Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote on Amendment No. 1620

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the next vote is on the Lautenberg amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the time for voting be reduced to 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I also encourage my colleagues--Jack and I are trying to move these amendments as rapidly as we can. When we have people trying to take 20 minutes to these votes, that does not help us. We are debating them in less time than it is taking us to vote. So please stay around and we can move through these amendments very rapidly.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lautenberg amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the next amendment in order is the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. CRAIG. I will have a brief comment. Do any of my colleagues wish to comment? I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe all that can be said about these two amendments has been said. I hope my colleagues join in voting for the first-degree relevant amendment I have offered that toughens up penalties and recognizes the reality that the law we have today is working to protect our law enforcement community from armor-piercing bullets. I yield back the balance of my time. Senator Kennedy can conclude and we can move to a vote.

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding, under the unanimous consent that the Craig first degree would be the first to be voted on; Kennedy would be the second to be voted on. I ask unanimous consent the second vote be a 10-minute vote. I urge my colleagues to come now, as quickly as we can, to move these votes. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, no one questions Senator Corzine's intention or his sincerity as we are all sincere and concerned about making sure that the law enforcement community of this country has the best tools available, has the greatest protection available. We want the laws with them, and we believe the laws are with them. And the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest organization, believes the same thing. Last year, this amendment was opposed by them strongly and they expressed that very clearly. The reason was they do not believe a special category is necessary in that relationship. What is happening here is an attempt to carve out that unique category because we think the law enforcement community is well protected under the current law.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. That is true, they are not taking a position this year, but I did get permission from Tim Richardson, if there is any question of verifying what I said, that as the executive he would be happy to accept a call. The point is quite simple. This is an amendment that destroys the underlying intent of the legislation involved. I hope my colleagues would oppose the amendment as they did last year by a substantial vote, 56 in opposition, 38 for it.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have one amendment remaining, the amendment of Senator Reed. There is a time agreement on that amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague for his closing remarks.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as the sponsor of this legislation, I rise to clear up any questions that might arise when tying to understand the intent of S. 397 and what its enactment would accomplish. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will eliminate predatory lawsuits that would otherwise cripple an entire industry. First, let me make two points about what the bill will not do. Nothing in the bill is intended to allow ``leap-frogging'' over the gun dealer to the manufacturer. The negligent entrustment provision applies specifically to the situation where a dealer knows or reasonably should know that a dangerous person is purchasing a firearm with the intent to commit, and does commit a crime with that firearm. When the manufacturer has done nothing but sell a legal, nondefective product according to the law, the negligent entrustment provision would not allow bypass of the gun dealer to get to the deeper pockets of the manufacturer. It is also important to make sure that it is clear that the ``administrative proceedings'' section will have no effect on the ability of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or any administrative agency to revoke licenses or otherwise engage in administrative proceedings to punish bad acting manufacturers, distributors, or dealers, or otherwise enforce the laws and regulations that apply to them. The bill's definition section describes abusive suits in which a party is seeking relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'' This definition clearly does not describe ATF enforcement proceedings. ATF is authorized to begin enforcement proceedings when a violation of our Nation's Federal gun laws has occurred. The use or misuse of the product is irrelevant to whether ATF may begin an administrative proceeding. In fact, ATF does not use administrative enforcement proceedings to seek ``relief'' for the ``misuse'' of a product. The law does not require there be a ``use''--let alone a ``misuse'' of the product--in order for ATF to act. ATF can begin a license revocation proceeding against a dealer for even a single violation of Federal firearms laws, regardless of whether the gun is ever ``used'' or ``misused'' by anyone. ATF can begin proceedings based on recordkeeping violations, for instance, even if no firearm ever leaves the dealer's place of business. Some have tried to suggest that a dealer selling a gun without doing the proper paperwork or meeting other legal requirements might count as ``misuse.'' This stretches the term ``use'' beyond all rational meaning, and I believe the courts of our Nation would agree. For instance, the Supreme Court has held that firearms ``use'' in a violent or drug-trafficking crime requires ``active employment.'' Bailey v. U.S., 516 U.S. 137 (1995). If there is no ``use'' of the gun--only a sale--then there can be no ``misuse.'' But even if we were to consider an illegal sale to be ``misuse,'' we must look at the last part of the definition: A ``qualified civil liability action'' involves the ``criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'' If we were talking about an ATF action, then ``the person'' would be ATF itself. Obviously, that is not what ATF claims in an administrative proceeding. So we could only be speaking of a misuse by ``a third party''--and in an enforcement proceeding, neither the dealer nor the ATF is a ``third party.'' For all of these reasons, I think it is very clear that the language in this bill about ``administrative proceedings'' should in no way prevent any action by ATF to enforce the firearms laws of the United States. It is only intended to prevent--and, I believe, only does prevent--abuse of the courts and of various administrative processes that could be manipulated unfairly at the State or local level. Furthermore, it is worth noting that since the term ``administrative preceeding'' is part of the definition of a ``qualified civil action,'' then all of the exemptions of the bill permitting an action to proceed would equally apply to an administrative proceeding. However, to make this intent absolutely clear, Senator Frist and I have offered an amendment to the exemptions section of the bill that would add ``an action or proceeding commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, or chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'' The sections of the US Code I just referenced are also known as the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. Again, this would underscore what is the plain intent of the bill--to allow enforcement of our Nation's firearms laws through administrative proceedings. Second, I want to give some examples of exactly the type of predatory lawsuits this bill will eliminate. I think it is important that we all understand the current abuse of the legal system to implement radical policies that could not be accomplished through the democratic process and understand that after passing S. 397, we will finally put an end to that abuse. One key element of the legislation is to provide for the dismissal of pending litigation. Dismissals should be immediate--not after trial. Courts should dismiss on their own motion, instead of forcing defendants to incur the additional costs and delay of filing motions and arguing. Let me emphasize that S. 397 recognizes these lawsuits are an abuse of courts and law-abiding businesses and individuals, and I would respectfully submit that it should be the goal of our Nation's courts to eliminate those abuses as swiftly as possible, when enactment of S. 397 gives them the authority to do so. In City of New York v. Beretta USA Corp. et al. currently set for trial on September 7 in Federal court in Brooklyn, NY, the plaintiff has asserted that industry members have created a ``public nuisance.'' The lawful sale of a highly regulated product later misused by criminals is not a public nuisance;and has never been considered a public nuisance in American jurisprudence. Another suit expected to be affected by S. 397 is the District of Columbia and nine individual plaintiffs, Lawson, et al. that have sued members of the firearms industry, under a statute that unbelievably imposes automatic and absolute liability. The law in question says you are liable ``without regard to fault or proof of defect.'' There is also a case pending in Federal court in the District of Columbia in which a gun manufacturer is being sued under this very statute, Charlot v. Bushmaster. The companies being sued under the District ``automatic'' liability law have no defense. Another example of a lawsuit captured by this bill is the case of Ileto v. Glock, pending in Federal court in Los Angeles, CA, against Glock and a distributor, RSR. The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said Glock and RSR could be sued for a criminal shooting when Glock sold the pistol to a Washington State police department and the distributor RSR never owned, nor sold, nor possessed the firearm. Yet another example are the suits pending against members of the firearms industry by cities like Gary, IN and Cleveland, OH even though the States of Indiana and Ohio have themselves passed State laws similar in purpose and intent to S. 397. In the past few days, lawyers from anti-gun interest groups have rushed to the courthouse to file at least three lawsuits, one in New York and two in Pennsylvania against manufacturers Sturm Ruger, Phoenix Arms, and Hi-Point, and I suspect there will be more suits filed in the days and weeks ahead. While we do not know all the facts yet, in one of these cases we do know that the sale by the dealer was of a single firearm made by an employee of that dealer who was an off-duty federal law enforcement agent and the firearm in that case was only transferred to the buyer after he or she filled out the required paperwork and after the background check by the FBI, as required under the Brady Act. Congress is properly acting here under its Commerce Clause powers, as we have done many times in the past. We are also rightly concerned, as is the Department of Defense, that if these lawsuits succeed in driving gun manufacturers out of business, the national defense will be harmed. The same is true for our homeland security, as these same companies make the firearms used by law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, of which my distinguished colleague, the Democratic Leader Mr. Reid was once a proud member. The Constitution also, I believe, imposes upon Congress the duty to protect the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights which includes the second amendment. If the firearms manufacturers are driven out of business, that second amendment will be nothing more than an illusion. Mr. President, I hope these comments will be helpful for anyone seeking additional information about the intent and--I believe--the impact of enacting S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the letters from the Fraternal Order of Police and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America in that section of the Record containing the debate on the Kennedy amendment relating to armor-piercing ammunition.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for allowing me this brief moment. I have spoken to the veterans funding in this bill. Chairman Hutchison was in the Chamber, and Senator Murray has spoken to that. I appreciate all of their cooperation. We have tried to get our arms around this funding issue at Veterans, and I now believe we have. We are going to be very insistent on good numbers in the future. I have asked the Secretary to report to the authorizing committee on a quarterly basis. I think he will do the same to the appropriating committee. Beyond that, this is a tremendously important bill for my State of Idaho. I often say the Federal Government owns Idaho. We Idahoans sometimes resent that. Because of the large land mass, it is Government land, but BLM and Interior play an important role out there. We thank you for your consideration, both the Senator from Montana, the chairman, and the ranking member, Senator Dorgan, but especially the expeditious way you have gotten this bill through. Because of this veterans funding that is critical and the way that it has been handled, I know it has been unique to Interior at this time and place, but it was also necessary to complete it. We thank you very much for that cooperation.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to comment on the Interior appropriations conference report now before the Senate. First, let me congratulate Senator Burns, chairman of the Intenor Subcommittee and his ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for their work on finishing this important piece of legislation before we adjourn for the August recess. My home State of Idaho has great interest in the Interior appropriations bill every year. And timely completion of this legislation is welcome news to my constituents. As odd as this may sound, though, I do not wish to speak about Interior matters in this bill. Rather, I want to say a few words about the $1.5 billion included in this legislation for fiscal year 2005 supplemental funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. I know all of my colleagues are aware of the notice I received a little over 1 month ago that VA funding for this fiscal year was severely strained. And that, as a result, this Congress was going to need to move fast to provide an infusion of resources to ensure our veterans continued to receive high-quality, timely health care from VA. Working with Senators Hutchison, Cochran, Murray, Feinstein, Akaka, and others, the Senate voted unanimously to add $1.5 billion for VA health care to this Interior appropriations bill. We did so because we were confident this legislation would be completed in time to get this bill to the President's desk--and more importantly get the money to VA for veterans' health care--before the August recess. As is evident with the expected passage of this bill today, we have accomplished that goal. Certainly this victory has not come without some hard work and negotiations. It was extremely difficult to get the administration to provide us with accurate budget numbers in any timely fashion. I spoke several times with VA Secretary Jim Nicholson and with OMB about the need to get the information to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Appropriations Committee fast and to get it right with respect to fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 so that we would not be back here again in 6 months talking about shortfalls. I am cautiously optimistic that VA and OMB have gotten it right this time. Working with Congress, they submitted a fiscal year 2005 and 2006 budget amendment that identified the need for an additional $2.952 billion. This bill provides a $1.5 billion down payment that goes towards meeting that identified need. In addition, Senators Hutchison and Feinstein are working on VA's funding need for fiscal year 2006 in the military construction/VA appropriations bill that was recently sent to the Senate floor by the full Appropriations Committee. We will all have a chance to vote on that measure after the recess. I also want to tell my colleagues that I was very unhappy with the way in which all of this information about VA's shortfalls came to my attention. As chairman of the Veterans Committee, I take very seriously my responsibility to provide oversight of the VA and its financial picture on behalf of the Senate. And I want each of you to know that I have received personal assurances from Secretary Nicholson that he will provide quarterly reports throughout the fiscal year on VA's financial picture so that Senators can be certain that VA is on track and on budget. Working together with Members on both sides of the aisle, I believe we can conduct the proper oversight of VA's health care budget and make certain that adequate finances are provided for the health care needs of our Nation's veterans. Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all of their support, especially Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd of the full Appropriations Committee. Their unwavering commitment in the face of VA's shortfalls made this substantial supplemental increase possible.