Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements


Location: Washington, DC

NOMINATIONS -- (Senate - July 27, 2005)


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the actions that have just taken place have put us on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Earlier this morning, I submitted for the RECORD some now 67 cosponsors, which demonstrates that this bill is clearly very bipartisan legislation, supported by a Republican and Democrat majority in the Senate.

The actions the leader has just taken to file cloture would allow the cloture motion to ripen by as early as 1 a.m. Friday morning. Amendments have just been filed by the leader, and we will begin the process of debate on this important legislation.

With that in mind, if this bill and this debate seem familiar to any of us, it should, because the Senate debated a very similar measure a little over a year ago. At that time, we had a full debate over a number of days. It is worth noting that the Senate defeated every amendment addressing the actual substance of the bill. However, opponents succeeded in attaching a couple of unrelated poison-pill amendments that ultimately caused the bill to fail.

The need for this legislation is very real. Over the course of yesterday and today, some of us have expressed what we believe is the urgency of this legislation. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would stop junk lawsuits that attempt to pin the blame and the cost of criminal behavior on businesspeople who are following the law and selling a legal product. In fact, the one consumer product where access is protected by nothing less than our Constitution itself is our firearms, and that is exactly what is at stake today: the right of law-abiding American consumers, American citizens, to have access to a robust and productive marketplace in the effective manufacturing and sale of firearms.

This bill responds to a series of lawsuits filed primarily by municipalities to shift the financial burden for criminal violence onto the law-abiding business community. These suits are based on a variety of legal theories. We heard some of them expressed by opposition to this bill earlier in the day seeking to hold gun manufacturers and sellers liable for the cost of injuries caused by people over whom they have no control--criminals who choose to use firearms illegally.

This is a bipartisan bill, as I mentioned. Let me acknowledge my primary Democrat sponsor, Senator MAX BAUCUS of Montana, and thank him for his work on this initiative. Senator Baucus and I introduced this bill in February, and more than half of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, have now joined us since it was formally introduced in its final form.

Earlier in the day, I inserted into the RECORD all of those who are now cosponsors. This range of cosponsorship reflects extraordinary, widespread support that crosses party and demographic lines and covers the spectrum of political ideologies represented in the Senate. It demonstrates a strong commitment by a majority of this body to take a stand against a trend toward predatory litigation that impugns the integrity of our courts, threatens a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense, jeopardizes hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs of hard-working men and women across America, and puts at risk the access Americans have to a legal product used for hundreds of years across the Nation for lawful purposes such as recreation and, most important, self-defense.

I have used the term ``junk lawsuits,'' and I wish to make very clear to everyone listening to this debate that I do not mean any disrespect in any way whatsoever to the victims of gun violence who might be involved in these actions. Although their names are sometimes used in these lawsuits, they are not the people who came up with the notion of going after the industry instead of going after the criminals responsible for the injuries or the loss of life of their loved ones. That notion originated with bureaucrats, anti-gun advocates and the lawyers who work with them.

Victims, including their families and communities, deserve our support and compassion, not to mention our insistence on an aggressive law enforcement effort that puts punishment where it ought to be rendered--to the criminal.

In the nearly 6 years of the Bush administration, death by guns and crime in which guns were used in the commission of that crime have plummeted. Why? Because this Justice Department has gone after the criminal and not the law-abiding citizen.

It is the criminal who acts illegally. It is the criminal who ought to be prosecuted. But somehow, some who are involved in this movement have a tremendously distorted idea that the person who produces a legal product and sells that legal product somehow is responsible because they just should have known that product might fall into the hands of a criminal and might cost someone their life.

If those laws need to be toughened or if law enforcement efforts need to be improved, then the proper source of help is legislators and governments to ensure the tightening of the laws and not the courts and certainly not law-abiding businesses or workers who had nothing to do with those who were victimized by the criminal element of this country.

No. These junk lawsuits do not target the responsible party in those terrible crimes. This is predatory legislation, looking for a convenient deep pocket to pay for somebody else's criminal behavior, and by every definition it therefore deserves to be called a junk lawsuit. If one wants to stand on the floor and defend that kind of action in the courts of America, so be it. I believe in the democratic process. But Americans get it, they clearly understand it, and so do Senators, and that is why now 67 Senators support this legislation. These are junk lawsuits because they are driven for political motives to hobble or bankrupt the gun industry as a way of controlling guns.

For decades, anti-gunners have come to the Senate floor or the House with one scheme or one idea after another, and the American people, based on what they believe strongly to be their constitutional rights, have rejected this. Now the anti-gun community attempts once again to come through the back door of the Congress by going in through the front door of the courthouse. It simply has not worked, and it will not work.

But there is another motive in mind. By definition, the legislation we are considering today aims to stop lawsuits that are trying to force the gun industry to pay for the crimes of people over whom they have no control.

I used an analogy last year. I will use it again today. It is like saying to GM, General Motors, or any car manufacturer that because somebody buys their car and gets drunk and gets in that car and kills someone out on the road, gee whiz, they should have known that a drunk would drive that car, and therefore they should never have produced it, and therefore they are liable. For years, I have always understood that there are some in our society who say no one is responsible for their action, no one should be held responsible for their action, and that is an underlying core of the debate we are talking about or the issue we are talking about today.

Let me stop a minute and make sure everyone understands the limited nature of the bill. Some will argue it differently, but I would argue those who argue it differently are trying to expand the definition of what we believe to be very clear within the legislation. What this bill does not do is as important as what it does do. This is not a gun industry immunity bill. I think I have already heard that said since the clock tolled 12 noon. This bill does not create a legal shield for anybody who manufactures or sells a firearm.

It does not protect members of the gun industry from every lawsuit or legal action that could be filed against them. It does not prevent them from being sued for their own misconduct.

This bill only stops one extremely narrow category of lawsuits, lawsuits that attempt to force the gun industry to pay for the crimes of third parties over whom they have no control. We have tried to make that limitation as clear as we possibly can and in several ways. For instance, section 2(b) of the bill says its No. 1 purpose is:

to prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms or ammunition products and their trade associations for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful use or misuse of firearms products or ammunition products by others when the product functions as designed and intended.

We have also tried to make the bill's narrow purpose clear by defining the kind of lawsuit that is prohibited. Section 5 defines the one and only kind of action prohibited by this bill as follows:

[A] ..... civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party. .....

We have also tried to make the narrow scope of the bill clear by listing specific kinds of lawsuits that are not prohibited. Section 5 says they include actions for harm resulting from defects in the firearm itself when used as intended--in other words, a faulty product--that is, product liability suits; actions based on negligence or negligent entrustment; or breach of contract.

Furthermore, if someone has been convicted under title 18, section 924(h) of the U.S. Code or comparable State law--in plain English, that means someone who has been convicted of transferring a firearm knowing that the gun will be used in the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking--that individual is not shielded from civil lawsuits by anybody harmed by that firearm transfer.

I am not quite sure how much more clearly we can make the law.

Finally, this bill does not protect any member of the gun industry from lawsuits for harm resulting from any illegal actions they have committed. Let me repeat it. If a gun dealer or manufacturer violates the law, this bill is not going to protect them from a lawsuit brought against them for harm resulting from that misconduct. Section 5 further explains that this includes, but is not limited to, the situation in which these parties falsify the firearms records they are required to keep under Federal or State law or knowingly fail to make appropriate entries into those records or if they worked with others in making false statements about the lawfulness of the selling of firearms.

You will hear arguments on the floor about certain gun dealers and that we are now holding them harmless, even though on the surface of the argument it appears they violated the law. Let me again say, as I said, if in any way they violate State or Federal law or alter or fail to keep records that are appropriate as it relates to their inventories, they are in violation of law. This bill does not shield them, as some would argue. Quite the contrary. If they have violated existing law, they violated the law, and I am referring to the Federal firearms laws that govern a licensed firearm dealer and that govern our manufacturers today.

Another example of conduct that would not be shielded from a civil lawsuit under this bill is the case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted or conspired with any other person to sell firearms or ammunition if they knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the purchaser intended to use those products for the furtherance of a crime.

How clear can you get? If a manufacturer or a federally licensed firearms dealer knew they were selling to somebody who had criminal intent in mind for the use of the weapon, the firearm they just purchased, they are in violation of the law and it does not protect them. This is not a shield to do just that.

What I have listed for the convenience of my colleagues is all spelled out in title V of the bill. For those who question it, read it. If you don't understand it, get your lawyer and read it again because we worked overtime to make this as clear as it possibly can be made. Again, this is a rundown of the universe of lawsuits against members of the firearms industry that would not be stopped by this narrowly targeted bill.

What all these nonprohibited lawsuits have in common is that they involve actual misconduct or wrongful actions of some sort by a gun manufacturer, a seller or a trade association. Whether you support or oppose the bill, I think you can all agree that individuals should not be shielded from the legal repercussions of their own lawless acts. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act expressly does not provide such a shield.

I am going to repeat this because some opponents continue to mischaracterize the bill. My guess is, in the closing arguments on Friday of this week, that mischaracterization will continue. This is not a gun industry immunity bill. It prohibits one kind of lawsuit, a suit trying to fix the blame of a third party's criminal acts or misdeeds on the manufacturer or the seller of the firearm used in that crime.

Even though this is a narrowly focused bill, it is an extremely important one. The junk lawsuits we are addressing today would reverse a longstanding legal principle in this country, and that principle is that manufacturers of products are not responsible for the criminal misuse of those products. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that runaway juries and activist judges can turn common sense on its head in a lot of cases, setting precedents that have dramatic repercussions and are potentially devastating in their results.

If a gun manufacturer is held liable for the harm done by a criminal who misuses a gun, then there is nothing to stop the manufacturers of any product used in crimes from having to bear the costs resulting from the actions of those criminals. So as I mentioned earlier, automobile manufacturers will have to take the blame for the death of a bystander who gets in the way of the drunk driver. The local hardware store will have to be held responsible for a kitchen knife it sold, if later that knife is used in the commission of a rape. The baseball team whose bat was used to bludgeon a victim will have to pay the cost of the crime. The list goes on and on.

Did that sound silly? Tragically enough, some lawyers and some activist judges and some runaway juries have taken us in those directions in the past. That is why we constantly, in the Congress, talk about tort reform, trying to narrow it, trying to make it more clear--still recognizing that law-abiding citizens have their rights and should not in any way be jeopardized in the legal sense from their constitutional right to go to court. At the same time, I don't think any of us believed that the court system of America would be gamed the way it has been gamed or that we would see the myriad of junk lawsuits that are being filed today and the venue shopping that continues to go on.

It is not just unfair to hold law-abiding businesses and workers responsible for criminal misconduct with the products they have made and sell, but this would also bring havoc to our marketplace. Hold onto your wallets, America, because those businesses will have to pass those costs directly on to the consumer if they plan to stay in business. Worse, some of those businesses will not be able to pass on those costs and still stay competitive. For some of them, this will mean layoffs, and ultimate bankruptcies, and the closure of the manufacturer's door.

We have already seen this in some of the firearm industry. In fact, these lawsuits have the potential to bankrupt the gun industry, even if they are not successful.

How could that be? The sheer cost of litigation, the repetitive filing of laws, the need to defend those lawsuits literally costs hundreds of millions of dollars. It is important to keep in mind that the deep pocket of the gun industry is not all that deep. In hearings before the House of Representatives, experts testified that the sales of the firearms industry taken together would not equal those of a single Fortune 500 company.

Why would I say that? People think this is a monolithic, large industry. It is not. It is a lot of small businesses, small manufacturers. In other words, all of them combined in America today would not equal one Fortune 500 company.

As of this year, it was estimated--and we can only estimate because the cost of litigation is confidential business information--that these baseless lawsuits have cost the firearms industry more than $250 million. Half of them have already been thrown out of court. Furthermore, don't think these companies can pass the costs off to their insurers because in nearly every case insurance carriers have denied coverage.

The impact on innocent workers and communities is not the only potential repercussion of these lawsuits. If U.S. firearms manufacturers close their doors, where will our military and our peace officers go to obtain their guns? As my colleagues know, the United States of America is the only major world power that does not have a government-run firearms factory. This is a little known fact but a reality. Yet last year we purchased more than 200,000 small arms for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The very same companies that supply our troops in the war on terrorism, both abroad and here at home, are the targets of these reckless lawsuits that could force them to close their doors.

Some would say: Oh, gee, we buy some of our arms already from foreign countries.

Yes, we do. Does that mean that is where we should buy all of them; that we should be dependent on foreign countries for the supply of firearms to our military? Surely we do not want foreign suppliers to control our national defense and community law enforcement--not to mention the ability of individual American citizens to exercise their second amendment-protected rights through accessing firearms for self-defense, recreation or other lawful purposes.

For all of those reasons, more than 30 States have laws on the books offering some protection for the gun industry from these extraordinary threats. Support has already grown in Congress to take action at the Federal level. The House has passed this measure several times. The Senate is now attempting to do so.

This would not be the first time Congress acted to prevent a threat on an industry. Some would wring their hands and say: Oh, dare not, dare not change the Federal law; dare not, in some way offer some protection. But let me tell you this is not the first time, and my guess is, with the courts and the trial bar where it is, it will not be the last.

For example, there are a number of Members in this Chamber who were serving in Congress when the General Aviation Revitalization Act was passed barring product liability suits against manufacturers of planes more than 18 years ago. Just a few years ago in the Homeland Security Act, Congress placed limits on the liability of a half a dozen industries, including the manufacturers of smallpox vaccine and the sellers of antiterrorism technology.

These are only a couple of examples of a significant list of Federal tort reform measures that have been enacted over the years when Congress perceived a need to protect a specific sector of our economy or our defense interests from the burdensome, unfair and, as I believe, frivolous litigation of the kind we see today.

It is high time we act to stop this threat to our courts, our communities, our economy, and, yes, to our defense.

I have heard some Senators talking about loading up this bill with political amendments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation. Let me say right here and now these are killer amendments. Many of them know that. That is why they are trying to place them.

I ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. It is well written, it is thoroughly vetted with all of the interested parties. I ask my colleagues to look at it as they have already looked at it--in a very strong, bipartisan way. Here now in the Senate a supermajority, Democrats and Republicans alike, supports this legislation. I hope they would resist the kinds of amendments that are obviously intended to drag this bill down once again. Some attempted it last year, and they were successful in doing so. I hope those who have signed on as cosponsors are sincere in their support of the bill, as I believe they are, and they will allow us to move it through the process over the next several days in a clean and effective way.

Our courts are supposed to be a forum to redress wrongs, not enact political agendas. How many times has the anti-gun community been rejected by the American public through the voice of their Senator or through the voice of their Congress men and women? Time and time again. And yet because of their political alignment and their philosophical bent, they stay at the issue even though clearly and profoundly we have described it as and believe it to be a constitutional right of an American citizen to own a firearm. Well, because they have not been successful at the doorsteps of Congress, they have turned to the doors of the courtroom. Lawsuits are being filed. Lawsuits are being rejected. Thousands upon thousands of dollars are used in legal fees to prepare the arguments. New and inventive ways are approached: Let's try this angle, let's try that angle. Surely we can get to the deep pocket.

I am also amazed at those who would not suggest that American citizens are responsible for their own actions, and most assuredly the criminal element ought to be. We have watched some administrations walk one direction. But I tell you where this administration is. It believes the criminal element ought to be prosecuted. And guess what happened in America when we started prosecuting the criminal element and putting them behind bars. Crime began to go down very rapidly. The streets of America and the communities of America became safer places because those who would violate the law and, more importantly, those who use a gun in the commission of a crime get locked up. That is gun control in the right sense. That is gun control that a majority of the American people support and that the Congress has continually supported.

This legislation, as I have mentioned, is clear. It is well defined, and it is narrow by its action. We believe that is why a bipartisan majority now supports it and why it deserves to become the law of the land, so we don't have venue-seeking, politically minded efforts to ignore the criminal element in the zealous support or approach to gun control but to go after the law-abiding citizen who either manufactures the firearm or sells it under a Federal firearms license.

That is the essence of S. 397, and I hope as we work through this bill, the clarity of that issue comes forward.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. THUNE). Objection is heard.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Idaho makes it very clear what seems to be going on now. I heard a few moments ago the majority leader's response to Senator Kennedy, saying there would be an opportunity to present amendments, to debate this bill. I would also note that prior to any other action, cloture was filed on this bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Obviously, I have an amendment on the floor now, or I should say an amendment that was filed by Leader

Frist. Under appropriate consultation, it is very possible there are a variety of amendments that could come to the floor prior to the ripening of the cloture motion. To now immediately move to that without consultation with the floor leader, myself, is something I will object to, and the Senator understands that. So let us not be tactical here. Let us work and cooperate. I am very happy to look at any amendments----

Mr. REED. If I may reclaim my time----

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator might have, but with that, my objection still stands until full consultation is brought, full cooperation is sought. I thank you.

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I thank the Senator.

This amendment has been shared with the majority. It has been reviewed by the majority. We are not attempting to surprise anyone with this amendment. It deals with child safety locks. In fact, it is an amendment that was offered to the bill last year and passed overwhelmingly. It is my intent to provide opportunity to discuss issues with respect to gun legislation and to present them to the Senate.

Again, I would note when the majority leader requested unanimous consent to lay aside one of his amendments to offer another amendment, no one on my side objected because in fact we thought we were proceeding in good faith, that we shared amendments if we had an opportunity to look at the amendments beforehand, that we could proceed in an orderly and reasonable fashion. But I am a bit shocked. This amendment has been with the majority for the last, I would suggest, 30 or 40 minutes. It is an amendment that was presented in substance before to the floor. So I am a little bit surprised about the Senator's reaction.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Last year this amendment was offered by Senator Boxer, modified by Senator Kohl, and passed the Senate. We are examining the amendment now. We have only had it for 30 minutes or less. The Senator is absolutely right. And the amendment is substantively the same, but there are some differences in it. We are analyzing to see what those differences might be.

So, you see, there was a basis for my objection--until we clearly understand it. I think the agreement the Senator was speaking to was one based on the exact amendment of Senator Kohl of a year ago. So let us examine what those changes might be in the amendment and then there may be no objection on this side. But until that time I believe we have adequate time here to resolve the issue, and my objection would have to stand.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a letter from Beretta U.S.A. Corporation that the Senator just mentioned as an Italian subsidiary, fully owned U.S. corporation. It is a significant letter because it effectively refutes almost all of what the Senator has said. I say that in this respect. It is true everything the Senator has said, and that is not in dispute as it relates to who Beretta is and what they do. They make the standard sidearm for U.S. Armed Forces, and they have had a long-term contract right now to supply this pistol to our fighting forces in Iraq. These pistols have been used extensively in combat during the current campaign, just as they have been used since the adoption of the Armed Forces in 1985.

Beretta U.S.A. also supplies pistols to law enforcement departments throughout the United States, including the Maryland State Police, Los Angeles City Police Department, and Chicago Police Department.

But here is what is significant about Beretta. What Beretta says is exactly what the Senator refuses to recognize. The decision by the District Court of Appeals to uphold the DC strict liability statute as they have in the case of DC v. Beretta U.S.A. has the likelihood of bankrupting not only Beretta U.S.A. but every manufacturer of semiautomatic pistols and rifles since 1991.

The letter to this administration, to Vice President Dick Cheney, goes on to say:

There are hundreds of homicides committed with firearms each year in D.C. and additional hundreds of injuries involving criminal misuse of firearms. No firearm manufacturer has the resources to defend itself against hundreds of lawsuits each year and, if that company's pistol or rifle is determined to have been used in a criminal shooting in the District, these companies do not have the resources to pay the resultant judgment against them in which they would have no defense if the pistol or rifle was originally sold to a civilian consumer.

That is the essence of a lawsuit that has just been decided in the District.

Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield, I notice you read the letter, but the subject of that letter is strict liability, which in layman's terms--and I will consider myself a layman--means that there is no real judgment about the behavior of the defendants; that if they can prove it was a weapon manufactured by Beretta, and it was involved in a crime, they would be liable without a showing of duty or negligence and whether they took rational and reasonable steps. That is what strict liability is.

There is a difference between strict liability and negligence. The legislation we are considering is not about strict liability alone. It is about negligence. It goes way beyond that letter. If we were debating legislation that said essentially a company may not be held strictly liable for X, Y, and Z, this would be a different debate entirely.

This legislation goes way beyond strict liability. It says that negligence cases, those that you must show that, in fact, the manufacturer or the dealer had a duty and unreasonably failed to perform that duty, that is what you have to show.

In fact, I think I accurately represented what was in the letter.

Mr. CRAIG. I did not say you didn't.

Mr. REED. I appreciate that. I do. But the point is we are taking a legal theory of strict liability, which they are upset about, obviously, and concerned about, but it does not translate to this bill. None of these cases I talked about--Lemongello or the case with respect to Guzman--is arguing these manufacturers or sellers are strictly liable. They are saying, essentially--now there might be other cases--but they are saying, essentially, they had a duty, they were negligent.

This legislation we are debating today would wipe away their rights to make a negligence claim. So I agree entirely with the letter in terms of its accuracy. That is what they are talking about. They are concerned about it.

Frankly, if I were the general counsel of Beretta, I would be concerned about it. It might not move me to do the same thing they are suggesting. But we have to be very clear about this legislation, which goes way beyond the strict liability. Again, if we were talking about limiting strict liability suits, this would be an entirely different debate. I do not think I would necessarily agree, but certainly I would be looking at an almost entirely different subject matter.

I thank the Senator for being extremely kind in yielding me time and also being extremely accurate in summarizing my views.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Let me read another paragraph from that letter, which I think clearly spells out the fear that my colleague would wish to step aside from and argue that is simply not the case. He is dealing with a strict liability statute.

This paragraph says:

Passed in 1991, the D.C. statute had not been used until the District of Columbia recently filed a lawsuit against the firearm industry in an attempt to hold the firearm makers, importers and distributors liable for the cost of criminal gun misuse in the District. Although the Court of Appeals (sitting en banc in the case D.C. v. Beretta U.S.A. et al.) dismissed many parts of the case, it affirmed the D.C. strict liability statute and, moreover, ruled that victims of gun violence can sue firearm manufacturers simply to determine whether that company's firearm was used in the victim's shooting.

Now, does that take away the costs involved in the preparation, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now being spent? No, it does not. This was a frivolous lawsuit from the beginning. It was clearly intended. And that is what the district court said. The District of Columbia did not hide it. They were after the industry because they believed the industry had produced the gun that the criminal used in the commission of a crime.

So it goes on. I submit this letter for the Record. I think the letter stands on its own. It clearly affirms why we are here on this floor debating S. 397 and the importance of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1619, if possible.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are going to make every effort, over the course of today and tomorrow, to screen the amendments that are coming forward because there is a pending amendment on the floor that would have to be set aside. We are looking at the Senator's amendment now. He has just submitted it to us. Once we have analyzed it, I will be happy to get with him to determine whether I feel comfortable or we feel comfortable with that amendment and go forward.

So at this time, clearly, I appreciate the Senator's sincerity, but I would have to object to the setting aside of the pending business on the floor, which is the amendment offered by the majority leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

The Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator if I might be able to understand the principles that would be involved in deciding whether there are particular avenues of exploration to make sure that this amendment is acceptable going forward? How would we look at this?

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President.

Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the rulings of the Senate. There is pending business before the Senate. It would take unanimous consent to set aside the pending business to go on to other business. So that is the circumstance we are involved in at this moment. And defending my right to the floor and the amendment before the floor, I am simply upholding that right to the rules of the Senate.

The leader has said, most sincerely, that we would examine all the amendments that are brought forth to determine if there are some that we can agree on, that ought to go forward, that fall, I think, into the conscript of those of us 67 Senators who are the supporters of this legislation and who would do so. But now it is the rules of the Senate that cause me to take the action I have taken.


The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are examining these amendments closely. As I had mentioned to the Democratic floor leader a few moments ago on the trigger lock amendment, it was not last year's amendment. We are examining it now. It is quite extensive. It is a new approach toward trigger locks and licensed gun dealers and a much broader issue than before.

I see another Senator on the floor to speak. Let me speak only briefly because the Democratic floor leader, Senator Reid, had mentioned in his debate a few moments ago a statement by Smith & Wesson in relation to the expenses involved as it relates to defending themselves in these frivolous lawsuits.

I have a letter from Smith & Wesson to Senator BILL FRIST that I think is important to recognize because it does put in context something that can very easily be taken out of context.

Michael Golden, president and CEO of Smith & Wesson, put it this way. He speaks to a letter in response to the Brady Center's wire story, obviously trying to knock down the claims of gun manufacturers in their support of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He stated:

In the article, the Brady Center attempts to minimize the financial implications that the numerous ``junk'' lawsuits have had on the firearms industries. To support their position, they cite, among other things, Smith & Wesson's most recent 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. They quote Smith & Wesson's filing, stating, ``In the nine months ended January 31, 2005, we incurred $4,535 in defense costs, net of amounts received from insurance carriers, relative to product liability and municipal litigation.''

As stated in our filing, the figure report reflects fees incurred over a 9-month period, and is exclusive of settlement amounts received from our insurers. Smith & Wesson entered into settlement agreements with two of its insurance carriers following years of coverage disputes. The settlement amounts equal a fraction of the total fees incurred by Smith & Wesson in defending against frivolous lawsuits. In fact, over the past 10 years, Smith & Wesson has spent millions of dollars defending itself against precisely the type of ``junk'' lawsuits that the legislation--

Referencing the legislation that is before us today--

is designed to prevent.

So they do openly support passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They feel it is critical to not only the survival of Smith & Wesson but to the firearms industry of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as most of our colleagues know, we are now on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. There is an amendment on the Senate floor for consideration at this moment. Cloture on the bill has been filed.

What I thought I might do is take a few moments to discuss some of the differences between S. 397, the one currently on the Senate floor, and S. 1805, the previous version of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which was considered in the Senate in the 108th Congress. Language has been added in this version to address developing issues or concerns expressed last Congress, garnering more support and adding more cosponsors on both sides.

As I announced this morning and submitted for the RECORD, we now have 61 cosponsors including myself. In some cases, the changes are just technical in their character.

But before I get to the changes, let me assure my colleagues that these changes do not alter the essential purpose and effect of the bill. As we have stressed repeatedly, this legislation will not bar the courthouse doors to victims who have been harmed by the negligence or misdeeds of anyone in the gun industry. Well recognized causes of action are protected by the bill. Plaintiffs can still argue their cases for violations of law, breach of warranty, and knowing transfers to dangerous persons. Specific language has been added to make it clear that the bill is not intended to prevent suits for damage caused by defective firearms or ammunition. The only lawsuits this legislation seeks to prevent are novel causes of action that have no history or grounding in legal principle.

This bill places blame where blame is due. If manufacturers or dealers break the law or commit negligence, they are still liable. However, if the cause of harm is the criminal act of a third person, this bill will prevent lawsuits targeting companies that have ``deep pockets'' but no control over those third persons.

The first change we made in this bill was to add the words ``injunctive or other relief' in the title of the bill. This is to make sure S. 397 will prevent all qualified suits and respond to concerns that the 108th version would only have prevented suits for damages. The version of the bill before us today will prevent suits that seek injunctive or other relief besides those seeking only money damages. Without adding this language, law-abiding firearms businesses could still be crippled by being prevented from manufacturing or selling firearms. Any court decision that incorrectly finds dealers or manufacturers liable for criminal acts of others will destroy an industry whether there is an award of money damages or not.

In the ``findings'' section of the bill, we have made a couple of changes that do not alter but strengthen and clarify the second amendment principles that are reviewed there.

That same section contains a new paragraph responding to questions about the bill's Commerce Clause implications. That new section expresses the reality that the bill actually strengthens federalism and protects interstate commerce. Thirty-three states have already forbidden lawsuits like the ones this bill seeks to eliminate. Advocates of gun control are trying to usurp State power by circumventing the legislative process through judgments and judicial decrees. Allowing activist judges to legislate from the bench will destroy state sovereignty. This bill will protect it.

A new paragraph in the ``purposes'' section of the bill echoes this change.

In the ``definitions'' section of the bill spelling out what we mean by a ``qualified civil liability action,'' we have added the words ``or administrative proceeding .....''. This change responds to the experience of some in the industry, who have found themselves not only the target of junk lawsuits filed by a municipality but also the target of administrative proceedings, such as those to change zoning restrictions, also aimed at putting a law-abiding manufacturer or seller out of business just because it made or sold a firearm that was later used in a crime. However, it must be remembered that not all administrative proceedings involving someone in the firearms industry would be covered by this addition--only those that were ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person [bringing the action] or a third party .....''. Let me emphasize: this change is not intended to, and would not, have the effect of preventing ATF or any other Federal, State, or local agency from using administrative proceedings to enforce Federal or State regulations that control the firearms business. So we are not trying to circumvent the Justice Department in any sense of the word; or, as I have said, State or local agencies that have the right to enforce the law. For example, if a dealer actually violated a zoning regulation or local licensure requirement, this provision would not prevent an action against the dealer. Likewise, if a dealer knowingly violated the law or committed any other infraction for which he or she could lose a Federal firearms dealer's license, this provision would not prevent ATF from initiating an administrative proceeding to revoke or suspend that dealer's license. This addition of the words ``administrative proceeding'' is simply intended to clarify that whether it is a reckless court or court-like administrative proceeding that is brought against a law-abiding business, based on a third party's misuse of a firearm, it is covered by this bill.

Also in this section of the bill, we have added the words ``injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief .....''. This is to ensure that the bill encompasses all qualified lawsuits, regardless of the relief being sought.

In the section relating to causes of action that would not be barred by this legislation, we have specifically listed circumstances in which manufacturers or sellers ``knowingly'' violate a statute. In the last Congress, we had two different versions of this section: one required the violation to be both knowing and willful, and the other version didn't require either. Since a person cannot violate the law ``willfully'' without doing so ``knowingly,'' we have dropped the word ``willfully'' in this version.

Also in the section relating to causes of action that would not be barred by this legislation, we have made some clarifying changes to the paragraph concerning product liability actions. Again, this bill is not intended to prevent lawsuits against the industry for damages resulting from a defective product. Language was added to this section of the bill to make clear that even if the person who discharged a defective product was technically in violation of some law relating to possession of the product, that alone would not bar the lawsuit. For instance, if a juvenile were target shooting without written permission from his parents--that is a violation of current law, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922y--and was injured by defective ammunition, the juvenile would still be able to bring a suit against the ammunition manufacturer.

The final major change, other than clarifications and emphasizing language, is the provision conforming the definition of trade association to the definition in the Internal Revenue regulations. The purpose of the change was to address some arguments that were made in the last Congress, attempting to stretch the concept of ``trade association'' to include groups that no one has ever considered to be a trade association. So, for anyone who might have been concerned that the National Rifle Association would somehow be protected by this bill--as was argued last time--being defined as a trade association, this change will prevent that from happening. We want that to be perfectly clear. It will also prevent illegitimate gun sellers, such as gangs or gun traffickers, from somehow qualifying as a trade association under the bill.

I believe that I have addressed most, if not all, of the significant changes in the bill. As we often find with legislation, while they are relatively small changes in the language itself, it took a lot of words to describe them. Even so, I hope this explanation is helpful to my colleagues.

This legislation is not identical to the legislation of the 108th, but it is to all intents and purposes the same, with the kind of clarifying examples I have just given. I certainly welcome the debate on the importance of this measure. I hope we can move it quickly through the Senate and conclude our work and provide this country with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms as should be the case.

I yield the floor.


Mr. CRAIG. I will be very brief.

Mr. President, in the context of what the Senator from Connecticut has said, let me read some statistics from the National Safety Council injury fact sheet. I am talking about some very important statistics: Between 1993 and 2003, accidental or unintentional deaths by firearms has gone down 40 percent in America. Between 2002 and 2003, that reduction of accidental deaths has again gone down by 33 percent. Very significant numbers.

Here also are other significant numbers that my colleagues would want to be aware of that are tremendously important. Total unintentional accidental deaths in America, 101,500 in 2003; motor vehicle deaths of that year, 44,000; falls at home and work and on the streets of America, 16,000; drownings, 13,000; fire and burns, 4,300; ingestion of food objects, 2,900; firearms was down into the number of 700. That is less than 1 percent.

Here is what is most significant, because I don't take 700 unintentional accidental deaths by firearms lightly. But these are important statistics to understand as we look at the total scope of the legislation and even what the Senator from Connecticut said that I don't think pertains to this legislation.

Here are the statistics from the National Safety Council. Accidental firearms-related fatalities have been consistently decreasing for many years. Primarily, statistics show accidental firearms-related fatalities decline by 13 percent in one category, 2002 to 2003. Here is what is most important because we are all concerned about the young people of America. Over the past 7 years, accidental firearms-related fatalities among children under 14 years of age has decreased by 60 percent. Why? Because there are tremendous safety efforts not by the Federal Government but by private organizations and by responsible parents to teach their young people how to deal with firearms when they are either subject to them or find them in a location. These numbers are important in the context of this debate.

Again, this debate has nothing to do with crime on the street. This has everything to do with frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding citizens. I am afraid we have to start dealing with the criminal element instead of the law abiding.

I yield the floor.


Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. What the Senator is saying, there have been 24 or 25 lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers and dealers by municipalities. Half of them have been thrown out of the courts as being frivolous.

Mr. DODD. So what is the problem?

Mr. CRAIG. The problem is, and the Senator well knows, this Congress has, from time to time when they have seen industries subjected to wrongful lawsuits, chosen to exempt them from the wrongful lawsuit but not from liability.

Mr. DODD. For 24 cases in 10 years?

Mr. CRAIG. And millions and millions and millions of dollars spent. I appreciate the Senator's mindset on this issue. He is fundamentally wrong, and that is why we have the legislation now to provide a very narrow scope of protection, but certainly not from malfunctioning, not from bad product, only from that third-party criminal issue.

I am sorry to say the Senator would disagree with me, but a person who manufacturers a firearm is not the criminal who pulls the trigger and therefore should not be liable for that criminal act.

Mr. DODD. You are going to have your way if this bill is adopted, but that is the only industry in America with this special status. You would not do it for the automobile or chemical industry.

Mr. CRAIG. We did it for aircraft industry some years ago because of frivolous lawsuits that nearly bankrupted them until Congress stepped in and said, No, in certain categories that is unfair, and it allowed them to stabilize their economy and continue to build aircraft for the American consumer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am concerned about what is going on in the Senate procedurally. This is the first time I can remember, during the tenure of Senator Frist, we have had a bill where the so-called ``tree'' has been filled, allowing no amendments to be offered.

Senator Frist, I have stated, has been very fair in allowing bills to go forward, with rare exception.

I am concerned about what has gone on very recently: filing cloture on the Defense bill after 1 day of debate. I direct these remarks through the Chair to the distinguished manager of the bill. Mr. President, I direct these remarks through you to the distinguished manager of the bill.

Mr. CRAIG. I apologize.

Mr. REID. I participated in a conversation I am confident the manager of the bill was in on this morning where the distinguished majority leader said he wanted to take a little bit of time, after having filled the tree, which is very unusual, and he would look at the amendments offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and make a decision as to which of those he would allow to be debated. He did say he had no problem with him offering amendments and we would be able to debate--and I do not recall him saying ``vote on them''--but at least debate specific amendments that were up. But I assumed in the tenor of the conversation there would be votes on the amendments.

We have been on this bill now for 3 hours, after proceeding to it, and my friend from Rhode Island has been unable to offer any amendments. So I say to the manager of the bill, through the Chair, how much longer is it going to take before the majority makes a decision on something that should be fairly routine, as to when the Senator from Rhode Island can have some of his amendments heard before the body?

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. President, let me address the minority leader.

Certainly, all that he has said is exactly the conversation from my reference point that went on between him and the majority leader. There is no intent to block all amendments. That is not the intent of what the majority leader did.

We have seen these amendments less than 30 minutes, in almost every instance, prior to the time they were offered. Certainly, the Senator from Nevada knows the opportunity to examine and look at these amendments, in light of similar amendments offered last year, is a reasonable request. That is the request the majority leader and I, as the floor manager, have made. Those amendments are under review now.

The floor leader for the Democrats, Senator Reed, and I have visited about some of them that may well meet that scope, and we are reviewing them at this moment. This is not unprecedented, and the Senator from Nevada knows that. This is a procedure under the rules of the Senate that has been used over time. Has Majority Leader Frist used it? I don't know. I am not that good of a historian. But I have been here not quite as long as the Senator from Nevada, and I do know that both his side and our side have used it from time to time. It is clearly within the prerogative of the Senate to do so under its rules.

At the same time, clearly, what the majority leader has expressed was expressed in good faith with the minority leader. I would hope in the course of the evening--and we will certainly be on this legislation all day tomorrow because the cloture motion does not ripen until early Friday morning--- that it would be adequate time to consider several of these amendments that have been offered. I know that is the intent of this floor leader. And certainly I believe it is the intent of the majority leader to do so.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my colleague is most sincere in his effort. We received the amendment about 30 minutes ago. We are taking a look at it now. I remind my colleagues, Senator Levin offered a similar amendment last year that dealt with gross negligence and reckless conduct.

I must say, my frustration with these kinds of amendments are that these are not well-defined terms. There are thousands, if not millions, of pages of case law that have attempted to define them, but not successfully.

I suggest to the Senator, he refers to State law and State venue. Thirty-three States have already very specifically restricted liability in the context of what we are attempting to do here. Thirty-three States have already spoken. We did table this amendment last year by a fairly substantial margin. So at this time, until I have had a chance to review----

Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will withhold that objection for 30 more seconds so I can respond to one point the good Senator said.

Mr. CRAIG. I will.

Mr. LEVIN. The term ``gross negligence'' is defined in my amendment as the term is defined in 42 United States Code 1791(B), and the term ``reckless'' has the meaning given under section 2(A)1.4 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. So we do define both terms very precisely as they are already defined in two laws.

I appreciate the Senator withholding his objection at this time so I could make that statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I do appreciate the Senator's effort, but at this time, until we have effectively reviewed the amendment, I object.


Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course. I would ask the Parliamentarian if they would look at the amendment to determine whether, should cloture be filed, it would be a germane amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reviewed for the Senator.

Mr. WARNER. Which is to say that at this point in time I cannot obtain such ruling; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Then I yield to the wisdom of the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and at some point in time that judgment can be made.

I yield the floor to my good friend.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I know he is sincere in the offering of this amendment. Of course, it will be reviewed by the Parliamentarian as to its germaneness postcloture. I would ask the Senator and his staff to examine the Frist amendment that was laid down and that is now pending because what we attempt to do by that amendment is to send a message, if you will, downline to federally licensed firearms dealers that there is no forgiveness here to bad faith and/or to the misuse or the misconduct within the current Federal statutes. We are examining now, but clearly that Washington dealer that the Senator referred to--

Mr. WARNER. Washington State.

Mr. CRAIG. Washington State dealer the Senator referred to--yes, there are no gun dealers in Washington, this city--those were actions in violation of Federal firearms law. And of course the question is the administering of the law, and clearly that amendment does so.

But I have seen the amendment in quick glance, will review it to see if there can be some accommodation here. I know the intent of the Senator. It is intent in good faith to do exactly what he said and that is exactly what we want done. We do not want those who are under the umbrella of a federally licensed dealer to in any way misuse that law and not to be prosecuted for the misuse of that law.

That is the intent here. It is the frivolous lawsuits that we are attempting to block. We have been very clean and specific in the language of the bill. We have even refined it over last year in a way that I hope the Senator might be able to support in the end because I think it clarifies a complicated situation that is currently before manufacturers and licensed dealers.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will look at the Frist amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator.


Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Reed for his cooperation and effort today as we work our way through this legislation. Several amendments that had have been brought to the floor with an attempt to offer them we are looking to see if we can work with our colleagues in acceptance of them. We have a broad base of support for the underlying legislation, and we want to be able to sustain that support as we go into final passage.


Skip to top

Help us stay free for all your Fellow Americans

Just $5 from everyone reading this would do it.

Thank You!

You are about to be redirected to a secure checkout page.

Please note:

The total order amount will read $0.01. This is a card processor fee. Please know that a recurring donation of the amount and frequency that you selected will be processed and initiated tomorrow. You may see a one-time charge of $0.01 on your statement.

Continue to secure page »

Back to top