Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Seamus Heaney, the Irish poet and Nobel laureate, wrote lines that are destined for immortality: History says, Don't hope on this side of the grave. But then, once in a lifetime the longed for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme. We all long for that day when hope and history rhyme. But it is the special province of statecraft to try to make that rhyme. As such, one way to look at foreign policy is to determine if our policies do rhyme with history or whether they represent the triumph of hope over history. By history, I do not mean the strictly academic variety. I mean the accumulation of insight and experience that we all carry about. Perhaps it is better described as our rough sense of the way the world works. It is particularly interesting to pose these questions in light of the Bush foreign policy since so much of it seems to spring from ideological hope, from robust attempts to reshape the world along predetermined lines. Iraq, of course, is the crucial arena. It has been made so by the administration. Our immediate response to September 11 was to seek out and destroy the terrorist apparatus that struck us. Our attack in Afghanistan was aimed at the heart of al-Qaida and the rogue regime that provided it sanctuary. We understood very painfully that we could not grant these terrorists safe harbor. We had to act and we had to be prepared to act preemptively to destroy al-Qaida. The threat was clear and in the context of international terrorists like al-Qaida, the doctrine of preemption was not only compelling but also inescapable. Operation Enduring Freedom, the demolition of the Taliban regime, and the disruption of the al-Qaida infrastructure represented a shrewd use of military power to focus directly on an existential threat. The history, again, using my very nontechnical definition, clearly shows that al-Qaida could not be deterred and toleration would simply invite further attack. Ironically, having begun the destruction of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, the administration quickly shifted its attention from the complete destruction of the al-Qaida network to Iraq. Only in the past few weeks has the Bush administration begun to realize that Afghanistan is far from secure. They are redoubling their military and political efforts to ensure that Afghanistan does not slide back into a failed state. Still, the President's recent budget request only provides about $1 billion in funding for that effort, whereas commanders in the field have said they will annually need $5 billion to ensure success. Furthermore, regardless of the situation in Afghanistan, and indeed anywhere else, the Bush administration has never lost its preoccupation with Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. Some may recall that in January of 1998, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Wolfowitz, and other prominent neoconservatives wrote to President Clinton urging him to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein. In their words: The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq would be able to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. This letter predated the attack on Iraq by 5 years. It predated September 11 by more than 3 years. With the publication of the first glimpses inside the Bush administration, this preoccupation with Iraq becomes more obvious. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill recounts that at the first meeting of the National Security Council on January 30, 2001, the discussion quickly vaulted over nagging issues of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and landed squarely on Iraq. In an apparently scripted exchange, Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney and George Tenet not only led the discussion but also concluded with an examination of grainy photos purporting to show what the CIA thought was a plant producing chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture. According to O'Neill, ``ten days in, and it was about Iraq.'' September 11 did not put Iraq in the administration's gunsights. It was always there. It was there as a challenge, a personal one for the President, and in the view of neoconservatives, it was there as an opportunity to make hope and history rhyme. But in focusing almost exclusively on Iraq, the administration, in my view, disregarded a great deal of history. Again, I use the term history colloquially. The justification for action was based more on assumptions than evidence. The planning for their actions was based more on hopes than experience. The end of the cold war and the demise of the Soviet Union unshackled our military power so that we are unbeatable in any conventional battle against any conventional foe. However, it has not reversed a century in which empires collapsed and foreign colonies began a troubled but independent road. Our military power may be unchecked by any military adversary, but it is exercised in a world that has come to distrust the unilateral use of force and disbelief of the motives of those who wield such force. The administration's insistence on an essentially unilateral approach to confronting Iraq not only increased our effort both militarily and economically, but it also defied the worldwide consensus that without an immediate threat, the unilateral action of a great power against a lesser state is a vanished aspect of the colonial epic. Today, the United States is fervently trying to maintain the mantle of liberator and avoid the label of occupier. In large part, this is due to the overwhelming presence of the United States unleavened by a broad array of allies or the significant presence of the United States or United Nations or NATO in Iraq. In contrast, multinational operations in places such as the Balkans managed to avoid the stigma of occupation and insurgency for almost a decade. A multilateral attack is not a talisman that will guarantee success, but it is more congruent with a world that has rejected the colonial solution in favor of multinational action. The administration's rationale for a preemptive and virtually unilateral operation against Iraq rested on a faithful devotion to their preconceived notions and a strained reading of available intelligence. One of the more thoughtful and evenhanded military analysts, Anthony Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies has accurately summarized the record of the administration's intelligence activities leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. In his words: [T]here are many indications that the U.S. intelligence community came under pressure to accept reporting by Iraqi opposition forces with limited credibility, and in some cases, a history of actively lying to either exaggerate their own importance or push the U.S. towards a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In what bore a striking resemblance to similar worst case interpretations of the global threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles under the Rumsfeld Commission, U.S. policymakers not only seem to have pushed for the interpretation that would best justify military action, but to have focused on this case as if it were a reality, rather than a possibility. In the U.S., this pressure seems to have come primarily from the Office of the Vice President and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, but it seems clear that the Bush administration as a whole sought intelligence that would support its case in going to war, and this had a significant impact on the intelligence community from 2002-onwards. The administration did not use intelligence to help make a difficult decision. It used intelligence to sell a preconceived notion. The long- term fixed view of the administration held that deterrence and international inspectors were inherently incapable of containing Saddam. Only the elimination of the regime could suffice. Moreover, regime change, in their view, could have the added benefit of precipitating a transformation of the entire region. In effect, what the President and the administration did is present a false dichotomy to the American people--two choices, when there are many more. The two choices were: Attack Iraq or do nothing. In fact, there are many other things we could have done and perhaps should have done, including give the U.N. inspectors more time to search. They might have come to the same conclusion that David Kay did: there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We could have used not only the legitimacy but also the cooperation of the United Nations if we had pursued a course of diplomacy. But the President saw only two options: Do nothing or attack Iraq. Of course, we could not do nothing; indeed, we were not doing nothing. We should have been actively engaged in containment, and not just containment but enforcing the U.N. resolution with inspectors on the ground. We should recall there were U.N. inspectors on the ground inside Iraq and the administration, through their actions, had those inspectors recalled prior to the inception of the military operations. That is a result of this preoccupation with Saddam, the destruction of his regime, the triumph of hope over history. Then in planning for post-hostilities, the administration most clearly let its hopes triumph over history. They bet that Iraqi gratitude, together with a government of exiles, would provide for a cheap and easy exit strategy. They ignored a history of antagonism among the Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds. They spoke of a rapidly emerging democracy and market economy in Iraq, a country whose civic life and social institutions had been suppressed for many years. They insinuated exiles of dubious reputations, like Chalabi, who do not command the respect of the Iraqi people. The administration entrusted post-hostility planning to the Department of Defense, not for their expertise, but for their ideological correctness. One other aspect of the administration's hopes is that our operations in Iraq would have a transformative effect on the region, if not the world. They saw a democratic, market-oriented Iraq as an irresistible attraction and example to the masses of Arabs who hunger for a better way of life. Our success in Iraq would be emulated either by enlightened leaders or rebellious streets. Since we have yet to succeed in creating this new Iraq, it is hard to judge its transformative value. In the very short run, the jury seems to be out. Furthermore, our engagement in Iraq has limited our strategic flexibility and narrowed our strategic focus. We are paying insufficient attention to a place that is more likely than Iraq to produce that dreaded intersection of ``nukes'' and terrorists; and that place is North Korea. We know the North Koreans have nuclear material and the ability to make much more of it, if they have not done so already. Although there does not appear to be any direct links between North Korea and al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations, the North Koreans have a disturbing history of weapons proliferation. Inept at economic development, they have become too adept at trading dangerous weapons to stay afloat or as a means to underscore their demands for international aid. A few days ago, we concluded another round of international talks with the North Koreans without any apparent breakthrough. As encouraging as these discussions may seem, success--meaning the complete and verifiable elimination of nuclear material and nuclear weapons held by North Korea--can come, in my view, only with more resolute and determined leadership by the President. To date, Iraq seems to have monopolized the effective attention of the President and his inner circle. Failure to resolve the situation in North Korea through diplomacy will result in an intolerable situation that could prompt the consideration of military action. A military option is not appealing, and it may be extraordinarily difficult to carry out with the current open-ended and demanding commitment to Iraq. In addition, there has been little progress between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In another regional problem area, the Iranians have opened their nuclear program to more robust international inspection but still refuse to moderate their domestic policies and their international rhetoric. Indeed, the hardliners in Iran recently won an election, giving them more clout and marginalizing the reformers within that country, in the wake of our attack against Iraq. Libya presents an interesting case. Our military success seems to have focused their attention on repairing their relationship with the West. One must be grateful any time a regime effectively renounces weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, Qadhafi's actions seem more like self-preservation than democratization. And, as previously discussed, the ``shock and awe'' in Iraq did not influence the Afghanis to be more cooperative. In fact, we lost ground in Afghanistan to reconstituted insurgent forces. In the longer run, these hopes of democratic reform and economic renewal in the region and throughout the world will battle historic and cultural forces that may yield, but not without a struggle and not without time. There are signs that even the administration is coming to recognize that history has overtaken some of their hopes. To minimize the stigma of occupier, the Coalition Provisional Authority has accelerated the transition to sovereignty with a target date of June 30, a date that is more difficult to achieve with each passing day. It remains unclear who they will be returning this sovereignty over to. An interim constitution was adopted apparently today, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to who will be the ruling authority and ultimately how this sovereignty will be passed--truly passed--to the Iraqi people. In recognition of the economic reality of Iraq, the CPA has quietly shelved plans to privatize the Iraqi economy, plans they had initially. Now this would be a wrenching exercise in unemployment since almost every Iraqi directly or indirectly seems to work for a state industry or governmental entity. The CPA is also deferring serious land reform in a country where land was expropriated from traditional owners and bestowed upon supporters of Saddam. The CPA also seems quietly poised to allow the Kurds to develop an autonomous region under a loose federation, belying the initial commitment to a fully integrated Iraqi state. And still outstanding is whether the Shia majority will ultimately accept the governing arrangements for the new Iraq. And, having assumed the burden of Iraq, none of these recent pragmatic adjustments are themselves without great dangers. A hasty transfer of sovereignty could lead to a government without legitimacy or one that quickly morphs into a religious and authoritarian regime that does not share our enthusiasm for democracy. This political process becomes an inviting target for insurgents who see disorder as their key ally. Leaving economic restructuring to the Iraqis is probably leaving it undone. Allowing the Kurds to create an autonomous or semiautonomous region will cause consternation within Turkey while adding to the difficulties of the new central government in Baghdad. This administration has committed the Nation to operations in Iraq. And we cannot fail. Let me emphasize that again. We cannot fail. But we need to recognize that these ideological preoccupations that have led us to Iraq have very real costs. We are spending approximately $4 billion a month to continue our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of it being spent in Iraq. These costs do not include the heartbreaking loss of American service men and women. One must question a strategy in which you cannot afford to fail, but you may not win anything. But, questioning aside, one has little choice but to support our forces in the field and insist upon a more pragmatic approach. First, the administration must increase the overall size of our land forces, not temporarily, but in anticipation of a long deployment in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Last fall, I was able to propose an amendment with my colleague, Chuck Hagel, to increase the size of our Army by 10,000 soldiers. It passed on the floor of the Senate but was stripped out of the conference report at the insistence of the administration. They, at that point, failed to recognize the need for more military personnel. Since that time, the administration has indicated that they now recognize a need for additional forces in the Army. But they still continue to insist that it can be paid for out of supplemental appropriations. I believe we have to prepare for a long stay in Iraq. These new military personnel should be paid for through the budget process, not supplemental appropriations here and there on an irregular basis. I believe also that in addition to increasing our overall end strength, the administration must increase the number of forces in Iraq and direct those forces to the protection of the Iraqi people, not just to hunt for insurgents. Today, the greatest threat to the successful reconstruction of Iraq is the rampant violence that engulfs the country. Only a small portion of this violence is directed against American forces. The greatest portion is directed against the Iraqi people, creating a daily climate of violence facing every Iraqi which saps their will to remake their country and support our efforts. Today is a prime example. Over 140 Shiites were killed when bombs exploded in Karbala and Baghdad during a religious holy day. However, the Department of Defense still stubbornly clings to the proposition that more American troops won't help. Rather, they claim that indigenous Iraqi security forces are the answer. So they have created, mostly on paper, Iraqi security forces that are inadequate and insufficient for the critical months ahead. ``Iraqization'' has dim echoes of ``Vietnamization.'' Both are political responses to real security problems. One failed; the other is of dubious value at the moment. Secondly, the administration must candidly and promptly acknowledge the huge costs that are necessary to pursue our international objectives. The recently submitted Presidential budget does not include any funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President is attempting to rely on previous supplemental appropriations until the election. Recently, the chiefs of the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force admitted they would run out of funds on October 1 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More recently, reports have surfaced that the services may indeed run out of these funds sooner than that. They are now robbing Peter to pay Paul as they scavenge other accounts to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to funding for our military forces directly, we should understand even at the most optimal success level, military forces will buy you time to deal with the more fundamental problems that cause terrorism, that cause unstable governments, unstable regions. Those costs are also huge: costs in economic development assistance, costs in educational assistance. Those costs have to be factored in also. They are not included effectively or sufficiently in the budget the President sent to us. As I said, this is not only poor budget policy with regard to military forces, but if we cannot even honestly budget for military operations, how can we marshal the will and the dollars to reinforce military success with the resources for economic development that will address the root causes of the animosity we are confronting. One measure of the wisdom of any strategy is whether that strategy is sustainable. The administration's choice of a virtually unilateral preemptive attack followed by long-term and expensive nation building is not a strategy that can be easily duplicated. It is especially difficult to sustain without broad-based international support. Ironically, our preoccupation with Iraq might serve as an inhibition as we confront other adversaries. Moreover, our military advantages simply buy us time, precious time, to deal with fundamental issues that create the climate in which terrorism thrives. Our attention to these issues of education and economic development is necessary now and not just in Iraq. These, too, are expensive undertakings that require international cooperation with strong American leadership. We face great challenges around the world and here at home. But Americans are not strangers to great challenges. We will endure. And with wisdom and courage, we will prevail--the courage we witness every day in the extraordinary valor of our fighting forces. But the challenges before us require a strategic vision grounded on attention to the compelling threats we face, not the ideological impulses that stir our hearts. These challenges can best be faced with other nations, not alone. These challenges require huge resources and a long-term commitment, not budgetary gimmicks in the short run. Until the administration acts on these basic principles, our response to real threats will be hobbled by ideology rather than focused by experience. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I make some comments about the national situation, I express my thanks to Senator Craig of Idaho who is the manager on the Republican side of the bill that we considered today. I had the occasion to manage the bill for the Democratic side, and his fairness and his gentlemanlike conduct was deeply appreciated. I also recognize two of my staff members, Neil Campbell and Steve Eichenauer, who did a superb job. Thank you very much for this opportunity to mention my respect for Senator Craig and also my appreciation for my staff.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, despite the passage of three very important amendments for gun safety--one that closed the gun show loophole, another that extended the assault weapons ban, and a third to require child safety locks with all handguns sold in this country--the underlying bill still represents a fundamental undermining of a principle of law that has lasted for centuries, and that principle is that an individual is not just responsible to follow the statutes of this country, that individual is responsible to act reasonably. Even the most elaborate construct of statutes will never reach all the variations of human behavior. That is why this fundamental principle of responsible conduct must by maintained. This bill turns it on its head. This bill, if enacted, will be a license to be irresponsible, and there is no more graphic example than Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State, the source of the weapons for the snipers who terrorized Washington, DC. The individual could not account for 238 weapons, had numerous citations by ATF, and was unaware that a weapon was shoplifted and had fallen into the hands of assassins. That is irresponsible conduct. That conduct would be immunized by this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to vote no, against this legislation. We have made progress on important gun safety measures, but the underlying legislation would say to gun manufacturers: You can be irresponsible through your distribution network to whom you sell; to dealers, you can be irresponsible to the customer to whom you sell. We don't want that. The peace, security, and safety of all of us cannot tolerate that, and I urge defeat of this measure.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand we are about to vote on the Feinstein amendment. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I urge all colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would continue a ban on assault weapons that has been in place for 10 years. It has ensured that military weapons will not be on the streets of America, will not be used in crimes, will not be accessible to terrorists, which will not force our police officers to confront these weapons. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a continuation of present law. It is not a new law. I think the American public has come to understand this law and appreciate it and support it. I think they would urge its adoption and its continuation. Again, I urge a favorable vote on the Feinstein amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me first indicate that this legislation already includes an amendment by Senator Boxer on child safety locks, so the bill is not clean. The question today is, Will we add additional sensible gun safety measures? One of them is the assault weapons ban. That is something that is entirely appropriate, one that has been supported by vast numbers of the American public, that we should continue. The idea we are suddenly going to open up, once again, access to assault weapons across this country is difficult to bear, particularly by police officers. That is why they are so committed to this extension of the assault weapons ban because they are the individuals who have to face these weapons on the street. There is another amendment which I cosponsored with Senator McCain that will close the gun show loophole. Senator McCain pointed out quite clearly the terrorists who have already been identified as exploiting this loophole or attempting to exploit it. Indeed, I suspect there are others because the nature of terrorists is that they do not go around advertising themselves too much. The loophole is there. They know it is there. They will exploit it to our detriment. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to prohibit, preempt terrorists from attacking us within the United States. My colleague from Idaho conjured up this fear that this legislation is creeping gun control; this amendment will interfere with private sales. That is why the McCain-Reed amendment clearly specified that it does not apply to the sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual at the private residence of that individual. That is a private transaction unaffected by this legislation. We know this loophole is being exploited. We know guns are going into the hands of criminal elements, perhaps terrorist elements, through the gun show, and we also know it makes no sense to anyone--forget legislative, forget advocates, the common person--to walk into a gun show and understand some people have to do background checks and others do not because those weapons are equally dangerous. The potential customers of these shows could be terrorists, could be criminals. We have to be responsible and reasonable. That is exactly what this amendment does. This amendment does not create any new Federal bureaucracy. It does not require a gun show operator to report vendors to the Attorney General. It does not require that the Attorney General approve a gun show. It places no administrative burden practically at all on an unlicensed vendor. Just remember, 5 years ago, two young men went into a high school and killed 13 people because they were able to exploit the gun show loophole.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for the 2 minutes. In summary, this amendment that Senator McCain and I proposed is as sensible as I think one can ever fashion a law. When someone walks into a gun show with thousands of individuals, hundreds of booths, it makes no sense to the average person why one individual should require a background check and another does not have to conduct a background check in the sale of a firearm. It makes sense to have an even playing field. These are public events. It is virtually impossible for a seller at a major gun show to know the background of all the potential purchasers. We know these gun shows are exploited. This is not hypothetical. They are exploited by criminals. Goodness gracious, it makes perfect sense why they would be. It is a supermarket where a person can obtain firearms without any background check. It is like a neon sign that says: Come here if you are looking to get weapons and you cannot buy them legally. We know what happens. We also know because of the threat of terrorists that terrorists have looked at these gun shows as possible ways to obtain firearms. Frankly, I think the American public would demand, as they have in the past, anything we can do that would curtail access to dangerous weapons to terrorists. So I hope we support closing the gun show loophole. I also hope we support the assault weapons ban. Finally, I think we have to carefully look at the underlying legislation as a severe encroachment on hundreds and hundreds of years--indeed, many years--of common law tradition.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume from my time. I rise to support the McCain-Reed amendment and also the Feinstein amendment. I am a cosponsor, obviously, of both amendments. I wish to talk, for a moment, about the gun show loophole. It is clear and obvious to anyone--at least I believe it is--that we should not have two different standards at a public gun show. We should not have a situation where you can approach one seller who is a licensed firearms dealer and in that transaction have to undergo a background check, and then, 5 feet away, have an unlicensed seller and be able to purchase a weapon without any type of background check. These are public functions. Thousands of people stream through these gun shows. This is not a private sale where the seller and the buyer know each other, have an association to each other, and essentially do not need any kind of a background check. In order to prevent these gun shows from being exploited by criminals and terrorists, there has to be a common standard. Every transaction should be governed by a background check at a public gun show. We know these unlicensed dealers and these gun shows have been exploited by criminals. I have mentioned, over the course of the last several days of debate, numerous examples. Let me return to one. Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in Buffalo, NY. It is a very obvious scheme. You go to a place, if you are a felon or a criminal, that requires no background checks, that are publicly advertised, that are easily accessible, you buy the weapons, take them to another State that has very tough laws, and you sell them to criminals. One of these weapons was recovered in a homicide. It has been reported that Bostic purchased 45 firearms at one of these sales; his accomplices, 85 guns. These are the examples that will continue to take place unless we close this gun show loophole. Indeed, it is obvious to gun owners it should be closed. More than 80 percent of gun owners surveyed indicated they support closing the gun show loophole. President Bush repeatedly, in the campaign of 2000, said he was for closing the gun show loophole. The legislation that we present imposes no great burden on any participant at a gun show. Because of the National Instant Check System, 91 percent of these background checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent are accomplished in less than 2 hours. The remaining checks reveal, in many cases, prohibitive purchases. That is the purpose of the check. I think we can do something logical that is supported by the broad majority of Americans, including gun owners, by closing this gun show loophole. I hope we can do it today. But let me, before I conclude, make a general comment on the underlying bill. We have heard the proponents of the bill talk a lot about responsibility, that we have all been taught as children that if we misuse a gun, we should be responsible for that. Well, the underlying legislation is a license for irresponsibility. The most salient example is Bull's Eye Shooter Supply gun store up in Washington State, the source of the weapons for the snipers who were plaguing this Washington metropolitan area. There, the individual gun dealer apparently let weapons lay around. He could not account for over 238 weapons. He did not inventory his weapons. That is what I call a misuse of a weapon. People were harmed by that misuse, but we are insulating that individual from any serious liability because there is no Federal law--and my colleagues on the other side are not likely to propose it--for strict control of the security of weapons. I am amazed about the statistics my colleague from Idaho cited about the military support for no new weapons, et cetera. I tell you what. I served for 12 years in the U.S. Army. If you told an Army officer there was someone with hundreds of weapons, unsecured, lying around, subject to being shoplifted by teenagers, they would be appalled. Because the first thing you learn in the military is that you better secure those weapons, you better lock them up, you better inventory them, and do all the things you have to do, not only to protect yourself but to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. This legislation, if passed, will be a license for irresponsible behavior, unconstrained by any civil suit that could not only compensate the victims but suggest a higher level of care. So I hope that not only we support these amendments but look seriously at the underlying bill. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object. MR. LEVIN. I would make inquiry.

Mr. REED. May I inquire how much time is allocated to each individual side?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are debating legislation that is a serious encroachment on the common law of negligence. It is a legislative proposal that, in my view, is audacious in its breadth and also something that is presumptuous, presumptuous in the fact that, at the heart of this legislation, any liability for a gun dealer or a manufacturer or a trade association would rest on a violation of a statute, a Federal or State statute. Of course that presumes we are wise enough and bright enough to provide a statutory answer to every question posed by life. And I don't think we are. That is, in effect, one of the reasons why the law of negligence arose. It was not a response to the fact that we have too many laws; it was a response to the fact we had laws that did not require a standard of care in every circumstance. This legislation presumes we will govern every conceivable item of conduct and if one of those items of conduct is violated, a statutory requirement, then liability will arise. That defies human experience. Again, that is why our system of law over centuries developed the notion that outside of laws there is another standard. That is the standard of reasonable conduct. That is a standard that says an individual should act in a way that does not reasonably lead to the injury of another. We are upsetting that totally with this legislation. One example of the deficiency of the current legislation that we have, the legislative framework, is the governance of gun shows. These are sales of weapons in public areas that take place in most jurisdictions of this country-- in many, many jurisdictions. We became aware of one of the glaring shortcomings of this legislative framework after the Columbine killings. There, two very disturbed young men were able to obtain a weapon through a gun show. They used this weapon and other weapons to go in to wreak havoc in Columbine High School: classmates dead, families shattered, a community in turmoil. At that point, this body moved very appropriately to try to close the gun show loophole. What is this gun show loophole? It is very simply stated. If you are a licensed Federal firearm dealer, then you must conduct a background check upon anyone who purchases a weapon from you. But if you are an unlicensed dealer, i.e. someone who does not engage in the sale of firearms, then there is no requirement that you conduct this background check. It turns out that at gun shows there are many licensed dealers but a significant number of unlicensed dealers. They come and sell their wares at that show. In fact, you can go up to one table at a gun show and ask about a weapon. A licensed dealer would presumably quote you a price and say, I also have to conduct a background check under Federal law. You can step 3 or 4 feet away to another table to an unlicensed dealer, someone who ``knows the business'' of selling weapons, where in fact you don't have to do a background check. He says, ``I don't have a license. This is the price I want for it.'' It is not fair. It also allows for the distribution of this weapon into society in a way that can be harmful. The Columbine case is an example of that. Senator McCain and I are proposing legislation that will close this loophole. Again, back in 1999, in the wake of Columbine, Senator Lautenberg proposed legislation that passed this body. It was, unfortunately, stripped out of the legislation before it reached the desk of the President. We hope to offer an amendment tomorrow morning, and hopefully it will be agreed to. It is very important to have an active framework for the regulation of firearms in the country. It is important because in many cases we have avoided subjecting firearms to the regulation which is common for other goods that are sold in commerce. Firearms are exempt from consumer product safety laws that apply to virtually every other product in the country. I think it is important when we have public sales of firearms that we should have a situation in which every dealer is required to conduct a background check on the purchase. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms reported to Congress in 2000 that gun shows are a major source of gun trafficking, responsible for 26,000 illegal firearms sales during the 18-month period they studied these sales. That suggests to me this is an issue that must be dealt with and must be dealt with in this legislation. They have told us many of these purchases are by convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers who cannot obtain a weapon if they go to a licensed dealer and have a background check. At least three suspected terrorists that we know have also exploited the rules to acquire firearms, including one suspected member of al- Qaida. Under Federal law, Federal firearms licensees are required to maintain careful records of their sales and, under the Brady Act, to check the purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. However, as I explained, a person does not need a Federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does not apply, if the person is not ``engaged in a business'' of selling firearms pursuant to Federal law. These unlicensed sellers make up to one quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in America each year. Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy firearms at these gun shows. It stands to reason if you are a felon and you know the system and know that if you go to a licensed dealer you have to have a background check, where do you go? You go to someone who doesn't have to conduct a background check. In many cases, it is gun shows and unlicensed dealers. As I also mentioned, 5 years ago, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people at Columbine with weapons purchased from an unlicensed seller at a gun show. The woman who purchased those guns on behalf of Harris and Klebold testified to the Colorado Legislature she would never have purchased the weapons had she been required to undergo a background check. Had we had those background checks in place, then we might have avoided a terrible tragedy at Columbine. We are united in this bipartisan legislation, Senator McCain and myself and other cosponsors, and we have brought together provisions from several previous gun show bills to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans. The amendment we will propose tomorrow will require Brady law background checks on all firearms transactions at any event where 75 or more guns are offered for sale. Three years after enactment, States could apply to the Attorney General of the United States for certification for a 24-hour background check for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. In order to be eligible for this 24-hour certification, a State would be required to have 95 percent of its disqualifying records automated and searchable under NICS, including 95 percent of all domestic violence misdemeanor and restraining orders dating back 30 years. If a State can show their records are accessible through the system, if they are updated, if they cover the range not only of felony convictions and other criminal convictions but also domestic violence, misdemeanors, and restraining orders, then they could have a system in which an unlicensed dealer could have the check resolved in no more than 24 hours. Before certifying a State for this 24-hour background check, the Attorney General would be required to establish a toll-free telephone number to enable State and local courts to immediately notify the NIC system anytime a domestic violence restraining order is filed, and courts within a certified State would be required to use the telephone number immediately upon the filing of such an order to notify the NIC system. The bill also directs the Attorney General to work with States to encourage the development of computer systems that would allow courts to provide electronic records to NICS immediately. The Bureau of Justice Statistics would conduct an interim review of all certified States to ensure they continue to meet the conditions of the 24-hour background check and certification. The amendment Senator McCain and I will offer tomorrow differs in several respects from the legislation Senator McCain and I proposed last fall. First, gun show operators would not be required to notify the Attorney General of plans to hold a gun show. This provision was included in previous legislation, but it has been stricken from the amendment. Thus, there will be no requirement for a gun show operator to notify any Federal agency about plans to operate a gun show. Second, gun show operators would not be required to notify the Attorney General of vendors who sell firearms at gun shows. Again, this is a provision that has been dropped from previous legislation. The ledger of vendors at a gun show would be maintained at the permanent place of business of the gun show operator. Let me repeat that our amendment contains no requirement for gun show operators to notify any Federal agency about the names of firearms vendors at gun shows. Therefore, the amendment would not, as the NRA has claimed, in their words, create ``gun owner registration.'' It would not do that. Third, our amendment does not authorize the Department of Justice to draft regulations concerning how gun shows notify each gun show patron on the provisions of the law. Again, in previous editions of legislation, there was a requirement they would inform patrons about the provisions of the law. This legislation does not contain such a provision. The NRA has claimed, in keeping with their longstanding tradition of extreme rhetoric, our bill would create ``massive bureaucratic red tape'' and give a so-called ``antigun administration'' the power to ``regulate gun shows out of business.'' That was never true to begin with. But the changes Senator McCain and I have made to our amendment should put these accusations to rest. The overriding purpose of our bill is to require background checks on all gun show sales in the most convenient manner possible for gun show operators, unlicensed sellers, and private citizens who seek to purchase firearms at gun shows. I have no doubt the gun lobby will continue to say this is an attempt to end gun shows. But the experience of States that have closed the gun show loophole proves otherwise. California, for example, requires not only background checks at gun shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales. Yet gun shows continue to thrive there. We are not trying to end gun shows. We are trying to end the free pass we are giving to terrorists and convicted felons that allows them to simply walk into a gun show, find an unlicensed fellow, buy whatever weapons they want, and walk out without a Brady background check. In overwhelming numbers, gun owners believe a background check should be required whenever a firearm is sold at a gun show. An October 2003 poll found 85 percent of gun owners support closing the gun show loophole, that 83 percent of those who have attended gun shows support closing the loophole as well. The people of Colorado--one of several States--confirmed this widespread support after Columbine when they approved a ballot initiative to close the gun show loophole. President George Bush said repeatedly during the 2000 campaign he supported legislation to require background checks at gun shows. We hope tomorrow this amendment will be adopted so the President can sign a bill which he has indicated clearly and repeatedly throughout the 2000 campaign that he supports. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Reed amendment so we can finally close the loophole in every State and make sure that convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons do not use gun shows to purchase firearms without the background check. There has been some discussion and rebuttal by those who say this is unnecessary because this is not an opportunity for felons to obtain weapons. In fact, the NRA maintains there is no gun show loophole. What is the truth? Under Federal law, licensed dealers must do background checks at gun shows, but unlicensed dealers do not. Thus, at thousands of gun shows each year, a licensed firearm dealer must conduct a background check, while 2 feet away an unlicensed dealer is able to sell a weapon without a check. That suggests strongly--it would defy common sense otherwise--that if you are looking to get a weapon and you are prohibited from having one, where would you go? Right to the unlicensed dealer, right to that loophole. Put the money on the table and take the weapon and walk out, no questions asked. According to the NRA, they suggest hundreds of thousands of guns are sold each year at gun shows without these background checks--that is their own statement--hundreds of thousands of guns not subject to background checks. It is not fair. I have talked to my colleagues from States that have quite a few gun shows and they simply say, what sense does it make that someone who walks into a Target or a Wal-Mart to buy a weapon has to undergo a Federal firearms check and they can just walk across the street to some type of gun show and get one without a background check. That is not fair. It is not an even playing field. It is a loophole. We hope we can close that loophole tomorrow. The NRA says if we adopt this legislation we will put gun shows out of business. That is not true, either. Seventeen States have closed the gun show loophole on their own. According to the Krause Gun/Knife Show Calendar, which bills itself as the complete guide for anyone who attends or displays at gun shows, States which closed the loophole hosted more gun shows each year than States which have left this loophole open: an average of 45 gun shows per year in the 17 States which have closed the loophole compared to 41 in the other 33 States. The NRA also says lengthy background checks take too long for weekend gun shows. But thanks to improvements made by the NIC system, National Instant Recovery background system, 91 percent of the background checks take less than 5 minutes; 95 percent take less than 2 hours to complete. For 19 out of 20 background checks, instant checking is truly instant, within minutes, and no more than 2 hours. Of the remaining 5 percent that take longer than 2 hours, about one-third of these result in a denial because they have found information indicating the individual is prohibited from purchasing a weapon. Also, as indicated, our amendment gives the State the opportunity to qualify for a 24-hour background check for unlicensed sellers at gun shows if it has automated 95 percent of its background check records. These checks can be made, they will be made, they are being made without inhibiting gun shows on behalf of licensed dealers who sell at the shows. The idea that requiring unlicensed dealers to get a background check would disrupt gun shows is, in my view, completely unsubstantiated. The NRA says criminals do not buy guns from gun shows. The truth is, crime guns do come from gun shows and it has been documented. That is according to ATF Special Agent Jeff Fulton. In a comprehensive ATF report on illegal guns, they found gun shows were the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking operations. The NRA says also the Department of Justice survey of prison inmates found only 2 percent of prisoners obtained their firearms from the gun shows and flea markets. The 1997 survey at the NRA sites admits an obvious flaw: The gun show loophole did not exist until the Brady law passed at the end of 1993, requiring background checks by licensed dealers. Thus, any criminal imprisoned before 1994, or inmate who acquired a firearm before 1994, could go to a gun store without having to undergo any type of background check. The survey they rely upon is invalid. We have several recent examples of gun show loopholes being exploited by criminals. Thomas Timms was arrested last October with 147 guns, 60,000 rounds of ammunition, a submachine gun, a 20 millimeter antitank rifle, a 12-gauge ``street sweeper'' and a rocket launcher. According to Federal agents, he had been selling large quantities of weapons at Georgia gun shows that were used in crimes in Washington, DC, New York, and Georgia. Caesar Gaglio was arrested in September after selling 11 guns to undercover agents and was among 5 unlicensed sellers caught with 572 guns in an undercover sting that encompassed gun shows in Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Kansas. John Loveall and eight others were arrested in June for selling firearms to felons or people under indictment at Tennessee gun shows. They were arrested with 500 guns in their possession. In the words of the Federal attorney, this is 500 guns that will not wind up in the hands of criminals to use, to rob, or to shoot or murder citizens of Memphis or anywhere else in the western district of western Tennessee. Tommy Holmes pleaded guilty in October for being part of a trafficking scheme that included a known felon buying scores of guns at Alabama gun shows to sell on the streets of Chicago. Fifteen of the firearms have been recovered in the course of criminal investigations or at crime scenes. Bud Varnadore was sentenced to prison in November for trafficking in firearms at Tennessee gun shows. He was caught in a sting that identified 23 other suspicious sellers and recovered over 1,600 firearms. Tennessee is a ``source State'' of guns for criminals, through unlicensed dealers, according to AFT Special Agent James Cavanaugh. Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in Buffalo, NY. At least one was recovered in a homicide. In one instance, Bostic purchased 45 firearms and his accomplice purchased 85 guns. ``We are still finding guns that have been used in crimes and tracing them back to him,'' said Buffalo Police Lieutenant Amy Marracino. Viktor Mascak was arrested on 56 counts of trafficking in firearms at Washington State gun shows. At least five of Mascak's guns were recovered in crimes, including one that was carried into Hanford Middle School by a 13-year-old. Billy Gage and Lowell Ronald Wilson, a felon, were arrested at the Seagoville flea market outside of Dallas with 2 machine guns, 91 handguns, and 49 rifles. They were apprehended after a 9 millimeter pistol they sold to a felon was used to murder Garland County Police Officer Michael Moore. This is quite a record of criminals exploiting gun shows and exploiting the current loophole. If we do not close it, there will be more to add to this infamous list. The NRA says supporters of closing the gun show loophole are shamefully exploiting terrorism to make their case. The truth is, we know three cases where suspected terrorists exploited the gun show loophole. Ali Boumelhem, a Lebanese national and member of the terrorist group Hezbollah, was arrested and convicted of attempting to smuggle firearms he bought from Michigan gun shows to Lebanon. Muhammed Nasrar, a Pakistani national in the country on an expired visa, admitted to buying and selling firearms at Texas gun shows. Nasrar is a suspected al-Qaida member who obtained a pilot's license, had photos of tall buildings of American cities, and, though seemingly impoverished, attempted to purchase a time share for a Lear jet. Connor Claxton, an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army, spent over $100,000 at Florida gun shows and through other private dealers to obtain firearms to smuggle to Ireland. The National Rifle Association says also the McCain-Reed amendment creates gun owner registration. Not correct. The truth: Special firearms event licensees, those who are certified to perform background checks for unlicensed firearms vendors at gun shows, are required to keep the same records as federally licensed firearms dealers, no more or no less. Unless one argues that buying a firearm from a licensed dealer constitutes gun owner registration, then one cannot argue this amendment constitutes gun owner registration. The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment requires gun show operators to register all firearm vendor names to the Federal Government. The truth: The amendment does not require this. Gun show operators are not required to submit a list of vendors to the Federal Government. Gun show operators are only required to maintain their own paper records of those who sell firearms at gun shows. The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment requires registration of gun shows. The truth: The amendment does not require gun show operators to register or notify the Federal Government about the scheduling of any gun shows. A gun show notification requirement in our bill has not been included in this amendment. We struck it. The Federal Government has no role in approving or denying gun shows from operating in any way. The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment allows harassment of gun show organizers and vendors. The truth: Federal authorities will have no more inspection authority over gun show operators than they have now with licensed firearms dealers. There is no new inspection authority over any vendors in this amendment. The NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment creates massive bureaucratic redtape. The truth: This amendment is remarkably redtape free. There are no new paperwork requirements for unlicensed sellers. The Federal Government has no role in approving or disapproving gun show events. Gun shows are under no obligation to notify Federal authorities about their intent to hold an event. The NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment turns casual conversations into gun show sales. Not true. The amendment clearly defines a firearms transaction as ``the sale, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange of a firearm.'' The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment's 24-hour maximum allowable background check is a smokescreen. It is not. If a State wants to place a 24-hour limit on the length of background checks at gun shows, it may do so once that State has its background check records in order and automated. If a State chooses not to limit the length of background checks below the current 3 business days, it does not have to. The NRA says the McCain-Reed amendment makes no improvements to instant check. The truth: Legislation to improve instant check has been introduced separately by Senators Schumer, Craig, Hatch, and Kennedy. I am proud to be both a cosponsor of the legislation and a longtime supporter of the National Criminal History Improvement Program to help States get more of their disqualifying records into the system. NRA also says the McCain-Reed amendment gives no priority to gun show background checks. That is because it is not necessary. The NIC System currently operates from 8 a.m. to 1 a.m. 7 days a week and 364 days a year. That is why 91 percent of background checks are completed in minutes, and 95 percent are completed within 2 hours. The remaining 5 percent are 20 times more likely to turn up an illegal buyer than the rest of the checks. There is no need to put gun show checks in front of other background checks the NICS processes nationwide every day because the system is working very efficiently. These are some of the refutations of the amendment Senator McCain and I are offering, but none of them hold any weight. This is an amendment that will close the gun show loophole without materially affecting the operation of gun shows or the conduct of unlicensed gun dealers, but it will attempt to prevent some of the rogues, whom I described, from getting access to weapons. Once again, there is a great discussion on this floor almost every moment of the principles of law, the principles we espouse. But a lot of what we do must be common sense. I ask my colleagues, and also the people listening, to think about it. If you were a felon, or if you were a terrorist, and you were aware, as so many of them are, that you could go to a gun show, find unlicensed dealers and buy a weapon--some of them extremely dangerous weapons--without any questions asked, where would you go? You would go right there. All the principles of law, all the principles of legal theory, have to respond to that commonsense insight. The McCain-Reed amendment seeks to make a commonsense response to this glaring omission, to close the loophole, to require anyone purchasing a weapon at a gun show must go through a background check, and to do so in a way that we do not inhibit gun shows and we do not impose undue requirements on both the operator of the gun show or those dealers, both licensed and unlicensed, who may attend. I mentioned before discussion of the terrorist connection. It seems to me that after 9/11, when we attempted to strike an extraordinarily strong posture against any form of terrorism--where this body, in virtual unanimity, passed the PATRIOT Act, which empowers the Federal Government to take unusually strong steps with respect to individual privacy and individual protections--to now suddenly allow this loophole to exist that may be exploited by terrorists, seems to me astounding. If we can have thousands of people at airports screening bags against terrorist threats, why can't we simply pass a gun show loophole amendment that will close a source of weapons that has been exploited in the past by terrorists? I mentioned three cases in particular. I would like to elaborate, if I may. The first is Ali Boumelhem, a known terrorist, connected to Hezbollah. He is currently serving prison time for attempting to smuggle guns into Lebanon. He was discovered by an informant. As a result of this information, Federal law enforcement agents trailed him, observed him, and saw him go to a gun show in Michigan. He purchased a weapon. He also involved his brother as a straw buyer, to purchase another weapon. He was caught after attempting to smuggle the weapons out of this country to Beirut. It is important to note, because there has been some suggestion that he never actually purchased a weapon at these shows, that he always used straw purchasers to purchase them. As a result, it would foil our amendment, the McCain-Reed amendment. But in a sworn affidavit, dated November 6, 2000, ATF Special Agent Cheryl Crockett testified agents assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force had Boumelhem under surveillance on October 29, 2000, when he went to the Grand Rapids Gun and Knife Show. One agent particularly, Edwin Edmunds, observed Boumelhem approach a table and examine an M-16 rifle upper receiver--that is, the receiver, barrel, carrying handle, and handguards. This configuration is a firearm under Federal law. Boumelhem walked away, but then returned minutes later with a wad of cash, which he exchanged for the M-16. He was seen leaving the gun show with a plastic bag that, in the language of the agent, ``comports with the size and shape of an M-16 receiver.'' Mr. Boumelhem himself purchased a weapon at a gun show. Had the McCain-Reed amendment been in effect, the individual would have been required to have conducted a background check of Mr. Boumelhem, and he would have been denied the right to buy that weapon because he had already been convicted in California of an offense that would disqualify him to purchase such a weapon. Mr. Boumelhem was involved in a conspiracy not only to purchase weapons on his own behalf but to enlist others to purchase these weapons and to ship these weapons back to Beirut. In fact, he was finally arrested after a Federal agent searched an auto park's cargo container on a ship bound for Lebanon. They found weapons and other materiel. He was attempting to flee the country, apparently, when he was arrested by the Federal agent. He had a one-way ticket to Beirut. It appeared he was not making just a business stop but, indeed, was trying to flee the country. Our Federal agents also had witnesses and informants who had seen Boumelhem in Lebanon with, in their words, AK-47s, M-16s, explosives, grenade launchers, grenades, rocket launchers, and rockets in his possession. The press reported the FBI has a video tape apparently showing Ali Boumelhem firing automatic weapons in Lebanon and acknowledging he is a member of Hezbollah. This is the charge--someone who, under observation by Federal agents, used the gun show loophole to acquire an M-16. He was engaged in significant conspiracy with others before to exploit gun shows or other means. His brother said Ali Boumelhem was a frequent gun show attendee. In his own words, he said his brother said he went to ``gun shows everywhere. Gun shows everywhere here, almost every week. If it's not Mt. Clemens, it's in Taylor.'' Both of them were searching out gun shows all through Michigan. This individual qualifies as a terrorist. He would have been denied the right to purchase this firearm had the Reed-McCain legislation been in effect. There are others, too, who have been indicated as terrorists and have been involved in these details. One other is the case of Muhammad Asrar. Mr. Asrar is an illegal Pakistani immigrant who has pleaded guilty to weapons and immigration charges. At a presentencing hearing, the Government sought an ``upward departure'' from the sentencing guidelines because of Asrar's ``intent and demonstration of violent and terrorist motives.'' Asrar remains under investigation by a Federal grand jury on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaida. The Government has revealed that he was stockpiling guns he had illegally bought and sold at Texas gun shows. Asrar had also obtained a pilot's license, collected pictures of tall buildings in the U.S., and tried to purchase a timeshare in a Lear jet. Asrar was convicted of illegally possessing 50 rounds of 9 mm ammunition. As an illegal alien, it was illegal for Asrar to buy or possess guns or ammunition. He was also convicted on an immigration charge--illegally overstaying his student visa since 1988. He has admitted to having bought and sold guns at gun shows. Asrar told authorities that he had bought and sold a variety of guns at Texas gun shows over the last 7 years. These included a copy of a Sten submachine gun, Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle. None of the guns were in his possession when he was arrested on September 17. In addition to the ammunition, authorities also found pictures of the tall buildings, as I indicated, and also pictures of the guns that he said he at one time purchased and had in his possession. He told the authorities he bought and sold guns at gun shows. It appears he was stockpiling these weapons. The fact is, he had at least 16 guns, and possibly as many as 30 guns. He was arrested on September 11 when an informant had indicated he was behaving suspiciously. The informant indicated that Asrar had asked him whether or not he could help Asrar smuggle a foreign national across the border from Mexico, and if he would take pictures of tall buildings for him during his travels, and if he would mail letters for him from Pennsylvania. Now, the Government is presently developing cases against this individual based on a theory that he is involved in terrorist activity. As I said, in a presentencing motions hearing, the Government indicated that it is conducting this further investigation. In their words, ``We are asking for upward departure based on his intent and demonstration of violent and terrorist motives.'' This is the text of the open session in court: . . . will testify that he, there's numerous gun transactions, there's more than what's in the presentencing report. This is the Federal attorney: The presentencing report contains most of the ones that are more well defined, but there's other witnesses who are a little bit more vague, but they describe more gun transactions, or gun incidents I should call them, not gun transactions necessarily. But also the presentencing report contains incidents where he's trying to buy explosives. There's also the--on September 8, Your Honor, he rented a car. He drove to Houston, Texas; he returned the car on the 11th. He met with well-known persons of middle eastern descent there in Houston. He has obtained a flying, a pilot's license. Although he was apparently completely broke, he was trying to purchase a timeshare in a Lear jet. He requested a person who was traveling to the East Coast to take pictures of tall buildings for him and send them to his brother. There's an incident, Your Honor, where approximately a year before the defendant was arrested, persons had been calling in to local authorities saying he had been involved in gun transactions and the ATF went with, I believe it was the TABC, or some alcohol-related agency, and they went to search his property, and about a year before he was arrested. And they found no guns. When we began interviewing people after he was arrested, we looked into one, Mr. Robert Fang, who's an admitted friend of Mr. Asrar, who says, who referred back to that incident a year earlier and said that Mr. Asrar brought him a case of guns, a case of guns, I believe it was 5 to 7 guns, somewhere in there, and said, ``Please hold these for me. My place is about to get searched by agents. Please keep these for me so they won't find them.'' Mr. President, you have someone who is behaving extremely suspiciously, is illegally in this country, who has apparent ties to terrorist organizations--at least enough to ask the Federal authorities to ask in a presentencing that he be treated as such. Of his own admission, he frequented gun shows, and bought and sold guns. Again, I think this is a strong case for closure of the gun show loophole. Briefly, before I yield the floor, I will mention the case of Conor Claxton. Mr. Claxton is an admitted member of the Irish Republican Army. He came to the United States--specifically Florida--because he was looking to develop an arsenal of weapons to ship back to Ireland. He testified that the IRA chose Florida because ``we don't have gun shows in Ireland, and you see things here like you never imagined.'' He told the FBI it is common knowledge that obtaining weapons in the United States is easy. Now, Mr. Claxton was involved in, apparently, using about $100,000 to assemble an arsenal for the IRA. The Irish authorities recovered 46 handguns in 1999 and more than 600 rounds of ammunition hidden inside 23 packages containing toys, computers, and other goods to be shipped from the cabal of the IRA in the United States. Claxton usually used a straw purchaser, a naturalized American citizen, Siobhan Browne, who is also his girlfriend. She acquired many of these guns. But it appears, also, because Browne indicated that Claxton ``spent more than $100,000 off the books on semi and fully automatic weapons in sales from private dealers.'' So there is strong evidence to suggest that Claxton himself was engaged in the acquisition directly of firearms for the purpose of arming IRA members in Northern Ireland. Now, Mr. Claxton was ultimately charged and he was convicted along with two codefendants on the gun smuggling charge of which he was accused. He is currently serving a 56-month sentence. Despite his admission that he was a member of the IRA, he was acquitted of the charges of terrorism and conspiracy to maim and murder. That seems to be a technicality. According to the Good Friday accord negotiations, the IRA had been dropped from the Federal Government's ``Dirty 30,'' the list of officially recognized terrorist organizations. If the IRA had stayed on this list, his conviction would be automatic. Because of that delisting, however, Federal authorities had to show that the weapons had been smuggled ``with the specific intent to murder or maim.'' A specific intent offense requires a level of proof that is significant. Even though they failed in this level of proof, Mr. Claxton's contact and his own admission of the involvement with the IRA strongly suggests that he, too, was involved in terrorist activities. We have a situation in which, because of the gun show loophole, there is mounting evidence that criminals have access to weapons and indeed terrorists have access to these weapons. The amendment Senator McCain and I will propose will close this gun show loophole without unduly burdening gun show operators. It will also not interfere with the operation of unlicensed gun dealers. I have suggested, by pointing out specific incidents, a situation where individuals have used the gun show loophole. Let me say in conclusion that the vast majority of individuals participating in these gun shows, licensed and unlicensed dealers, are law-abiding individuals who have no intent to defeat the law. But as long as we have such a low, virtually nonexistent threshold, there will be a few--and there certainly will probably be more--criminals and terrorists who will seek to avoid the responsibilities under the gun laws. I think it is entirely appropriate to pass this legislation to close this gun show loophole and to ensure simply that at a gun show everyone is treated the same--licensed dealers and unlicensed dealers--and that everyone knows the rules. Gun shows now will require a background check. I retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that time allocated to Senator McCain, cosponsor of the gun show amendment with myself, be given to me for such time as I may consume.

Mr. REED. Just very quickly because I have very little time, this amendment does not create a new Federal bureaucracy. The national instant criminal background check system exists. We simply are applying it to unlicensed dealers at gun shows. Second, I have heard much this afternoon about the law working. It has worked occasionally to punish terrorists and criminals who have used violence and weapons, but it has not worked as effectively to prevent harm to people who have been killed, the most obvious and most notable, 13 young people at Columbine High School. The Reed-McCain, McCain-Reed amendment can help prevent, we hope, this violence that so often strikes our communities. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED. Madam President, one of the factual points that has to be stressed again and again is the national criminal background check system is very efficient and rapid. Ninety-one percent of background checks take less than 5 minutes, so 91 percent of the checks involved in the sale under our amendment, by an unlicensed dealer, would be expedited in a matter of minutes--less than 5 minutes. And 95 percent of these checks take less than 2 hours. This is not a burden that is going to undermine the ability of a licensed or unlicensed dealer to operate at a gun show, or for a gun show to operate at all. The evidence before us suggests that in States which have not only instant checks on all sales but also background checks, and sometimes even waiting periods, gun shows continue to operate. Again, this is not going to cause an undue burden on individuals who want to acquire a weapon. The other factor I think has to be pointed out again is surveys of gun owners overwhelmingly support the idea of a background check applying to all sales at these shows. In a recent survey, 83 percent of gun owners said it makes sense. Again, the public nature of a gun show--the inability for an individual to screen his customers is quite different than a private sale or a transfer of a weapon between family members, and quite different than the transfer of weapons among people in a hunt club. That is all protected in our amendment, because there is knowledge who you are dealing with. Here, you could have literally hundreds of thousands of people come to your booth, look at a weapon, and say I would like to buy. If there is no background check, how does that conscientious seller know if he is dealing with a criminal? That is why I think the overwhelming number of gun owners and attendees at gun shows suggests this amendment would be helpful, not hurtful. And I agree. I urge my colleagues, when we lay the amendment down tomorrow and when we vote, to support this amendment. It provides a commonsense approach to ensuring there is an even and level playing field so everybody who is participating in a gun show on both sides of the transaction knows there will be a background check. I think it is particularly important because we already have evidence of individuals who are criminals who have exploited this loophole, and terrorists-- three we know by name--and, frankly, they are not in the business of broadcasting their names. They understood the loophole, sought to exploit it and indeed, in some cases, they were successful--momentarily successful. We owe it to the safety of the public to ensure this gun show loophole is closed. The McCain-Reed amendment will do that. I urge my colleagues to support it tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. How much time will that be?

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am informed Senator Schumer will not be arriving to the floor. Since there was a unanimous consent that allocated 5 minutes to him from Senator Feinstein's time, I ask unanimous consent I be given any time remaining of Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain.

Mr. REED. Madam President, just very briefly, I would like to respond to two points that the Senator from Idaho made. One is the suggestion that the Federal study of the felons indicates a very low number of people who have used gun shows to get weapons. I would be very curious to study State prisons because it is in the State prisons you find more people who are convicted of crimes such as homicides and armed robberies and burglaries. Federal laws usually encompass more white-collar criminals, although there are a significant number of criminals in jail under Federal drug trafficking charges. But I think the studies we have seen suggest, very strongly--and the ATF has suggested very strongly--that gun shows are a source of a significant number of weapons. I also point out, in response to the Senator from Idaho, the suggestion that this is going to disrupt gun shows, create very difficult matters of interpretation so that individuals will be so confused that gun shows will wither on the vine, I think that could not be further from the truth. Let me point out that States have already stepped up and passed legislation to close this loophole, to require everyone who is selling weapons at a gun show--regardless of their license status--to involve a background check on a potential purchaser. In North Carolina, in 2003, there were 76 gun shows. I am told, actually, North Carolina is ahead of the rest of the country in developing their data system for instant checks. So there is one example where a State has closed a gun show loophole, but gun shows continue to thrive. In fact, North Carolina has the distinction of having the most gun shows in the year 2003, from our records. I am sorry, Wisconsin had 88. So they eclipsed them. And Florida had 111. But North Carolina is among the top 10, at least. I think that is an example to demonstrate this will not undermine gun shows. It will not impose undue burdens on individuals, people who wish to sell weapons and people who wish, honestly and legally, to acquire them. So I believe this amendment is compelled by the evidence we have seen. Now, the Senator from Idaho has indicated the law has worked. It certainly did not work for that police officer in Garland, TX, who was killed by a weapon that apparently flowed through people exploiting the gun show loophole. And it certainly did not work for the 13 children at Columbine High School. I think we can make it work. I think we can make it work if we adopt the Reed-McCain amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, could I once again determine how much time is available to all the participants?

Mr. REED. No. Senator Schumer will not be here. I asked to be given the remaining time to allocate to anybody who may come to speak.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I listened quite attentively to my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, talk about gun shows and the need or lack of necessity to close the gun show loophole. It struck me there is something quite a bit different between a private sale and a sale through a gun show. Again, not the law but the logic. Most private sales involve people who know each other. In fact, for a home sale you invite the person into the home to offer them the sale of a weapon. It is quite different from a gun show, as the picture indicated. These are huge events. These are supermarkets for firearms. No individual has the knowledge of the perhaps hundreds or even thousands of people who might come up to them and offer to purchase a weapon. In that case, the very particular specialized case of a gun show, the need for a background check seems obvious. That is why we insist that Federal licensed firearms dealers conduct such a check. To argue that this is some aberration, that this gun show loophole amendment we are proposing somehow turns the law on its head, is completely wrong. Again, here is a situation where these unlicensed sellers have very little, if any, knowledge of the thousands of people who come up to them, which of those people is a terrorist or a criminal seeking to exploit the gun law. That is what has happened. These individuals I referred to have been captured and prosecuted. But there are, I am sure, many others who avoid capture and prosecution. There are those today in this situation. Anyone could. Anyone listening today--I hope they don't take this as direction or guidance-- but understanding that, they could walk up to an unlicensed dealer, find an unlicensed dealer and ask to purchase a weapon and do that. Again, the cases seem compelling. Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows. Here is a team of people systematically using gun shows to acquire 239 weapons which they then sold to criminals in Buffalo, NY. One was recovered in a homicide. I don't know how many others were involved. That is just one example, and there are more examples than this. It seems to me this makes obvious sense that we cannot have a situation where there are two standards, for a licensed dealer and for an unlicensed dealer at the same place, in a public setting, in a place that is advertising the sale of guns. This is not a situation where you are at home or you have a weapon in your garage that you would like to sell to someone who came by. You have a friend. You were talking at the local doughnut shop and discovered that you and your friend have an interest in common, firearms, and you decide: Come back to my place; I'll show you a weapon. That is not a gun show, and our amendment does not reach those activities. It is clear, it is logical, it is consistent, it is fair, and it sets a common standard. This amendment will not disrupt gun shows. California has a statute that not only requires background checks at all sales but a 10-day waiting period for gun shows, and they still have gun shows. In fact, I am told their gun shows are quite popular and quite successful. This amendment is about common sense. It is about dealing with problems which we know exist--Columbine showed us that--and the arrest of criminals who are engaged in conspiracies to exploit the gun show loophole. We have evidence of terrorists--real terrorists--who are aware of this who have tried to use it. I don't think we can be so sanguine as to say we know how terrorists will attack us, that they will always choose an airline or they will always choose explosives. They will choose the way that is most disruptive to our life and which will cause the most damage. That could involve in some way, shape, or form exploiting the gun show loophole. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor, retaining the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:35 Senator Schumer be recognized for 5 minutes, from the time of Senator Feinstein.