Nominations

NOMINATIONS -- (Senate - July 27, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about this bill and how I see it.

I think this is a terrible period for America--the fact that we are taking an action and making it a preceding action to considering some other issues that are, I think, far more important than the subject at hand.

I heard an accusation by our friends on the other side that the Democrats were using delaying tactics and just not permitting us to get this bill--this important piece of legislation that says if a gun manufacturer does something, or the dealer is careless and leaves the gun on the counter and someone picks it up and goes out and kills someone, you cannot sue them; there is no civil action. That is determined to be more important than getting a defense authorization through that said give our troops everything they need to protect themselves. No, no, no, we have to put that aside because what we want to protect today in this place--and it is shameful, in my view--is gun manufacturers who might knowingly make guns available to a criminal or someone who is deranged and not yet a criminal--he is not a criminal until he pulls the trigger--or a distributor or a gun dealer.

We saw a case not too long ago regarding the Washington sniper, and the fact that the shop owner could not tell whether this fellow had stolen the gun or whether he sold him the gun. There were no records kept. It is shocking. We have heard this: When a car manufacturer produces a car and a drunk driver takes that car and kills somebody on the road, should the automobile manufacturer be liable? I don't think that is a proper comparison. I say that if a gun shop owner walks away from his counter and leaves a pistol on the counter and somebody takes it and goes out and kills somebody, he ought to be punished--not only punished by having a civil action against him, but punished by going to jail. That is what the sentence ought to be.

When we talk about whether a product is used to harm others, automobiles typically are not produced to harm others. But guns are lethal. When you pull a trigger, something happens. I carried a gun. I carried a gun in the uniform of my country. I knew what I was supposed to do with that gun. I was supposed to kill the other guy, if I saw him first. So guns are not play toys and they ought not to have such a place in our society that we can delay getting onto our Defense bill, getting onto other legislation that we desperately need, such as the Transportation bill or Energy bill.

We cannot discuss those things, no. The majority says: No, America. I want Americans to listen to this. The most important thing we could do in this Senate--all 100 of us representing every State in the country--is make sure that gun manufacturers, or gun distributors, or gun retailers who may be careless--hear that--or grossly negligent, or reckless in the way they are handling their records or weapons--no, come on, America, stand up and protect those gun manufacturers and dealers. The heck with the rest of this other stuff that affects everyday lives, affects a family who has someone sitting in Iraq, maybe with not enough armor on their humvee, or not enough weapons.

I met with a group of veterans the other day who had returned from Iraq. They were here for some rehabilitation. They had gone through traumatic experiences, wounds, et cetera. I asked them: Was there anything you were missing? A young woman soldier who had seen combat said: We don't have enough ammunition to practice using a .50-caliber machine gun so that when we are in combat, we are not quite sure how to use it.

That is more important than protecting a gun manufacturer or dealer who is negligent in their behavior. I cannot get this. Negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, carelessness--in other words, you can behave any way you want. It is like calling out ``fire'' in a theater. You get punished for that. That is a crime. But for a gun dealer who doesn't handle the weapons inventory properly--no, we have to make sure we don't go after those guys.

Talk to the parents. Talk to those who have seen what happens with their child, in terms of gun violence, and see how they feel about the Senate spending time on this issue and holding up everything else. You cannot do other things, no, because artfully, craftily, the other side has shut down the ability to offer amendments. I don't want to get too complicated in explaining the process to the American public. They are not interested in the process.

My colleague was on the floor a moment ago, JON CORZINE, the distinguished Senator and my friend, and I enjoy serving with him. He tried to introduce an amendment that would make it a special penalty if a police officer was killed by a gun. You could then pierce this wall of immunity that says you cannot bring a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer, a gun distributor, a gun dealer--no, you cannot do that because that is important.

After all, these guys give money. They give money for campaigns. The NRA--a small organization in numbers--controls what we do in this body. It is shocking. It is shocking that that organization, which is bent on making sure that everyone who wants a gun can get it--that is what they are saying. No, we have to protect them.

But the remaining 290 million people--or whatever the number is--are not entitled to the same protections as we want to give the gun industry.

We heard talks about how can you, said one of our distinguished colleagues--and these people are my friends; we differ so much on this issue--how can you take a legitimate business and take away their ability to do business and punish them if somebody they sell a weapon to has a record of mental delinquency, a disability, a bent to violence? How can we blame the gun dealer? We make sure we protect gun dealers who are not licensed. It is a gun show loophole. Those are dealers who don't have to have a license, and they can sell a gun to anybody--Osama bin Laden, and the whole thing--and not get punished for it. They don't ask for any identification, no address, no phone number. They sell the person a gun and get the money. Those poor people, why should we make them go through the rigors of getting a license just because they are selling lethal weapons, the kind of weapons policemen carry and the FBI carries, and criminals? Why should we make them go through that?

My colleague talked about the policeman in New Jersey who just lost his life, Dwayne Reeves. He loved being a cop. He was following in his father's footsteps. Officer Reeves was breaking up a fight when a gang member pulled a gun and shot and killed him.

While this is another American tragedy, unfortunately it is not unique. We see lots of people every year perish because of a gun mishandled or a gun directed at innocent people. In the State of New Jersey, we had 415 gun deaths in 2002, according to the CDC. Mr. President, 2002 is the last full year of statistics they have. According to the CDC, 2,867 children and teenagers died from gunshot incidents in the United States in 2002. Again, that is the last year for which complete statistics are available.

We see that in the United States, 30,000 people were killed, including suicides, homicides, unintentional, accidental shootings. But when we look at other countries, we see how few households there are with firearms and gun homicides per million. In Japan, it was less than 1. In the United Kingdom, it was 1.3. In America, it is 62, 62 guns per million where homicide is involved. So we see we are especially susceptible in this society of ours to casual gun ownership, gun use, very frankly.

We see incidents in my State, as we see in every State. A young woman in Atlantic City, NJ, was at a dance. An older man with a history of mental disturbance met her at a friend's home and tried to engage her physically. He shot her through the eyes. She was 15 years old. Like every child killed by gun violence, the girl mentioned left behind many anguished loved ones--parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, friends, and classmates.

I heard those parents ask: How did a gun fall into the hands of a deranged person? I heard police officers question how guns were obtained by gangsters, such as the man accused of murdering Dwayne Reeves, the police officer murdered the other day. I heard teachers, pastors, and neighbors bemoan the gun violence that has ripped communities apart and destroyed lives. But in my 20 years in the Senate, no one in New Jersey has ever come up to me and said: You know, Frank, I am worried about the fact that gun manufacturers might be held accountable for all this violence and bloodshed. Can you make sure we protect the gun dealers and gun manufacturers?

That is why I cannot believe the Republican leadership is wasting the Senate's time on this gun violence immunity bill. I believe it illustrates just how badly we as a Senate have lost touch with reality, with the concerns of the average American families.

If this bill passed the last time it was brought to the floor, the families of the six victims of the Washington snipers would have lost their right to sue the gun dealer who negligently put a gun in the hands of those murderers. The gun dealer, in that case, ultimately settled a lawsuit for $2.5 million. Why did they settle? Because they knew they were negligent.

Instead of debating gun violence immunity, we should be pressing forward with the Defense bill, as I said earlier, to support our troops, to really show concern for the average family because the average family are the ones supplying the sons and daughters to fight for our interests in the Middle East. But the majority leader decided that protecting gunmakers, distributors, and dealers from legitimate legal redress for their careless or reckless behavior is more important than making sure our troops have the armor, the weapons and, as I said, the ammunition they need. The Senate is setting aside the safety of our troops in order to protect gun dealers. What an outrage that is.

During the July recess, I had the chance, as I mentioned, to meet with some soldiers and military families in New Jersey. They have been affected by the Iraq war. The effects are so enormous that when you look at the problems they encounter, you shake your head and wonder, how can we do more to take care of them.

I talked with one young man who says, when he applies for a job, he doesn't list the fact that he is a member of

the National Guard. Why? Because an employer does not want to hire someone who is going to be away for a couple of years.

We ought to be trying to shorten that term of duty. We ought to make sure we have more troops engaged so we can send some who are in Iraq home because they accidentally have been called up and are now doing tours of duty never dreamt about.

The soldiers and their families talk about not getting the resources they need to fight the war. They talk about shortages of tires for humvees. So there are not enough vehicles in working order. The shortage of humvees means troops don't get the appropriate practice of what to do when the convey is attacked.

As if that isn't bad enough, a soldier told me there is not enough Gatorade for them to drink while they are working in 125-degree heat. We know what it is like outside here, but we are not wearing full battle gear, and it is not 125 degrees.

When soldiers find a roadside bomb, when one explodes, they like to mark the spot with spray paint so it will be easy for them to tell if another bomb is put in the same place. But one soldier told me that the Army doesn't have any spray paint available. Soldiers were told to use their own money to buy paint to identify a place that is comfortable for someone to place a roadside bomb. They should use their own money to buy spray paint in a local market.

In short, I learned that our troops in Iraq are facing unnecessary danger because of inadequate training, lack of resources, but here we are in the Senate shoving the Defense bill aside so we can do this gun violence immunity bill. I dare these colleagues to call the families I met with and tell them we cannot help them because the NRA is asking us to grant legal immunity to these gun manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.

We should be taking up a bill to expand stem cell research. But rather than work on the stem cell bill to save lives, we are working to protect those who negligently sell guns to criminals which result in people being killed.

Most American families would prefer we devote our time to the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, the stem cell bill that I am proud to cosponsor, which would expand Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There are many other issues.

When we look just at the stem cell situation, as many as 100 million Americans could benefit from stem cell research, but we don't do that. Stem cell research can help Americans living with diseases such as diabetes or asthma--which afflicts 9 million children under the age of 18, including one of my grandchildren--- cancer, Parkinson's disease, autism, spinal cord injury.

I find it amazing that the leadership of the Senate, a brilliant physician, the majority leader, is more concerned at this point with providing immunity for rogue gun dealers than giving a ray of hope to 100 million Americans who might benefit from stem cell research. Talk about misplaced priorities.

The Republican leadership in this Senate and this administration have lost touch with the priorities of the average family. What is the one thing that touches the life of every American every day? Transportation. We should have passed the highway bill 2 years ago. Once again, we are bogged down and the President is threatening to veto the highway bill if the final version is closer to the one passed by the Senate.

So we have a lot of debate, a lot of argument to go through. If it were up to the American people, they would pass a highway bill and veto this bill on gun violence immunity. The list of misplaced priorities goes on and on. We cannot address issues such as childcare and job training, but we can waste our time on gun violence immunity, and instead of letting a jury decide the merits of the case involving gun violence, Congress wants to give special protection to rogue gun dealers and restrict the right of all other Americans to plead their case before a judge and jury. That does not make sense.

When most Americans think about gun violence, they pray that their loved ones don't become a statistic. They are not looking to grant special legal immunity to the companies that sell guns. This bill is another example of the Republican leadership taking its marching orders from a rightwing special interest group and ignoring the interests of average families.

I don't know if this bill will pass, but I know one thing. If we spent our time addressing the issues that really matter to average families, this bill would never have seen the light of day. I hope the majority leader will take a cue from the American people and turn our attention to issues that matter to them--stem cell research, national defense, and transportation.

In fairness and equity, I have a disagreement with some of my friends in the Democratic Party also, and I urge them to put aside the time devoted to this gun immunity bill and let us get on with other issues.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment that poses a question to the Senate. The question is simple, Is it more important to protect our Nation's children or a special interest lobbying group? This bill gives immunity to the gun industry even when they are grossly negligent. What my amendment says is there should not be a blanket grant of immunity in cases in which a child is the victim.

How can we look a mother in the eye and tell her she cannot hold accountable the people who caused the death of her child? What the bill says now is that the parents of a child killed by gunfire when someone else is at fault cannot seek redress. What we are saying is, too bad about your child, but we cannot let you harm these friendly donors of ours.

I call up amendment No. 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/