Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Hurricane Katrina was a colossal natural disaster. Every hurricane is different. They bring different stresses and different damages. My home is in the city of Mobile, Alabama, right on the gulf coast. We were without power for 3 days. Trees and houses were damaged. Portions of the city were flooded that have not been flooded before. We experienced the highest surge of water up Mobile Bay driven by this storm that we have seen in anybody's lifetime there. The surge in the fishing communities of Bayou La Batre and Coden were unlike anything they have seen before--my best estimate is 5 feet deeper than we have ever seen before. I spent 3 days in that community working with and talking to the people. Many of them lived in small framed houses, some in mobile homes and things of that nature, that they have lived in for quite a long time in areas that had never flooded before but flooded this time. I will share a story of heroism that is symbolic of what happened, I am sure, throughout the gulf coast. It is regarding a young State trooper a corporal, Spencer Collier, also an Alabama State legislator, a wonderful young man, my wife and I have come to admire him so much whose house flooded, as did most of the leaders of the town of Bayou La Batre. The town began to receive 911 calls at the height of the storm. He and a marine resource officer and others, got in a vehicle and drove down to where the water was rising with 100-mile-per-hour winds blowing. They put their boat out and, before they could cast off, the water had risen so fast that the entire vehicle was flooded. They went out and they made the first trip to rescue stranded individuals. They went out in this storm, traveling almost a mile to an area where water had never reached before in this town. They rescued people and brought them back. Unfortunately, the first boat sank. Mayor Stan Wright had a flat- bottom boat and they put it to work. He said it was a good boat. It worked quite well, but the bottom was thin and they were worried about it. They went out in these waves and in this storm under great live oak trees that were blowing, houses had been completely demolished towards the beach as well as inland. The water was littered with trash and debris, and they made six trips and brought people out. One lady had several children. So they left one of their group there holding two of the children. They took the boat back, came back again and got the children, and they had to leave the guy because they did not have room in the boat. All the time his house was being flooded, and he spent days, as did the other members of the city government, working for the people of that community, even though their own homes were flooded. So that is the kind of thing we are talking about. I talked to people remaining in town the next day. The storm ended Monday night. We still had strong winds at 5, 6, 7, even 8 at night. It began to calm down after going all day long. I talked to those people Tuesday afternoon. Many of them were in food lines provided by the good old Salvation Army. They were the first ones there serving hot meals, with a tub of ice and bottled water. People were lined up. They had not had a meal. The electricity was all off. The phones were off. Most of the cell phones did not work. Cell phone batteries quickly go down. They could not make phone calls. They lined up there. Several in that first line I talked to said: Senator, this is all we have. We lost everything we had. These clothes on my back are all we have. We had to get out of our house. The water flooded everything. I don't know what we are going to do. I met a young lady who asked me that night what about her grandfather's Social Security check? They were from New Orleans. They left the New Orleans area. They had come up here. They were expecting to go back. I knew what she was saying. She was saying they did not have any money. I called Wallace Davis of the Volunteers of America, a great organization in the Mobile area, and he really came through. I asked him to do what he could, and he immediately went into action. He brought some of his own money. He said: I have money. I am telling you I have seen hurricanes before, and some people just need a little cash. They gave them a little cash, and I saw her the next morning and she was a new person. That would allow them to get to other relatives and maybe stay with them and get gasoline or food in that fashion. So I want to say this: Many of the homes there are lost. On the east end of Dauphin Island, which is a sizable barrier island with a great many beachfront homes on it, one-third of the homes are completely gone, one-third badly damaged, and one-third somewhat damaged on the island. On the west end, the percentage of homes lost was even greater. The homes that were for many years on beautiful Mobile Bay around Point Clear and the Grand Hotel, homes that had not flooded before, flooded because of this surge of water. Homes that were built up high in recent years under hurricane restrictions did not flood, but many of those old homes suffered a good deal of damage. I just say that to point out that, without a doubt, we are going to have to spend more on this hurricane than we have ever spent before. People need us now. Many of these people I have talked with and I met were working class American citizens not living on the beach. People on the beaches, for the most part, have a second home. They have insurance. Maybe they can get by, although they are going to take a big hit. But these people were hurting, and hurting badly. We are going to need to step it up. When I see the damage from the incredible force of this hurricane on the Mississippi coast, our neighbors, and then in New Orleans with this incredible levee break and the floods there, I know we are in for a big job. I served as a U.S. attorney for 12 years. I had the responsibility, even as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 1970s after Camille, to survey the aftermath. I had to prosecute people for fraud, theft, and abuse in hurricane cleanups. When this much money gets put out this fast, there is a real danger of mischief. I have been in the Senate long enough to get a feel for things. I believe that the Senate is now in a bit of a hurricane mode; that all of Congress is--maybe even the White House--and that mode is that we do not need to be too careful. We need to get money out fast, and we need to pour it in there, and if we need 50,000 troops, let us send 70,000 to make sure. Now we are seeing figures that it is going to cost $200 billion to complete this reconstruction. All of us know there is no money to pay for this. It is not coming out of our regular budget. That is not the plan. It will come in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill, and that means it will be added straight to the national debt, and our children and grandchildren will pay it, plus the interest that accumulates on it. So I think this Congress is doing the right thing in moving forward rapidly, but I think our majority leader, our appropriations leaders, our House leadership, and the President also need to be thinking about how to spend the money responsibly. Trust me, there will be abuses. People think we can just send our military to the region, but the Department of Defense is going to charge the disaster fund for the money they spend. These expenses will be allocated to the disaster. All the other responding Federal agencies are going to bill the fund for the disaster-related expenditures they incur as well. We are so pleased to see that States are just doing whatever it takes to bring schoolchildren in from these areas and do extra things for them, but we are already hearing--as we did this morning--they want to be paid for it by somebody. They ought to be paid for some of that. Governor Riley, in Alabama, has said that we will take any schoolchild who is in our State but cannot go home. We will take them. We will put them in a school somewhere in Alabama. Our community colleges have said that, no matter what, we will take you. If you don't have tuition right now, we will still take you anyway. While this is happening, people are making contributions and I think that is important. But $1 billion is a lot of money. We probably have less than 5,000 homes seriously damaged in our area. Maybe it is 4,000 in the Bayou La Batre area, or maybe less. If you gave me $1 billion, I could build 10,000 new houses worth $100,000 each. One billion dollars is a lot of money. A billion dollars is a thousand million. But, now we are going to be in a big rush. FEMA is going to pay people who did not have flood insurance. Most of them should have gotten it. They should have, but they will still qualify under the grant program and can receive up to a maximum--all of them wouldn't get this much--up to a maximum of $26,000. I asked FEMA's Mr. Burns today if he discussed with the Senators how much it would be, and he said the maximum would be up to $26,000. That will include, I think, the $2,000 that some received today. So it would be $24,000, maybe, for someone who already received the money. I said, when do you pay it? Apparently, we are already beginning to pay it. It is like flood insurance, I guess. If you have insurance and your house is destroyed and the adjuster comes out and admits your house is destroyed, they write you a check, sometimes on the spot. So this money is going to run out quickly. If this money is being allocated this quickly--before somebody has come up with a plan about which neighborhoods should be rebuilt--in Alabama, Mississippi, or even in New Orleans--we could end up with that money being unwisely spent and maybe not having enough money to help people construct the kind of houses they would like. Senator Shelby, I, and Congressman Jo Bonner talked with Secretary Alphonso Jackson of HUD when he was in Mobile, AL, last week. We discussed with him the possibility of using the FEMA money--whatever they get--plus some of the loans HUD already has for people of low income, to help buy a home. What if we use a small portion of these millions of dollars that are coming from charitable organizations? Maybe we could get some real estate people and some architects to help us redesign some of these communities and make them both beautiful and habitable--and safe so this wouldn't happen again. Do you see what I am saying? There are so many things happening right now, so fast. Some of this, almost by law, is required to be done in this fashion. We need somebody, I believe, to be a manager for the President. I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to call on the President to choose a person of his liking to be his representative with regard to spending, fraud, management, and reconstruction. I believe that the President should do that. It would be a person of his choice, in the mode of a Mit Romney or Peter Uberhoff who were put in charge of Olympic Games and billions of dollars in finances at stake there. We need someone with real experience who doesn't have a political agenda, someone who would come in and report to the President on a daily basis, report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and who could call on the Cabinet to help coordinate the relief. You might say he will not have any power. Listen, I spent a long time in the Federal Government. I know who has power in the Federal Government. The person who has power in the Federal Government is the person the President says has power. If he chooses this person and he tells his Cabinet: I selected him and I want you to work with him. If he asks you to do something, I hope you will do it. If you can't do it, I want him to tell me, and you can come explain to me why you didn't do it. That is all it takes. Things will start work better. Anyway, I am hoping something like that will happen because this is so massive and the potential for fraud and abuse is so great we are going to have to watch it. We have towns and communities that are badly hurt. They have lost sales tax revenues and now they are going to be fighting for every dime they can get. They are going to be pushing the rules and regulations to the breaking point and beyond. We are going to have Congressmen and Senators browbeating us in here with stories that say: Forget the rules, send out the money. We all know that is going to happen. But I don't think the people of my State want us to waste any money. The people of my state want to help people in need. They want to be generous. They expect this Government to respond, and respond quickly, to take care of people whose lives are at risk. The people of my state know that this is bigger than we have ever seen before. They know that anyone can make mistakes and that you cannot anticipate certain things. They want the government to constantly get better and improve our response. But they don't want us wasting money. They don't want us throwing money at a problem that we have not thought through carefully. They want us to be careful with their money. In fact, if we are careful, we can get a lot more good done for a lot more communities. At this point I am not at liberty to explain to you what I think ought to be done. I am not able to. I don't know what ought to be done and how, precisely, the money should be spent at this time. But I have been there in the aftermath of hurricane cleanups, and I am telling you, it is a difficult thing to keep control of. The government will spend your money before you know what happened to it. That has happened before when there was a far smaller area of devastation than we have today. FEMA is going to be stretched from Louisiana to the Florida line. We have more people involved here than almost any hurricane ever, and the extent of the disaster is larger than ever. It is going to be even more difficult to monitor this recovery carefully. Some things are not going to be able to be done as fast as we would like to see them done. But if we do it right, I think we can meet the needs of our people, be generous to the American people, and also maintain the rule of law as we go forward. There are some special things that are going to be needed to be done. I talked to Senator Lott, and he is correct. Normally, when a hurricane hits and a person has trees down in their yard and shingles off their roof, that person takes all that to the street. They are responsible for it. They cut up the limbs, bring them out to the road, and FEMA pays for someone to come by and pick it up. It is a marvelous thing, I am telling you. If everyone had trees down in their yard and if everybody had to hire a tree surgeon to come haul them away, it would be an incredible cost. Volunteers come in with power saws and help people do it, and neighbors help neighbors, and you get that done. But if your house is blown away, the streets do not just have trees gathered up. There are whole chunks of houses, debris, foundations, nails, lumber, glass, and that kind of thing. It is more than the widow lady or the elderly can do to get that out there to the street. We are going to have to create some rules, particularly in these areas that are hardest hit. We must allow the Federal Government to help compensate, and it must be allowed go onto the private property and help get some of this debris away. Many of the people will have lost their jobs and don't have an income. They will not be able to have that done on their own. Those are some of my thoughts. I salute the majority leader and the Democratic leadership for moving the $10 billion supplemental promptly. That was a good thing last week. Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, FEMA cannot expend a dime that has not been authorized by Congress. FEMA has already used up all of that money. It is a crime for them to violate the law that says you can't spend money Congress has not appropriated. The result is that we must come back and do it again quickly. We are running out of money again quicker than we thought, and we had to respond. I salute the majority leader for bringing us up to date and doing it fast, but I say we are moving awfully fast now. It is time for our leadership, both in the Congress and in the White House, to ask how can we make sure we have integrity, wisdom, and good sense in handling this disaster. If we do so, we can make some of these communities bloom again. We can make some of these towns and areas as beautiful as they were before. It has happened before. We have had disasters and we bounced back before, and we will bounce back again. It is the right approach. I thank everybody in this country--faith-based groups, volunteers, civic groups--for the resources they provided to our people in Alabama. We got a call from the national group that makes modular housing and they were sending five office trailers down. They agreed to send one to Mobile. I talked to them. A group from Indiana sent in two 53-foot trailers. A businessman in north Alabama sent $100,000. The mayor of Ozark sent down two trucks and himself and a whole team to help. He adopted the city of Bayou La Batre. The mayor of Gadsden in north Alabama adopted the town of Bon Secour. Steve Means, the mayor of Gadsden, came down and was of great help and assistance. That kind of thing was helping, spontaneously, with resources all across the country. We are hopeful, pleased, and thankful. And that is the most common feeling I have observed, as did my wife, who served in the food lines in Bayou La Batre and talked to people. People are thankful. It is amazing. You begin to count your blessings and recognize what is important in life when that occurs. Also, people are not whining, not the people I have talked to. They know this was a storm that nobody caused. They know it is a difficult time. They are thankful for the assistance they have received from their neighbors, and they are not complaining about the situation. It has made me proud to represent them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator Boxer completes her remarks, our distinguished colleague, Senator Hatch, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, be recognized for remarks on Chief Justice Rehnquist's death.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I am thinking 7 to 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I will share a few personal thoughts about Chief Justice Rehnquist. I came to appreciate Justice Rehnquist as a young prosecutor. I was assistant U.S. attorney, tried a lot of cases and was involved in a lot of cases and had to read Supreme Court opinions on criminal law. I was impressed with his writings. It touched me in many ways. I felt he was speaking the truth when other Justices were missing and not understanding the reality of law enforcement in America. This was in the mid-1970s, when our crime was increasing at an exponential rate. We had double-digit percentage increases in crime in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1950s, we did not lock the door of our house, and we left our keys in the car. People did not worry about crime. It became a growing problem. At the same time crime was surging, the Warren Court handcuffed the police and their ability to deal with it. Justice Rhenquist, during the Warren Court years, would often write dissents. Sometimes he would be the lone dissenter. I distinctly remember being in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Mobile, Alabama, reading an opinion and calling my colleagues to say: Look at this. At least one Justice understands the reality of crime and law enforcement in America. He helped create a different approach to law and order in America. Instead of ruling on emotion and politics, he made his decisions based on the law and facts. In fact, before he left office, cases he was dissenting 8 to 1, he was winning a number of them 5 to 4 and 6 to 3. What an accomplishment to see that happen over a lifetime. I never would have thought it possible. I thought the trends were against that. Being young, I never thought we would see the pendulum swing back, but it did, and he played a key role in that. From my observations as a member of the Department of Justice for nearly 15 years, as a member, now, of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 8 years, where I currently chair the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, my humble opinion is Chief Justice Rehnquist is one of the greatest chief Justices ever to serve. Senator McConnell said after John Marshall, but I don't know. I am not sure any have served more ably. He was also a great Associate Justice. He wrote clean, succinct opinions that made sense. They were consistent with the law of our country and our heritage. He came to the Court when the Warren Court was in full bloom and judicial activism was at its apex. In case after case, he was the lone member of that Court to sound the alarm about the dangers that arise when a court detaches itself from a principled and honest commitment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws we passed. He saw the dangers in that, and he dissented many times--he joined with the majority many times, but he dissented many times--on matters of great principle in an intelligent and effective way. He played a key role in the demise of judicial activism as a dominant view of the Court. By ``judicial activism''--I will paraphrase Senator Hatch's definition of it--it means when a judge allows their personal or political views about what is good policy or bad policy to affect their rulings in a case. It is not faithful to the Constitution when you twist the words of the Constitution or of a statute so they come out to mean what you would like them to in order to achieve the result that you prefer in a given case. Justice Rehnquist loved our Constitution, the one that we have, the good parts of it and the parts he may not agree with. He loved every section all and respected each one of them. He followed them and was faithful to them. He understood liberty in America is dependent on order. Look what is happening, so sadly, in New Orleans: police are threatened, doctors and nurses could not get out to help or rescue people because order broke down. The Founders of our Republic never doubted the Government and the law enforcement of the United States of America. The States and counties and cities had to have certain authority to maintain order or we would never have liberty. This extreme commitment to libertarian views can undermine the basic order necessary to allow liberty to flourish in our individual capability first. He understood that very critically. An example of the dangers he saw on the Court would be in death penalty cases. Chief Justice Rehnquist, as Associate Justice and as Chief, fully understood the Constitution makes at least eight references to capital crimes, to not being able to take someone's life without due process; at least eight references were made in that great document to the death penalty. How could the Constitution declare the death penalty was unconstitutional when it absolutely approved it? Two Justices dissented in every single death penalty case, saying they thought it was cruel and unusual punishment. What a weird, unprincipled dangerous interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Rhenquist stood against that tide, often as a lone Associate Justice. Until now, people have come to realize that the Constitution and laws of this country allow a State or the Federal Government to have a death penalty, if they choose to have it. If you do not like that, take it to your legislative branch. The Constitution does not prohibit it, for heaven's sake. The Constitution explicitly authorizes it. He had a good understanding of church and State. I remember Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader now, when he was the assistant leader under Thomas Daschle during that year when they were in the majority, and the Ninth Circuit struck down the Pledge of Allegiance, he criticized the Ninth Circuit. I have been a big critic of the Ninth Circuit, but I remember making remarks at that time saying as big a critic of the Ninth Circuit and as much of a critic of their striking down the Pledge of Allegiance, I have to say many Supreme Court rulings on separation of church and State are so extreme that could well be justified under language of the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has given us a very confused jurisprudence on what is a legitimate separation of church and State in America. We got to the point in one case, the Jaffree case from Alabama, the Supreme Court, by a 6 to 3 majority, struck down a moment of silence in a classroom. Justice Rehnquist dissented in that case, as he consistently dissented against some of the confused thinking that was there. If this court had followed Justice Rehnquist's thoughts and opinions on the question of separation of church and State, we would not have the confusion we have today. We would not have one case where the Ten Commandments in Texas are OK and another case in Alabama where the Ten Commandments are not OK. What kind of jurisprudence is that? We need to get that straight. The Court has failed, in my view, in establishment clause jurisprudence. But Chief Justice Rehnquist has been a consistent and sound and reasonable voice on how to strike the proper balance. We need to go back and continue to read those opinions and see if we cannot make them correct. He also was a student of America. He wrote a number of books, grand inquests about impeachments, before we had the Clinton impeachment case in this body. He wrote a book, ``All The Laws But One,'' that deals with the rule of law in America in a time of crisis, and dealt with the Civil War and other times in our country. He was a historian who understood America, understood our exceptional nature, our commitment to law and the Constitution. He understood that deeply. Every day when he went to work, every opinion he ever wrote was consistent with his view and respect for America, her heritage, her rule of law, and her Constitution. He understood that States have certain powers in our country. He understood that the Federal Government, through the commerce clause, has broad power, but there are limits to the reach of the commerce clause. It does not cover every single matter the United States Senate may desire to legislate on, to the extent that the federal government controls even simple, discreet actions within a State. He reestablished a respect for State law and State sovereignty through a number of his federalism opinions. Madam President, we have lost one of the Nation's great Justices, a man who respected our Constitution, gave his life to his country, his whole professional career. All of us should be proud of that service and honor his memory. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his leadership and his articulate explanation of why this is good legislation. We are following the historic principles of civil litigation in America. We had a group of activist, anti-gun litigators who sometimes buddy up with a city or mayor somewhere--usually a big city--and try to conjure up some way to make a legitimate manufacturer of a firearm liable for intervening acts of criminals and murderers. That has never been the principle of American law, but it is a reality that is occurring today and it threatens an industry that supplies our military with weapons. The Department of Defense is concerned about it and they support this legislation. This industry supplies weapons for our policemen as they go about their duties every day. If we do not watch it, we will end up with no domestic manufacturing and have to import firearms to this country. The Lautenberg amendment is unprincipled, unjustified, and inconsistent with the good policies of the bill. Why would we want to allow any group of people, whether age or sex or anything else, the nature of their job, be able to pursue a lawsuit that others would not be able to pursue?

Mr. SESSIONS. On the Senator's time. How much time do we have?

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. I would be pleased to attempt to answer the question.

Mr. SESSIONS. All I know is I won a lawsuit on it. I defended the Veterans' Administration when a veteran went off the grounds and was murdered by a murderer. They tried to sue the VA. They said the VA was negligent in letting him get off the grounds of the VA. We alleged that one could foresee certain things and cited abundant authority to the fact that no one should be held liable and should expect criminality, an intervening criminal act, of that kind. That is my view of it, but maybe somebody else would not have that view.

Mr. SESSIONS. Just 1 minute. It is my view that this is the classic principle of law and we have gotten away from it. We have eroded these practical, realistic, historical principles of liability and, as such, insurance goes through the roof, huge verdicts are being filed against victims. The allegation has been that if somebody had their firearm stolen by a thief, they then become liable if that thief goes and murders somebody. What kind of principle of law is that? Maybe that is not the idea behind this amendment, but that is the way I see it. I do not think it is good. This bill allows lawsuits for violation of contract, for negligence, in not following the rules and regulations and for violating any law or regulation that is part of the complex rules that control sellers and manufacturers of firearms. I yield back my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have some great friends in law enforcement. They have served their country and States and communities well over the years. We hunt and fish together at various times. I am not hearing them say this is what they would like to see. If you talk to law officers, what they are concerned about is repeat dangerous offenders getting released on the streets. A police officer never knows when he may face someone like that around the corner, at a traffic stop, or in a domestic violence situation. Those are things that concern them. They do feel sometimes that the criminal justice system is too slow, that the punishment and penalties that are imposed by law never get carried out. Those things frustrate them. That follows through and is consistent with the letters we have received regarding the Kennedy amendment. I am looking at the Law Enforcement Alliance of America letter, which they wrote to Senator Craig. This is a very clear and strong message. They represent 75,000 members in support of law enforcement. They wanted to ``add our voice to the growing group of law enforcement representatives who strongly oppose efforts to gut or kill S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.'' They refer to this amendment as a ``poison pill'' and object to the term ``cop killer bullet'' as a ``thinly veiled fraud.'' They go on to say: This amendment, along with other amendments, should be identified for what they are: an outright attempt to kill S. 397. Please know that many in the law enforcement community encourage you to continue steadfastly in support of America's gun manufacturers who provide our officers the tools to return home safely at the end of their shift. Also, the Fraternal Order of Police has written to Senator Craig in ``strong opposition'' to the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy. They say that this will be presented as a ``officer safety issue'' to get dangerous ``cop killer bullets off the shelves.'' Then they add: Regardless of its presentation, the amendment's actual claim and effect would be to expand the definition of ``armor-piercing'' to include ammunition based, not on any threat to law enforcement officers, but on a manufacturer's marketing strategy. Then they add this, which is interesting: The truth of the matter is that only one law officer has been killed by a round fired from a handgun which penetrated his soft body armor--and in that single instance, it was the body armor that failed to provide the expected ballistic protections, not because the round was ``armor-piercing.'' They say: It is our view that no expansion or revision of the current law is needed to protect law enforcement officers. That letter is to Senator Craig. No additional legislation is needed to protect law officers. To put it simply, this is not a genuine [law enforcement] officer safety issue. They noted that it had been rejected previously--last year, 63 to 34. They say it should be rejected again. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I recently had the opportunity to meet a wonderful American, Donald Butler, who served his country ably in Vietnam. His story is typical of so many Americans who have placed their lives and health at risk for their country. Donald Butler was drafted 6 months after graduating from Straughn High School in Covington County, AL. After completing basic training and advanced infantry training, he left for Vietnam on April 17, 1966. Having trained as an infantryman, he was slated to go with the Big Red One, the first division called to fight in Vietnam, but at the last minute became a replacement for the 25th Infantry Division and later went with the 27th Infantry, Tropic Lightening, Charlie Company in CuChi, Vietnam. CuChi, Vietnam, as the world later learned, was home to the CuChi tunnel complex--130 miles of underground passageways started during the war against the French and expanded when the Americans arrived. Built by night over many years, the tunnels allowed the Vietcong to become invisible to the enemy, conceal snipers and move weapons silently. The G.I.'s that fought in the tunnels were a special breed, known by their peers as ``Tunnel Rats.'' They were fearless warriors. Donald Butler was one of them. At a slight 100 pounds, Donald was able to do what many of his fellow soldiers could not, squeeze through the tight trap doors and crawl along the narrow passages of the clay tunnels with relative ease. Make no mistake, while his size aided him in his mission, it was his even temperament and inquisitive mind that made him a true ``Tunnel Rat''. It was not uncommon for him to crawl through narrow, pitch black tunnels for hours looking for the enemy. Over a period of 9 months, Donald went out on 37 operations, most of which were search and destroy missions. He saw his fellow soldiers lose their limbs and, in many instances, their lives. He lived through air strikes and mortar attacks and somehow managed to return from the front lines of Vietnam without ever sustaining a direct hit. For that, many would say he was lucky. Like so many of our veterans, Donald Butler returned from the war to face an uncertain future. ``When I got off the plane in Montgomery on April 18, 1967, I thought I was going to get shot because we had heard of the protests back in the U.S.'' he later recalled. To this day he suffers from post traumatic stress and severe hearing loss. He is an undecorated hero who should be applauded and thanked for his service and I rise to do that today.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I first met Duane Johnson when he came on the baseball field at Wilcox County High School in 1965. We were a small school. I was a senior in a class of 30 and Duane, a junior, had just moved to town. Though we had a competitive team, winning our division of the Black Belt Conference that year, we were not particularly talented. While we knew a good bit about baseball, we had not grown up as kids do today, playing well-coached and competitive baseball from elementary school on up. Duane, however, impressed us at once with his skill and knowledge of the game. I liked the way he handled first base and he could hit too. More importantly, he was never showy but played within himself. We were impressed and liked him. That was quite a few years ago and we have not seen one another since, I don't think. So it was with real pleasure that I read that my old teammate, now the head coach of Patrician Academy in Butler, Alabama, had just completed a sterling season with a 25-7 record, winning the AISA State Championship. Further, Duane was named AISA ``Coach of the Year''. He has been the head coach at Patrician for 20 years and has been a part of 6 state championships as a Saint. This year's team produced two All-State players, Bo Meeks and Brent Bonner, and an honorable mention, Brandon Mosely. Quick to give credit to others, Duane praised assistant coach Jim Archibald to the Choctaw Sun saying, ``We couldn't have done it without him.'' After graduating from Wilcox County High School in 1966, Duane attended Livingston University, now the University of West Alabama, where he played baseball. He is married to the former Nara Gyles, a Choctaw County native, and has three children. Typical of so many of Alabama's teachers and coaches, Duane was a member of the Alabama National Guard and was a veteran of ``Desert Storm''. Our country is deeply indebted those civilians who serve in the Guard and Reserve and who are prepared to respond when called upon. Coaches mean a lot to young people and I know that the consistent record of success that Duane has had at Patrician demonstrates his ability to positively impact these young people. All over this country, coaches give their time and attention to boys and girls, introducing them to the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. More importantly, they teach them teamwork. Teamwork is a very important strength of Americans. We have the ability to quickly organize ourselves and function as one whether in business or combat. Such character traits are largely developed on the athletic field. Great teamwork comes from great coaches. Let me close by giving my sincerest congratulations to Coach Johnson and his state championship Saints. They have had a most memorable season and they will be able to savor their achievement for the rest of their lives.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will to make some remarks today about a very valuable public servant, Judge Charles R. ``Randy'' Butler, Jr., U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama. Judge Butler was born in New York. He earned a B.A. degree from Washington and Lee University in 1962, and a law degree from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1966. He served as an assistant public defender for Mobile County, Alabama, from 1969 to 1971; as district attorney for Mobile County from 1971 to 1975; and, he was engaged in the private practice of law in Mobile from 1975 until October 15, 1988, when he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Alabama. He served as chief judge from July 9, 1994 to February 20, 2003, and served on the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making body for the Federal court system, from 1999 through 2003. As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama from 1981 until 1992, I had the opportunity to practice before Judge Butler and saw first hand that his experience gained from having been a former prosecutor, a former public defender, and a former private practitioner were extremely valuable to him. During several years of Judge Butler's service, the Court was understaffed by one or more judges. During this time, Judge Butler worked very hard not only handling his own caseload, but handling a great deal of extra work caused by the shortage. While doing all of that, he also found time for the many demanding duties of his position as chief judge and as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States. In describing his service to the Southern District, I would like to quote from his letter of nomination for the 2003 Judicial Award of Merit, which he received: ``Despite the overwhelming demands on his time, Judge Butler worked tirelessly to reasonably maintain the civil and criminal docket of the Court. Judge Butler routinely held hearings on criminal matters before civil trials commenced, during his lunch hour, and after civil trials concluded for the day. As Chief Judge, Judge Butler further worked to improve the administrative efficiency and user-friendliness of the Court. During his tenure, court rooms have been updated with cutting edge trial presentation technology. ``All the while, Judge Butler has served with the dignity and decorum deserving of our Federal courts and he has given his undivided and thoughtful attention the myriad and varied matters routinely presented to him.'' Judge Butler brought a natural courtesy to the courtroom that made all feel at ease. While he was a strong judge who never, ever lost control of his courtroom, his ease of manner facilitated a courtroom atmosphere most conducive to fair outcomes. His strong faith and character reflect the essence of who he is. He was raised right and his faith has deepened over the years. While he routinely imposes sentences according to the guidelines on wrongdoers, he is compassionate and felt for those he sentenced. Indeed, he is an active backer of his wife, Jacque, and her faith-based outreach to women prisoners and their families. They are active Episcopalians and strong believers that every human being is precious and worthy of compassion. I also have been pleased and proud to watch Judge Butler's active and important leadership role on the Judicial Conference of the United States. He has served as a member and on its executive committee. Judge Butler's experience in a wide variety of trials and his personal knowledge of a working courtroom have been most valuable to the Judicial Conference. Finally, I would like to commend him for his stewardship of and leadership of my courthouse and its remarkable family. For many years, the court family, in which I include the Magistrates, the Clerk, the Probation Officers, and the security personnel, has worked together closely and harmoniously over the years, committed always to the highest ideals. Judge Butler inherited an excellent court family and has raised their teamwork for justice to an even higher level. I wish all courts could operate so harmoniously. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama has a proud record of integrity, industry, legal skill and collegiality. Judge Butler has been an outstanding judge under some demanding circumstances. His dedication and commitment to duty have greatly benefitted this court. My appreciation and respect for the service of Judge Butler is unbounded. He has served the people of the United States and the rule of law with fairness and integrity. I am glad that he remains fit and active. While he deserves to catch his breath, I am sure that he will continue to reward the citizens of this great country by carrying an active caseload. That will be a blessing indeed. On March 28, 2005, Judge Butler took senior status and on June 17, 2005, his portrait presented by the Mobile Bar Association, was unveiled in the ceremonial courtroom of the John A. Campbell Courthouse in Mobile, Alabama. I was honored to have a place on that program.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased, I say to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe the legislation before us today is a good tort reform bill. It deals with a discrete area of abuse in our legal system. We in this Congress have the responsibility to monitor our legal system. If it is not functioning well, we ought to deal with it. It is a practical act to protect manufacturers and sellers of a lawful item, and it has constitutional implications because the destruction of our firearms industry in America indeed would implicate and undermine the constitutional right Americans have of keeping and bearing arms. It is good for jobs. We know American manufacturers are under siege from lawsuits, and we could end up losing an entire industry, which is a pretty big industry. It is good for our police and national defense; that is where they get their firearms. The Secretary of Defense wrote us a letter indicating-- actually, the legal counsel wrote the letter to say they support it because they are concerned about the manufacturing capability of firearms used by our military. The same companies fighting these suits are also the companies that produce firearms for the military and our police forces. It is good because it restores the historic principles of what liability should be in our country. Where and how should one be liable? What acts can justify someone coming and taking your property? What kind of acts of wrongdoing do you have to commit before that is possible? Also, we might ask ourselves, what industry might be next? If we erode the classical defenses and principles that protect legitimate businesses in this case, what business might be next? I was pleased to hear that we achieved a bipartisan consensus, it seems, with 61 cosponsors for the legislation. I had hoped we would move it through rather rapidly. I knew a good number of Senators cared deeply about it and did not approve of it, and they wanted to speak about it. But the truth of the matter is, this is taking quite a long time. We have had a filibuster even on a motion to proceed to the bill, which included 30 hours of post-cloture debate on that, and 66 Senators voted to have cloture and bring this bill up on the floor for debate. So we have good, strong, bipartisan support for moving forward with this legislation. I know the majority leader is committed. We can complete it, even if we have to go into the weekend. Hopefully, that won't happen, but I am prepared to be here and I think most Senators are. After this amount of effort, let's complete this. We can see the end in sight. I urge that the discussions going on allow us to proceed more rapidly. I hope we will have good success on that. I believe the opposition to this legislation spins out of a hostility to firearms by some. If you look at it, it is mostly in the big cities where they are not familiar with hunting, outdoors, and recreational shooting. The emotional fervor for radically limiting the historic American right to keep and bear arms arises out of a fear of crime and a desire to be safe and, I think, a misunderstanding of the nature and character of decent, law-abiding citizens in this country who possess firearms and use them to hunt and for recreational purposes on a regular basis. But I understand crime is a big part of the objection to firearms. It is out of that fear and concern that we have mayors and cities passing laws that create strict liability, such as the District of Columbia. In a recent case that ruled against the Beretta Company, Beretta wrote us that if this law remains in effect, they could become liable for every murder using a Beretta handgun that may occur in Washington, DC, even though they may have lawfully sold the gun through a dealer in Alabama, Minnesota, Maine, or California. But if it ended up here some way by some criminal and somebody got shot, they have the ability to hold the manufacturer or the dealer liable for that. They become an insurer against criminal activity by criminals. It is not a sound principle of law. It cannot be defended on principle. That is what we are trying to curtail here--this utilization of the legal system, the court system, the lawsuit system, to effect a public policy end that has not been supported by the people and actually could threaten the ability to keep and bear arms and threaten an entire industry in our country. I understand what is bringing this up. I want to share some important things. What is causing crime? We don't know for sure. We know some of the causes. What can we do to deal with it? How can we utilize gun laws to reduce crime and violence and make our communities safer, do the right thing? Does passing more and more burdensome laws and regulations that fall on lawful gun owners help reduce crime? I submit to you it does not. There are dramatic numbers that I think indicate the effectiveness of gun law prosecutions to reduce crime. When I came to the Senate in 1997, I had been a U.S. attorney and, as such, prosecuted criminals who utilized guns and violated Federal gun law. I know the Presiding Officer has done that, too; he has been a prosecutor. He dealt with these Federal gun laws. What we did was focus on the law that dealt with criminal behavior, and we were aggressive about it. I remember coming up with a name for our project. We called it Project Triggerlock in, I guess, the late 1980s. We had a newsletter and we talked with all our sheriffs and local police about the new, tough Federal gun laws that crack down on the utilization of a gun during a criminal act, and the 5-year mandatory penalty without parole if you carry a firearm during a drug offense, or if you possess a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, you would go to jail and it would be without parole. I thought it was an effective thing and we worked hard to prosecute those cases. Then I was elected Alabama attorney general and then I came to the Senate. When I came here, there was one new gun law after another that attempted to restrict gun ownership and the ability to get guns. We were voting on them all the time. I began to say, what are we doing prosecutionwise with the laws we have? I began to inquire in the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member. In 1997 when Attorney General Janet Reno or the division chief, or the head of the ATF came up, I began to ask questions. If you can see this chart, you begin to see where my concerns came from. Going along in the 1990s, in 1992 and 1993, there were 3,700 and 3,800 gun prosecutions per year. They began to drop off 20 percent. By 1996, they had fallen 20 percent, and by 1997, 20 percent. We began to ask questions about that and push this issue with the Attorney General. I raised it every time she came before the committee with her staff people. I think maybe that or other things happened that began to show a trend change. We started moving up a little bit. By 2000, we were back up to 6,000 gun prosecutions. President Bush campaigned on it. When John Ashcroft came up for his confirmation, I reminded him of the promise the President had made. I asked Attorney General Ashcroft: Will you make prosecution of gun crimes a high priority by the U.S. Department of Justice? He said: Yes, sir, I will. Now we have Attorney General Gonzales. Look at these numbers; they have doubled since 2000. We have 11,000 prosecutions per year now. Many of those carry significant time in jail. If a person carries a fully automatic weapon--a MAC-11 or a machine gun of some kind--during a drug trafficking offense, the penalty they suffer is 30 years in jail without parole. We saw that happen all over Miami. People were shooting. There were gang wars, with machine guns that were used to shoot people down. These tough laws that were passed in the early 1980s cracked down. Now you don't see machine guns among drug dealers. In fact, because of these prosecutions you are seeing fewer and fewer drug dealers carrying guns and fewer other criminals carry guns because they know if they get caught, they will be sent to Federal jail without parole for a long time. I want to talk about that. Somewhere along in 1998, 1999, or 2000, we had before the Judiciary Committee the testimony of a very impressive U.S. attorney from Richmond, appointed by the Clinton administration. He was an African American. He had developed what he called Project Exile. I called it ``Project Trigger Lock with Steroids.'' It was a better plan than I had developed. He believed if you utilize these laws aggressively, you could save lives. He saw people in his community dying in shootouts and criminal fights, he believed, unnecessarily. So he started this project. He put up billboards that said: You use a gun, we will send you off for a long period of time. You will be exiled. You will go off to a Federal jail. You don't get to go to the county jail. You will go off to the Federal jail, 10 years without parole, 20 years without parole, depending on the offense. He had some dramatic results from that project.

Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more. The U.S. attorney in Philadelphia was aggressive on some of these cases, and they would make a big bust with State and local law enforcement and Federal officers. The criminals did not want to go to the Federal court. They were afraid they would go there and sort them out, and the ones who had the guns would be the ones sent to Federal court, and they would get tough time. Here are some of the numbers that occurred on Project Exile. From 2000 to 2003, Federal gun crime prosecutions nationally increased 68 percent. There is this perception that Republican administrations, because they are dubious and concerned about encroaching controls on the right of lawful Americans to have guns, that they are somehow soft on gun crime, that they do not care about people being victimized by crime. Nothing could be further from the truth, as these numbers will show. From 2000 to 2003, Federal gun prosecutions increased 68 percent. Between the year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the number of Federal firearms prosecutions nationally increased nearly 24 percent. In Colorado, for example, under their Project Exile program, Federal firearm charges between 1999 and 2003 were brought against more than 600 defendants, and in 365 of those cases that were completed, prison sentences were handed down totaling 18,671 months or 1,600 years. As these prosecutions have increased, the number of crimes where a gun is used has decreased. Surprise. Between 1999 and 2000 and between 2001 and 2002, the violent crime victimization rate plunged 21 percent. Approximately 130,000 fewer Americans were victims of gun crime in 2001 and 2002 than in 1999 and 2000. Project Exile began as a coordinated approach to fighting gun violence in the Richmond metropolitan area. That is where it started. It began in 1997 by a group of Federal prosecutors. They did a communitywide effort. In 1997, there were 140 homicides in Richmond. Just one year after the project was initiated, the overall murder rate dropped 36 percent, the number of firearm homicides dropped 41 percent, and robberies dropped by one-third. In 2000, 3 years after Project Exile was implemented in Richmond, there were only 72 homicides during the year 2000, close to a 50- percent reduction. In its first year, Project Exile achieved the following: 372 persons were indicted for Federal gun violations, 440 guns were seized, and 196 persons sentenced to an average of 55 months of imprisonment. There are three essential elements: Federal prosecution; integrated and coordinated partnership among local, State, and Federal law agencies; outreach for community involvement; and increased public awareness where we make sure the people in the community know in advance that if they carry a gun around while they are carrying on their criminal activities, they are in big trouble. One of the main reasons that Project Exile has been so successful is the campaign to educate citizens about the lengthy terms they would be facing. Billboards all over Richmond broadcast it: An illegal gun gets you 5 years in Federal prison. It resonated throughout the community. Police and criminals knew the stories of what was happening on the streets. The criminals would throw away guns when officers approached. They would confess to almost anything, but they would not confess to having a gun, and they specifically referred to Project Exile. So we know it was having an impact. There are a number of important laws that are bread-and-butter laws that allow proper focus on criminal use of firearms. What I want to say is real simple. I don't want to overstate all of this, but it is significant. The simple fact is, it is not how many laws we pass, it is not whether we pass some convoluted law about this, that, or the other in Federal laws. It is whether we are allowing the gun prosecutions to drop 20 percent or whether they have gone up from under 4,000 to almost 12,000, three times. If we maintain aggressive, systematic prosecution of dangerous criminals who carry firearms and they are sent to jail for long periods of time, we will protect the public. That is what I am saying. These other things make life more difficult for lawful gun owners and implicate, sometimes improperly, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But the real power of reducing crime, making our streets safer, resides in effective prosecution of these cases. I could not be more pleased to see some of the good numbers we are getting in terms of reducing crime. Look what is happening in States. It further amplifies what I have said. The overall homicide rate in jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership--let's look at this. Let's look at the homicide rate on the States that have the toughest firearm purchase laws, States that make it the hardest to buy a firearm: California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, DC. Their homicide rate is 23 percent higher than the rest of the country. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions on gun manufacturers, dealers, and owners. However, in the 5 years after its enactment, the national homicide rate averaged 50 percent higher than in the 5 years before the bill was enacted. The national homicide rate was 75 percent higher 10 years after the enactment of the Federal Gun Control Act, and 81 percent higher after 15 years. So passing a law that is not effectively prosecuted--not aggressively, systematically prosecuted, to the extent the criminals know you mean business--does not mean anything. You end up with just restrictions, regulations, costs, and burdens on honest Americans. I have offered legislation--I am having a hard time getting any cosponsors on the Democratic side, but I think the Federal crack cocaine laws tend to be too tough, and they tend to fall disproportionately on African Americans. I think we ought to fix it and do something about it. I have proposed and written legislation and offered it more than once to do just that. I am not here as one who believes locking people up and throwing away the key is the answer to fighting crime, but it is a big part of fighting crime that people receive substantial punishment if they represent a danger to the community or if they commit a serious crime. Look at the incarceration rates: From 1980 to 1994, the 10 States with the greatest increase in prison population averaged a decrease of 13 percent in violent crime, while the 10 States with the smallest increase in prison population averaged a 55-percent increase in violent crime. They say lock everybody up. Everybody does not shoot someone. There is only a small number of people in this country who have the maliciousness, the violent nature, or the hostility or meanness to go around shooting somebody. The more of those you can identify, the more of those you lock up, you can reduce the violent crime rate. You can make our communities safer and protect innocent Americans from that kind of activity. It is just as plain as night and day. If you put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there, good things can happen. In 1991, 162,000 criminals who were placed on probation committed 44,000 violent crimes during their probation. A fourth of them committed a violent crime while they were out on probation. Twenty-one percent of the persons involved in the felonious killing of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or parole at the time they murdered a police officer. Some say if you really like police officers, you will vote against this bill because somehow this bill has something to do with protecting police officers from being murdered. Police officers are not telling me if one of their brothers or sisters is killed by a criminal that they want to sue Smith & Wesson. They are saying they want the criminal convicted and prosecuted. They believe if more criminals were prosecuted aggressively and fewer were given parole and probation early, then more police officers would be alive and healthy today. This is what we need to do. I want to share this story on this general subject. It came to my attention recently, in June of this year. Leura Canary, a fine U.S. attorney in Montgomery, AL, the Middle District of Alabama, presides over 23 counties in the southwestern part of the State as a Federal law officer, and she works with others. She was presented a national award for most improved gun violence program. I saved this release and would like to share it with you because it is emblematic of what we can do to save lives, protect the innocent, and reduce crime in America. She calls their program Alabama ICE. It emphasizes cooperation among Federal, State, and local law agencies. They developed in the region an effective task force, a task force to combat gun crimes. The task force developed a training program and a case preparation technique plan. It produced significant results. Look at this. Federal gun prosecutions in the middle district of Alabama tripled in fiscal year 2003 over fiscal year 2002. Three times as many were prosecuted. And the number of gun crime matters referred for prosecutions increased 257 percent in that same period. Between 2000 and 2003, the number of gun prosecutions in the middle district has increased 513 percent. She obviously took Attorney General Ashcroft's injunctions and directions to heart, a fact mentioned by Attorney General Ashcroft in his keynote address. According to local officials, these efforts--local officials, not the U.S. attorney--have had a measurable effect on violent crime. In calendar year 2003, there was a 42-percent reduction in criminal homicides in the city of Montgomery over the previous year, 2002, a 42- percent reduction in the number of people murdered in the city of Montgomery. Montgomery Police Chief John Wilson, whom I have known for quite a number of years, and who has been a professional in his career, who was an early partner in this effort, Alabama ICE task force, said: Alabama ICE is the only new program we implemented during this time period which targets violent crime in our city. I believe that ICE is a major factor in these reductions in the number of violent offenses. Without this program, these criminals would still be in our community committing crimes. And, I would add, murdering people. Local Alabama ICE task force members also expressed their reactions to the program and the award. Chief Anthony Everage of the city of Troy, a midsized or smaller city, said this: I think this is an excellent example of what can be accomplished through a joint effort by the United States Attorney's Office of the Middle District and law enforcement. Ms. Canary presented this very effective program along with a plan of action to our agency and the implementation has and will continue to make Troy a safer place. ``When Alabama ICE was implemented in Dothan, it was as though someone threw a large rock into still waters. The ripple effect shuddered through the criminal culture almost overnight. The word is out, get caught committing a crime while holding a gun and you're done. Even Johnny Cochran can't get you off,'' said Dothan Police Chief John White. Actually, Johnny Cochran supported this effort and warned that people who commit crimes with guns suffer serious Federal time, because he knew innocent people's lives are at stake. District Attorney Randall Houston of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Autauga, Elmore, and Chilton Counties, stated: Working with Federal prosecutors has expanded our charging options and our ability to lock up the most dangerous criminals in our community. We received this award because of the effectiveness of our partnership in combating crime. Sheriff Jay Jones of Lee County said: This award represents the positive result of criminal justice agencies on Federal, State, and local levels working in concert to confront and effectively reduce the incidents of gun violence in our community. Is that not what it is all about, reducing gun violence? Actual, measurable reductions in violent gun crimes have occurred in all of the fine programs implemented throughout the United States, and of those the program in the Middle District, administered under the direction of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, was chosen as one of the best. It puts an exclamation point on the statement of hard work that so many law enforcement agencies in central Alabama do each day to provide for the safety of the public. Sheriff Jimmy Abbett of Tallapoosa County said: Alabama ICE has been very beneficial to our department in the successful arrest and convictions of persons in our area. The U.S. attorney has provided a willingness to work with local agencies. . . . The program . . . has provided local law enforcement agencies another tool to take the habitual criminals off the street. That is what it is all about. Violent crime rates have reached the lowest level in 30 years, almost to the level of 1950. The crime rate went up steadily beginning in the 1950s into the early 1960s to the mid-1970s. In 15 years the murder rate doubled in this country. President Reagan came in and we saw about a 20-percent reduction. Then that flattened out during the crack cocaine years and then in the 1990s we began to see this go down. One of the reasons is the Project Exile program that began in 1997 and is now spreading all over the country, which focuses on the criminal use of firearms. Whereas I am proud to review any legislation anybody wants to offer, I would note this, that I am willing to bet--I do not have the numbers on it, but I am willing to bet that perhaps 90 percent of the cases prosecuted in Federal court under these Project Exile type programs, the main ones are prosecuting any criminal in America who carries a firearm or possesses a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. If one is a felon, they are no longer able to possess a firearm. If firearms are kept out of the hands of felons, we are going to have less murders. The next one is very close and very significant. It is carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime. It can be a crime of violence, a drug crime, a burglary, or a robbery. If someone is carrying a gun during criminal activity, they have a mandatory 5 years, 60 months, without parole, if they are convicted, in addition to what time they get for the underlying crime. That information is getting out there. The word is out there. Fewer and fewer criminals are carrying guns because of that. Then there is carrying a sawed-off shotgun, possessing a firearm where the serial number has been erased or erasing a serial number. Those are the kinds of activities that form the bread and butter of the criminal prosecutions I mentioned today. That is what will break the back of crime. That is what can hold out hope that if we effectively and professionally maintain the pressure on the criminal gun element through these prosecutions, we can reduce crime, make our communities safer, and save innocent lives. I do not think suing gun manufacturers is the right approach. That is not the way we are going to deal with it. We have the right approach. It was proven by the U.S. attorney in Richmond. It is being replicated all over America today. The Attorney General is driving this as one of his highest priorities, and if we stay on it, we are going to continue to see the murder rate in this country go down. Who knows, the murder rate could actually reach the level of the 1950s. We are not far from that today. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I hope the Senator is not too disturbed with me. I noticed in the New York Times today they had my picture in there and they described it as that of Senator Reed. It probably will cost him 50,000 votes in his home State. But it was not my fault and if the Senator sues anybody, sue the New York Times.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey and will share a little personal perspective. I have been in law enforcement for the better part of my professional career as a prosecutor. Some of my best friends are law enforcement officers. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with them in prosecuting cases. I know the risks they undertake to carry out their duties. I believe in what they do, and I believe they should be supported. These law enforcement officers are not telling me that if a criminal murders one of their brothers or sisters, that they want to sue Smith & Wesson. The thought does not cross their mind. They are concerned that if they catch the criminal who did it, that it is likely to be 15 or 20 years before the litigation and prosecution is over. If they are found guilty and sentenced to death--if the law provides for it, they should be--they get upset when it never seems to happen, and years and years and years go by. That disrespects police officers. It seems to me some of the same people who are talking so much about defending police officers are not as aggressive as they should be on some of these issues that really mean much to them. I would say that I think, on the Lemongello case that has been referred to, based on my experience and understanding of the law as a prosecutor in the Federal court, as a U.S. attorney who prosecuted individuals under Federal laws involving this, you cannot sell a firearm to a ``straw'' person who is holding it to move it to another person. And if you have reasonable evidence to believe the person you are selling it to is a ``straw'' person, and it is going to someone else, then that someone else must fill out all the forms, put their name on it, and qualify to receive the weapon. And if you do that, and sell the firearm under those circumstances to someone who is not the true purchaser, you are not only subject to a lawsuit under this bill for civil damages, but you are subject to criminal prosecution as violating a Federal law. I have prosecuted people for that. I have even had the responsibility to prosecute a gun dealer for not accurately handling these kind of matters. If it is a crime, there is clearly a basis to sue the gun seller. But you don't want to sue the manufacturer off in Massachusetts or wherever they are making the gun. If a seller irresponsibly sells it or violates a law in selling a weapon, you don't sue the manufacturer. They don't become an insurer for criminal acts. That is what we are trying to do here, to pass some legislation that does nothing more than restore the classical understanding of American civil liability. Who should be sued and under what circumstances should they be sued? If they sell 11 guns and they don't make them comply with the waiting requirement, if they don't get the proper identification from the person who is actually buying the gun, then they have aided and abetted in getting the gun to someone illegally. That is something for which they can be prosecuted and sued under this legislation. What we are talking about is abusive lawsuits where people are being held liable for criminal intervening acts. That is not a principle of American law. People say: Enough is enough. We just have to do something. What do you mean we have to do something? We are the legislative branch. We can consider laws if there are enough votes to pass them. But that doesn't mean we allow improper lawsuits to go forward. Senator Craig just read the letter from Beretta. One city, Washington, DC, if its laws are allowed to stand, which make gun manufacturers liable strictly for every crime committed by a criminal in DC, it will bankrupt every gun company in America. One city can do that. And these companies sell guns to our police officers. They sell guns to our military people. They are an important part of our American economy. Are we going to now buy our guns from foreign companies? We are not going to have any left in the United States that can survive this flood of lawsuits. It is a serious matter. The bill is carefully crafted. That is why the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and former Democratic leader, Senator Byrd, and others are cosponsoring this bill. It has been here for several years. It has been reviewed. The loopholes in it have been examined and closed. It has gained support. Now we have a bill that should have already been passed. I find it passing strange that our colleagues who filibustered a motion to proceed to consider the bill--they filibustered that and delayed this process over a day on that issue alone, when we could have already had the bill up, debated, and voted on. The votes are here to pass it. Let's move forward and get it done. It is quite odd that our colleagues would complain about wasting time on the bill. They are just unhappy because they don't have the votes to defeat it up or down. They don't have the votes to sustain a filibuster. They are conducting delaying tactics that make this legislation that is needed, that has strong bipartisan support, cost more days and more hours of the Senate's time than it ought to. I wish to share an overall perspective on gun law enforcement in America. Back when I was a U.S. attorney, I came to believe that we should aggressively prosecute criminals who utilize guns during the course of criminal activity, that felons ought not to possess firearms. Both of these have been in our Federal law for many years. We enhanced penalties. Not too many years ago, in the 1980s, they made it a mandatory 5 years in jail, 60 months without parole, for anybody to carry a firearm during the commission of a Federal felony or any felony. That is a strong tool. I believe we ought to prosecute those cases because I am convinced that a lot of the murders in this country are caused by drug dealers and gang members carrying guns around as they do their criminal work. And if somebody crosses them, they pull out a gun and shoot them, and people get killed. Let me say this first: Most Americans are not murderers. Most Americans are not criminals. Most Americans who have guns--and most Americans do have guns--are law-abiding, decent, peaceful citizens. They are not ever going to murder somebody. This is some sort of myth out there that we are going to fill up the jails if we enforce these laws. There are not that many people out here trying to kill somebody or commit crimes carrying firearms. That is a hardcore group of criminals who deserve to be targeted. I created my own program called ``project trigger lock'' in the 1980s. I created a newsletter on it. We sent out news to our sheriffs and our police chiefs about these kind of crimes and the policies of my office to prosecute cases that they may be working on involving these kind of criminals. We enhanced our prosecutions. Then I was elected to the Senate. I come in here in the middle of the 1990s. All I heard is, we have to pass more laws to crack down on innocent people who own guns, people who don't commit crimes. They are the ones for whom they want to make it more difficult. They want to constrict the constitutional right to keep and bear arms through any number of devices. At that time, it was thought to be politically popular, that we would just keep voting more and more restrictions on private ownership of guns. Pretty soon, I guess they thought people would just give up and Americans would capitulate and not stand up for their right to keep and bear arms. But it didn't happen that way. The American people got their back up on it. The politicians are beginning to hear it now, and the people expect to be able to maintain their constitutional right to have a firearm. That is just what has happened. As all this happened--and I am in the Senate--I am thinking, This isn't going to affect crime. Ninety percent of convictions in Federal firearms cases have to do with using a firearm or carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony and the possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. Those are the bread-and-butter cases. Many of them are being brought. And when you effectively enforce justice, just those two laws--and there are many others, such as machine guns and other kinds of sawed-off shotguns--that is a common case that used to be prosecuted, and I prosecuted lots of them. I personally tried sawed-off shotgun cases. I personally tried and prosecuted cases where the serial number had been erased from a firearm. It is a crime to erase it. It is a crime to sell or to carry a firearm that has a serial number erased. It is a crime to transfer a firearm to somebody else that has the serial number erased. We have all kinds of laws. It is a crime to go to a gun dealership and provide any false statement on a document that you have to sign before you get a firearm or to violate any of the myriad of laws out there. What I am saying again is that the most common cases are the possession of a sawed-off shotgun, carrying of a firearm during a criminal offense, or possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. For the rest of your life, unless your disabilities are removed, if you are convicted of a felony, you cannot be allowed to possess any firearm, even to go hunting. That really galls some people, but that is the law. We enforce that. It is enforced right now in Federal court. So we had all these cases. And the other side, President Clinton and Vice President Gore, was declaring that if you did not support all these new restrictions on legitimate ownership of guns--these laws and regulations that they were putting up, one right after another; as soon as one passed, they would come up with another one--then you didn't believe in law enforcement, you didn't believe in fighting crime, that you were allowing murders to take place, that you didn't love children. We heard all that. I went down to the Department of Justice to pull their statistical book. I have seen the statistical book. I used to get it when I was U.S. attorney. It would show the number of prosecutions in every category of crime. What did I find? That under President Clinton's Attorney General Reno, Department of Justice gun prosecutions had declined rather significantly. At the same time they were accusing Members on this side of being soft on gun crimes and not supporting efforts to protect the innocent from criminals and all of these things, they were reducing the number of Federal prosecutions for gun crimes. I raised that in hearing after hearing after hearing. By the time the Clinton administration was leaving office, the numbers had picked up a little bit. President Bush came in. At the first hearing, I asked new Attorney General John Ashcroft: Are you going to make it a priority of the U.S. Department of Justice to increase the number of gun prosecutions in this country? Attorney General Ashcroft said: Yes, that is my mandate. That is what the President wants. That is what I believe in, and we are going to do it. And prosecutions have gone up. Murders continue to decline. That is one of the more remarkable things that has happened. We can celebrate. Murder and violent crime have been on a period of decline. I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons that has occurred is because of the steadfast, consistent, tough prosecution of criminals who carry guns, either former criminals or criminals while they are conducting their crimes on the streets. I believe it works. In fact, it is known throughout the criminal community that if you carry a firearm during drug-trafficking offenses, if you carry a firearm during any other kind of crime you are committing, you are likely to go to Federal court to be tried by a Federal prosecutor. And in addition to the sentence you get for the underlying crime you committed, such as selling drugs or robbery or burglary, you get whacked by another 5 years in jail without parole. If you carried a machine gun, a fully automatic weapon, that is 20 years consecutive without parole. It is goodbye, so long, throw away the key. You are exiled from our community. That is what happened. During the Clinton administration, a very fine U.S. attorney in Richmond began to drive this issue. He called it ``Project Exile.'' He put out the word in the street. They had billboards. They put up signs. If you are convicted of carrying a gun during a crime--you are a felon and you carried a gun--we will prosecute you. You will be guaranteed a long time in jail without parole. You will be sent off to a Federal institution, maybe in a distant city. That is why he called it ``Project Exile.'' The violent crime rate in Richmond plummeted. They did what they said they were going to do. They prosecuted those cases. All I am saying is, with great sincerity, based on my personal experience and a fair analysis of what has happened out there, let's continue to be aggressive with these prosecutions. Let's not let up. Let's make sure that even more people understand with crystal clarity that if they are a criminal and they are out using a gun in the course of their work, or carrying one as they go about their business, they will be prosecuted. And when they are prosecuted, they will not only be convicted, but they can be assured they are not going to get probation, some sort of halfway house, a couple of months on probation, or something like that, but they are going to the slammer for a significant period of time--perhaps a very long period of time. And if we keep that pressure on, we are going to continue to see the crime rate drop. That is my hope and that is what is happening. I believe that is the fact. Fortune magazine, in the last few months, had an article about it. They said very few people have commented on the obvious fact that, yes, our prison population has gone up, but our crime rate has dropped. Can we add 2 and 2? Most people in America are not criminals. We are not going to continue to have the prison population go through the roof because most people don't commit robbery, burglary, or carry guns during illegal activities. Very few people do that. What we were doing in the 1960s and 1970s was calling the criminal the victim. We forgot the true victims. We wanted to see what we could do to help the person who was committing the crimes. We finally realized that some of these people are just dangerous criminals and they have to be punished and removed from society. If you let them back out, they will commit more crimes. So this has been occurring in our society. We are doing a better job of targeting repeat offenders. We are doing a better job of targeting violent offenders. Can we do better? Yes, we can. Can we be more sophisticated? Yes. Are our current laws a bit too heavyhanded? Probably so. We could probably reduce the penalties on some of the defendants. But the very principle that there is certainty and tough punishment for violation of Federal gun laws is one of the concepts that has led to the reduction of violent crime in America, for which we all ought to be excited. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying we are doing some things right in law enforcement. Our law enforcement officers really are doing a fine job. We have turned the tide, in some ways. It is a mathematical thing. I have come to understand that. Back in the 1960s, the crime rate was increasing 10, 15, 18 percent a year. People went from the 1950s when they never locked their doors to being terrified, raped, robbed, and murdered in the 1960s and 1970s. The crime rate had more than doubled in 20 years. Now there has been a decline. It has been declining for the reasons I just stated. We can be more sophisticated. I have personally offered legislation that would reduce the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine. Some on my side think that is soft on crime. I think we need to be sophisticated in enforcement. Every year in jail should be carefully considered, and people should not serve longer than they need to serve. I think we can modify that. Judges tell me they think it ought to be modified. I stepped up to the plate to do that. But the basic principle that you crack down and you are tough on people who commit crime, and you are consistent, and they know if they are carrying a gun and committing a crime in our country they are going to be sentenced to a long time in jail, that will deter them. The word is out in Philadelphia, Richmond, and Alabama that if you carry a gun during your crimes, you are likely to go to Federal court and serve hard time, without parole. And they are not doing it so much. I say this: It is likely that the number of gun prosecutions are going to begin to decline because criminals are not carrying guns anymore because they know it is a ticket to the big house. It is something that has worked. It has saved hundreds and thousands of innocent lives in this country. It has saved thousands of people from being permanently disabled by being victims of crime, whether it is guns, knives, or anything else. It has been a good thing that has been accomplished. I love the law enforcement community, our law officers with whom I served. They put their lives on the line for us. They work very hard for us. As the crime rate has declined, we now have more police officers per crime. They are able to give even closer focus on each individual crime. At one point, there were so many crimes they hardly had time to investigate or prosecute them. Now, we have trends going our way. We need to keep after it. But having the right to bring out bogus lawsuits against an honest seller of a legal firearm, or against an honest manufacturer of a legal firearm, is not the right approach. It is just not consistent with our American principles of law; it is not what we believe in. It is not a legitimate tactic. It is an abuse of the legal system to carry out a political agenda, and it should not be done. Every company, every person who has a license to sell guns, according to the law, ought to be able to do so without fear of being brought into some bogus lawsuit. That is all we are saying. I think this bill does that. I see my colleague from New Jersey, the great advocate that he is on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of our leader, Bill Frist, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, July 27. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 397. I further ask consent that the time from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. be equally divided, with the majority controlling the first hour, the Democrats controlling the second hour, rotating in that fashion until 2 p.m. I further ask consent that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Tomorrow we will continue debate on the motion to pro- ceed until 2. At 2 p.m. we will vote on the motion to proceed and begin consideration of the bill. As we stated since last week, there are a number of legislative matters to consider before we break for recess. I hope we can finish our work on this bill as expeditiously as possible. Members should be reminded that rollcall votes are expected each day this week until our work is complete.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous cnosent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.