Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? In listening to this discussion and the points being made by my colleagues, I agree that we should not be shifting costs as BLM apparently proposed. Nor should other charges and fees for other energy and mineral permitting be put forward. We want our companies to put that money in the ground, not in the Federal Treasury with no guarantee that any of it will be spent on better energy permitting. Surely out of the $1.8 billion already being received from industry's exploration and development of Federal oil and gas resources alone we can fund the planning, environmental, permit processing and other responsibilities of the Federal Government. I am pleased that my colleagues were successful in amending the energy conference agreement to stop the cost sharing proposal and commend them for doing so. I would also like to point out that as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I plan to hold hearings this Congress on Federal lands energy and mineral access. As part of that hearing, I intend to find out more about the ability of our Federal agencies to process leasing, drilling and other applications in a timely manner. Delaying permits is the same as delaying energy and mineral supplies to those who need them. In addition, shifting costs to those who need the permits for any of these activities is also a way of discouraging what needs to be done to find and produce the supplies we need. As a result, I will be glad to consider including this subject in our hearings. seawater cooling systems

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize an outstanding marksman and employee at Idaho National Laboratory: Bennie Cooley, who with teammate Todd Salmon has recently won the 2005 World Sniper Championship. Bennie Cooley is no stranger to such competitions, as he currently holds three world titles and seven national titles within the shooting disciplines, but this competition was particularly special to him because many of the participants were some of the finest members of our Armed Forces and the national law enforcement community. Like him, I believe that all these competitors are world champions in their own right. Bennie has made a career at the Idaho National Laboratory, beginning as a security police officer for the Laboratory before moving to the Laboratory's special response team where he became a team leader. He is now a firearms safety engineer, ``part of a team that makes security successful, especially in the safety realm . . . able to articulate anything that's necessary to help keep us safe,'' according to one of his superiors, because of his knowledge of firearms. Respect for firearms and marksmanship have been important qualities throughout our Nation's history and it is rewarding to see those values preserved and practiced by people like Bennie Cooley. As Mr. Cooley continues to assure the safety of Idaho National Laboratory and to demonstrate his excellence in the art of marksmanship, I wish him good luck and offer congratulations and thanks for his dedication to public service.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 28, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: Lieutenant General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, for appointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, U.S. Transportation Command; Dr. Ronald M. Sega to be Under Secretary of the Air Force; Mr. Philip Jackson Bell to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness; Mr. John G. Grimes to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration; Mr. Keith E. Eastin to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; Mr. William C. Anderson to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Banking Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.m. to mark up S. 190 ``The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005'', as amended by the Committee Print; S. 705 ``Meeting the Housing and Service Needs of Seniors Act of 2005;'' H.R. 804 ``To Exclude From Consideration as Income Certain Payments Under the National Flood Insurance Program;'' S. 1047 ``The Presidential $1.00 Coin Act of 2005,'' and pending nominations.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226. Agenda I. Bills: S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley, Hatch; S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005, Talent, Feinstein, Kohl, Schumer, Feingold;, S. __, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, Specter, Leahy, Feingold; S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl; S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Feinstein, Kyl; S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act, Sessions; S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005, Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter; S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or Sex Offenses, Hatch, Biden, Schumer; S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005, Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn; S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act of 2005, Biden, Hatch, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Grassley, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veteran's Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28, 2005, for a markup to consider the following: Nomination of James Philip Terry to be Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans' Affairs and Charles S. Ciccolella to be Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training, Department of Labor. Pending Legislation as follows: A. Committee Print of S. 1182, the ``Veterans' Health Care Improvements Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 1182, as introduced; S. 1177; S. 1189; and S. 1190. B. S. 716, the ``Vet Center Enhancement Act of 2005''. C. S. 1234, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2005''. D. Committee Print of S. 1235, the ``Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2005'', incorporating provisions derived from S. 1235, as introduced; S. 552; S. 917; S. 151; S. 1259; S. 1271; and S. 423. The markup will take place in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 28 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 584 and H.R. 432, bills to require the secretary of the interior to allow the continued occupancy and use of certain land and improvements within rocky mountain National Parks; S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, PA, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; S. 958, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the states of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a national historic trail; S. 1154, a bill to extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes; S. 1166, a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission; and S. 1436, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in the states of Michigan.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand that the Republican side has from 10 until 11, is that correct, under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a list of 61 cosponsors of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that is currently pending before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

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. CRAIG. I object.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator 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. 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. 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.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, we appreciate the Senator coming to the floor. I know he is committed to these issues and has been for a good number of years. We are reviewing the amendment now consistent with all of the amendments that are being submitted at this moment. We have not yet completed that review. We received the amendment about 25 or 30 minutes ago. With that, I object to the unanimous consent request.

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. I apologize.

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. CRAIG. I will.

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. Reserving the right to object, I know the intent of the Senator from Virginia is to file an amendment at the desk and not usurp the position of the current amendment that is before the Congress. I would have to ask the Parliamentarian as to the priority of that.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator does not have to lay the pending amendment aside to file an amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. I would object to the laying aside of the pending amendment, which would not restrict the Senator's right to file an amendment at the desk and speak about it.