Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the time is short but certainly the alarm is real. As I look at this, I am bewildered. I have three daughters. I have been fortunate enough to have 10 grandchildren. I have one son. The most precious assets I have in this world are these 10 little kids. I cannot believe that any Member here, in a face-to-face discussion, would say, We have to protect the ability of the coal powerplant to continue to emit more mercury into the atmosphere. I cannot believe anyone would take that as a fair exchange. Would you rather make sure our coal-fired powerplants have the right to increase the emissions of mercury or would you rather know that this child who may be in utero has a lesser chance of being affected by the scourge of mercury? Stated in a publication put out by the National Education Association, small doses of mercury can impair the brain and the developing nervous system. Infants who appear normal during the first few months of life may later display subtle effects, shorter attention span, poorer motor skills, slow language development, problems with visual-spatial ability such as drawing and memory. These children will likely need extra help to keep up in school, possibly remedial classes or special education. I hope all of our colleagues, who I know feel as strongly about the protection of our people as I do, but for goodness sake, do not ignore those protections by saying we have to make sure that the powerplants do not have to do their part and reduce the emission of more mercury. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I wish to offer a tribute to a valued friend, Jerry Waldor of South Orange, NJ. He passed away last week at the age of 77. Jerry ran his own successful insurance agency New Jersey for more than 45 years. Jerry was justifiably proud of his success in business, but that was only one aspect of his life. He was devoted to his family, his community, and his country. Jerry and his wife Rita were blessed with three sons and eight grandchildren. He would talk glowingly about his family given the slightest opportunity to do so. Jerry Waldor was president of the United Jewish Federation of MetroWest, an umbrella social organization that provided services to thousands in northern New Jersey. He was a beloved community leader who took a serious role in so many areas of importance to communities in our area of New Jersey. As is well known in these days of serious philanthropy, it is not an uncommon practice to delay or even avoid meetings or discussions with friends who volunteer to solicit funds no matter how good and important the organization's agenda. Jerry Waldor would phone me every year to solicit my contribution to the local Jewish Federation, and I welcomed his call because his manner was so pleasant and his own giving so generous. He also served as national vice chairman of the United Jewish Appeal and a director of the Council of Jewish Federations. He served on the boards of the American Jewish Committee and the New Jersey YMHA camps. He also served as a director of the National Conference of Community and Justice and a trustee of Cerebral Palsy of North Jersey. Jerry also had a distinguished record of military service. He entered the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1946 and graduated as a second lieutenant in the Air Force. During 5 years in the Air Force, he rose to the rank of captain, and worked as a deputy assistant for logistics in the Pentagon. After completing his active duty, he entered the Air Force Reserve, where he served until 1983. He retired as a major general. During his military career, Jerry received the Distinguished Service Medal and the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster. Jerry touched many lives during his time on Earth, and his deeds and memory will live on. I am proud to call him my friend. He will be missed by all who knew him. I hope his family will take comfort in the recall of their good fortune to have had him as husband, father, and grandfather in these dark days.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleague Senator Martinez, a bill that will balance the needs of fishermen with the needs of some of our most precious and vulnerable ocean resources: deep sea corals and sponges. Fishing and fishing communities are an important part of our culture, our history, and our economy. Deep sea corals and sponges are an important suite of species with wide economic potential extreme valuable ecologically. It is imperative that we protect the needs of both. Deep sea corals are similar to tropical shallow-water corals, but are found in the deep cold waters near seamounts, ridges, undersea canyons, and the margins of the continental shelf. Like shallow-water corals, deep sea corals and sponges can form deepreefs and gardens that are essential to numerous marine species. For example, more than 1,300 species live among the Lophelia coral reefs in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. These animals rely on complex coral and sponge habitats for spawning, food, and shelter from predation. Deep sea corals and sponges are also important to humans. They provide habitat that commercially and recreationally important fish can use, and many are under study as sources of new biomedical compounds to fight various diseases. Scientists around the world believe that these newly discovered deep sea corals and sponges are as important as, if not more important than, their tropical cousins. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy suggested that the biodiversity of deep sea coral communities may rival that of shallow-water coral reefs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated in 2002 that deep sea coral ecosystems are ``much more extensive and of more widespread economic importance than tropical coral reefs.'' Unfortunately, some types of fishing gear are detrimental to deep sea coral and sponge habitat. Today there is a serious risk that these precious deep sea corals, sponges, and their complex habitats will be inadvertently destroyed before they can be properly assessed by the scientific community. A single pass with a bottom trawl can wipe out a swath of this habitat that, because these species are extremely slow- growing, can remain bare for decades if not centuries. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's 2004 report emphasizes that deep sea corals need action for protection. Five of the eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils agree, and have recently set aside many of their coral habitat areas as no-bottom-trawling zones. The Bottom Trawl and Deep Sea Coral Habitat Act builds on actions of these Councils, providing protection for deep sea corals and sponges while also preserving fishermen's access to areas that have traditionally been trawled. The bill establishes three types of zones. Areas that are known to contain deep sea corals and sponges are set aside as Coral Habitat Zones, granting these species immediate protection. Areas that have been trawled at any time in the past seven years are established as Bottom Trawling Zones, where bottom trawling is permitted. Areas that fit neither category are defined Undesignated Zones, available at any time to be assigned as either Coral Habitat or Bottom Trawling Zones with results of research activities. Fishermen play a large role, through the Regional Councils, in defining how large these zones will be, and other types of fishing that do not use bottom gear are not impacted. The process of zone designation is designed not to shrink the area of existing bottom trawling but to limit the opening of new grounds to bottom trawling until after scientists discover the extent of deep sea corals and sponges. The intent is to preserve access to all areas that do not contain deep sea coral and sponge and that have been part of the fishing community's traditional grounds. These are not small areas. Traditional bottom trawl grounds include a large proportion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: 10 percent according to National Research Council data. In some regions, 75 percent of the shelf within 50 miles of shore in is trawled with bottom gear. We must act quickly, and our legislation provides a balanced approach to protection of fishing and protection of the environment. I call on my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, and the Senate leadership to take up, consider, and pass this bill as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. President, I rise today to introduce, with my colleague Senator Martinez, a bill that will balance the needs of fishermen with the needs of some of our most precious and vulnerable ocean resources: deep sea corals and sponges. Fishing and fishing communities are an important part of our culture, our history, and our economy. Deep sea corals and sponges are an important suite of species with wide economic potential extreme valuable ecologically. It is imperative that we protect the needs of both. Deep sea corals are similar to tropical shallow-water corals, but are found in the deep cold waters near seamounts, ridges, undersea canyons, and the margins of the continental shelf. Like shallow-water corals, deep sea corals and sponges can form deepreefs and gardens that are essential to numerous marine species. For example, more than 1,300 species live among the Lophelia coral reefs in the northeastern Atlantic Ocean. These animals rely on complex coral and sponge habitats for spawning, food, and shelter from predation. Deep sea corals and sponges are also important to humans. They provide habitat that commercially and recreationally important fish can use, and many are under study as sources of new biomedical compounds to fight various diseases. Scientists around the world believe that these newly discovered deep sea corals and sponges are as important as, if not more important than, their tropical cousins. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy suggested that the biodiversity of deep sea coral communities may rival that of shallow-water coral reefs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated in 2002 that deep sea coral ecosystems are ``much more extensive and of more widespread economic importance than tropical coral reefs.'' Unfortunately, some types of fishing gear are detrimental to deep sea coral and sponge habitat. Today there is a serious risk that these precious deep sea corals, sponges, and their complex habitats will be inadvertently destroyed before they can be properly assessed by the scientific community. A single pass with a bottom trawl can wipe out a swath of this habitat that, because these species are extremely slow- growing, can remain bare for decades if not centuries. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's 2004 report emphasizes that deep sea corals need action for protection. Five of the eight Regional Fisheries Management Councils agree, and have recently set aside many of their coral habitat areas as no-bottom-trawling zones. The Bottom Trawl and Deep Sea Coral Habitat Act builds on actions of these Councils, providing protection for deep sea corals and sponges while also preserving fishermen's access to areas that have traditionally been trawled. The bill establishes three types of zones. Areas that are known to contain deep sea corals and sponges are set aside as Coral Habitat Zones, granting these species immediate protection. Areas that have been trawled at any time in the past seven years are established as Bottom Trawling Zones, where bottom trawling is permitted. Areas that fit neither category are defined Undesignated Zones, available at any time to be assigned as either Coral Habitat or Bottom Trawling Zones with results of research activities. Fishermen play a large role, through the Regional Councils, in defining how large these zones will be, and other types of fishing that do not use bottom gear are not impacted. The process of zone designation is designed not to shrink the area of existing bottom trawling but to limit the opening of new grounds to bottom trawling until after scientists discover the extent of deep sea corals and sponges. The intent is to preserve access to all areas that do not contain deep sea coral and sponge and that have been part of the fishing community's traditional grounds. These are not small areas. Traditional bottom trawl grounds include a large proportion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: 10 percent according to National Research Council data. In some regions, 75 percent of the shelf within 50 miles of shore in is trawled with bottom gear. We must act quickly, and our legislation provides a balanced approach to protection of fishing and protection of the environment. I call on my colleagues on the Commerce Committee, and the Senate leadership to take up, consider, and pass this bill as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take some time to review the situation we have seen in front of us for the last week. It was a terrible week for our country. One only had to listen to the eloquent remarks given by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. She described in very moving words and tones what kinds of things she personally witnessed and that went on in the State of Louisiana, particularly New Orleans. We all have to learn from that experience. We have to be ready for any eventuality. The American people watched in horror and disbelief as this incredible tragedy played out on live television in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. For most of us, it was from the safety of our homes or businesses that we watched with horror our fellow Americans suffering unbelievable loss and pain. The worst part is, as we watched this tragedy evolve, with thousands being displaced from their homes and families, without a significant response, why did they suffer so long before appropriate action was put into place? That is because the Federal Government was not prepared. How could the administration not have been prepared for this? We had advance warning that a major disaster was looming. We see this picture. It tells you what is happening. Sunday, August 28, the swirl of the wind and the ferocity of the action is almost enough to frighten you just looking at this picture. August 28, Sunday, Katrina became a massive hurricane, a category 5. It was in the Gulf of Mexico headed right for a large American city--a city with tradition and history that all of us relate to. Actually, however, this city sat below sea level--New Orleans. The mayor of New Orleans on that Sunday ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city. This wasn't news, friends. No. This was obvious. You were going to get a punch in the face like you never had before, and your opponent was standing full fist in front of you. Massive flooding was predicted before the storm hit. At 6 a.m. Monday morning, Hurricane Katrina and its storm surge hit greater New Orleans and the Mississippi coast. About 80 percent of the city's residents were able to flee. Others, especially the elderly, the infirm, and the poor were left behind. Also, on Monday, the 17th Street levee in New Orleans broke, and water flooded the city. One only needs to ask our junior Senator from Mississippi about the wave of water that destroyed his house. He told me it was 26 feet high. That is more than two stories. Levees gave way, and floodwaters quickly overtook homes. Residents scrambled for their lives, seeking refuge on rooftops. We all saw the vivid pictures of the heroic Coast Guard rescue putting people in baskets, or hanging onto them, around their necks, to get them out of the way of the oncoming flood. More than 30 elderly residents of a nursing home died in that rapidly rising tide. On Monday, August 29--remember, the first picture was Sunday. That was the warning we saw going on. On Monday, August 29, many in New Orleans were evacuating their homes in rushing waters trying to keep themselves and their families from drowning. Here is a photo taken about midday that Monday. I would appreciate it if those who see this would keep this time in mind. That terrible image--look at it. People were standing in water up to their waists. Some are up to their necks, and obviously holding children, and at the same time holding bundles on their heads to keep them dry. By Tuesday, we saw conditions deteriorating at the Louisiana Superdome where people had already sought refuge. They suddenly needed to move again. A reporter at the scene told grim stories of no food, no air conditioning, no usable water, overflowing toilets in the Superdome, and of tens of thousands of human beings who were stranded in these inhumane conditions. While media members were spread across New Orleans, the Federal Government seemed to have no presence whatsoever. I remember personally watching Jean Meserve reporting for CNN, almost being blown over by the ferocity of the winds, with tears in her eyes, in a quivering voice. She was crying as she gave her report about the horror she was witnessing. She was barely able to hold herself in position. These desperate people trudged up elevated highways and overpasses. I am sure they assumed that help would soon come. But even though they waited in plain sight on an elevated highway, no help arrived. So they baked in the heat, and they looked desperately toward the skies for any hint of help. But there was little sign from the Federal Government; no sign of help other than the courageous Coast Guard rescue teams pulling people off of rooftops. On Tuesday, as this devastation was being unleashed on New Orleans, where was President Bush? He flew to California, in the opposite direction of the crisis as tens of thousands of Americans were fighting for their lives, many of them dying. The President was in California. It was an important moment. He gave a speech commemorating VJ Day. I remember VJ very clearly. I was on a ship going from Europe where I served during the war back to America to go on to Japan. It was an important moment. But was it important enough for the President to leave his post, to leave his command, when people were trying to stay alive? This is a picture taken on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. It was 2:56 eastern time, which made it about 2 hours difference in central time, New Orleans. The President was enjoying the day. He was strumming a guitar. I don't deny him the pleasures of office. But people were drowning. They were trying to save their lives, save their homes, and save their kids at the same time. The President was not in touch with the country. It was one of the worst failures of leadership in our Nation's history. It was like an Army preparing for battle only to find out that the top general has gone AWOL. Millions of Americans asked: How could this happen in the 21st century in America? Our hearts were broken--all of us, anybody who saw it. I remember conversations with family and friends, and how horrified they were to see people struggling. They heard tales of children being swept from parents' arms, of the woman who sat with her husband as he pleaded for needed medication. And he died in her presence. Senator Landrieu told us the story about the man who was sent to protect the mayor of New Orleans. He stayed with the mayor 3 days. When he went to his home, he found that his wife and children had died. He was so overcome he took a pistol and blew his head off. He committed suicide. How terrible. What many people do not understand is the incompetence of the leadership in their country. It seems to be almost an indifference. What many Americans concluded last week is that the Bush administration cannot protect us. When faced with a real crisis, the White House displayed a lack of involvement, a failure of leadership. To make matters worse, our President refuses to accept responsibility. President Truman--who sat at this very desk; his name is written here--said: The buck stops here. That is not what we saw from the White House those terrible days. Now the President has an idea about how to determine what went wrong. He wants to begin an investigation, headed by himself. An investigation of self is not the best way to get the facts. The hurricane that struck New Orleans on August 29 was a force of nature. But the damage and the disaster that followed was compounded by a failure of leadership. Since the President and the President's team have already mishandled much of this tragedy, I urge my colleagues to roll up our sleeves and follow the lead of Senator Landrieu, with Senator Vitter, Senator Lott, Senator Cochran, as we craft a plan for recovery for these devastated communities. We have a moral obligation to rebuild not just these businesses and landmarks but homes and communities, schools in every community, regardless of class or color. One of our Republican colleagues said something this past weekend, in talking about the people who were suffering so much in the gulf area: You have people who don't heed those warnings and they put people at risk as a result of not heeding those warnings. He further said there is a need to look at tougher penalties on those who decide to risk it and understand there are consequences for not leaving; to administer more punishment to these people who did not heed the warning, who did not want to leave their homes, who did not want to leave their familiar territory, who did not want to leave a relative, perhaps; to put more punishment on them, suggesting that losing a child, losing a home, losing momentos, or losing a history is not enough. We should punish them further? A Senator suggested that. What an outrage. Yes, he yielded later and said he might have been misunderstood. Read that Senator's words. We have to learn from this terrible tragedy. The country certainly is alert to the risks we face from terror, from human-initiated attack. In the State of New Jersey we lost 700 people; New York, almost 2,000. We learned a lot. We learned we have to protect ourselves. It appears the number of dead in Louisiana and Mississippi is going to exceed the number, as terrible as it was, of September 11. So we have to prepare ourselves in some way to deal with that problem just as ardently, just as thoroughly, as we fight terrorism. We need to pass legislation as soon as possible. I hope we will not be delayed in doing that by recriminations from those who would pass the buck elsewhere, away from the place the responsibility belongs. We need to tell the gulf coast community that we believe in them, that the road to recovery is being built, and that we will then proceed to examine the history of what got us there. People understood in many quarters the levees were weak. The question arises about what we did to shore them up. I hope that examination will take place in the immediate future. We salute those people who have endured the most unimaginable tragedy--to have loved ones swept away by flood waters, to have memories taken away. In lots of places it was not just the housing but the memorabilia, the trinkets of childhood, childbearing, raising kids, and seeing it disappear. We have to be stronger. We have to be more leaderly. We cannot be AWOL when trouble strikes. I hope we will work together on a bipartisan basis, as they say, and do the right thing. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help protect our children from the harmful health effects of pesticides. This legislation, a companion bill to Congressman Rush Holt's School Environment Protection Act, SEPA, addresses the need for States and local education agencies to protect schoolchildren and school staff from exposure to harmful chemicals in school buildings and on school grounds. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, children face higher risks than adults from pesticides because their systems are still developing, and therefore not as capable of detoxification. Pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child's neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems and has been linked to exacerbated asthma symptoms. In July of this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a study which confirmed that pesticide exposure at schools causes acute illnesses in school employees and students. The study recommends that integrated pest management programs, designed to require less, if any, chemical pesticide application, be used in schools to help keep our children safe and healthy. Safe alternatives to the use of dangerous chemical pesticides exist. This bill would require all schools, local education agencies, and States to develop school pest management plans that emphasize these safe alternatives, minimizing health damage from pesticides and minimizing economic damage by pests at the same time. This legislation would encourage schools to use techniques that attempt to move away from chemical pesticides where possible, that are proven to be safe and effective, and that involve proper timing and notification of students, families, and school employees in cases when pesticides cannot be avoided. This bill builds the foundation for a strong working relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and State and local agencies so that they may solve this problem together. The EPA is called upon to develop guidelines with State and local education agencies for school pest management plans. Local education agencies would be required to develop and implement school pest management plans that comply. The EPA would continue to offer program assistance after such plans are implemented. The Senate passed a similar version of this bill in the 107th Congress, but the full Congress has been slow to act. I sincerely hope that Congress finally acts on this important issue. We must take the advice of scientists, especially considering the ever-growing body of knowledge concerning the effects of harmful chemicals on children, and pass the School Environment Protection Act. Children have the right to learn in a healthy atmosphere. Parents and guardians have the right to know whether their children are to be exposed to toxic chemicals and take mitigating steps. I urge all my colleagues to support the School Environmental Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help protect our children from the harmful health effects of pesticides. This legislation, a companion bill to Congressman Rush Holt's School Environment Protection Act, SEPA, addresses the need for States and local education agencies to protect schoolchildren and school staff from exposure to harmful chemicals in school buildings and on school grounds. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, children face higher risks than adults from pesticides because their systems are still developing, and therefore not as capable of detoxification. Pesticide exposure can adversely affect a child's neurological, respiratory, immune, and endocrine systems and has been linked to exacerbated asthma symptoms. In July of this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association released a study which confirmed that pesticide exposure at schools causes acute illnesses in school employees and students. The study recommends that integrated pest management programs, designed to require less, if any, chemical pesticide application, be used in schools to help keep our children safe and healthy. Safe alternatives to the use of dangerous chemical pesticides exist. This bill would require all schools, local education agencies, and States to develop school pest management plans that emphasize these safe alternatives, minimizing health damage from pesticides and minimizing economic damage by pests at the same time. This legislation would encourage schools to use techniques that attempt to move away from chemical pesticides where possible, that are proven to be safe and effective, and that involve proper timing and notification of students, families, and school employees in cases when pesticides cannot be avoided. This bill builds the foundation for a strong working relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and State and local agencies so that they may solve this problem together. The EPA is called upon to develop guidelines with State and local education agencies for school pest management plans. Local education agencies would be required to develop and implement school pest management plans that comply. The EPA would continue to offer program assistance after such plans are implemented. The Senate passed a similar version of this bill in the 107th Congress, but the full Congress has been slow to act. I sincerely hope that Congress finally acts on this important issue. We must take the advice of scientists, especially considering the ever-growing body of knowledge concerning the effects of harmful chemicals on children, and pass the School Environment Protection Act. Children have the right to learn in a healthy atmosphere. Parents and guardians have the right to know whether their children are to be exposed to toxic chemicals and take mitigating steps. I urge all my colleagues to support the School Environmental Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. On the question of gross negligence, does gross negligence pierce the prohibition suit?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Didn't the Senator from Michigan offer the gross negligence exemption and had it denied because----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, very quickly, not once in my comments did I talk about taking away guns from people. We are discussing this particular issue. There are three reasons that permit penetration of the veil of immunity: negligent entrustment, negligence per se, and defective products. Those who describe negligence as a cause are mistaken. It was suggested that this would drive a truck through this bill. I want to drive that truck full of children alive and healthy. I yield back.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder if I might dare to offer my comments after that earlier admonition. But I will do it because we are here for reasons that are obvious to everybody. We are here because our friends on the other side wanted to stop us from offering amendments altogether and are trying to block any suggestion that might be added to make this bill more reasonable or more acceptable. I call up my amendment and ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment that poses a question to the Senate. The question is fairly simple: What is more important in our life, in our society, to be on watch for: Is it to protect our Nation's children and to let those know who would assist in harming those children that they are going to be taken to court and be sued and punished, if they can be punished, or for criminal action as well? This refers only to the civil side of things. But what is more important? Is it most important for us to support the NRA, to make sure they are satisfied, to make sure that their dictates to this body--and it is obvious that it is all over the place. Ladies and gentlemen who can hear us in this debate, understand that the other side is willing to block your ability, your family's ability to sue someone who has been neglectful, careless, reckless with the way a gun is handled and to protect them. Why? Frankly, I cannot figure it out. But apparently our friends on the other side have it all figured out. They just say no. We went through that exercise in our society, and it didn't work. It is not going to work here. Is it to protect our children? Special interests versus the children in America. This bill--everyone knows--wants to protect the gun industry even, as I said, when they are grossly negligent, reckless, careless. What my amendment says is that there should not be a blanket grant of immunity in cases in which a child is the victim. We identify a child as those children under 17 years of age. How dare we look a mother in the eye and tell her that she cannot hold the people who caused the death or injury to her child accountable? We cannot do it. One has to look deeply into whether there is a constitutional question associated with this. The fifth amendment suggests that you have the right to seek damages--this is not precise language--for injuries. What this bill says now is that the parents of children killed by gunfire, when someone else is at fault, even if they are careless, reckless, or negligent, cannot seek redress. It has been said before by colleagues that there are numerous industries that would like the same protection so they can go ahead perhaps and not be as careful in making sure their product meets safety standards. But, no, they didn't have the muscle to break their way into this place and ``at gunpoint''--if I may use the expression--jam something through this Senate. And they describe these shamelessly as junk lawsuits--that is hard to understand. The bill says, too bad, sorry about your kid, but we cannot let you harm these big campaign donors of ours. No, no, no. It is kind of sacrosanct. But it is prohibited for every other industry in this world of ours. If they make a faulty product and if they are negligent in its handling, they can be taken to court and sued. I will provide an example. A criminal goes into a gunshop and asks to look at assault weapons. The dealer lays out deadly weapons on the counter and the dealer says: Just a minute. I have to go in the back. Here are these weapons on the counter. When the dealer returns from the back room, where he said he was going to check something in inventory, the criminal has taken the weapon and left the store. Can you imagine that outrageous behavior? The lethal weapons were on the counter. The dealer could turn his back for a moment and have someone with criminal intent steal a gun and go out. The dealer cannot be punished for that outrageous behavior. The next day, that criminal could use that weapon in a drive-by shooting and kill a 6-year-old boy. If this bill passes in its current form, the parents of that child cannot go to court to sue against that negligent gun dealer. When the parents ask why they can't sue this dealer whose negligence caused their son's death or permanent disability, we can tell them to thank their Senator; get the phone number and office address of their Senator, and they can send their gratitude to that Senator--or their anger and their rage--which they have a right to do. Mr. President, nearly 3,000 children die from gunshot wounds every year in our country. The Senate ought to try to reduce that statistic and not stand by and permit it to grow. According to the CDC, the latest statistics show that in 2002, 2,867 children and teenagers died from gunshot incidents in the United States. The CDC also found that firearm-related deaths among children under the age of 15 were 12 times higher here than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Let me repeat that. Firearm-related deaths among children under 15 in our country were 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. We are not talking about backwoods or primitive countries; we are talking about industrialized countries. They are much more conscious about protecting their population from random gunshots than we are. These are shameful statistics. So why does it matter whether negligent gun dealers are held accountable? Because when we hold people accountable for their actions, we prevent wrongdoing that will hurt more people in the future. It sends a clear message--hey, if you are not careful with your inventory of guns, if you are not careful of whom you sell that gun to, if you are not careful with what kind of a retailer you distribute your guns to, you are going to pay a price, a stiff price. Maybe it will put you out of business. Maybe you deserve to go out of business. That is what I say. Why should we lock the courthouse doors to our children and the families of children killed or injured by guns? Mr. President, earlier I used a hypothetical example, but there are thousands of real-life examples of children suffering because of gun industry negligence. There is the story of Tennille Jefferson, the mother of a young son who became another statistic of gun violence. On April 19, 1999, her son, Nafis, was shot and killed by a young man who found a gun on the street belonging to a gun trafficker named Perry Bruce. Perry Bruce bought this deadly weapon from a gun dealer who had repeatedly sold him guns, despite many obvious signs that he was a gun trafficker. Mr. Bruce had shown a welfare card as his identification; yet, somehow nobody at this store bothered to question how he had thousands of dollars to purchase 10 guns at a time. Mr. Bruce has stated that the gun dealer ``had to know what I was doing'' and that he was high on marijuana each time he bought guns from this gun dealer. Gun dealers like this must be held accountable. This bill gives them a free pass to do any darn thing they want, except certain classes of negligence, or negligence per se; otherwise, it is a free pass. The senior Senator from Virginia spoke so eloquently yesterday about this issue. He pointed out that the vast majority of licensed gun dealers followed the rules, but there are those rogue dealers that act negligently and cause death and injury. Senator Warner explained it to us that this bill before us gives these rogue gun dealers a pass. This bill says--and I quote Warner--``Go ahead. Do whatever you want.'' Shamefully, the Senate leadership denied Senator Warner--a distinguished, long-serving Senator, a veteran of World War II--from having a chance to have a vote on his amendment. I didn't think I would be here defending a Republican Senator's chance to offer an amendment, but they made sure that that wasn't going to happen. Even though there is purported respect, affection, and almost reverence for Senator John Warner, they denied him a chance to stand on this floor and offer an amendment. No, the NRA is more powerful than Senator Warner. It is shameful. In my view, it was so disrespectful to a senior Member of this body. My amendment takes on pretty much the same issue as Senator Warner but with a narrower focus. Do those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass? To me, there is only one answer there. I would take my kid over anything that the NRA needs or wants any time. I would fight like the devil for it. I once carried a gun for it when I served in World War II. So the question before the Senate on my amendment is: Whom do you want to please? Do you want to please mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, and sisters? Or do you want to protect the NRA, the gun manufacturers, the gun distributors--those who at times don't give a darn about how they handle these things? We are going to hear the cry about how we are going to put these innocent people out of business. Out of business? No. We don't want to put them out of business. If they are going to be in the business, and they are legally licensed, they need to be careful and make sure they obey the rules. If they don't, they will pay a price--perhaps criminally, but surely civilly. If we fail to adopt my amendment, gun dealers are not going to have any accountability, no incentive to behave responsibly, no matter the number of children who die from gun violence. Our criminal justice system brings about punishment--yes, they take the person who committed a violent act or a felony and make them pay. Purportedly, it registers with others who would conduct similar acts, and that is the way we operate. But here, no. We are saying: Listen, you don't even have to be careful. You can be negligent and reckless. Do what you want. Come on. It is for the gun industry, for the NRA. Whom do we have to respect around here? It is obvious that they think it is the NRA. It is unjust, unfair, and immoral for us, as elected officials, to strip away the rights of children and families who are harmed or killed by gunfire. Are Senators willing to look in the eye of Tennile Jefferson and tell her the door to the courthouse is barred for her? I wish to talk about something we know will be pending, and that is the Republican alternative ostensibly to offer the protection these children's families might need from my amendment. To put it bluntly, the Republican sham protection is an insult. It is an insult to America's children. It is an insult to America's parents. It is an insult to this Senate. It is an insult to morality. That is the way it is going to come about. You are going to say: No, that child's family can be protected by those conditions already laid out for penetrating the shield of protection that the gun industry and the NRA are demanding. I urge my colleagues to read this so-called alternative, and I urge the public to get this language. Understand what is taking place. Compare my amendment to that which is going to be offered and see which one is serious about offering the opportunity for people to seek compensation in the event of injury. The Republican language makes clear that children get no special treatment under this bill. It says that children are subject to the same limited exemptions that everyone else has under this bill, approximately three conditions. Negligence and negligence per se are exempt from the prohibition. In our amendment, negligent entrustment and negligence per se are still able to be adjudicated in a court in a civil action. Our amendment says that the gun violence immunity bill should not apply to children. Please, look at your own families. See what you would do to someone who would harm your child, maybe render them totally disabled for life. How would you react to that? Would you say, Too bad, the courts in America will not allow us to seek redress, to get some measure of compensation? There is never enough money to bring back the health and well-being of a child who was killed or a child who is permanently injured. This will block legal actions on the behalf of children and their families who are injured or killed. It is about as simple a decision as we get around here. Are there times when the courthouse doors ought to be locked, be shut to children or their families, or shouldn't they? I urge my colleagues once again to think about the faces of their children. I have 10 grandchildren, and nothing in this world is more important to me than all 10 or any 1 of those 10 grandchildren. I think everybody else, even those who right now are supporting this hard- hearted legislation, even those people I know love their children. They don't want anything to happen to them. They want to protect them as much as they can. I bet whatever devices they can use to protect them they would use. So come on, think about it when you cast your vote. Look in the mirror one time and challenge your conscience to see how you ought to be voting. Let that be your guide. Mr. President, I believe we have more time for this amendment. What is the status of the time for our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question and clarification of terms?

Mr LAUTENBERG

Mr LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to address a serious problem in New Jersey and across the nation--the unregulated sorting and processing of garbage at rail facilities in our communities. A conflict in Federal laws and policy has resulted in certain solid waste-handling facilities located on railroad property being unregulated. Environmental laws such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act should apply to the operation of these facilities. However, a broad- reaching Federal railroad law forbids environmental regulatory agencies from overseeing the safe handling of trash or solid waste at these sites. These unintended consequences require our attention, and are the reason for the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005. The Federal railroad law in question was enacted most recently in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 to protect the operation of interstate rail service. The law gives `exclusive' jurisdiction over rail transportation--and activities incident to such transportation--to the Federal Surface Transportation Board. I realize this law is necessary for the efficient operation of commerce in our modern economy. I serve on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, as well as the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Surface Transportation, which oversees the Surface Transportation Board and considers nominations of its members. The board's reputation and expertise in rail regulation is second to none. However, the Board is limited to only a passive role in ensuring that rail facilities are operated with minimal detriment to the public health and safety. These sites require active environmental regulation, just like other solid waste handling facilities. The recent proliferation of solid waste rail transfer facilities has affected the ability of State and local governments to engage in long- term waste management planning. These agencies also are responsible for responding to accidents and incidents occurring at these facilities. Although transporting solid waste by rail can reduce the number of trucks hauling solid waste on public roads, handling this waste without careful planning and management presents a danger to human health and the environment. These transfer operations create thick dust, which is potentially hazardous and is breathed in by local residents and business owners. Some transfer facilities don't have proper drainage on site, leading to the potential contamination of surface and groundwater and nearby wetlands. In addition, these facilities raise serious concerns about the safety of their workers and the exemptions they claim from strong State worker protection laws. As a result of these chilling reports, I asked state agencies in New Jersey, railroads, and other interested groups to provide input into possible legislation to address this problem. Many experts in New Jersey, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Meadowlands Commission, the Pinelands Commission, and the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, provided excellent suggestions. I look forward to working with them throughout the process to find a solution to this problem. I have also met with railroad interests, who are concerned about their ability to continue hauling solid waste. Some operators of these rail facilities have voluntarily complied with State environmental laws, even though they could claim that Federal railroad law preempts any enforcement action States could take. I would like to thank members of the solid waste handling industry for their concern and input as well. One reason this legislation is needed is that the Surface Transportation Board has never clarified whether it even has jurisdiction over the processing and sorting of solid waste at a rail facility. This bill would make it clear that Congress' intent was not to subvert the policies of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other environmental laws covering the handling of garbage. The bill will clarify the intent of Congress in passing these two important laws, and ensure that they work together to provide for a robust, environmentally responsible rail system. Some have suggested that perhaps this clarification should not be limited to the processing and sorting of solid waste. But these are the activities that require the greatest environmental oversight, because they pose the greatest environmental risk. Many towns across the country are beginning to understand the problem of having an unregulated polluting neighbor, and having nowhere to turn for help. Many influential organizations support this effort, including: United States Conference of Mayors, National Governors Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Mass Municipal Association, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Integrated Waste Services Association, and Construction Material Recyclers Association. These garbage transfer facilities should not be able to circumvent and ignore our environmental and. safety laws. I realize that the Surface Transportation Board must have broad jurisdiction over rail transportation, but that jurisdiction should not be interpreted in a way that puts our environment at risk. Railroading has a bright future in New Jersey and throughout our country, as freight loads have increased to levels we have not seen in some time. I have fought for many years to ensure that our freight transportation system, the backbone of our national economy, continues to flourish. But we need this legislation to ensure that these solid waste rail transfer facilities are run in the same environmentally responsible manner as other solid waste sites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr LAUTENBERG

Mr LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to address a serious problem in New Jersey and across the nation--the unregulated sorting and processing of garbage at rail facilities in our communities. A conflict in Federal laws and policy has resulted in certain solid waste-handling facilities located on railroad property being unregulated. Environmental laws such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act should apply to the operation of these facilities. However, a broad- reaching Federal railroad law forbids environmental regulatory agencies from overseeing the safe handling of trash or solid waste at these sites. These unintended consequences require our attention, and are the reason for the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005. The Federal railroad law in question was enacted most recently in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 to protect the operation of interstate rail service. The law gives `exclusive' jurisdiction over rail transportation--and activities incident to such transportation--to the Federal Surface Transportation Board. I realize this law is necessary for the efficient operation of commerce in our modern economy. I serve on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, as well as the Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Surface Transportation, which oversees the Surface Transportation Board and considers nominations of its members. The board's reputation and expertise in rail regulation is second to none. However, the Board is limited to only a passive role in ensuring that rail facilities are operated with minimal detriment to the public health and safety. These sites require active environmental regulation, just like other solid waste handling facilities. The recent proliferation of solid waste rail transfer facilities has affected the ability of State and local governments to engage in long- term waste management planning. These agencies also are responsible for responding to accidents and incidents occurring at these facilities. Although transporting solid waste by rail can reduce the number of trucks hauling solid waste on public roads, handling this waste without careful planning and management presents a danger to human health and the environment. These transfer operations create thick dust, which is potentially hazardous and is breathed in by local residents and business owners. Some transfer facilities don't have proper drainage on site, leading to the potential contamination of surface and groundwater and nearby wetlands. In addition, these facilities raise serious concerns about the safety of their workers and the exemptions they claim from strong State worker protection laws. As a result of these chilling reports, I asked state agencies in New Jersey, railroads, and other interested groups to provide input into possible legislation to address this problem. Many experts in New Jersey, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Meadowlands Commission, the Pinelands Commission, and the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, provided excellent suggestions. I look forward to working with them throughout the process to find a solution to this problem. I have also met with railroad interests, who are concerned about their ability to continue hauling solid waste. Some operators of these rail facilities have voluntarily complied with State environmental laws, even though they could claim that Federal railroad law preempts any enforcement action States could take. I would like to thank members of the solid waste handling industry for their concern and input as well. One reason this legislation is needed is that the Surface Transportation Board has never clarified whether it even has jurisdiction over the processing and sorting of solid waste at a rail facility. This bill would make it clear that Congress' intent was not to subvert the policies of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and other environmental laws covering the handling of garbage. The bill will clarify the intent of Congress in passing these two important laws, and ensure that they work together to provide for a robust, environmentally responsible rail system. Some have suggested that perhaps this clarification should not be limited to the processing and sorting of solid waste. But these are the activities that require the greatest environmental oversight, because they pose the greatest environmental risk. Many towns across the country are beginning to understand the problem of having an unregulated polluting neighbor, and having nowhere to turn for help. Many influential organizations support this effort, including: United States Conference of Mayors, National Governors Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Mass Municipal Association, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Integrated Waste Services Association, and Construction Material Recyclers Association. These garbage transfer facilities should not be able to circumvent and ignore our environmental and. safety laws. I realize that the Surface Transportation Board must have broad jurisdiction over rail transportation, but that jurisdiction should not be interpreted in a way that puts our environment at risk. Railroading has a bright future in New Jersey and throughout our country, as freight loads have increased to levels we have not seen in some time. I have fought for many years to ensure that our freight transportation system, the backbone of our national economy, continues to flourish. But we need this legislation to ensure that these solid waste rail transfer facilities are run in the same environmentally responsible manner as other solid waste sites. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about this bill and how I see it. I think this is a terrible period for America--the fact that we are taking an action and making it a preceding action to considering some other issues that are, I think, far more important than the subject at hand. I heard an accusation by our friends on the other side that the Democrats were using delaying tactics and just not permitting us to get this bill--this important piece of legislation that says if a gun manufacturer does something, or the dealer is careless and leaves the gun on the counter and someone picks it up and goes out and kills someone, you cannot sue them; there is no civil action. That is determined to be more important than getting a defense authorization through that said give our troops everything they need to protect themselves. No, no, no, we have to put that aside because what we want to protect today in this place--and it is shameful, in my view--is gun manufacturers who might knowingly make guns available to a criminal or someone who is deranged and not yet a criminal--he is not a criminal until he pulls the trigger--or a distributor or a gun dealer. We saw a case not too long ago regarding the Washington sniper, and the fact that the shop owner could not tell whether this fellow had stolen the gun or whether he sold him the gun. There were no records kept. It is shocking. We have heard this: When a car manufacturer produces a car and a drunk driver takes that car and kills somebody on the road, should the automobile manufacturer be liable? I don't think that is a proper comparison. I say that if a gun shop owner walks away from his counter and leaves a pistol on the counter and somebody takes it and goes out and kills somebody, he ought to be punished--not only punished by having a civil action against him, but punished by going to jail. That is what the sentence ought to be. When we talk about whether a product is used to harm others, automobiles typically are not produced to harm others. But guns are lethal. When you pull a trigger, something happens. I carried a gun. I carried a gun in the uniform of my country. I knew what I was supposed to do with that gun. I was supposed to kill the other guy, if I saw him first. So guns are not play toys and they ought not to have such a place in our society that we can delay getting onto our Defense bill, getting onto other legislation that we desperately need, such as the Transportation bill or Energy bill. We cannot discuss those things, no. The majority says: No, America. I want Americans to listen to this. The most important thing we could do in this Senate--all 100 of us representing every State in the country-- is make sure that gun manufacturers, or gun distributors, or gun retailers who may be careless--hear that--or grossly negligent, or reckless in the way they are handling their records or weapons--no, come on, America, stand up and protect those gun manufacturers and dealers. The heck with the rest of this other stuff that affects everyday lives, affects a family who has someone sitting in Iraq, maybe with not enough armor on their humvee, or not enough weapons. I met with a group of veterans the other day who had returned from Iraq. They were here for some rehabilitation. They had gone through traumatic experiences, wounds, et cetera. I asked them: Was there anything you were missing? A young woman soldier who had seen combat said: We don't have enough ammunition to practice using a .50-caliber machine gun so that when we are in combat, we are not quite sure how to use it. That is more important than protecting a gun manufacturer or dealer who is negligent in their behavior. I cannot get this. Negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, carelessness--in other words, you can behave any way you want. It is like calling out ``fire'' in a theater. You get punished for that. That is a crime. But for a gun dealer who doesn't handle the weapons inventory properly--no, we have to make sure we don't go after those guys. Talk to the parents. Talk to those who have seen what happens with their child, in terms of gun violence, and see how they feel about the Senate spending time on this issue and holding up everything else. You cannot do other things, no, because artfully, craftily, the other side has shut down the ability to offer amendments. I don't want to get too complicated in explaining the process to the American public. They are not interested in the process. My colleague was on the floor a moment ago, Jon Corzine, the distinguished Senator and my friend, and I enjoy serving with him. He tried to introduce an amendment that would make it a special penalty if a police officer was killed by a gun. You could then pierce this wall of immunity that says you cannot bring a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer, a gun distributor, a gun dealer--no, you cannot do that because that is important. After all, these guys give money. They give money for campaigns. The NRA--a small organization in numbers--controls what we do in this body. It is shocking. It is shocking that that organization, which is bent on making sure that everyone who wants a gun can get it--that is what they are saying. No, we have to protect them. But the remaining 290 million people--or whatever the number is--are not entitled to the same protections as we want to give the gun industry. We heard talks about how can you, said one of our distinguished colleagues--and these people are my friends; we differ so much on this issue--how can you take a legitimate business and take away their ability to do business and punish them if somebody they sell a weapon to has a record of mental delinquency, a disability, a bent to violence? How can we blame the gun dealer? We make sure we protect gun dealers who are not licensed. It is a gun show loophole. Those are dealers who don't have to have a license, and they can sell a gun to anybody--Osama bin Laden, and the whole thing--and not get punished for it. They don't ask for any identification, no address, no phone number. They sell the person a gun and get the money. Those poor people, why should we make them go through the rigors of getting a license just because they are selling lethal weapons, the kind of weapons policemen carry and the FBI carries, and criminals? Why should we make them go through that? My colleague talked about the policeman in New Jersey who just lost his life, Dwayne Reeves. He loved being a cop. He was following in his father's footsteps. Officer Reeves was breaking up a fight when a gang member pulled a gun and shot and killed him. While this is another American tragedy, unfortunately it is not unique. We see lots of people every year perish because of a gun mishandled or a gun directed at innocent people. In the State of New Jersey, we had 415 gun deaths in 2002, according to the CDC. Mr. President, 2002 is the last full year of statistics they have. According to the CDC, 2,867 children and teenagers died from gunshot incidents in the United States in 2002. Again, that is the last year for which complete statistics are available. We see that in the United States, 30,000 people were killed, including suicides, homicides, unintentional, accidental shootings. But when we look at other countries, we see how few households there are with firearms and gun homicides per million. In Japan, it was less than 1. In the United Kingdom, it was 1.3. In America, it is 62, 62 guns per million where homicide is involved. So we see we are especially susceptible in this society of ours to casual gun ownership, gun use, very frankly. We see incidents in my State, as we see in every State. A young woman in Atlantic City, NJ, was at a dance. An older man with a history of mental disturbance met her at a friend's home and tried to engage her physically. He shot her through the eyes. She was 15 years old. Like every child killed by gun violence, the girl mentioned left behind many anguished loved ones--parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, friends, and classmates. I heard those parents ask: How did a gun fall into the hands of a deranged person? I heard police officers question how guns were obtained by gangsters, such as the man accused of murdering Dwayne Reeves, the police officer murdered the other day. I heard teachers, pastors, and neighbors bemoan the gun violence that has ripped communities apart and destroyed lives. But in my 20 years in the Senate, no one in New Jersey has ever come up to me and said: You know, Frank, I am worried about the fact that gun manufacturers might be held accountable for all this violence and bloodshed. Can you make sure we protect the gun dealers and gun manufacturers? That is why I cannot believe the Republican leadership is wasting the Senate's time on this gun violence immunity bill. I believe it illustrates just how badly we as a Senate have lost touch with reality, with the concerns of the average American families. If this bill passed the last time it was brought to the floor, the families of the six victims of the Washington snipers would have lost their right to sue the gun dealer who negligently put a gun in the hands of those murderers. The gun dealer, in that case, ultimately settled a lawsuit for $2.5 million. Why did they settle? Because they knew they were negligent. Instead of debating gun violence immunity, we should be pressing forward with the Defense bill, as I said earlier, to support our troops, to really show concern for the average family because the average family are the ones supplying the sons and daughters to fight for our interests in the Middle East. But the majority leader decided that protecting gunmakers, distributors, and dealers from legitimate legal redress for their careless or reckless behavior is more important than making sure our troops have the armor, the weapons and, as I said, the ammunition they need. The Senate is setting aside the safety of our troops in order to protect gun dealers. What an outrage that is. During the July recess, I had the chance, as I mentioned, to meet with some soldiers and military families in New Jersey. They have been affected by the Iraq war. The effects are so enormous that when you look at the problems they encounter, you shake your head and wonder, how can we do more to take care of them. I talked with one young man who says, when he applies for a job, he doesn't list the fact that he is a member of the National Guard. Why? Because an employer does not want to hire someone who is going to be away for a couple of years. We ought to be trying to shorten that term of duty. We ought to make sure we have more troops engaged so we can send some who are in Iraq home because they accidentally have been called up and are now doing tours of duty never dreamt about. The soldiers and their families talk about not getting the resources they need to fight the war. They talk about shortages of tires for humvees. So there are not enough vehicles in working order. The shortage of humvees means troops don't get the appropriate practice of what to do when the convey is attacked. As if that isn't bad enough, a soldier told me there is not enough Gatorade for them to drink while they are working in 125-degree heat. We know what it is like outside here, but we are not wearing full battle gear, and it is not 125 degrees. When soldiers find a roadside bomb, when one explodes, they like to mark the spot with spray paint so it will be easy for them to tell if another bomb is put in the same place. But one soldier told me that the Army doesn't have any spray paint available. Soldiers were told to use their own money to buy paint to identify a place that is comfortable for someone to place a roadside bomb. They should use their own money to buy spray paint in a local market. In short, I learned that our troops in Iraq are facing unnecessary danger because of inadequate training, lack of resources, but here we are in the Senate shoving the Defense bill aside so we can do this gun violence immunity bill. I dare these colleagues to call the families I met with and tell them we cannot help them because the NRA is asking us to grant legal immunity to these gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. We should be taking up a bill to expand stem cell research. But rather than work on the stem cell bill to save lives, we are working to protect those who negligently sell guns to criminals which result in people being killed. Most American families would prefer we devote our time to the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, the stem cell bill that I am proud to cosponsor, which would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There are many other issues. When we look just at the stem cell situation, as many as 100 million Americans could benefit from stem cell research, but we don't do that. Stem cell research can help Americans living with diseases such as diabetes or asthma--which afflicts 9 million children under the age of 18, including one of my grandchildren--- cancer, Parkinson's disease, autism, spinal cord injury. I find it amazing that the leadership of the Senate, a brilliant physician, the majority leader, is more concerned at this point with providing immunity for rogue gun dealers than giving a ray of hope to 100 million Americans who might benefit from stem cell research. Talk about misplaced priorities. The Republican leadership in this Senate and this administration have lost touch with the priorities of the average family. What is the one thing that touches the life of every American every day? Transportation. We should have passed the highway bill 2 years ago. Once again, we are bogged down and the President is threatening to veto the highway bill if the final version is closer to the one passed by the Senate. So we have a lot of debate, a lot of argument to go through. If it were up to the American people, they would pass a highway bill and veto this bill on gun violence immunity. The list of misplaced priorities goes on and on. We cannot address issues such as childcare and job training, but we can waste our time on gun violence immunity, and instead of letting a jury decide the merits of the case involving gun violence, Congress wants to give special protection to rogue gun dealers and restrict the right of all other Americans to plead their case before a judge and jury. That does not make sense. When most Americans think about gun violence, they pray that their loved ones don't become a statistic. They are not looking to grant special legal immunity to the companies that sell guns. This bill is another example of the Republican leadership taking its marching orders from a rightwing special interest group and ignoring the interests of average families. I don't know if this bill will pass, but I know one thing. If we spent our time addressing the issues that really matter to average families, this bill would never have seen the light of day. I hope the majority leader will take a cue from the American people and turn our attention to issues that matter to them--stem cell research, national defense, and transportation. In fairness and equity, I have a disagreement with some of my friends in the Democratic Party also, and I urge them to put aside the time devoted to this gun immunity bill and let us get on with other issues. Mr. President, I offer an amendment that poses a question to the Senate. The question is simple, Is it more important to protect our Nation's children or a special interest lobbying group? This bill gives immunity to the gun industry even when they are grossly negligent. What my amendment says is there should not be a blanket grant of immunity in cases in which a child is the victim. How can we look a mother in the eye and tell her she cannot hold accountable the people who caused the death of her child? What the bill says now is that the parents of a child killed by gunfire when someone else is at fault cannot seek redress. What we are saying is, too bad about your child, but we cannot let you harm these friendly donors of ours. I call up amendment No. 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the Senator from Maine for her graciousness, in terms of describing an effort we are both very much interested in, in solving a problem that exists before us. Very soon, the Senate is going to vote on the two amendments, both of them aimed at foreign subsidiaries doing business with terrorist nations. But only one of these amendments--and it may not come as a surprise, mine--gets the job completely done. I have great respect for the Senator from Maine. She works very hard to chair a committee on which I sit, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and accomplishes a lot. But unfortunately, in this case, the amendment she offered will not close the loophole we are concerned about, nor will it stop American businesses from doing business with terrorist nations such as Iran. It recognizes the seriousness of the problem but unfortunately, as it is presented, does not solve the problem. Iran is one of the world's largest state sponsors of terrorism. Nobody doubts that. Every year, the Iranian Government funnels tens of millions of dollars to Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, to name a few. These organizations turn around and use that money to murder Americans and others who are trying to live their lives. No American company should be permitted to help them in any way, either directly or with a sham corporation. Iran also uses its oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons program. Once again, through sham corporations, American companies are helping them develop those oil revenues. Revenues, for what purpose? The purpose is to attack our people and other innocents across the world. That is why we do subject Iran to one of the strongest sanction regimes that we have. But some American companies exploit a loophole in our sanctions laws. They go offshore, open a sham foreign subsidiary and use that foreign subsidiary to do business with the Iranian regime with impunity and help create profits for them to be used for any purpose they choose. This has to stop. In the past, I believe the Senator from Maine agreed with me that this has to stop. In fact, last year she supported my amendment. So I am hopeful that she will once again vote for my amendment. I am going to vote for hers. I want to be clear. I have no objection to the Collins amendment, and I am going to vote for it, as I said, as a signal that we must do something to stop supporting these avowed enemies of America. The Collins amendment is not a bad amendment, but it only codifies existing regulations that, frankly, are not enough. It confirms what we have now and permits companies to escape sanctions. In the case of Cuba, we do not allow, any American company to use a sham to do business there. We ought not permit Iran to do the same things. If we want to close this loophole, my amendment is the only one that accomplishes it. Under the Collins amendment, the scenario on this placard is still possible. Here is a U.S. corporation. Here is a foreign subsidiary of the U.S. corporation. They can do business with Iran, who then sends funds to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. They have their subsidiaries operating in other places. But they should not have subsidiaries that are allowed to do business in this way. We want to strengthen existing law. The way we do it is to explicitly say that any foreign subsidiary, controlled by an American company, must obey our sanctions. The senior Senator from Michigan pointed out last week that the standard we have, the sanctions standard, already applies to foreign subsidiaries that do business in Cuba. I repeat what I said before. My amendment simply applies the same rules to terrorist states such as Iran. I ask my colleagues, is fighting al-Qaida really less important than fighting Castro? If you vote no on this amendment, that is what you are saying. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes clear we will not allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to provide funds to Iran. It is common sense. That is why a conservative group, the Center for Security Policy, supports my amendment. Frank Gaffney, who is president of the Center for Security Policy, said in the Washington Times today: If the Senate is serious about truly closing this loophole, it must adopt the Lautenberg amendment. That is from Frank Gaffney, president of the organization. We have to stop U.S. companies from doing business with terrorists when they intend to murder innocent Americans. I ask my colleagues, please support my amendment. Families across this country do what they can to protect their loved ones and we can do no less. Every day we wait to close this loophole, more and more money flows into the hands of terrorists. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our citizens, we have to shut down this source of terrorist funding. I again restate my intent. My intent is to support the Collins amendment because it does open our eyes a little bit further to the problem. But I hope, if we really want to solve this problem, the Lautenberg amendment is the one that will finally be voted for. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think the conclusion is in error. Rather than have the debate about the precision with which the Collins amendment is drawn, I point out two things. AIPAC and the Cuban American National Foundation support my amendment. That is very specific. In the reference used about a Saudi company doing business with Israel, Saudi Arabia already boycotts Israel, so that question is taken care of. I fail to see, I must say, why we are going through these gyrations explaining a perverse effect when, in fact, what I want to do is stop any--by the way, the practice is taking place, currently. What the Senator from Maine has done is codify regulation. I want to stop any possibility for a sham corporation that wants to evade our laws to do business. That is where we are. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that clarification. I ask the Senator from Maine, under your amendment, is it possible for a foreign subsidiary owned and controlled by a U.S. company to do business with Iran?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I respect the Senator from Maine and do allow time for an answer, if it is a short answer, please.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator would yield for a question on my time. Can a subsidiary do business with Iran?