Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like only to thank all who were involved in the legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just had 5 days of very important debate. I think all who entered the debate entered it with good will in mind. There have been different points of view, very strongly held different points of view. As a result of that, the final passage of S. 1805 was not possible, and the Senate defeated it. That is all I will say about that process. I wish to thank so many people who have been tremendously helpful on my staff: Brooke Roberts, Lisa McGrath, and Doug Lucke, who worked extremely hard with me to perfect S. 1805 and bring it to the floor; Chairman Hatch and his staff of the Judiciary Committee: Ted Lehman, Brett Tolman, and Reed O'Connor; the leadership staff in the cloakroom; and the 55 cosponsors of S. 1805. Certainly, there was a strong effort on the part of all to get this legislation to the floor, to get clean votes on it. We even, of course, had the effort of the House, with a better than two-to-one majority in the House, on a clean bill. The President asked that a clean bill be received at the White House. None of that, in the final hours, appeared to be possible. Clearly, we were not going to be allowed to go to conference. The minority saw no advantage in allowing the process that is historical and responsible in the Senate to move forward because that, of course, takes unanimous consent or prolonged effort and votes to get there. It is a very short timeline for this year, and we clearly need to move the process forward. We will look now to bring the House bill forward in a clean way. Ultimately, we hope we might get a cloture vote. This issue will not go away. It deserves to be voted on, up or down, by the Senate. Clearly, it is the will of the American people and, ultimately, we will have that day and that opportunity. That day was not today, as much as I wished it could be. At the same time, when you have a bad bill that is created by the amendment process, it sometimes is difficult, if not impossible, to make it better or to make it acceptable. I would not send to this President or any President a bad bill of the kind that was crafted in the Senate through the amendment process over the last several days. But, again, I thank so many who were involved in this effort. It is greatly appreciated. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. The first hour, of course, is allocated to the debate over the semiauto ban, so your request is against the semiauto ban and the total?

Mr. CRAIG. I object to that until I better understand it. I want to allocate my 2 hours reserved in the UC for this afternoon. Could the Senator explain?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I understand Senator Sessions will be to the floor momentarily to join with me in debating the Bingaman amendment. But for the moment let me suggest that the Bingaman amendment would modify very clearly the definition of ``reasonably foreseeable'' in product defect cases in such a way that would undermine, clearly, the purpose of S. 1805 and undo the Daschle amendment, the very corrections that the minority leader thought were necessary to be made and to which I and others agreed. Rather than leave criminal and unlawful misuse out of the definition of reasonably foreseeable use, like S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment, the amendment of Senator Bingaman would define the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' in product defect cases to mean the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result. S. 1805 exempts product defect cases from qualified civil liability actions. The bill, in other words, allows actions for physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product when the product is used as intended or in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable. As it relates to product defect cases, the term ``reasonably foreseeable'' does not include any criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product, other than possessory offenses. The Daschle amendment simply made a technical change by including this definition of reasonably foreseeable in the section on product defect cases. In other words, current product liability law still pertains. S. 1805 does not erase this. The substance, however, remains the same as I have said. That is, both S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment make clear that criminal and unlawful misuse of a qualified product is not included in use that is reasonably foreseeable. Tort law has long recognized the principle that criminal acts and others are not foreseeable, that a person can generally assume others will obey the law. As one authoritative treatise stated: There is normally much less reason to anticipate acts on the part of others which are those which are merely negligent, and this is all the more true where, as is usually the case, such acts are criminal. Under all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed under the assumption that others will obey the criminal law. A Maryland court, in the case of Valentine v. On Target, quoted this when it ruled that a victim of a criminal shooting could not sue a gunshop for a murder committed by a gun stolen from the dealer's display case. Again, here, as in product defect cases, the criminal and unlawful misuse of a product is not included in the definition of reasonably foreseeable. Senator Bingaman's amendment, by including this language, would strike these longstanding principles of tort law and, as lawmakers, it is important to recognize these principles of law in S. 1805, and that is exactly what we do. Although the legislation does not prohibit reasonable suit in product defect cases where a firearm or ammunition is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, there is also no open door for antigun activist lawyers to claim that firearms are defective products just because they can be used in crime. For this reason I certainly urge that my colleagues oppose the Bingaman amendment. In fact, it strikes to the very heart of that which Senator Daschle and I proposed in a very bipartisan way, to make this legislation as broadly acceptable as it is. The case that the Senator is referring to, no matter how sympathetic, still involves a violation of the law for something such as negligent homicide or the negligent handling of a weapon. Again, criminal or unlawful behavior is not foreseeable. This is established in longstanding principles of tort law, as I said, and here, in product defect cases, these principles similarly apply. The Senator's amendment again would strike language, as I said, from S. 1805, that clearly restates what we believe to be current law and an important part of the law. The practical effect of this definition is that it would bar many valid product liability suits involving accidental shootings. For example, in Smith v. Bryco, as he mentioned, a 15-year-old unintentionally shot his friend when he pulled the trigger of an illegally purchased handgun after removing the magazine. He thought the gun would not fire without the magazine and did not realize that a bullet may remain in the chamber. His parents sued the manufacturer under strict product liability and negligence theories asserting that the handgun should have incorporated a warning, chamber-loading indicator, or a magazine-out safety. Under S. 1805, cases like this one would likely be dismissed because they involve some violation of law-- certainly in this case--other than a possessory offense such as negligent homicide, negligent handling of a weapon, or similar offense. Those are the fundamental issues. I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose the Bingaman amendment. We will vote on this amendment at 5 o'clock. I hope others might come to the floor for purposes of debate on this amendment. I see Senator Sessions entering the Chamber now and he wished time on this important amendment. Let me also repeat that clearly part of the Bingaman amendment goes to the very heart of the definition as it relates to ``reasonably foreseeable'' in the law. We think that is critically important. That is why Senator Daschle and I teamed to make sure this law was, as I expressed it to be on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday of last week, a very narrow approach toward dealing with the kinds of junk or frivolous lawsuits we have seen filed now well over 30 times across this country in which law-abiding gun manufacturers and dealers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars defending themselves, only to have, in most instances, these cases thrown out of court. We would hope as they enter the courthouse door and the arguments are placed that the judge, based on S. 1805, can make reasonable decisions as to whether this case ought to go forward or whether it meets the definition of what we are proposing. May I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 10 minutes of my time to Senator Sessions.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, might I ask we go into a quorum, only for the purpose of discussing this and better understanding it?

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just heard an explanation as to why we ought to change a law on gun commerce in this country. It has largely been touted as a loophole. My contention this afternoon and my contention has always been that there is not a loophole because if there is one, it exists outside of gun shows if it exists inside of gun shows. Gun shows are, in fact, a mirror image of gun commerce in this country. An individual can sell a gun without a federally licensed firearm permit to do so, but if he or she is in the business of selling guns, then they have to have that license. It is also true in gun shows. When you walk through the door of a gun show, the law has not changed nor does it change. But under the McCain- Reed amendment, they are suggesting it should change and that this particular cloistered environment of a gun show ought to be something new and different. We have heard the explanation. Let me attempt to set the record straight this afternoon because it is important we understand that an attempt is being made to set a whole new tranche of Federal regulations against what has historically been U.S. commerce that was legal and law- abiding. Gun shows grew out of the firearms collectors associations that were formed as part of this country's commerce in legitimate firearms in the early 20th century. Those associations remain active today and some became national and even international organizations and some sponsor gun shows. Commercial gun shows first appeared largely after World War II. They are large, well-advertised public events in convention centers and similar facilities. Annually, some 4 million people attend gun shows. Four million people attend these kinds of efforts in gun commerce. Behind me is a picture of a typical gun show. I have attended numerous of them over the years. You will see all kinds of displays, from educational material to actual firearms. Gun shows provide an opportunity for people interested in gun selecting and in the shooting sports to examine and learn about many different types of firearms, as well as to buy and to sell or to trade guns, ammunition, and related materials. Notice I said ``to buy and to sell or to trade guns, ammunition, and related materials.'' Right now if you are buying and selling and moving guns and ammunition and related material for your living and you are in the commerce of firearms, you have to be a federally licensed firearm dealer. But if you are a collector, if you are an individual and you do not commerce in guns, you do not make your living by doing commerce in guns, you do not have to be federally licensed. But you could still go to a gun show, you could still rent a table, and you could sell an occasional firearm. Why? Because the law outside is the same law today that is inside, and the Reed-McCain amendment would say: Oh, no, we have now established for you the raw example of the unique thing that goes on at a gun show and, therefore, it ought to be licensed. What they fail to say is, but in the back streets of America where there are gun traffickers and black market dealers, we would really like to license them, too, but, of course, they are criminals and you cannot get them licensed, and they won't play by the rules. To suggest that guns are sometimes sold at a gun show that might enter into a criminal act, I am not going to stand here and deny that because guns that are bought from legitimate licensed firearm dealers, bought by a straw person are finding their way into misuse for criminal purposes. That is the reality of the world in which we live, but that is not the norm. Finally, at the end of all of this debate, Senator Reed acknowledged that a very large majority of those who attend gun shows are law- abiding, honest citizens who go there for all the right purposes. But he is suggesting that we have to have this one little special dot on the legal map because it is uniquely different from everything that goes on outside of a gun show. If you want to traffic in guns, you can set up across the street from a gun show, and yet his law would not pertain to that person. If they happen to be standing out there and open the trunk of their car and try to persuade people who come in and out of a gun show that they ought to buy from them, isn't that somehow a misconception of reality? I think it is. Gun shows are also important venues for those interested in the general ownership of guns and the general manufacture of them. Gun rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows and distribute literature. Attendees share information to work together to protect what I believe is their constitutionally mandated right in this country to have fair, open access to firearms. Therefore, gun shows are an important part of what we in this country call the political process. Free speech under the first amendment--I know in going to gun shows, a lot of dialog ensues between those who are attending. Why? Because they are advocates; because they are collectors; because they are vocal in their constitutional rights. It is estimated that more than 1,000 commercial gun shows are held each year in this country. A typical gun show will have approximately 300 exhibitors offering items for sale and educational display. The paid public attendance at an average gun show can be estimated at about 4,000 people. Generally, gun shows are held in a 2- or 3-day timeframe over a weekend. Larger shows attract exhibitors and patrons from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Gun shows today are regulated by State law in relation to gathering and commerce and by local ordinances as is appropriate for all large gatherings that cities would want to know about and have registered. Let us talk about statistics. I think I can, by what I just said, establish the long tradition of gun shows in this country, some 1,000 of them starting in the early part of this century, largely following World War II. In the mid-eighties, the National Institutes of Justice sponsored a study of how convicted felons in 12 States obtained their guns. One of its findings was that gun shows were such a tiny source of crime guns that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure. That was in the eighties. In 1997, the National Institutes of Justice report called ``Homicide in 8 U.S. Cities'' actually covered more than homicides, which put the number of crime guns from gun shows at or around 2 percent by that statistic. In 2000, a BJS study of Federal firearms offenders, 1992 through 1998, found that 1.7 percent of Federal prison inmates obtained their guns from gun shows; in other words, a statistic that will show up, but a very minor one in reality of the total misuse of firearms in our country. The most recent study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001, found that less than 1 percent of crimes committed involving the use of firearms utilized guns obtained at gun shows, including sales by fully licensed firearm dealers at gun shows; in other words, those who were doing background checks. This was the largest study of its kind based on an investigation of 18,000 convicted felons. According to these reports, most criminals get guns from theft, burglary, black market, friends, or family. The one inconsistent study is misleading. In January of 1999, the Justice and Treasury Departments published the result of a study on gun shows, Brady checks, and crime gun traces, concluding that nonlicensee firearm sales at gun shows contributed to trafficking in crime guns, the use of firearms in drug crimes and crimes of violence. The study, based upon an examination of 314 ATF criminal investigations, recommended additional legislation to deal with so-called loopholes. That is where the word began to appear in 1999. However, the study does not show that occasional gun sales by one- time sellers at gun shows significantly contributed to illegal trafficking. They made the argument, but they did not make their case. The majority, 54 percent, of investigations involved unlicensed persons who were actually dealing in firearms without the required Federal dealer license, which is a felony and may be prosecuted under the law. What they found out is that when it did happen, it was happening by those who were already trafficking in guns. The reason they found out is they were able to arrest them because they were already violators of the law. The Federal firearms laws were at work, and that is how we got the statistics because we used the laws to investigate and apprehend the bad guys. Twenty-three percent of the investigations involved violations of existing law by Federal licensees; for example, illegal sales to straw purchasers, persons with clean backgrounds who acquired firearms for the actual purchasers. Even the Reed-McCain bill would not screen out a straw man. Somebody with a clean record could acquire a firearm for someone else, complete the sale, take it out, and hand it off. Does this great new loophole plugger solve it? Not at all. That hole cannot be plugged when somebody lies and they happen to have a clean background. In 23 percent of the cases where they are now citing examples, folks simply lied. They did not tell the truth, and if one does not tell the truth and they have a clean background and the NICS system cannot pick it up, then that person is legitimate in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of a licensed firearm dealer. The point is, in all of these crimes, under current law they were apprehended, and the vast majority of them are just that. Now we hear a new argument: Terrorists and terrorism, and somehow the terrorists who are going to create havoc on the American public are going to go to a gun show, and he cited one buying an M-16--only that was not to do damage here, it was to do damage outside the country--and therefore we ought to put new restrictions on law-abiding citizens. All I can say is, the great havoc that was wreaked on this country on 9/11 by terrorists was not by a gun purchased at a gun show. For the terrorists, the weapon of choice that did so much damage to our country happened to be a jet airliner and not an M-16 that was due to be exported. Senator Reed speaks the truth because these terrorists we now find, who are apprehended and behind bars, were arrested because they were operating illegally under current law in many instances. If someone lied about their background, they cannot be found, but if they are illegal and undocumented in this country, it is a violation to go to a gun show and buy a gun. So one deals with an individual purchase and not a licensed dealer. That is so rare and so minuscule that if Senator Reed thinks that hole can be plugged by sticking one's finger in it, they are simply diverted to the street where they know they can acquire a gun, but the price is probably going to be a lot more. All of that is the tragic environment in which we live, but what is important to say about the so-called ``loophole'' is, if one walks into a gun show and only in there a loophole exists, they can walk out of the gun show and it does not exist because they are not proposing to change current law where all commerce in firearms must be background checked. Any individual citizen in this country can sell a firearm they own to his or her neighbor, and they do not have to do a background check--nor should they. But if they are legitimate, or if they are commercing or making their living in firearms, they are going to have to get a license and they are going to have to do a background check. That is the law, and that is the way it ought to be. So, again, this is a political placebo for a problem that so rarely-- I say rarely--exists, and it does rarely exist. I listened very carefully to all of those he listed whom we found out to be violators of law. That is why he could list them, because they were already arrested under current Federal firearms laws, and that is why many of them are doing time. So the answer to the problem is to stack a new law on top of law- abiding citizens at a thousand gun shows, and for the Federal Government to step into the business of regulating commerce in this area saying that in some way it might protect the average citizen. Again, I point to the picture behind me. There is the average gun show in America. Nearly 4,000 people attend each one, and there are over 1,000 of them. Does the loophole exist? Well, when we look at the statistics from the report that bore the name of the loophole that they are now using, we find out those statistics just do not hold up; that what happened at a gun show can happen outside a gun show. The reality is, one simply cannot make the holes in the sieve tight enough to stop everybody. Tighten it as we will, every time we do we step much harder on the private law-abiding citizen than we do the criminal or terrorist element in the world because they know they can play outside the law because the rest of us are required to play inside the law. That is the reality of any law, whether it be a gun law or anything else. We know that. That is the history of law. That is the history of those who choose to play outside of it and break the law, and the gun show loophole will do nothing to change that. It will simply divert the commerce outside the building instead of inside the building, if someone chooses to operate illegally or outside the law. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, following the amendment of the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. CRAIG. First of all, we have a UC. I will not object to that request.

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

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we know a great deal about gun shows. We know thousands of Americans go there each year--law-abiding citizens who are collectors, who are avid sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters. They go for information. They go to access collections of libraries of gun manuals. Many people who respect firearms and collect them like to have the manuals on how they were manufactured, and the ballistics of particular firearms. All of those are available at gun shows. What is most important is to try to plug a loophole which I argue clearly does not exist today, or it exists outside of gun shows, because we are all operating under the same law whether you are inside the door of a gun show or outside the door of a gun show. Senator Reed mentioned three terrorists and talked about how they had used a gun show. They were apprehended, they were prosecuted, and they were convicted under existing law. Did they break the law? Yes. That is how they were apprehended and convicted. It appears the law is working and working quite well at this moment. In fact, we are more aware today of terrorist activity and undocumented people in our country's activities than we ever were before, and it took a tragic event to cause that to happen. I received the amendment about 3 hours ago, and I did not have a chance to look at it in detail as it relates to the original amendment introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Reed. I must say considerable change has been made. Of course, the Senator admitted that. But there is a great deal left in the bill which I think dramatically alters the nature of gun shows and the bureaucracy and the Federal involvement in the law-abiding commerce of firearms that we are not talking about. The McCain-Reed 24-hour wait is in fact a smokescreen. The bill provides the wait may be reduced to 24 hours if a State applies for the privilege of improving its records after the fact, after it happened. In other words, if it happened and when it happened, then only may accommodate, but with no real incentive for States or the Federal Government to improve records even though we are pushing hard to make that happen. It is a complicated and expensive process. There is no reason to think the 24-hour check would ever be achieved. Even if a State did switch to 24 hours, the change is strictly optional and could be reserved for an anti-gun State government--well, you know in this instance you are going to get the irregular application of the McCain- Reed law if it were to become law. With a 3 business-day period still allowed to check out-of-State records, a few large States could drag down the whole scheme for all transfers across the country. In other words, the Federal bureaucracy reigns supreme against a legitimate action of commerce that today is regulated only by Federal law as it relates to licensed dealers specific to their action and only those who make their living commercing in a law-abiding way in firearms. The McCain-Reed amendment makes no instant check improvements, unlike S. 890, and the Senator referenced that. The bill provides no funding to criminal upgrades. Hopefully, we can get that accomplished in the near future. I am certainly in favor of that--the carrot and the stick--to make States comply so the NICS background check is legitimate, is effective, and certainly has within its recordkeeping the range of violations of law that makes an individual ineligible for acquiring a firearm. McCain-Reed gives no priority to gun shows. Remember, we are talking about a weekend event. Yet if the system were active, there is no priority to move that check to the front of the list to make it happen in those areas where there might be a question--and there oftentimes are. It does not mean a person is a violator of the law or has within his or her background something, but there possibly is a triggering that needs further investigation. Does this offer the priority? No, we know it does not. Sometimes law- abiding citizens travel hundreds of miles, if not thousands of miles, to some of these gun show events, some of the larger ones in the country, and to not be able to transact their commerce and leave with reasonable time involved just does not make a lot of sense. They can do it outside the door of the gun show; they cannot do it inside the door of the gun show. Today, how you act is legal based on your adherence to law. That transaction can occur inside or outside the door of the gun show. Most importantly, McCain-Reed ignores the real problem. Multiple government studies have proven that gun shows are not the source of crime. But because there was once a crime report that mentioned the word ``loophole,'' all the romance of that word, somehow out there they can catch the ear of the American public suggesting that here is a hole that all types of criminals and terrorists are getting through to gain access to firearms. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports in ``Firearm Use By Offenders Found'' that less than 1 percent of U.S. crime guns come from gun shows. The 2001 study was based on an interview of 18,000 prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the Government under legitimate polling and informational-gathering terms. That is a pretty significant figure, 1 percent--a significant figure if you want to compare that to establishing a whole new bureaucracy and controlling over 1,000 legitimate gun shows on an annual basis. The Bureau of Justice Statistics study is consistent with a previous study. The 2000 study, ``Federal Firearm Offenders,'' as reported in 1992 and 1998, found that 1.7 percent of Federal prison inmates obtained their guns from a gun show. Similarly, the National Institute of Justice, 1997 study, ``Homicides In Eight United States Cities'' reported less than 2 percent. All of the studies are hovering in that 1 to 1\1/2\ percent range on the average. Those are the realities of what we are dealing with. We are today trying to drag down a very important law in this country or the very important effort to change law in this country to protect legitimate commerce and legitimate manufacturers and those who are licensed gun dealers by cluttering up, in my words, S. 1805 in a way that might drag it down. The McCain-Reed bill, S. 1807, masquerades as reform, imposing bureaucratic restrictions aimed at shutting down gun shows without fixing real problems on the national instant background check. The Senator deserves credit. We have worked together to try to make those improvements. I want a background check. I want no law-abiding citizen to be blocked from acquiring a gun or making it difficult to do. For those who have in their background those kinds of records that violate the law, we want to check them and keep them out of the business of owning a gun. Despite changes from the Lautenberg juvenile justice amendment of 1999 that is based on the new compromise bill like its parent, S. 890 fails to address gun shows most significant concern and would create, again, massive liability for gun show promoters who would likely drive gun shows into extinction. The rhetoric is one thing. No, we are not out to close gun shows. The practical application is another. Gun show promoters who play by all the rules, if you have substantially put them at risk by liability, they will step back. Again, you close another door for the legitimate citizen who would attempt to acquire a firearm in a logical way. McCain-Reed creates massive bureaucratic redtape. That is reasonable to assume. Certainly the author of the amendment can say one thing, the ATF in its administration and the regulations that would be written would be quite another. McCain-Reed turns what can oftentimes be a casual conversation into a gun show sale. Let me give an example. If you are a gun show active participant, you go, attend, you like to walk around and look at the displays; you see a firearm you like. But you decide not to buy it at that time. But you know a given dealer has it, or an individual in this case, because a dealer--you would obviously be protected by the Federal law and the need for a background check. This is an exhibitor, a collector, who is not required by law to adhere to that standard. Some weeks later you have convinced your wife that maybe that is really the firearm you ought to own and you pick up the phone and call him because you took their business card and you buy the weapon. Is that a transaction of a gun show? I don't think it is clear in the McCain-Reed amendment. Is that person, by that telephone call, in violation of the law? He may not be, but if the person who owns the gun says, great, I will sell it to you, come over and pick it up, or I will arrive at a point in time where we can meet and exchange the necessary purchase to do so, are they in violation of the law? I don't know. This unenforceable system makes it arguable whether that is the kind of thing that would happen. Those are some of the preliminary questions I have at first glance at this amendment that we saw several hours ago which is different from what has been originally produced over the years that certainly would have created substantial bureaucratic redtape. At the same time, there is a simple premise here that we ought not ignore. We are now setting gun shows apart as a separate and unique form of commerce for law- abiding citizens in the exercise of their second amendment rights. All that can go on inside the door of the gun show can go on outside the door of the gun show. So if that is the basis of the argument that step one is to control the inside, I have to believe the desire is step two sometime down the road, to work aggressively to control the outside. That is why I and others who believe in our constitutional rights and our second amendment rights believe the current laws that are on the books are adequate to effectively police the legitimate and legal commerce of firearms in our country. That is why I hope Senators will vote this amendment down. We want to keep S. 1805 clean. The President and the administrative policy statement urged us to keep this bill clean so it can become law this year instead of simply fall because the goal of those who are gun control advocates in the Senate would load it up in a way that it would be too heavy to move back through the Senate and back through the House or through a conference. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum if all time can be taken equally from both sides.

Mr. CRAIG. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Madam President. ``Momentarily,'' but they were caught. That is how my colleague just referred to those three terrorists he highlighted as a major reason to establish a new bureaucratic hurdle for law-abiding citizens. How were they caught? They violated the law. They violated the current law that governs the sale of firearms, that controls, or hopefully controls, illegal aliens from acquiring firearms, and all the rest of it. That is a recordable fact. Did they acquire the firearms at a gun show? Maybe they did. Were they caught? Yes. Does it mean the loophole stops that, that the sieve is so tight nothing falls through? I don't think it means that. If the desire is there to acquire the gun, then they simply stand at the door. The person or persons involved, if they are not licensed federally regulated firearms dealers, can step outside and, in a different transaction, sell that weapon. That is the tragedy today of any commerce, especially by those seeking to acquire illegally and seeking to do harm with that which they acquire--whether it be explosives or a firearm of any kind. So walk into a gun show and say I would really be interested in selling that firearm. But if you would meet me outside somewhere, maybe I could buy it. I would hope 100 percent of those who are registered would never do that and 99.9 percent of them won't because they are law-abiding citizens and would not. If there is a loophole, there is another one, and that is the reality of what we are trying to deal with. Finally, let us understand that we have been able to reduce crime rates in this country and we have been able to save lives in this country when we said if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you do the time. No questions asked. You are not plea-bargained back to the street. You are not granted leniency. If you use the gun, you do the time. Time and again where that principle has been used, commission of a crime with the use of a firearm drops dramatically. The fellow who was robbing the 7-Eleven stores in Richmond with a baseball bat and caught was asked by the authorities why he didn't use a gun. He said: Because if I did, they would have put me in prison. Because in Richmond they were absolute in the prosecution of the law. So he chose another weapon to intimidate the operator of a 7-Eleven store. Does the law work? You bet it works if it is enforced. We are finding out all new kinds of things about terrorists, and the reason we are tragically finding them out is because we were lax in our country. Gun shows are not the chosen venue by which the terrorist element acquires lethalness, and we know that to be a fact. We know less than 1 percent, or around that figure, of firearms that might be sold at gun shows somehow find their way into criminal activity. Oh, and that is a reason to set up a whole new Federal bureaucracy, a brand new hurdle over which we ask the law-biding citizens to adhere? I think not. The wonderful thing about law-abiding citizens is they obey the law. Sometimes they are very frustrated by it, but they obey the law. Thank goodness most of the citizens in our country believe so strongly in obeying the law. All of the examples, I believe, Senator Reed has given and the reason he can report on them is because the examples are of people who broke the law, were apprehended by the law, and did the time or were convicted and are serving time. That is the reality of what we are about. I am one of the coauthors of the NICS Instant Background Check System, and I am going to push to get it as accurate as we possibly can, and we ought to apply that to all federally licensed firearm commerce. But to suggest to the individual, whether they are inside the gun show or outside the gun show, that if you are not in the business of selling a firearm, you, too, must comply, I don't think that is the case. I hope my colleagues will agree with me. May I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the Senator from Texas having arrived, I say to him I have 6 minutes left in the allocated time under the unanimous consent agreement and would be happy to yield to the Senator for the use of that time. I yield to the Senator from Texas all but 30 seconds of my remaining time.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 9:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. tomorrow be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further, that the time from 11:15 to 11:25 a.m. be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, and the time from 11:25 to 11:35 a.m. be under the control of the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank Senator Reid for reinforcing the UC and the time constraints we are under tomorrow as we vote on several key amendments. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. Let me say I don't question the sincerity or the desire with which the Senator from New Mexico comes to the floor to offer his amendment. I must tell you I think he is rewriting current law to fit a situation in his State, or attempting to do so. What we have always said here is individuals are responsible for their acts, not a third party or, in this case, the third party is responsible and not the gun manufacturer. It is my understanding all three of these young people were minors; they acquired the gun off the street. You have heard the Senator from Alabama talk about the knowledge of handling a firearm and the tragic mistake some make when they assume it is empty. Any of us who have ever taken a course in firearms knows that, first and foremost, that is the one assumption you never make. That gun has to be presumed to be loaded until you yourself establish by visual contact it is not. The Bingaman amendment would modify the definition of reasonably foreseeable in product defect cases in such a way it would undermine clearly the purpose of S. 1805 and undo the Daschle amendment we worked in compromise and balance to bring. Rather than leave criminal and unlawful misuse out of the definition of reasonably foreseeable use, like S. 1805 and the Daschle amendment does, the Bingaman amendment would define the term reasonably foreseeable in product defect cases to mean the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result. We don't think that is how this argument ought to be approached. Again, there is this great desire in our country that somehow the individual cannot be held responsible, that somehow it was somebody else's fault. The case the Senator speaks of is, without question, tragic. That I don't dispute, and my heart goes out to the families in those kinds of incidents, where young people become involved in the misuse of a firearm and it takes someone's life or injures them. We hope that does not happen. Again, we have to go back to the underlying principle of responsibility, and in the case of well and long-established court law, it is the individual who is responsible, and if their act causes injury, they are responsible. Certainly, that is the intent and the very narrow character of S. 1805. There are lawsuits filed for the purpose of changing public policy in our country or simply, if you will, draining down the resources of a company that someone believes should not be in business, even though historically we have said that is a law-abiding, responsible business to be in in our country. In this case, it is a business that was spoken to by our Founding Fathers in the second amendment. We think those who play by the Federal rules, whether they be a manufacturer or a dealer, ought to be exempt from these kinds of lawsuits, unless under product liability and other law they clearly are in violation. But the third party is the one who takes the action, causes the crime that is the criminal act. Why do we want to reach back through the courts and go after the law-abiding individual or company? That is the issue at hand. I know the Senator speaks to a specific version of that, but at the same time that is the reality with which we deal here. I hope my colleagues, when we vote at 5 or soon after that, will object to the Bingaman amendment in support of a clean S. 1805. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Following?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1805, the gun liability bill. The unanimous consent agreement from Friday provides for approximately 4 hours of debate in relation to two proposed amendments that will be voted on tomorrow. The debate today will center around the gun show loophole amendment and the assault weapons ban amendment. I will manage time on our side during this period, so Senators are welcome to come to the floor to speak. Following the debate, at 4 p.m. today, Senator Bingaman will offer his amendment relating to definition. Under the order, that debate will go until 5 o'clock, at which time we will vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment. Therefore, the first vote of today's session will occur at 5 o'clock. The consent agreement governing the remaining consideration of the gun manufacturers' liability bill allows for further debate tomorrow morning prior to a series of stacked votes on a number of amendments. There will be as many as seven stacked votes, including final passage, in that series of votes, which will begin at 11:35 a.m. on Tuesday. Members can therefore expect final passage of S. 1805 tomorrow afternoon.