are regulated to protect the health of the American public. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason enough why we cannot afford to grant the firearm industry legal immunity. Strangely enough, toy guns are more heavily regulated than real guns, despite the fact that toy guns do not kill or maim. There are over 140 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations that apply to toys, but only one paragraph devoted to guns, and that paragraph exempts guns from the Consumer Product Safety Act. Under the Act, toy guns fall under the standard for toys. At least four types of Federal safety standards cover toys: if they have sharp edges and points, small parts, contain hazardous materials, and are flammable. The regulations even say that toy guns should have a bright orange tip at the end of the barrel to distinguish them from real guns. The lack of Federal health and safety regulations for guns has a number of serious consequences. It means that there is no way to recall defective firearms. Guns that are manufactured poorly and pose a serious threat to gun owners and the public would remain in circulation, with the government essentially unable to do anything about it. The lack of Federal regulation of firearms also means that there is no way to mandate the use of safety devices. And it means that there is no detailed data collection on deaths and injuries from guns. Gun violence has a devastating impact on people's lives and their communities. The fact that toy guns are regulated and real guns are not makes little sense, and I urge the Senate to eventually rectify it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, for being very gracious in providing me a few minutes to address the underlying bill. I know we are going to debate the amendment on concealed weapons, but I wish to share with my colleagues my views on this legislation. I cannot see any amendment that can be offered to this legislation that is going to convince this Senator that the underlying bill deserves support. I am stunned, in many ways, that we are even suggesting this legislation. I can only imagine what the reaction would be if I were to come to the Chamber and offer a similar amendment that would exclude any other industry in the country from the exposure of potential liability for wrongdoing. In my State, I represent more gun manufacturers than any other Member of this body. I also represent probably more insurance companies and more pharmaceutical companies in the State of Connecticut than almost any other State in the country. As strongly as I support the people who work in these businesses and respect what they do, the idea that we would take an entire industry and remove it from the potential of liability is rather breathtaking to me in this day and age. I am a great advocate of tort reform, as many of my colleagues know. I authored the securities litigation reform bill and wrote the uniform standards litigation bill. I am now working on class action reform. But the idea that we would take an entire industry and give it immunity from wrongdoing, I think, is rather stunning to this Member. I wish to share with my colleagues some general thoughts. I know there are amendments going to be offered on assault weapons and a variety of other proposals, but I want to put my colleagues on notice. I do not think we can offer any amendment to this bill that will outweigh the harm done by the underlying proposal and the precedent we are setting in this body. We are taking an industry and saying: No matter what you do, no matter how much harm you may cause, you never have to worry about being held liable and accountable for your actions. In this day and age, that this body would so overwhelmingly endorse an idea such as this is breathtaking. I wish to take a few minutes to say why it is so outrageous. I want to add, with all the matters we should be addressing with the limited time in this session, with the thousands of people losing their jobs today, we have nothing to say about outsourcing. When we have 44 million Americans without health insurance, we have nothing to say about those issues. We are drowning in budget deficits and trade deficits. We have the worst job deficit since the Great Depression. Poverty is increasing, and this Chamber has nothing to say on those issues except we are now going to take one group of manufacturers and say: Don't worry about anything, you don't have to ever be held accountable for your wrongdoing. This legislation, in my view, is bad policy for a number of reasons. First, it will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on reducing the rate of gun violence in our Nation. In fact, this bill ignores the devastating toll firearm violence continues to have on the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were nearly 29,000 deaths in the United States from firearms in the year 2001 alone--29,000 deaths. That is, of course, 10 times the number of lives that were tragically lost on September 11 at the World Trade Center, here in Washington, and in Pennsylvania. In fact, one year of gun violence in America nearly equals the number of Americans who died in the Korean war and almost half the Americans lost in the entire Vietnam conflict. The numbers are staggering. These numbers exceed by a huge margin the number of firearm-related deaths on a per-capita basis in countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and France. Among those individuals most affected by gun violence are children. It is not just an incident such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 or inner-city neighborhood shootings that should make us realize that children are among the most vulnerable to gun violence. Children are also killed or injured by firearms because their parents did not store their guns properly, and the kids used them for horseplay. It is no coincidence then that firearms are the second leading death among young Americans ages 19 and under. Approximately 2,700 children under the age of 19 are killed each year as a result of gun violence or improper use of guns. The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is already 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. Let me repeat that. The firearm death rates of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. We are about to exclude an entire industry from even being brought to the bar to question whether or not they might be liable. One study noted the firearm injury epidemic among children is nearly 10 times larger than the polio epidemic in the first half of the 20th century. The human cost of gun-related deaths and injuries is tragic in itself, but the economic loss is also significant. According to a study published in 2000, the average costs of treating gunshot wounds were $22,000 for each unintentional shooting and $18,400 for each gun assault injuries. These costs would undoubtedly be much higher today. Total societal cost of firearms is estimated to be between $100 billion and $126 billion per year. Who pays these expenses? By and large the American taxpayers do. My colleagues speak against unfunded mandates, and yet this bill, if enacted, burdens the Nation's cities and counties with billions and billions of dollars in medical care, emergency services, police protections, courts, prisons, and school security. It is shameful that while tens of thousands of people are dying each year due to firearms, and while the American taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to cope with the effect of gun violence, the United States Senate is doing absolutely nothing to make our streets and homes safer. In fact, we are doing quite the opposite by our actions today. Second, the legislation will give this industry special legal protections that no other industry in the United States has. Neither cigarette companies nor asbestos companies nor polluters have such sweeping immunity as we are about to give this industry. In fact, gun manufacturers and sellers are already exempt from Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation, despite the fact firearms are among the most dangerous and deadly products in society. We have more regulations on toy guns than we do on the ones that fire real bullets. Imagine that, a toy gun that you buy from Mattel, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issues literally pages of regulations on what must be included in the production of that toy gun. There is not a single word in the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the production of a gun that may kill 29,000 people each year in this country. The National Rifle Association made sure of this exemption 30 years ago, just as highly addictive tobacco products are not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. I have supported tort reform in specific areas where I believe it is appropriate. My colleagues know that. At the same time, I recognize that litigation has been a powerful tool in holding parties accountable for their negligence and providing them with incentive to improve the safety of their products. It has been employed on behalf of other potentially dangerous products, such as cars, lawnmowers, household products, and medicines, to protect the health of the American people. The fact that guns are already specifically exempt from the oversight of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is reason enough, in my view, why we cannot afford to grant the firearm industry legal immunity. If this legislation is enacted, and I know it will be given the number of cosponsors and how this bill is sweeping through the Congress, would it remove any incentive under current products liability law for gun manufacturers to make their firearms safer? Studies have shown that the technology is both readily available and very inexpensive to install in order to help avoid future gun-related tragedies. For example, a load indicator could be included to tell the user that the gun is still loaded. That is never going to happen now, I promise. A magazine disconnect safety could be installed by the manufacturers to prevent guns from firing if the magazine is removed. Even child proofing the gun with safety locks can be done relatively easily. However this bill is enacted into law, gun manufacturers will lose a huge incentive to include such reasonable safety devices in their products. I know I am going to hear shortly, well, we just adopted a gun safety lock amendment. We did that a few years ago as well. What happened to it? It got dumped. That is what happened. Do not have any illusion about these amendments being adopted. My colleagues have been around long enough to know what is going to happen. When this bill leaves the Senate and goes down the hall to the other Chamber all of these nice provisions that are included will be dropped, just as they have been in the past. Third, this legislation would close the courthouse door on our Nation's mayors, gun victims, and law enforcement officers who are seeking to hold the gun industry accountable for their negligent conduct. Just last week, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton and over 80 other prominent law enforcement leaders from 26 States sent a letter to the Senate opposing the legislation. The chiefs warned that passage of the immunity legislation would result in more illegal gun running and deter efforts to develop child- resistant guns. In the words of Chief Bratton: The passage of this bill would deliver a devastating blow to justice. The NRA and Congress need to understand that special interest groups cannot come before public safety. Gun stores and manufacturers must be held to the same standards of safety as any other industry. And if they fail to act responsibly, they must pay the price. Evidence has been uncovered which reveals that the gun industry has been engaged in irresponsible behavior for many years. Senator Reed and others have already mentioned one such industry actor: Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA. This gun store claims that it ``lost'' the gun used by the Washington, DC snipers John Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo as well as more than 200 other guns. Many of these firearms were later traced to other crimes. In fact, Bull's Eye Shooter Supply had no record of the gun ever being sold and did not report it until after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms recovered the weapon and traced it back to the store. Even after the rifle was linked to the sniper shootings and the newspapers reported on the disappearance of the guns from Bull's Eye, the rifle's manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, declared that it still considered Bull's Eye a ``good customer'' and was happy to keep selling to the shop. The judge in this case has since ruled twice that the suit brought by the families of the DC-area sniper victims against both Bushmaster Firearms and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply should proceed to trial, and a preliminary appeal of these rulings has been rejected. Nevertheless, this case as well as other important pending and future lawsuits against negligent gun dealers and manufacturers would be banned under the Senate bill, according to the opinion of two of the Nation's most prominent attorneys, David Boies and Lloyd Cutler. There are many other instances of the gun industry not taking steps to prevent guns from reaching the illegal market. According to Federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Undercover sting operations in Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana have found that such dealers routinely permit gun sales to ``straw purchasers,'' that is, individuals with clean records who buy guns for criminals, juveniles, or other individuals barred by law from purchasing them. Again, if the Senate bill is enacted, police officers shot by a gun bought by a straw purchaser would no longer get his day in court. Gun shows are also an important source of guns for criminals. I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators McCain and Reed in co-sponsoring legislation to close the gun show loophole in the Brady Act. Studies have shown that unlicensed dealers often sell large quantities of guns at these shows without having to run criminal background checks or keeping records. Many of my colleagues might recall that a gun show was the source of the firearm purchased Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before they went on their murderous rampage at Columbine High School. But again, the Senate bill will not hold such negligent gun sellers responsible for the injuries and deaths their firearms cause. Supporters of this legislation contend that there is a gun litigation crisis in America, and that many of the cases being brought against the gun industry are frivolous. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are no massive backlogs of claims against gun dealers and manufacturers burdening the court system, as with the asbestos litigation. Only 33 municipalities and one State, New York, have filed suits against gun makers. Not one of these cases has been dismissed as being frivolous. In fact, 18 cities and counties have won favorable rulings on the legal merits of their cases. These courts have recognized that such cases are based upon well-established legal principles as negligence, product liability, and public nuisance. Important information on the gun industry's wrongful actions, which has long been cloaked in secrecy for many years, is being revealed during the discovery process. These cases, however, will be precluded, and the information gleaned from them will be lost, if the gun industry is granted the immunity it seeks. This legislation is the wrong way for the Senate to proceed on gun violence. Rather than giving special immunity to those manufacturers and dealers who wrongfully make and sell guns to criminals, the Senate should be working to protect our police officers and the people they protect. Rather than placing more guns on the streets, the Senate should be considering more responsible guns legislation, such as making the ban on assault weapons permanent and closing the gun show loophole. I am hopeful that the Senate will have a full and comprehensive debate on these important issues in the coming days. Rather than encouraging reasonable and safe gun use, the Senate is destroying any incentive for gun manufacturers to improve the safety of their deadly wares. The Senate wisely defeated a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the medical malpractice bill. It should now tell the gun industry that they need to be held accountable for their deeds as is the case for every other industry in America so I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I have great respect for my colleagues, but there is no amendment that is going to be adopted in this Chamber that is going to make this ugly legislation any better. I do not care how much lipstick is put on this one, this is an unattractive bill by any measure, and I am going to vote against it no matter what. What we are doing is outrageous. As the Senator who represents more of these manufacturers than any other Member in this body, I can say this is flat out wrong and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for taking an entire industry and not holding it potentially liable for the harm that it causes to people across this country. Thirty thousand people die every year, almost 3,000 kids, and we are about to say to the manufacturer of the products that kill them to take a walk and that you never have to show up again in court. That is incredible to me that we are about to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I also thank the majority leader and others for agreeing to vitiate the vote on the Voting Rights Act. I underscore the comments made by the senior Senator from Massachusetts to work with the majority leader and others interested in getting this done. It can be done rather simply. We do need to build a record on the issue. That is exactly the way to go. I commend the majority leader for moving on this. We do not want to wait until the year 2007. I thank him.

Mr. DODD. The Senator raised my name. I did not talk about the Senator from Idaho. The Senator used my name. May I respond?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for offering a very important amendment on unemployment insurance. This amendment is absolutely necessary because this administration has put this country on the wrong economic path. The economy is not improving, jobs are not being created, and workers and their families are suffering. Since this administration took office, America has lost nearly 3 million jobs, including over two and a half million in manufacturing. More than 9 million Americans are out of work. Unless we see an unbelievable turnaround in the next 8\1/2\ months, this administration will be the first since that of Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy where more jobs are lost than created. And what is the President's plan for economic recovery and job creation? More tax cuts for the wealthy; eviscerating overtime pay for hard-working Americans; shipping service and manufacturing jobs overseas; all while raising our deficits to record levels. It is not just the President alone who supports these policies--his administration supports these and other irresponsible policies as well. They have been forthcoming about their priorities and the priorities are out of step with working Americans. Therefore, no one should be surprised when instead of receiving a paycheck they receive a pink slip. No one should be surprised when they lose their house because the administration refuses to extend unemployment insurance benefits. No one should be surprised when retirees see their social security benefits slashed. No one should be surprised when companies move overseas or rely on workers overseas. Also troubling, just yesterday the Fed Chairman encouraged Congress and the Administration to make cuts into future Social Security payments in order to bring down the deficit. So now this administration is telling men and women who have worked hard their whole lives and are relying on Social Security to help them during their retirement years that they are better off cutting Social Security benefits rather than eliminate the tax cuts that go to the wealthy. The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors is quoted as saying, ``Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that's a good thing.'' American workers are losing their jobs and the Administration says it's a ``good thing''. That is an extraordinary statement. In fact, not once in the past month has the President mentioned extending Federal unemployment benefits. What more must happen for this administration to wake up and begin to take meaningful action? The President talks about tremendous job growth this year. This prediction would only be met if job growth averaged more than 450,000 new jobs each month, about four times the level of job growth in January according to the Economic Policy Institute. Americans are hurting and instead of taking steps to ensure job creation, this administration continues to call for more tax cuts--tax cuts that will favor the most wealthy, but do nothing for the families that are struggling today. These tax cuts will cost an additional $1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. What is even more alarming about this is that this is coming at the worst possible time--right when the baby boomers begin to retire. It is dumbfounding to me that just 3 years ago we were looking at the biggest surplus in our Nation's history--an annual surplus of $236 billion. We were actually having interesting discussions about the effects of paying down the debt too fast. If only we were debating that today. Instead, we are facing an unsustainable fiscal path with the largest deficit in history--a deficit of $521 billion this year, a deficit that if not tackled soon, will have dangerous consequences. It has been projected that by 2009, if we continue on this irresponsible path, each person's share of the debt will total $35,283. This will lead to a reduction in consumer demand, an increase in interest rates, and it will make it enormously difficult for families across this country to achieve financial security. Today, the Labor Department reported that 350,000 people filed new claims for State unemployment benefits last week. Just yesterday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that from late December, when the Federal unemployment benefits program expired, through the end of February, 760,000 jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving any additional Federal aid. More than 4,700 jobless workers in Connecticut will exhaust their benefits without qualifying for additional Federal aid. So that is why I wholeheartedly support extending Federal unemployment benefits right now. At the very least, we need to reach out to American workers and offer them a lifeline. This ought not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.

Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the managers of the bill, if there are a few minutes before you get to this, I would like to take a few minutes and speak on the underlying bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge colleagues to think twice about this. It is the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that we are talking about. We are talking about amending this act permanently and possibly excluding major ethnic groups in this country permanently. Please. This issue requires more thought than it can be given here. This is not the way to go about changing one of the most important laws ever enacted in our great country. We should not in effect tell our colleagues that they have 15 minutes to decide on whether or not potentially millions of Haitians, Africans, Asians, Hispanics, and Europeans would be permanently excluded from key protections of the Voting Rights Act when we have 3 more years to make that decision. To do this on an amendment to a gun manufacturer bill is stunning to me. Why would we take something as critical and important as the Voting Rights Act and throw it on the table without further consideration and thought? I urge my colleagues in the time they have to please talk to the majority leader and see if we can't pull this back by unanimous consent and let those of us who spend time on these issues sit and work on this. This is no way to be dealing with millions of people in our country who deserve the right to vote and to be protected properly under language minority and preclearance provisions. I make that plea to my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Do I understand that at the conclusion of roughly 15 or 16 minutes we will then vote on amending major provisions of the Voting Rights Act?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair very much for that. First let me express my gratitude to the majority leader for having a strong interest in this. As someone who for the last several years, since the election of 2000, has spent a great deal of time on the conduct of Federal elections, I worked closely with Mitch McConnell and Kit Bond of Missouri and Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, who chairs the House committee and has jurisdiction over Federal elections over in the other Chamber, along with a number of other people. There were a lot of people involved in this, but we were able to put together the HAVA Act, the Help America Vote Act. It is in the view of many the first civil rights legislation of the 21st century. Some have called it the most significant legislation affecting the right to vote since the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Certainly, one of the issues we looked at and discussed rather briefly was the issue of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act when it comes to language minorities. But when we were dealing with that bill, we did not vote to make permanent those provisions. And for good reason. This is a very important part of the Voting Rights Act, these language minority and preclearance provisions. It is hardly the place, I suggest, with all due respect to those who are interested in this, as a floor amendment to any bill here. We are on a bill addressing the issue of guns, and rather suddenly we are asked to permanently change one of the most profoundly important laws in our nation. Just to cite one example to my colleagues, if we adopt this today-- there is a group very much in the news at this very hour. And that is the people of Haiti. Now, there is a substantial population in the State of Florida of people who are formerly from Haiti, Haitian Americans. If this language is adopted, some have raised concerns that it could have the effect of making it more difficult for Americans of Haitian background, who do not speak English as a first language, to obtain the voting information and technologies to which they might otherwise be entitled and which they might require in order to cast a ballot. The same concern has been raised about Americans of other backgrounds, as well, for whom English is not a first language. I don't think there is a single Member in this Chamber who wants to vote today on a provision that could make it more difficult, if not impossible, for thousands if not tens of thousands of citizens, in effect, to vote. But we are told by those who deal in this issue every day that this amendment could have that effect. If we adopt this amendment in an hour's debate here, rather than after the kind of thoughtful analysis that should go into this, it could actually result in discrimination against Americans who clearly are language minorities. I am confident that none of us wants to see that happen. This is hardly the time, place, and manner to make such a profound change in law. Frankly, I don't have a prepared speech. I was just listening to this debate in my office, and having worked on this issue, I know how much time you take to get this right. To come over and have an amendment adopted that could permanently exclude a substantial part of our citizenry from the language minority provisions, I don't think we want to be on record on that today. These provisions of the Voting Rights Act, by the way, doesn't expire until the year 2007. We have 3 years. I think it is always wise to get something done when you can get it done. But the normal way you proceed is to sit down, work these things out, listen to people, and examine whether or not certain groups qualify or should qualify. But I don't think anyone would exclude from the Voting Rights Act potentially countless people who have come to this country for reasons with which we are all unfortunately too familiar, and who clearly qualify as language minorities. I, for one, cannot vote for this. I wouldn't want to be on record supporting this. I would like to work with the majority leader and others who would like to figure out how to get this done. I will do it this year. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has stated as much themselves in a letter they sent to the majority leader. It was dated today, to give you some idea of how fast this is moving. They say in their concluding paragraph: While we plan to strongly support the reauthorization of these important provisions, we urge you to vote no on the Frist amendment. The reasons are that this is a complicated process that takes some time to make sure you are including those who deserve to be included and excluding those who may no longer or should not be included under the language minority provisions. They believe it is premature. Their critical analysis of the issues surrounding the preclearance and minority language provisions has not been fully examined and analyzed. I hope no one would suggest otherwise. A floor amendment is hardly the place. If you hold a vote and exclude multiple language minority groups because you've made this law permanent after a one-hour debate, I would think you would ask your leadership to pause a minute and analyze whether this is correct. If it is correct, should we amend this language? Should we include them? If not, why not? Shouldn't there be a more thoughtful way to proceed on a matter of this import? There is no other right, in my view, that is as important as the right to vote. It is a right upon which all other rights depend. It is the central ingredient for our democracy--the right of people to vote. We have understood over the years that there are those who come to our shores and become wonderful Americans who have language barriers. If those people are excluded from the process of engaging in electing Federal officials and electing the leadership of this country, then we are not fulfilling our obligation historically to see to it that this basic, fundamental right is being protected. I am very much interested in seeing us make permanent, if we can, these language minority and preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. I would like to do it in a way that is far more deliberative than a 1-hour debate on the floor of the Senate dealing with a gun manufacturer bill. This is not the way we ought to be doing business on something as fundamental as the right to vote. I prefer not to vote no on this. I would prefer this amendment be withdrawn and then resubmit it under proper circumstances so we can have the opportunity to do the analysis necessary to arrive at right conclusions. I am the only one speaking about this at this particular moment. I don't know what the time frame is. Is there a limited time of debate? I make an inquiry of the Chair. Are we going to vote on this matter in a few minutes?

Mr. DODD. The Frist amendment is amending the Voting Rights Act; is that correct? It would make the preclearance and minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act permanent; is that correct?

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to say something about losing jobs. I have lost 45,000 manufacturing jobs in my State over the last few months. It has nothing to do with this. It has to do with the fact that this administration has decided that manufacturing jobs are producing hamburgers at McDonald's, and believe that outsourcing is a great thing for the country. That is where my jobs are going, not because of litigation. There have been 33 lawsuits by counties or communities and one by a State brought against the gun manufacturers. None of them have ever gone anywhere. What are we doing? Tell me there is some great problem out here in litigation with my companies losing lawsuits all across the country. We are a nation of 280 million people. Thirty-three lawsuits by counties, one by a State. The manufacturers never lost one. Why are we changing the law? Why, when 30,000 people die every year, 3,000 kids, why are we changing the law? There is no justification in fact or in law to be doing this.

Mr. DODD. I think I still have the floor.

Mr. DODD. If I may proceed and then finish in a few minutes.

Mr. DODD. Are you going to take 30 minutes? I would like to be able to be heard.

Mr. DODD. I will yield for purposes of having the amendment proposed.

Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from Massachusetts. Ten minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just received word on what we are now debating. I make a parliamentary inquiry. Am I correct that this is a Frist amendment to this bill?