Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Staff has a copy.

Mr. LEVIN. This is a Levin-Collins amendment. It halts deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the next 50 million barrels given the price of gasoline and jet fuel.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have skyrocketing gas prices and oil prices in most parts of the country. The major reason for this is private sector inventories are low. The major reason private sector inventories are low is we, at the same time, have seen a decline in those inventories of 50 million barrels in the last 2 years. We have deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve approximately 85 million barrels. Even the staff of the Department of Energy a year ago said the following: Commercial petroleum inventories are low. Retail product prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The Government should avoid acquiring oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under these circumstances. We would halt the deposit of oil in the Reserve, and we would use the money, approximately $1.7 billion, to restore a number of accounts in the Homeland Security Department; namely, we would restore about 80 percent of the money cut from the Homeland Security grant program; $250 million we would restore to firefighter grants to bring them up to last year. We would add money for port security, $150 million for deficit reduction, and about $220 million for an equity account. This is a twofer. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, oil and gasoline prices are at or near record-high levels. Oil and gasoline supplies are at or near record-low levels. If there are any disruptions in oil or gasoline supplies or production, there will be an insufficient amount of oil and gasoline to meet demand, and prices will skyrocket even further. Yet, incredibly, in the face of this crisis, the administration is decreasing rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, month after month, regardless of how high the cost for acquiring this oil, the administration is taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and depositing them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. By taking this badly needed oil off the market and placing it in the SPR, at extremely high prices, the administration is increasing the price of oil and gasoline. The Levin-Collins amendment will increase Federal revenues by approximately $1.7 billion by, in effect, directing DOE to delay the filling of the SPR. The amendment will lower oil and gasoline prices by increasing oil and gasoline supplies in the commercial inventories. It will improve our overall energy security by moving us away from the brink of a crisis in supply. Moreover, it is both sound fiscal and resource management policy to put oil on the open market when prices are high, and place them into reserves later when prices are low. As nearly every American knows, gasoline prices are at record-high levels. The average price of a gallon of gasoline, nationwide, as well as in my home State of Michigan, is $1.74 per gallon. In some states it is even higher. In California, for example, the average price for a gallon of gasoline is $2.18 per gallon. Crude oil prices also are at near-record prices. Spot prices are over $37 per barrel. Futures prices for oil for the next several months are at or near $37 per barrel as well. A major reason oil prices are so high is that the amount of crude oil in private sector inventories in the United States is at record low levels. Crude oil inventories are now lower than at any time in the 28 years that the Department of Energy has been tracking them. Oil prices are directly related to the amount of crude oil in inventories, since overall supply levels depend on both amounts produced and amounts in inventory. This is why prices are so high. One of the reasons that supplies of oil are so low is that since late 2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) has been steadily taking millions of barrels of oil off the market and placing them into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In late 2001, the Reserve held about 560 million barrels of oil. Today it holds nearly 650 million barrels. DOE anticipates that at the current fill rate it will reach its goal of filling the SPR to its current physical capacity of 700 million barrels in the middle of 2005. Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market when the price of oil is so high. We need more oil and gasoline in refineries. The Levin-Collins amendment is simple. It would, in effect, result in the deferral of the deposit of the 53 million barrels of oil that DOE currently plans to ship to the SPR over the next year. Assuming an average price of $33 per barrel--which is based on the current futures prices for oil for the next 14 months, as well as the trend in spot prices over the past year--this would yield over $1.7 billion in Federal revenues. This will help lower oil and gasoline prices for consumers and businesses as well. This amendment is a win-win for consumers, taxpayers, and the Government. The Levin-Collins amendment would apply these funds to strengthen our homeland security. We cannot expect our first responders to be well- trained, properly equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut their funding sources. Our amendment restores $800 million to the State Homeland Security Grant program, which will bring the total funding for that program up to $1.5 billion; adds $250 million to the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program; and $275,000,000 for Port Security Grants. The amendment will also provide $155 million for deficit reduction. Finally, the amendment provides an additional $220 million to the State Homeland Security Grant Program in order to provide for a more equitable formula for distributing funds under that program.

Mr. LEVIN. That depends on how loud the voices are.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill in the House. We introduced similar bills in the 107th Congress. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation, which builds upon and improves our previous legislative efforts, will help build stronger ties between the United States and Ukraine. Roughly three decades ago, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was included in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words, this provision helped open up an entire society by exposing the repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its Jewish citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American concern about the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the Soviet Union. In the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a vital role in changing Soviet society. The values that for nearly thirty years governed our relations with the Soviet Union, democracy, freedom and the rule of law, remain fundamental values to our nation. This bill seeks to address those concerns while recognizing the anachronistic nature of applying Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. In addition, this bill provides Congress with a meaningful and effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in World Trade Organization negotiations for Ukraine. Ukraine does allow its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade agreement went into effect. It is now time for the United States recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our bill does this while addressing traditional Jackson-Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human rights. These are the issues that led to the creation of the Jackson- Vanik amendment, and we should not ignore them at this time. Ukraine has taken some steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy, but much more remains to be done. The way in which Ukraine's October 2004 presidential elections are conducted will go a long way toward determining the future path this important strategic partner and ally will take. The world is closely watching the process and conduct of this year's presidential elections in Ukraine. Free and fair elections, regardless of their final outcome, will be an important step toward Ukraine's rapproachment with the community of nations. This election will be vital for the process by which it is conducted. Thus far, there remains reason for concern. In Ukraine, there are many working to promote free and fair elections; however, the staff of many civic and non-governmental organizations are being harassed, intimidated and even physically harmed. In addition, members of the media are facing similarly hostile and life threatening situations. Just this month, Ukrainian affiliates of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have been taken off the air, arrested and had their stations raided. Such actions are inexcusable and not in keeping with the fundamental values of freedom, openness and the rule of law. It is my hope that the October 2004 elections will aid Ukraine's transformation from a nation where fear undermines public discourse into a nation where all facets of society can freely engage in the market-place of ideas without fear of recrimination. The Ukrainian people deserve no less. Jackson-Vanik no longer applies to Ukraine and should be waived. But we need to utilize other ways to address the many problems facing Ukraine. I also hope that this legislation will remind Ukraine of the benefits it can and will accrue when it rightfully assumes its place among those nations that are guided by democracy, transparency and the rule of law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to grant normal trade treatment to the products of Ukraine. My brother, Congressman Sander Levin, has introduced an identical bill in the House. We introduced similar bills in the 107th Congress. It is our hope that enactment of this legislation, which builds upon and improves our previous legislative efforts, will help build stronger ties between the United States and Ukraine. Roughly three decades ago, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was included in the Trade Act of 1974. While relatively small in number of words, this provision helped open up an entire society by exposing the repressive tactics of the Soviet Union. By focusing attention on the emigration restrictions that the Soviet Union placed on its Jewish citizens, the Jackson-Vanik amendment reiterated American concern about the wide-scale human rights abuses occurring in the Soviet Union. In the process, the Jackson-Vanik amendment played a vital role in changing Soviet society. The values that for nearly thirty years governed our relations with the Soviet Union, democracy, freedom and the rule of law, remain fundamental values to our nation. This bill seeks to address those concerns while recognizing the anachronistic nature of applying Jackson-Vanik to Ukraine. In addition, this bill provides Congress with a meaningful and effective tool to ensure that U.S. interests are fully addressed in World Trade Organization negotiations for Ukraine. Ukraine does allow its citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate. Ukraine has been certified as meeting the Jackson-Vanik requirements on an annual basis since 1992 when a bilateral trade agreement went into effect. It is now time for the United States recognize this reality by eliminating the Jackson-Vanik restrictions and granting Ukraine normal trading status on a permanent basis. Our bill does this while addressing traditional Jackson-Vanik issues such as emigration, religious freedom, restoration of property, and human rights. These are the issues that led to the creation of the Jackson- Vanik amendment, and we should not ignore them at this time. Ukraine has taken some steps toward the creation of democratic institutions and a free-market economy, but much more remains to be done. The way in which Ukraine's October 2004 presidential elections are conducted will go a long way toward determining the future path this important strategic partner and ally will take. The world is closely watching the process and conduct of this year's presidential elections in Ukraine. Free and fair elections, regardless of their final outcome, will be an important step toward Ukraine's rapproachment with the community of nations. This election will be vital for the process by which it is conducted. Thus far, there remains reason for concern. In Ukraine, there are many working to promote free and fair elections; however, the staff of many civic and non-governmental organizations are being harassed, intimidated and even physically harmed. In addition, members of the media are facing similarly hostile and life threatening situations. Just this month, Ukrainian affiliates of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty have been taken off the air, arrested and had their stations raided. Such actions are inexcusable and not in keeping with the fundamental values of freedom, openness and the rule of law. It is my hope that the October 2004 elections will aid Ukraine's transformation from a nation where fear undermines public discourse into a nation where all facets of society can freely engage in the market-place of ideas without fear of recrimination. The Ukrainian people deserve no less. Jackson-Vanik no longer applies to Ukraine and should be waived. But we need to utilize other ways to address the many problems facing Ukraine. I also hope that this legislation will remind Ukraine of the benefits it can and will accrue when it rightfully assumes its place among those nations that are guided by democracy, transparency and the rule of law.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is said to be that you want to make sure you do not hold people accountable for the actions of others. That is what we have been told the purpose of this bill is. That is what the stated purpose of this bill is. This amendment says we surely should hold people accountable for their own actions. That is the difference. Are people going to be held accountable for their own reckless and grossly negligent conduct? The way this bill is written, the only grossly negligent conduct or reckless conduct somebody is held accountable for is if that conduct is also illegal. What if the conduct is not illegal but is grossly negligent and reckless and causes the death or injury of somebody else? Should that manufacturer or that dealer be immunized if his own reckless or grossly negligent conduct is a proximate cause of death or injury? It is a simple provision. I am going to read it, if I have 20 seconds left: None of the provisions in the act shall be construed to prohibit a civil liability action from being brought or continued against the person if that person's own gross negligence or reckless conduct was a proximate cause of death or injury. The key word in this whole sentence is ``own.'' The key argument that the opponents of the amendment make is that you only should be responsible for your own actions, and I agree. The NRA has a point. You should be responsible for your own actions. This amendment says if your actions are reckless or grossly negligent, then you are not going to be immunized. This is not someone else's conduct. It is your own.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the question of whether or not the intelligence was flawed which was used so forcefully by the administration prior to going to war as the reason for going to war is a question which is going to consume the time of this body and a number of our committees for some time to come. It is a critically important question as to whether or not the intelligence was flawed, not just in terms of the accountability--which is so important if mistakes were made, if exaggerations were undertaken in order to advance the decision to go to war--but also in terms of the future security of this Nation. This country went to war, we were told, because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason that was given over and over again by the administration. Whether or not there were other reasons, and there surely were, for that decision, which could be argued as a basis for the decision, the facts are that the American people were told it was the presence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction which was the basis for attacking that country. When a decision is made to go to war based on intelligence, it is a fateful decision. It has ramifications and impacts way beyond the current months and years. If the intelligence is as flawed as this intelligence was, we should find out why. Whether people are glad we went to war or are not glad we went to war, whether history will prove we should have waited until we had greater support through the United Nations in order to avoid the kind of aftermath which we have seen, or not--we don't know what history is going to show in that regard--but regardless of the arguments back and forth as to the timing of it, the way in which it was handled, the failure to galvanize the international community so we had a broad array of countries with us, including Muslim nations so we would not be there as a Western occupying power with other Western nations after the military success; whether or not there was adequate planning for the aftermath, and I think it is obvious that there was not adequate planning, but regardless of what position one takes on all of those issues, it is incumbent upon us to find out how in Heaven's name the intelligence could be so far off. How could we have 120 top suspect sites for the presence of weapons of mass destruction that were high-level to medium-level sites, where there was confidence that there were weapons of mass destruction either being stored or produced, and we batted zero for 120? How could we be so far off? How is it possible that the CIA could tell us, as they did in their assessments, that there were chemical weapons and biological weapons and that a nuclear program was being undertaken again when, in fact, that apparently is not the case? How is it possible that intelligence can be as flawed as is this intelligence? Again, regardless of what the arguments are on any side or any issue, I don't think any of us should be in the position of arguing that it is irrelevant to the future security of this Nation whether or not the intelligence upon which the decision to go to war was based is important. It is critically important. Does North Korea have nuclear weapons or doesn't it have nuclear weapons? Should we put some credibility in the intelligence community's assessment of that? Where is Iran along the continuum of obtaining nuclear weapons? What are their intentions? Should we put confidence in the intelligence community's assessment of that? Whether or not we place confidence or make decisions based upon the intelligence community's assessment is critically important. The lives of young men and women, perhaps the life of this Nation, could be dependent upon intelligence which is being assessed by the intelligence community. Life and death decisions are being made by the President of the United States based on decisions and assessments and appraisals of the intelligence community. When it is as wildly off as this intelligence community's assessments apparently were, then it seems to me we better find out for the future health of this country, not just in terms of trying to assess the accountability for past assessments. Something happened to the intelligence after 9/11. The pre-2002 intelligence assessments relative to nuclear programs and biological programs and chemical programs were different from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. Some of this has been set forth in the Carnegie Endowment's recent report. There are so many examples of where the intelligence shifted on these critical issues after 9/11. A few examples: On the reconstitution of the nuclear program after 1998, the pre-2002 intelligence assessment was that Iraq had probably not continued their research and development program relative to reconstituting a nuclear program after 1998. Yet in October 2002, the intelligence community said, yes, it has restarted its nuclear program after the United Nations left in 1998. What happened between the pre- 2002 intelligence assessment and the post-9/11 assessment? What about enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons? Prior to 2002, the assessment was that Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could be used to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. But after 9/11, in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, we have, yes, Iraq has imported aluminum tubes and high-strength magnets. The Department of Energy's disagreement with this conclusion was set forth, but the assessment of the intelligence community shifted after 9/11. Whether they attempted to purchase uranium from abroad, the same kind of shift in the intelligence assessment, there were no reports mentioning any attempts to acquire uranium prior to that 2002 assessment, but in 2002, October, suddenly the National Intelligence Assessment says Iraq has been trying to procure uranium ore and yellow cake. Again, disagreement from the Department of State, but that was the assessment of the intelligence community, and on and on. We have this kind of change that occurred in the intelligence assessments. What is the explanation for that? What happened? There is no evidence, as the President has mentioned; there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was part of the attack of 9/11, so what happened that caused the intelligence community to shift its assessment of chemical, biological, and nuclear programs after the 9/11 attack on us? That is something which we must find out. We must make a determination--hopefully someday there will be an outside commission which will make a comprehensive review of this whole matter--but, in any event, we must do the best we can through the Intelligence Committee. I am making an effort, the Armed Services Committee, my staff, to look into these issues, particularly as they relate to the question of how intelligence affected the operations and the planning relative to our military effort in Iraq. But we must make that decision. We have an obligation. This is not a partisan issue and it makes no difference to me whether this assessment is finished before the election or after the election. It must be made for the health of this Nation, as to how our intelligence community, No. 1, could be so totally wrong relative to the presence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi soil immediately prior to the war; and, No. 2, how and why did the intelligence community shift its assessments so significantly after 9/11 from the assessments that occurred before 9/ 11? There is another aspect of this which relates to the way in which intelligence was used or exaggerated by the policymakers. Here we have another issue--an issue which is going to be looked at by the Intelligence Committee at least as far as the use of the intelligence is concerned up to the point where the war began. There are some recent statements that I think also require explanation. I have tried a number of times to find out how the Vice President could have, about a month ago, made a statement relative to the vans that were found in Iraq, that those vans were part of a mobile biological weapons program. For the life of me, I do not understand how the Vice President can make that statement when Dr. Kay who has looked at the van has said that there is a consensus in the intelligence community--and I am now reading from Dr. Kay's answer to my question in the Armed Services Committee--that the consensus opinion is that those two trailers were not intended for the production of biological weapons. How is it that the Vice President of the United States at about the same time that statement was made before the Armed Services Committee by the chief weapons inspector--that some trailers which were found in Iraq are unrelated to a biological weapons program--would say the opposite in a very public forum? What is the basis for the Vice President's statement? I tried to find out. In fact, I wrote the Vice President the other day asking him: What is the basis for your statement? We should know. The American people should know when the Vice President says something as significant as that, that these particular vans which we have now gotten in our possession are, in fact, biological weapons laboratories. In fact, what the Vice President said on January 22 on NPR was: I would deem that-- Here he is referring to those two vans-- conclusive evidence that Saddam did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction. Again, this is so totally opposite from what our chief weapons inspector has decided and said the consensus opinion is--that surely the American public is entitled to an explanation from the Vice President. What is the basis for his statement of January 22 on national radio? What is the basis, Mr. Vice President, for your statement? The American public is entitled to know that. This is not some assistant secretary of some agency sitting in the bowels of the Pentagon or the bowels of some other building. This is the Vice President of the United States who is saying on national radio that we believe, in fact, that those semitrailers were part of the biological weapons program, that they were biological weapons vans. There is no explanation forthcoming, just sort of silence from the Office of the Vice President. We are entitled to more than that. One possibility which the CIA's Director suggested when I asked him the question was that, well, maybe the Vice President was using old information when he said that. If the Vice President of the United States is making statements of significance based on old information, first, it seems to me he ought to say so and then say, Too bad that happened, I will make sure it doesn't happen again. But it is also kind of discouraging, if that is true. There are daily briefings which I assume he is a part of--at least weekly briefings on these critical issues. We have a chief weapons inspector who says those vans, according to the consensus opinion, are not part of and were not part of the production of biological weapons. But what all this is part of is kind of what is going to be phase 2 of the Intelligence Committee's investigation which is the use of intelligence by the policymakers. Here the statements of our top leadership go beyond the intelligence in a number of ways. They are much more certain than the intelligence communities' assessments were. For instance, the Vice President, on August 2002, said the following: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends and against our allies and against us. We have this additional aspect which is now being looked into by the Intelligence Committee and again by my staff on the Armed Services Committee as to how the administration could take the intelligence that was given and then turn those less certain findings into certainties. Our friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, made the point earlier tonight that there is a lot of uncertainty in intelligence, and he surely is right. But wow. It sure doesn't sound that way coming from the administration prior to the war. Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert: We know with absolute certainty that Saddam is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Secretary of State Colin Powell--and this will be my last comment-- said at the U.N.: There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons. The list of these statements where there is no doubt and there is absolute certainty that the administration says exists about these programs goes beyond what the intelligence communities' assessments were. It is those statements of absolute certainty which, it seems to me, require an explanation as to what was the basis of those statements of absolute certainty and there being no doubt, particularly in light of the fact Senator Kyl pointed out that intelligence is, indeed, very uncertain and should be treated that way. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object now, Mr. President, that assumes they have not been disposed of prior to tomorrow morning or according to some modification of the pending unanimous consent agreement. I am not willing to agree that my amendment will still be pending tomorrow at that hour, nor am I willing to agree that we could not work out some modification of the unanimous consent agreement, which is now pending, to allow for the disposition of my amendment at some point before or after that appointed hour tomorrow morning.

Mr. LEVIN. If the UC is that following the disposition of the Levin amendment the amendment of the Senator from Virginia would then be the pending amendment, I would have no objection to that, providing that is the way it is presented.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I would do everything I can reasonably do to obtain disposition of my amendment before 8 o'clock or whatever time it is tomorrow morning. So I ask the Senator from Virginia as to whether his unanimous consent request is that his amendment be in order following the disposition of my amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Before the Senator from Virginia leaves the floor, I express to him my gratitude for his willingness to do what he has just done, which is to accept the facts that exist tonight, not because he likes them but because he realistically has understood there is no alternative. I have always admired my friend from Virginia. He has spoken out in support of the principle which is also included in my amendment. Although he did not say this to me personally, I know he will not mind me sharing this with the body. He also wanted to make it possible for me to have an opportunity for a vote tomorrow, if not an up-or-down vote, at least on a motion to table. I thank him for his expression of support to me personally and his willingness to help make it possible for me to have a vote tomorrow.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia and all those in leadership who made it possible for this amendment to be voted on tomorrow afternoon and before final passage. This is a very significant amendment we will be voting on tomorrow. It has been stated by the manager of the bill--and now I am reading his words--that we must insist the law be clear, unambiguous. That the officer--here an officer who was injured by a weapon--have a day in court if he is harmed--here I am skipping over a few words to get to the point--by someone who through negligence has caused a firearm to get into the hand of a criminal. The amendment we will be voting on tomorrow afternoon makes it very clear lawsuits will be permitted if the defendant's own gross negligence and own recklessness was a proximate cause of somebody's death or injury. The Senator from Idaho has said on a number of occasions people should not be held liable for somebody else's criminal act. I do not disagree with that. What my amendment says is someone can be liable for their own recklessness and their own negligence. I make it clear in my amendment we are talking about gross negligence. A number of cases have been referred to during the debate on this bill. One of the cases involves the so-called Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Company. We had a situation where a gun dealer was allegedly reckless in terms of failing to secure his inventory and over and over again there were losses from that inventory, and the DC shooters who killed so many people, Muhammad and Malvo, got one of those guns. But for the negligence and recklessness of that gun dealer, they would not have gotten those guns. That is the allegation in the lawsuit. So it is not Muhammad's and Malvo's criminal act that is the issue in this lawsuit in the State of Washington. It is the recklessness and negligence of the gun dealer that is the issue in that lawsuit. The court there was faced with a motion to dismiss and the court ruled it was the alleged reckless or incompetent conduct of distributing firearms which was the cause of action, not the criminal activity of Muhammad and Malvo, and that but for that reckless and incompetent conduct in distributing firearms, the killing would not have occurred. So my amendment makes clear what I think should be clear in this law, or any law, which is reckless or grossly negligent conduct on the part of a defendant, if it is the proximate cause of somebody's death or injury, may be grounds for civil liability. That is very separate from saying somebody is responsible for somebody else's criminal conduct. This is making somebody responsible for their own conduct which, of course, is the whole purpose of our tort law. Tomorrow we are going to have an opportunity to make that clear in the bill on which we are going to be voting. It might be argued that the bill we are voting on says if you are negligent per se, you can be held accountable. That is fine. Negligence per se means if you violate a statute or violate the law. But what happens if you are not violating a statute or law but that you are still reckless or you are still grossly negligent? What if you are not violating a criminal law or a statute but you are just simply reckless in the way in which you do not maintain your inventory and you do not secure the weapons you are selling? Most negligence, most gross negligence, and most recklessness is not based on a violation of law. It is based on a violation of a standard. We set forth those standards in gross negligence and recklessness in this amendment to make sure the people who are going to be subject to civil liability are people whose own gross negligence, whose own recklessness is the proximate cause of somebody else's injury or death. It is simply not right that we say somebody whose gross negligence or recklessness has caused injury or death to someone else should not be liable unless they have also violated a statute. The lawsuit filed by Detective Lemongello and Officer McGuire, the two injured police officers who were shot by a gun sold to a straw purchaser, alleged negligence on the part of the seller of that gun. The court denied a motion to dismiss the suit. This isn't a junk lawsuit. It is based on the alleged negligence of a gun dealer. But the bill before us would require it also to allege that the dealer violated a statute. It is not right that people who have been injured or killed by the reckless or grossly negligent conduct of a gun dealer or manufacturer must also prove that the dealer or manufacturer violated a statute. Individual responsibility has always been at the heart of good tort law and my amendment will keep it at the heart of the tort law that we are apparently going to be writing in the Senate.

Mr. LEVIN. Again, I thank all of those who made it possible for me to get to a vote tomorrow afternoon on a rollcall. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in October 1960, then-U.S. Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy, visited the University of Michigan in the heat of his successful Presidential campaign. The Presidential aspirant and self-proclaimed graduate ``of the Michigan of the East'' stood on the steps of the Student Union and called for the creation of a program that would enable college graduates to serve their Nation as part of a ``greater purpose'' rooted in service. Forty-three years later, this program, the Peace Corps, has been a resounding success. Seeking to promote world peace and friendship by sending American volunteers to participate in community service in villages and towns across the world, this program addresses the critical shortage in technical capacity that many parts of the world face. Further, it fosters increased cultural understanding. Peace Corps volunteers, witting or not, represent their Nation while abroad and upon returning home help promote increased global awareness here as well. President Kennedy, in his inaugural address, called for a ``grand and global alliance'' to fight tyranny, poverty and disease. With over 7,500 current volunteers in 71 nations, the Peace Corps has been a key part of this alliance. Since its inception, over 170,000 volunteers have worked in 137 nations in a variety of programs. An increasing number of Peace Corps volunteers are over 60 years of age. In fact, this year there is one 84-year-old volunteer. That said, our Nation's college campuses are still the largest source of Peace Corps volunteers. Our universities are ``immense reservoirs'' of talent and idealism, and each year thousands of college students seek to join the Peace Corps in hopes of pursuing a difficult yet rewarding task. Last week, the Peace Corps released a list ranking the schools that provided the largest number of graduates accepted to the Peace Corps this year. Two schools from my home State, the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor and Michigan State University, were ranked fourth and eighth respectively in terms of the numbers of volunteers they provided. Since the inception of the program, these schools are ranked fourth and fifth overall in terms of the number of total volunteers that they have provided to the program. Both schools have worked to instill an ethos of volunteerism and service in their graduates, and for that they are to be commended. All Peace Corps volunteers, regardless of their alma mater, deserve our respect and gratitude. By giving of themselves, they take concrete actions to improve the lives of countless individuals around the world.

Mr LEVIN

Mr LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to celebrate the 95th anniversary of the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries. This very successful faith-based organization began as a food assistance program and over the years has broadened its scope to include 13 different ministries to combat problems such as homelessness, substance abuse, hunger and teen pregnancy. The Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries provides food, shelter and spiritual guidance to more than 725 people a day and donates over 75,000 articles of clothing to the poor annually. The organization also provides over 500,000 meals and 146,000 nights of emergency shelter annually. The Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries has consistently met the changing and growing needs of the Detroit community by partnering with churches, schools, and social and governmental agencies. The Christian Guidance Center, one ministry of the Detroit Rescue Mission, operates in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Corrections and provides individual counseling, group therapy, substance abuse support, rehabilitation groups, and social activities for Detroit area prisoners. A pioneer in the field of serving the less fortunate, the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries established the ``Genesis Houses,'' one of Michigan's first longer term residential facilities. In addition to sheltering the homeless, these homes provide food, clothing, advocacy and referral services. Understanding the importance education plays in reducing poverty, the Detroit Rescue Mission established the Teen Moms Program, which provides housing to teen mothers who are enrolled in high school, GED training or junior high. To further educational opportunities, the Oasis Library furnishes residents with access to knowledge and facilitates computer literacy skills. I know my Senate colleagues join me in offering our congratulations and sincerest appreciation to the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries on its 95th anniversary. We recognize and thank the dedicated staff and volunteers who have made the organization a success and offer our support as they continue to work to fulfill their mission of rebuilding the inner city one life at a time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Do I understand, then, that the Levin amendment would continue to be the regular order under that unanimous consent?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Nevada. I want to go back to the case of the two police officers who were shot with a gun that was sold under extremely suspicious circumstances by a gun dealer who was then sued by these two police officers. The lawsuit alleged on the part of the defendants some very serious negligence, gross negligence, recklessness in terms of that sale. The person who purchased the gun bought 11 other guns at the same time, selected by somebody else. The person who filled out the purchase paperwork was not the person who actually bought the guns. They were picked out by a second person. Like the New Jersey man who shot these two officers, the man who selected the guns was a convicted felon. The guns were paid for entirely in cash, several thousand dollars. The gun purchase was about the second in 3 weeks from the same two buyers from that dealer. These were significant allegations that were brought by two police officers who were severely injured by that gun, claiming that the action on the part of the gun dealer was negligent and reckless behavior. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that it was. A West Virginia judge refused to dismiss this case that these two police officers brought saying there was sufficient evidence to go to a jury; that is, evidence of recklessness or negligence on the part of the defendants. It was their recklessness, their negligence which was the proximate cause, allegedly, of the damage. We have heard a lot about whether people should be held accountable for somebody else's illegal action. That is not what this amendment is about. That is not what this bill is about. What this bill is about is to immunize a certain industry from their own reckless and negligent behavior, not somebody else's, but from their own reckless and negligent behavior, unless the people who are injured can also show that they acted illegally. This is special treatment for one particular industry. We owe a great debt to these police officers who put their lives on the line, and it seems to me it is an insult for the response to their bravery to be: You cannot bring an action against a gun dealer who acted negligently or recklessly and whose negligence or recklessness was a proximate cause of your injury. Sorry, you have to prove that gun dealer acted illegally; that he acted reckless is not enough; that you were injured as a proximate result of that recklessness is not enough. We are going to immunize that particular gun dealer and anyone like him from their own reckless, negligent behavior unless you can carry an additional burden that they also acted illegally. That is the response to officers who are gunned down and where their injuries were a proximate result of the recklessness and negligence of that gunshop. Those are the allegations. Should they be allowed to prove them? The intention of the legislation in front of us is that they not be allowed to prove them unless they can also allege there was illegal action on the part of that gunshop. I think we can see why so many associations of police officers are very much opposed to this legislation and its purpose. A number of law enforcement officers wrote Senators a letter opposing what this bill intends. In it they said police officers like Ken McGuire and David Lemongello put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their service, this bill would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens to prove their case in a court of law. Manufacturers and dealers of guns have a right to make and sell guns, but that right also is not unlimited because it comes with some responsibility. Like every other business in this country, people who are in the gun business have a responsibility to conduct that business with reasonable care. If a gun manufacturer or gun dealer fails to do so, and their negligence or recklessness leads to someone being killed or injured, they should not be immune from suit. According to a recent report, 57 percent of crime guns in the United States could be traced back to 1 percent of the gun dealers in this country. We should not let that 1 percent off the hook. We should not single out one industry for these special protections. Earlier this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee, considered an amendment to exempt class action lawsuits filed against the gun industry from the diversity and removal provisions of the class action bill. The committee rejected that amendment and in its report on the bill the majority put it this way: Simply put, there should not be one set of rules for one category of defendants and another for another group of defendants. Well, if that holds true in the case of a class action bill, it should be true also relative to this legislation. This bill not only singles out one industry for special favored treatment, but in the process it undermines long-standing principles of tort law. Traditionally, tort law has been left to the States to define, and if changes have been necessary Congress has usually deferred to State legislatures to make those changes. This bill seeks to impose a Federal tort regime that would virtually eliminate the ability of State courts to hear and decide cases involving even grossly negligent or reckless conduct by gun dealers and manufacturers, even where existing State law would permit such cases. A Georgetown University Center law professor by the name of Heidi Feldman put it this way about this bill: . . . one of the most radical statutory revisions of the common law of torts that any legislature--Federal or State-- has ever considered, let alone passed. I have looked at a lot of Federal laws that affect the civil liability of various industries, and I, too, have seen nothing that comes close to what this bill would do. Whatever we are going to do, it seems to me we ought to do it knowingly. We ought to understand what it is that we are being asked to do. What the bill says is, unless someone who is injured by somebody else's reckless or negligent conduct, unless that plaintiff can also show that the conduct was illegal, they will not be able to recover damages for their injuries. That is a radical departure from fairness, not just from the common law. That is a radical departure from protecting victims and trying to preserve their rights. We should not take that step without at least understanding what we are doing. The purpose of my amendment is to make sure that we at least have an opportunity to vote on a central proposition: Whether or not when somebody is injured as a proximate result of somebody else's gross negligence or recklessness that that person who is injured should have an opportunity to recover damages, even if they are unable to show that the defendant's reckless or negligent conduct was also illegal. That is the central issue this bill addresses. It is the central issue my amendment addresses. I think it is important that this Senate not only understand what the central issue is but have an opportunity to vote on that specific issue, and that is what my amendment is all about. My amendment will give us the opportunity to vote on whether we intend to give immunity to persons who cause injuries to others through their own--and I emphasize ``their own''--reckless and grossly negligent behavior, where that behavior is a proximate cause of somebody else's injuries. I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment. I hope we will modify the bill in front of us so that we can protect victims, and that is really what the amendment and the bill is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Yes.