Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It helps middle-class families continue to pursue the American dream. My amendment provides for a tuition tax credit of up to $4,000 to help pay for college. Our colleagues know our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. They do not know how they can afford to send their kids to college. College tuition is on the rise, but financial aid is not keeping up. Our students are graduating with so much debt that it is like their first mortgage. We believe the benefits of education accrue to the individual. We believe that college is important to families. But it is also important to our economy. If our country is going to be safer, if we are going to have a stronger economy, we need to be smarter. This means public investments in giving families the opportunity to go to college will also accrue to our society. We need to invest in human capital. My amendment will make college affordable to middle-class families. It will give help to those who practice self-help. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to accept my amendment.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State. I enthusiastically rise in support of her amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind. This is the 21st century. In our own country, we have to make sure we are safer, that we have a stronger, more competitive economy. The way we are going to be safer and stronger is if we get smarter. By ``smarter,'' I mean develop a 21st century workforce. In order to do that, we need to make sure our elementary, middle, and high schools are the best they can be. This is why I support full funding of No Child Left Behind. We need to focus on achievement. We need to focus on accountability. But while we are looking to hold our public schools accountable, we need to hold ourselves accountable in order to bring the resources to our public schools. Requirements without resources are an unfunded Federal mandate. If we want to have a smarter workforce, we need to get behind our public schools. The Murray amendment really takes us a long way in making sure we have smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, and all the other resources that go into that. College is also an important part of being smarter. I am deeply troubled that access to college, which has been one part of the American dream, could now become part of the American financial nightmare. I will be offering an amendment later on to help families who want to send their children to college: a simple, straightforward $4,000 tuition tax credit for every year of college. Our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my own State of Maryland are worried. They are worried about jobs. They are worried about losing their health care, with costs ballooning. They are worried about holding down more than one job to make ends meet. They race from carpools to work and afterschool activities and back again. But most of all, they want to know can they count on their public schools, which is what Senator Murray is defending. They want to know will their children be able to go to college. I believe the United States of America should provide an opportunity ladder and we need to make sure one of the rungs in that ladder is access. That is why I believe a $4,000 tuition tax credit will go a long way toward giving help to those who practice self-help--the families who are working and saving to send their children to college, and young people who are working and saving to send themselves to college. Tuition is on the rise at colleges. At my own University of Maryland, there has been a 30-percent increase over the last 2 years. Tuition for Baltimore Community College rose by $300 in 1 year. The average cost of a 4-year public college is about $10,500. If you add the fees and everything, at University of Maryland it is about $14,000. Those are not numbers. Those are real costs to real families. Financial aid, though, is not keeping up with the rising costs. Today, Pell grants only cover 40 percent of the average costs at 4-year public colleges. Twenty years ago, it covered 80 percent of the costs. Our students are graduating with so much debt it is becoming their first mortgage. Families and students are looking for help. But I regret to say President Bush's budget does not offer them much hope. The Republican budget has all the wrong priorities. It freezes the Pell grants. It does not offer real tax breaks. Yet at the same time it gives tax breaks to those who do not need them. We need to do more. We need to help middle-class families have the best education out of our public schools to get them ready for college. But when they are ready to go to college, there should be the financial help to get them there. We need to double the Pell grant. We need a larger tuition tax credit. We also need to make sure families have access to the American dream. College education is more important than ever. Forty percent of the new jobs for the new century will require postsecondary education. This cannot happen with platitudes. It has to happen with programs. To compete in the global economy, we have to make sure all of our young people have 21st century skills. In order to compete in the new world order, we need to make sure all of our children have 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. We need to remember the benefits of education accrue not only to the individual but to society as well. I stand here with my colleagues to say, if we are going to make investments, we need to invest in human capital, to create a world- class workforce. Let's have the best public schools the world has ever seen and make sure we continue to have access to the American dream. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent also that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto appear in the Record as if read without any intervening action or debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I believe we have agreed to the parliamentary aspects of this effort. I rise to pay tribute to those lost in the Baltimore Harbor water taxi accident, and to express great gratitude to the brave rescuers who saved many of the lives, and, of course, to express condolences to the families. Let me tell the Senate about what happened, very briefly. On Saturday, a beautiful, mild afternoon in Baltimore's Harbor became a nightmare. A sudden storm arose. A beloved water taxi capsized in the Baltimore Harbor. Twenty-five people were thrown into the water. They fought for their lives in freezing cold water. They were families, tourists, Maryland residents, people from across the country, even members of a National Guard unit visiting us. Two women tragically lost their lives, including a beloved pediatric nurse. One young girl is still fighting for here live. Three people still remain missing: a couple about to be engaged and a 6-year-old boy on a trip with his father and mother and two other siblings. I express my heartfelt condolences to those families who are suffering the loss of a loved one. The victims and their families are in our thoughts and our prayers. But I also want to bring to the Senate's attention what happened with our very brave initial responders. This accident happened off of Fort McHenry. Stationed there is a Naval Reserve unit. They happened to be on duty as part of their weekend training. At the same time, located there is the Baltimore City Fire Department Maritime Unit. The minute this boat went over, as this storm hit, a Naval Reserve master chief petty officer saw the boat capsize and sounded the alarm to the Navy Reserve unit. Without hesitation, 20 men got on a boat that was a relic from World War II, that was used as a landing craft, and with great skill they began to proceed out to this capsized boat, exactly as the Baltimore City Maritime Fire Department saw it. And then without even putting wet suits on because there was not time--the water was 44 degrees--the firefighters jumped overboard. The Navy came in as a rescue mission, maneuvering this landing craft, and coming up close. As they lowered its bowel ramp, they used it as a sidewalk into the water. The Navy men walked into that water, forming a human chain, grabbing people, and pulling them out. And then they skillfully negotiated right up to the capsized boat and used the ramp as a crane to lift it up, and out came three people who had been trapped underneath. Once again, the Navy rescued two and the fire department rescued one. Now two people are dead. Three are missing. Indeed, it is a very melancholy situation, but if the Navy had not responded the way they did, and if the fire department had not been there, the tragic consequences would have been far more significant. That kind of bravery, jumping into the water, risking hypothermia is something we need to recognize. These initial responders did it quickly, without thinking and without hesitation and without stopping. Their quick thinking and all of their training and all of their ingenuity and all of their bravery and all of their gallantry helped save 20 lives. Our terrific Baltimore emergency workers back on shore began to take the people to the hospital. On shore, the Navy took their drill room and turned it into a triage center. I am telling you, they provided emergency medical care. They were taking blankets and clothing and even their own shirts and socks and giving it to those who came from the freezing cold water. We could have faced a greater loss had it not been for them. When I went to visit with them yesterday, I said: I want to go to the Senate to tell your story. As I gathered their names, they said: We don't want to be singled out. We're Navy. We're the fire department. They wanted to be known for the team they belong to. They told me they were part of a team, that they needed each other, and that they counted on each other, and it was the team effort that saved their lives. They do that every day. The fire department and the Navy train every day to save lives. They were there when we needed them, and they were best at what we needed them for. Now Baltimore fire rescue workers continue to recover the bodies of the victims. Indeed, it is a chilling job, but we want to be able to bring those bodies back home. I salute our initial responders. I salute those who are now engaged in the recovery activity. I thank God for the emergency medical team that whisked them to the hospital to take care of their hypothermia, their cardiac arrest. It was a tragic day in Baltimore, but the heroism of Baltimore shines as a beckon to deal with their sorrow. That is why I offer this resolution today. I ask that the Senate and my colleagues join in expressing our gratitude for them and our condolences to those families of lost loved ones. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 312, submitted earlier today by myself and Senator Sarbanes, expressing condolences to the people who died in the Baltimore water taxi and our appreciation for the brave rescue efforts.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle amendment to increase funding for VA medical care. America is at war, and my thoughts are with our troops. Our men and women in uniform have my steadfast support, and so do those men and women who fought before them. We need to get behind our troops and our veterans, and use this budget to support them. We must support the brave men and women who have fought for our country. Our veterans need to know that America is with them and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. As the ranking member on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, my guiding principle for the VA budget is that we keep the promises we made to our veterans. This means no toll charges on veterans to get health care or prescription drugs, and no waiting lines for veterans to get medical care. But the VA's budget request puts new toll charges and means tests on our veterans. Specifically, the budget proposes four things. First, the budget proposes to keep the VA closed to priority 8 veterans. These are veterans who are not disabled as a result of their service, and who the VA considers to be higher-income. Second, the budget proposes a new $250 membership fee for priority 7 and 8 veterans. Third, the budget assumes that VA will increase outpatient primary care copayments from $15 to $20. And finally, the budget proposes to increase prescription drug copayments from $7 to $15. We have great respect for VA Secretary Principi. He's a combat decorated Vietnam veteran who continues to serve his country. But he's battling OMB now for adequate VA funding, and I am deeply concerned that the budget OMB gave VA this year leaves VA foraging for funding. Over a year ago, the VA health care system stopped accepting new priority 8 veterans. Manufacturing is fading and private health insurance is failing. And many of those affected are priority 8 veterans. Many corporations involved in manufacturing had defined benefits plans that included health plans with guaranteed retiree coverage. For these veterans, VA healthcare is their last safety net, until they turn 65 and are eligible for Medicare. For example, in Maryland, there are 13,000 Bethlehem Steel retirees. Many are Vietnam veterans. They came back from serving their country at war, and they continued to fight for America's national and economic security by working in our steel mills. But now, many have lost their health insurance because of Bethlehem Steel's bankruptcy. They are not eligible for Medicare yet. Under this budget, many will be turned away from VA--the safety net they counted on will not be there because VA will continue to shut-out priority 8 veterans. Bethlehem Steel's veterans, and other veterans who worked in manufacturing or for other businesses that don't offer health insurance, fought for their country and now they will have to fend for themselves on the open-market for health insurance. I am deeply concerned that this policy and many other potholes in VA's budget leave our veterans paying toll charges, standing in lines, or without any healthcare at all. In the last 5 years, the VA-HUD Subcommittee has provided large increases for medical care--$1.7 billion in 2000, $1.3 billion in 2001, $1 billion in 2002, $2.4 billion in 2003, and $3 billion in 2004. We did this because we know that the failure of private health insurance companies and high prescription drug costs are really straining our veterans on fixed incomes. At the same time, our veterans' population is growing, and getting older. Today, VA treats 2 million more veterans than in 1996. Last year, the VA-HUD Subcommittee rejected the proposals that we see in the administration's budget request again this year. Instead, we put $1.6 billion more than the request in the Federal checkbook for VA medical care. Our veterans didn't stand in waiting lines when they were called up or they volunteered to serve our country. So they shouldn't have to stand in line to get medical care. Veterans who need specialized health care services must not be kept waiting--like spinal cord injury care, blind rehab, and prosthetics. For example, the Blinded Veterans Association tells us that there are over 2,000 veterans waiting up to 2 years for admission into a blind rehab center. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support our veterans in this budget by supporting the Daschle amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists. This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them. Currently, the services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. The Medicaid programs in 43 States, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. During times of tight budgets, States may cut back on these optional services. Last year Connecticut, Michigan, Utah and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care regardless. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland. Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18 million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the disease. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists could save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. Podiatrists are important providers of this care. This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support the American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have access to care provided by podiatrists. This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care to provide these services and be reimbursed for them. Currently, the services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. The Medicaid programs in 43 States, including Maryland, recognize and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their beneficiaries. During times of tight budgets, States may cut back on these optional services. Last year Connecticut, Michigan, Utah and Texas discontinued podiatric services. Even though podiatrist services are considered optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care regardless. If podiatrists do not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I want the over 560,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland to have access to the services provided by over 400 podiatrists in Maryland. Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle and lower leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Over 18 million people in this country have diabetes, but an estimated more than 5 million of these people are not aware that they have the disease. Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists could save Medicaid funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 people have diabetes-related leg, foot or toe amputations each year. Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. Podiatrists are important providers of this care. This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support the American Podiatric Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment does nothing. It keeps the status quo of the bill, S. 1805. It restates what the bill says. It says that the sniper cases have to fit in to one of the exceptions that are described in section 4, paragraph 5. That is what it already says. The legal experts that I have consulted and have consulted with the Brady organization believe that the cases do not fit. I understand that, under the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, the sniper cases will likely be dismissed. I am going to talk about the legal experts, but again the mere fact that we are having such intense debate shows the ambiguity and confusion, which is why the Mikulski amendment is needed. Now I will go to the opinion of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, a distinguished law firm. What they tell us is, according to the terms of S. 1805, it would foreclose and require the immediate dismissal of any State or Federal qualified civil liability action which the statute defines to include a civil action brought by any person against the manufacturer or seller for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful use. They are saying it is going to be dismissed. They then say when one goes to all of the prohibitions, they believe that because of the way it is drafted, particularly the items in the exception, that it expressly disclaims any intention to create causes of actions or remedies. The above-described exceptions would only preserve civil claims brought under otherwise applicable State or Federal law. Other than that, the proposed legislation would preempt as a matter of Federal law the State or Federal lawsuits against irresponsible sellers, manufacturers, or so on. What they are saying is this would require an immediate dismissal of the sniper victims' claims. We cannot do this. According to the legal experts, close examination of the exceptions enumerated in section 4 of the proposed immunity, which they are trying to shoehorn in--they are trying to shoehorn Malvo in; they are trying to shoehorn Muhammad in to these exceptions. These exceptions reveal that none would appear to preserve the claims brought by the victims of the sniper attacks and their families against the parties responsible for permitting the snipers to obtain these murder weapons. In fact, they go on to say: In fact, the passage of S. 1805 would likely compel the judge in the sniper case immediately to dismiss those claims. They refer then to section (5)(A) and there are paragraphs. That proposed legislation would prove those provisions contain only the exceptions that even conceivably apply to the snipers' case. I could go on. This is a 13-page legal opinion. It is not appropriate for me to read the whole opinion, but the statutory violation exception embodied in paragraph (5)(A) will not save the snipers victims' claims. The plain language of section (5)(A)(iii) would appear to dictate the same result in the sniper case. Despite the above-discussed evidence of the Bull's Eye numerous failings as a gun dealer, there is no reason to believe that the plaintiffs in the sniper case will be allowed to show that Bull's Eye violated any State or Federal statute. . . .Indeed, after his arrest, Malvo admitted that he shoplifted the weapon from Bull's Eye in the summer of 2002. Although the plaintiffs claim that Bull's Eye's lax security practices permitted Malvo to acquire the weapon, . . . Again, we are not trying the case here but, yes, he stole the gun. There are 237 guns missing from that same gunshop. Something was pretty sloppy there. Somebody was pretty negligent there. Something was terribly wrong that 238 people could steal guns, including a juvenile illegal alien who was obviously walking around a gunshop if he shoplifted it. What we are talking about is the statutory violation exception embodied in (5)(A) would totally blow the snipers victims' claims. Again, it is being tried in the courts, and I want it to be tried in the courts. Maybe the kid did not shoplift it, but somehow or another in that gunshop in Tacoma, WA, with 238 guns missing, something went terribly wrong. They should have their day in court to at least raise whether there was these issues of negligence. I really do believe the Frist-Craig amendment would gut their ability to move ahead. It is trying to shoehorn into these exceptions and yet at the same time these very exceptions would prohibit them from bringing their claim. I really ask on behalf of these families to be able to do this. Also, in another section, the negligent entrustment/negligence per se exceptions embodied in paragraph (5)(A)(iii) will not save them. As an initial matter, these exceptions are limited to a seller, and it goes on and on. What it says in a nutshell is that it would preclude them from moving forward. For the information of my colleagues, this legal opinion letter was printed in yesterday's Record. I also acknowledge that the Senator from Idaho has a different view than this legal opinion but that is the point of the amendment. I have a legal opinion. He has his expertise and the CRS opinion. I think it is the opinion of the American people, that when someone brings a whole community to a paralyzing halt, when people have been ghoulishly and grimly shot down in a deliberate, predatory, and cruel manner that in this country one ought to at least be able to go to court to seek some redress. All I am doing is preserving their right to do so. When we say we want to stand up for America, I am standing not only for these victims but I am standing up to keep the courthouse door open to them, and that is really what the rule of law should mean in the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment concerning the DC sniper victims, and I send it to the desk on behalf of myself, Senators Sarbanes, Lautenberg, Corzine, and Clinton.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of my Maryland constituents and other neighbors across the Potomac to offer an amendment on behalf of the sniper victims. My colleagues might remember that over 1 year ago, the citizens of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia were terrorized by snipers. Soccer games were cancelled. People were afraid to buy gas and terrified to go into a Home Depot. What was happening was that 10 innocent people were killed while they were mowing their lawn or getting gas or while a new bride was going shopping at Home Depot to gussy up her home, or one was a bus driver getting ready to do his duty. These families have experienced tremendous loss, and the Nation mourned with them. We so thank our law enforcement agencies for helping us catch the snipers and the judicial system that is working to try them, but now we also need to make sure that we protect the victims and the victims' families. I bring to the attention of my colleagues that the legislation Congress is considering now could inflict further pain on the families. It could slam the courthouse door on the families of the sniper victims and on all Americans who believe they are harmed by negligent actions related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free pass, and it will prevent families and survivors from holding irresponsible stores accountable if they are negligent. It actually would prohibit these families from going to court to seek redress, for it would actually prohibit them from letting a jury of their peers decide if a gun store or a manufacturer was negligent. If this legislation passes, one could still go to court over a toy gun but not a real gun. I think that is wrong. My amendment is to make sure the sniper victims and their families have a right to go to court. Before I tell my colleagues about those families, let me tell my colleagues what my amendment will do. My amendment protects the legal rights of the families. It allows current and future cases by sniper victims and their families to proceed. Currently, one case is pending in Washington State court. It creates an exemption to the text of S. 1805 for all cases involving a victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo. This is a very narrowly drawn bill. It does not exempt any other cases. It does not impact on any of the legal standards of the bill, and it does not prevent a court from dismissing a case if there is no negligence. What it does is create an exemption only, and I emphasize ``only,'' for cases involving a victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo. This is the Maryland-DC-Virginia sniper case. I in no way want to create any ambiguity in this bill or create a loophole in this bill. But this is a very serious matter. I am here in behalf of those families. Conrad Johnson, who was the sniper's last victim, I remember hearing the news when he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery County. He was killed by the sniper just as he was getting ready to get on his route. He was so beloved in that community that 2,000 people came to his funeral. He drove this route for so many years. They loved him. Thirty members of his family gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He was always finding ways to take care of his family and his community. Conrad Johnson was one of the many Marylanders whose families are still grieving because of this reign of terror that gripped their State. Five Maryland families lost their loved ones in the sniper's first 24 hours. Today I stand here for the rights of those families, to have their day in court: the rights of Jim Martin's family; he was shot when he stopped to buy groceries for his church program; James ``Sonny'' Buchanan, a landscape architect who was soon to be married; or the husband and the 7-year-old son of Sarah Ramos, who was shot 25 minutes later as she sat on a bench waiting for a ride to go to her babysitting job; also for the little boy named Iran Brown, who was shot in the chest as he was dropped off to go into middle school. Thanks to a guardian angel, it was his aunt, a nurse, who was with him that day when he was dropped off so she could sweep him up and be with him as he lay hemorrhaging in the hospital. Thank God, for the genius of American medicine that little boy is alive. Family after family has endured incredible pain. Also, there are other cases that are pending. These families have been through so much they can never recover their tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make sure they have their day in court. That is why my amendment is offered to protect them, and that is why it is in such plain and simple language. It is limited to victims of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. I don't need any legal experts to interpret this amendment. No judge has to decide if the case fits one exemption or another. That is because, under my amendment, any case involving them must proceed. This is very serious. When we look at the matter, there is evidence that indicates the snipers bought something called a Bushmaster from the Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA. The Bull's Eye Shooter Supply Company had lost the assault rifle used by the sniper victim. In 3 years, it managed to lose 237 other guns. Imagine a gunshop that not only couldn't find records on this gun, it had lost 237 guns. I am not going to prejudge cases, but I am going to point fingers. Something was terribly, terribly wrong at this place. When we look at this, Bull's Eye could not account for 238 guns. Bull's Eye's missing gun rate was greater than 99 percent of all Federal arms licenses. Eighty percent of all dealers that sell at least 50 firearms a year can provide records to account for every one of them. Why couldn't that happen there? There is item after item about this case. When you look at Malvo and look at Muhammad, what you find is the snipers obtained a one-shot, one-kill assault weapon that was from the Bull's Eye Shooter. When we look at their records, we find that Muhammad was under a domestic violence protective order and Malvo was both a juvenile and an illegal alien. How did they get their hands on these guns? That is for law enforcement to decide. That is how our legal process should follow its regular order, to seek redress. But this points out a set of terrible situations that led to the death of these 10 people in our region. This is why I am offering this amendment. After the deaths of these wonderful people, their families should have redress in court. The boy who was shot in his chest and is still recovering, though at school, should have redress. I am going to be very clear that in this bill we do not create ambiguity, confusion, or something that would derail this. I urge the Senate to adopt my amendment and to allow the cases affecting this particular group of people to be able to proceed without prejudice or without any unintended consequences of this legislation. I yield the floor and reserve such time as I have.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator does have other speakers.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the Senator from Illinois, an outspoken advocate on this issue.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have two legal opinions, one from Lloyd Cutler, a very distinguished American lawyer who has served as White House counsel to a President, who says that S. 1805 contains language that would require the dismissal of the Johnson case. I have another legal opinion from Boise, Schiller & Flexner who essentially say the exceptions would only preserve civil claims brought under other kinds of law. Other than that, what they are saying is this would preempt their ability to bring this case. The opinions clearly state that section 4 on page 7 articulated by my esteemed colleague does not hold water. It does not protect the victims of Malvo and Muhammad because it is in such plain English limited to those cases by the name of the perpetrator and predator. This does not create a loophole. Talk about loophole, talk about the gun shield loophole, talk about all the other loopholes in the gun bills. My amendment does not create a loophole. The legal opinions show there is ambiguity in S. 1805 and that section 4 could preempt the ability of these families to bring this case. The distinguished Senator from Idaho has his opinion. I have my two legal opinions that show that there is confusion and honest disagreement about the bill. That is why the Mikulski amendment is necessary, to clear up the ambiguity on the matter of these cases committed by Malvo and Muhammad. His point and my legal opinions prove the necessity of the amendment, to clear up the confusion, end the ambiguity, protect these victims and the families and their right to pursue. I yield to the Senator from Illinois, a distinguished lawyer himself, to further amplify this argument.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Continuing my argument, there is ambiguity and there is honest disagreement. I know the Senator from Idaho might bring us a CRS opinion saying the cases might survive. My colleague from Rhode Island has an earlier CRS opinion that says the opposite. The point is, there is ambiguity both in the law and in opinions about the law. My amendment is a simple, straightforward way to clear up the ambiguity and let these cases move forward.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Parliamentary inquiry: Did I do something wrong?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Excuse me, Senator. The Frist-Craig amendment is on what topic, sir?

Ms. MIKULSKI. What is the Frist-Craig amendment?

Ms. MIKULSKI. You want to conclude debate on this amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I have no objection to that.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, it gives a whole set of other obstacles.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes, and they have also filed suits. What we are concerned with is this bill will preempt those suits. They will be thrown out. They will be dismissed and the families will face yet another injustice at the hands of the Congress.