Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield.

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. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield again?

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. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President.

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

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. 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.

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.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ken Webster, a law clerk in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the pending S. 397 or any motions related to that bill.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the reason I sent that list of cosponsors to the desk is to demonstrate to all of our colleagues that 61 Senators--60 plus myself--are now in support of the legislation that is pending before the Senate that we will move to active consideration of this afternoon at 2 o'clock. I think it demonstrates to all of us the broad, bipartisan support this legislation has and a clear recognition that the time for S. 397 has arrived. This legislation prohibits one narrow category of lawsuits: suits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition by a third party. It is very important for everybody to understand that it is that and nothing more. These predatory lawsuits are aimed at bankrupting the firearms industry. The courts of our Nation are supposed to be a forum for resolving controversies between citizens and providing relief where it is warranted, not a mechanism for achieving political ends that are rejected by the people's representatives, the Congress of the United States. Time and time again down through history, that rejection has occurred on this floor and the floor of the other body. Interest groups, knowing that clear well, have now chosen the court route to attempt to destroy this very valuable industry in our country. Over two dozen suits have been filed on a variety of theories, but all seek the same goal of forcing law-abiding businesses selling a legal product to pay for damages from the criminal misuse of that product. I must say, if the trial bar wins here, the next step could be another industry and another product. While half of these lawsuits have already been fully and finally dismissed, other cases are still on appeal and pending. Hundreds of millions of dollars are still being spent. The bill would require the dismissal of existing suits, as well as future suits that fit this very narrow category of description. It is not a gun industry immunity bill because it does not protect firearms or ammunition manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations from any other lawsuits based on their own negligence or criminal conduct. This bill gives specific examples of lawsuits not prohibited--product liability, negligence or negligent entrustment, breach of contract, lawsuits based on violations of States and Federal law. And yet, we already heard the arguments on the floor yesterday, and I am quite confident we will hear them again and tomorrow, that this is a sweeping approach toward creating immunity for the firearms industry. I repeat for those who question it, read the bill and read it thoroughly. It is not a long bill. It is very clear and very specific. The trend of abusive litigation targeting the firearms industry not only defies common sense and concepts of fundamental fairness, but it would do nothing to curb criminal gun violence. Furthermore, it threatens a domestic industry that is critical to our national defense, jeopardizes hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, and puts at risk access Americans have to a legal product used for hundreds of years across this Nation for lawful purposes, such as recreation and self- defense. Thirty-three States enacted similar gun lawsuit bans or civil liability protection. In other words, already 33 States, because of our silence, have felt it necessary to speak up to protect law-abiding citizens from this misuse of our courts. Yesterday, opponents repeatedly charged that negligent businesses and people would be let off the hook by this bill. It was even stated that this bill would bar virtually all negligence and product liability cases in States and Federal courts. I repeat, nothing can be further from the truth. For those who come to this floor to make that charge, my challenge to them is to read the bill. Obviously they have not. They are simply following the script of the anti-gun community of this Nation. That is not fair to Senators on this floor to be allowed to believe what this legislation simply does not do nor does it say. The bill affirmatively allows lawsuits brought against the gun industry when they have been negligent. The bill affirmatively allows product liability action. Any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer who knowingly violates any State or Federal law can be held civilly liable under the bill. This bill does not shut the courthouse door. Under S. 397, plaintiffs will have the opportunity to argue that their case falls under the exception, such as violations of Federal and State law, negligent entrustment, knowingly transferring to a dangerous person. That is what that all means, that you have knowingly sold a firearm to a person who cannot legally have it or who you have reason to believe could use it for a purpose other than intended. That all comes under the current definition of Federal law. Breach of contract or the warranty or the manufacture or sale of a defective product--these are all well-accepted legal principles, and they are protected by this bill. Current cases where a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer knowingly violates a State or Federal law will not be thrown out. Opponents have complained about the Senate considering this bill at the same time and even have impugned the motives of the Senators who support it. The votes yesterday speak for themselves. Sixty-six Senators said it is time we got this bill before the Senate, and that is where we are today. When a supermajority of the Senate speaks, there is no question that the Senate moves, as it should, in that direction. The Senate could not muster the votes needed to invoke cloture on the Defense authorization bill which would have moved us to a final vote on that measure possibly by tonight. But the Senate, as I have said, by a wide margin spoke yesterday to the importance of dealing with this issue. Sixty-six Senators said let's deal with it now, and I have just sent to the desk 61 signatures of the cosponsors of this bill that demonstrate broad bipartisan support. I think it is appropriate to consider all of this in the context of the Defense authorization bill because the reckless lawsuits we are seeking to stop are aimed at businesses that supply our soldiers, our sailors, and our airmen with their firepower. Stop and think about it. Would there ever be a day when all of our military would be armed with weapons manufactured in a foreign nation? There are many in this country, in driving or attempting to drive our firearm manufacturers from this country, who would have it that way. Clearly, it is within the appropriate context as we deal with Defense authorization that we ought to be talking about the credibility and the assurance we are able to sustain the firearm manufacturing industry in this country. In fact, the United States is the only major world power that does not have a firearm factory of its own. That is something that simply ought not be tolerated. Thirty-eight of our colleagues of both parties signed on to a letter to Majority Leader Frist making this very point: the importance of protecting America's small firearms industries against reckless lawsuits. I would read from that letter, but I see that my colleague from Oklahoma is now on the floor wishing to discuss this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor in recognition of Senator Coburn.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I just came from our Republican Senate cloakroom doing an interview on this important piece of legislation, and I thought that in the course of that interview there was an interesting comment made by the person on the other end of the line: Why are you doing this now? And I thought it would be important for me to put it in the appropriate context because there is a tremendous number of important issues before the U.S. Congress at this time that the American people are highly concerned about because we are headed toward the end of the week. As the leader said a few moments ago, we are headed toward the August recess, which means Congress, in its traditional way, will take the month of August off for personal time and family vacation as do many Americans, and we reconvene after Labor Day. So why now are you addressing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397? It was stated in the context that the Senate really can only chew gum or dribble a ball, but it can't do both. What I think is important for those who might be listening to understand is that we can chew gum and dribble a ball at the same time, and probably keep multiple balls in the air. That is exactly what the leader is doing at this moment. Last night, I signed, and I think the Presiding Officer signed, a document that we are very proud of that has been 6 years in coming to the desk of the President of the United States, and now comes to this President because of his very clear urging, and that is the national energy policy. Yes, the Congress of the United States has completed its work on a national energy policy, and we believe we can take up the conference report now on the floor of the Senate during the remainder of the week before we recess, and we hope that all of our colleagues would let us step back for a moment from this legislation to do so before we move to final passage. It is very possible that we could also do the transportation conference report. We have extended the legal authority under the Transportation Act 11 times while the Senate and the House did its work, and I hope we would not extend it anymore. So, clearly, there are multiple things we can do, and I trust we will do, before we adjourn for the August recess. But I think the Presiding Officer and I would agree that when our President came to town, now, nearly 6 years ago-- and I remember President George W. Bush elect in the leader's office saying: While I spent a good deal of the campaign time talking about education and a variety of other issues, I am here now to talk about national energy. And the first thing I am going to do as a President- elect and a sworn-in President is to name a task force headed by the Vice President to recommend to the Congress the development of a national comprehensive energy policy. He did, but we did not. He pushed, but we could not produce. He continued to push, and now we have produced, and finally we have a comprehensive energy policy before us. So I would say to those listening and to all of our colleagues, I hope we can dribble a ball and chew gum at the same time and get all of this work done before the August recess. If reasonable heads prevail, we should get it all done by late Friday night. But the leader also said we do have Saturday, and we will get our work done. By early afternoon today, we will be on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act. What I would like to do at this time is read a letter that we sent to Majority Leader Frist that we think sets into the right context exactly why we are here today and tomorrow debating this important legislation. The letter goes something like this: Dear Majority Leader Frist--and this was sent on July 12, signed by a great many Senators, Democrats, and Republicans alike, Max Baucus, who is my cosponsor of this legislation, and I, along with a good many others. We said: In the early days of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt foresaw that America ``must be the great arsenal of democracy.'' Americans rose to that challenge, producing unprecedented quantities of arms, not only for U.S. forces but also for our allies around the world. That tradition continues during today, during our Global War on Terror. In 2004-2005, the United States--the only major world power without a government firearms factory of its own-- I said, in earlier statements this morning, we are the only major world power where the Government does not own a firearms factory. They are all owned by private citizens-- has contracted to buy over 200,000 rifles, pistols, machine guns, and other small arms for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. In addition, the U.S. Army alone uses about 2 billion rounds of ammunition each year--about half of it made by private industry. Those guns and ammunition are made in the U.S. and provide good jobs for hardworking Americans. Those gun manufacturing facilities and ammunition facilities are spread across the United States. Unfortunately, our military suppliers are in danger. Anti- gun activists have taken to the courts to promote their agenda of more restrictive gun control. The very same companies that arm our men and women on the front line against terrorism have been sued all over the country, where plaintiffs blame them for the acts of criminals. These lawsuits defy all the rules of traditional tort law. While many have been rejected in the court-- And that is many of the lawsuits, some 24-plus filed, about half of them now rejected-- even one verdict for plaintiffs would risk irreparable harm to a vital defense industry. These are some of the reasons I have cosponsored S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill would protect America's small arms industry against these lawsuits, while allowing legitimate, recognized types of suits against companies that make defective products, or against gun dealers who break the law. I was very clear earlier today that S. 397 sets that out in clear fashion. The letter goes on to say: We urge you to help safeguard our ``great arsenal of democracy'' by bringing S. 397 to the Senate floor before the August recess, and working to pass it without any amendments that would jeopardize its speedy enactment into law. That is why we are here today, because a substantial majority of the Senate has urged our leader to bring this important legislation to the floor. We have asked the Senate to be flexible, as is typical in the Senate. While we have legislation on the floor and conference reports on major bills pending, we wanted to come forward to be able to set aside the legislation and to deal with those, and I trust we will, at least three: conference report on energy, the national energy policy, a conference report on transportation, and a conference report on the Interior appropriations bill, which has some critical veterans money in it that I and others have worked for over the last good number of weeks, and we hope all of that can be effectively accomplished before we complete our work by late Friday night or Saturday. I think that with full cooperation from all of our colleagues, we can get all of this legislation done in a timely amount of time. Another question was asked of me a few moments ago by the person I did the interview with, who said, well, these are very big companies that make a lot of money and are you not protecting them a great deal? Let me put that into the right context. I am not going to name names, but I will say that I know of at least three firearms companies that have around $100 million worth of sales a year apiece, not collectively but apiece. They were comparing it in this interview with the tobacco industry. I said, Well, gee, I know of those companies alone, they were selling $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion, some of them $2 billion industries in their collective value. So we are talking apples and oranges, an industry that is very limited in its capability that is now being sucked to death by the trial bar and these frivolous lawsuits to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars a year, in necessary legal defenses. So that is why we have been very specific in the law. It is not the gun industry immunity bill. It is important that we say that and say it again because it does not protect firearms or ammunitions manufacturers, sellers or trade associations from any lawsuits based on their own negligence or criminal conduct. The bill gives specific examples of lawsuits not prohibited. Let me repeat, not prohibited: Product liability, in other words, a gun that is defective, that misfires, that does damage to the operator of it, those definitions are clearly spelled out within the law. Negligence or negligent entrustment, breach of contract, lawsuits based on a violation of State and Federal law, it is very straightforward, and we think it is very clear. The trend of abusive litigation targeting the firearms industry not only defies common sense and concepts of fundamental fairness, but it would do nothing to curb criminal violence, and we know that. Furthermore, it threatens the domestic industry that I think is critical, as I have mentioned earlier, to the national defense of this country. It would be a tragedy, and I do not know of a soldier serving today or one who has served that would want to serve with a firearm at his or her side being made by a foreign manufacturer. It does not make sense whatsoever. Yet that is the end product of the effort that is under way today, to simply put firearms manufacturers out of business. If they can be pushed overseas, then other forms of law can be used to block access to firearms or access to the importation of firearms from foreign countries. The argument would be foreign nations are attempting to flood the American consumer with a foreign product. I have heard the argument on the floor by those who have attempted to ban certain types of importation over the years. It is an argument well spelled out and well used by many. Faulty as it may be, it is an argument that oftentimes resonates to the American consumer. But when the American consumer finds out that they have been denied access to a quality U.S. product or that product does not exist, then the argument turns around. That is why we are on the floor today. That is why we are dealing with this important legislation. It is my understanding that we have arrived at a unanimous consent agreement that brings us on to the bill by 2 this afternoon. I hope at that time many of my colleagues who are cosponsors would join with me so that we can move this legislation expeditiously through the Senate. I know there are several amendments that will probably be brought to the floor, most of them destructive to the intent of the bill, marginalizing it at best. As a result, I urge all of my colleagues to stay with us on the construct of S. 397, to be able to pass it from the Senate as clean as possible, hopefully, very clean, so the House can act on it immediately and move it to our President's desk. That is the intent. As we move through S. 397 over the course of today and tomorrow, I trust we will also be able to deal with the conference reports I have mentioned that I think are extremely important for this country and for all of us to have prior to the August recess. I see no other of my colleagues on the floor wishing to speak at this moment and I suggest the absence of a quorum.