Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Connecticut from my time. I do not want him to feel I have impugned his good name in any sense.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senator Kennedy has a copy of this straightforward amendment that strengthens the current armor-piercing bullet law. It does a couple of things. It says the Attorney General shall commission a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor is feasible and what impact it would have on sporting and hunting endeavors. It includes within the issues to be studied variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or the centerfired rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount of powder used to propel the projectile. The Attorney General shall deliver such report to the chairman and the ranking member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee within 2 years of the date of the enactment of this legislation. This became the core of the debate between the Senator from Massachusetts and myself. What does ``performance-based standards'' mean, and how do they impact legitimate sporting and hunting ammunition? Also, insert as new, 18 USC, 924: (5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction [under title 18 USC 924]-- ``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; ``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition-- ``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and ``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.'' What are we doing? We are adding real teeth to current law. We are saying to the criminal element and the drug trafficking element in our country, if you use armor-piercing ammunition in your firearm and it maims or kills a law enforcement officer, we will put you away for life. That is what we are going to do. We do not tolerate it. We never have. The current law serves effectively, but if there is a sentence, then let's toughen it, let's strengthen it, let's give stronger positions to the law enforcement community of this country. That is the crux of the bill. It is straightforward. It is simple. We think it offers what certainly all of us want to see and what the law enforcement community of this country needs. I hope the Frist-Craig amendment will be accepted. It is a straightforward amendment. If the Senator would make himself available, we can conclude this debate, set this amendment aside, and move to the next amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator. I believe we have one of our colleagues still yet to come so we will wait for him for a short time. Time is running on this amendment. How much time remains on this side?

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

Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time. The unanimous consent we are operating under moves us to two votes, the Cantwell unemployment extension and the Frist voting rights. Have the yeas and nays been called on both of these amendments?

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

Mr. CRAIG. If the minority leader will yield, it is my fault. I apologize. We will place ourselves in a quorum until they have copies. It is brief and to the point and easy to understand for everyone. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I apologize once again to the Senator from Maryland that the stand-beside amendment I offer in conjunction with hers was not delivered to her. We have a stand-beside Frist-Craig amendment to the Corzine amendment, which may follow immediately. We are copying that now to make sure Senator Corzine and the other side has a copy of it. My amendment, as you can see, is really very simple, but it is also extremely important. It is simple in this respect: 55 cosponsors of S. 1805 have cosponsored S. 1805 because of its narrowness, of its cleanliness in the fact that we do not clutter up a lot of laws and we create one very limited but very important exemption, and that is junk lawsuits filed by a third party cannot reach through and suggest that someone who produces a legal product can be held liable for that product unless they have broken the law or a person selling that product is not held liable for that product unless they have broken the law. My amendment says, in essence, if an action involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo meets any of the exceptions of S. 1805, the action will not be barred by this bill. Again, what are those exceptions? Well, I have read them earlier. Let me repeat them. They are very clearly outlined in section 4 of the bill, and what we say is: The term ``qualified civil liability action'' means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party. In other words, if that third party is a guy who breaks the law, but the seller and the manufacturer are not, then the judge looks at that and makes that determination and says no. But here in the case in Maryland and in Virginia, if it is found that: an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted-- ``Transferee,'' in this case, in my opinion, at least, is Bull's Eye. They are the ones responsible for that firearm. They are the ones that would have sold it legally. In this case it was stolen from their shop. It appears to have gone unreported. Secondly: an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. . . . So we have not swept that away nor will we sweep that away. In fact, I believe we strengthen it, and so does the Congressional Research Service. While there may be a difference of opinion on that, I think what is significant is that Senator Daschle and I agree. We teamed up together to strengthen this and to clarify it. Quoting the Congressional Research Service, our amendment: would strike ``knowingly and willfully'' in the preceding sentence, potentially increasing the likelihood that this exception to the general immunity afforded under the bill would be applicable in any given case. In this case, it probably strengthens the position we are dealing with here, as the Senator from Maryland and I visit about it. The third exception that clearly could be applicable, and that my amendment says if found is applicable, in the Muhammad and Malvo case: an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. In other words, relief for these families who were the victims of John Muhammad and John Lee Malvo. I believe it is a clear, clean amendment. I don't think it is ambiguous at all. But it does argue one premise in the law that always must be argued, and that is, did Bull's Eye break the law? Well, we are investigating that now. Did the manufacturer of the Bushmaster in any way violate the law? That is probably getting investigated, too, although even the Brady Center doesn't impugn in any way that the manufacturer was involved in this. Those are the facts. In other words, what I am suggesting by this amendment, what I believe is still clear in 1805, is that we are not exempting the victims of the sniper shootings of DC and the Virginia and Maryland area. It is not our intent to do so. It is our intent to allow them to go to court. It is our intent to allow them to argue this before a judge. It is our intent to allow a judge to make a decision based on these exceptions and now the clearly respelled out exceptions in the Frist-Craig amendment as to whether, based on this law, there can be compensation to these families from, in this instance, a dealer and a manufacturer. That is the essence of it. I don't believe the courthouse door is locked. All attorneys are entitled to their own opinions. Everybody reads the law a bit differently. So is my opinion stronger than your opinion? I know what my intent is. I know what Senator Daschle's intent is. I know our intent is not to lock the courthouse door. We believe we don't. And it has been thoroughly checked by numerous lawyers. We think our amendment is sound. I am going to ask the Senate not to gut the underlying 1805 but to vote for the Frist-Craig amendment which will not only strengthen the amendment, strengthen the position but, I believe, fulfill the concern and the arguments of the Senator from Maryland. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the opposition has yielded back all their time.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be as brief as possible. The hour is late. I know the Senator from New Jersey speaks with a good heart, and I appreciate that. I think we all do. He mentioned two important words just in the last of his closing debate. He mentioned the word ``criminal,'' criminal action, the right to sue, and he mentioned ``negligence'' and the right to sue. Then he said: We block that policeman from the courthouse door. I must ask him to return to page 7 of the bill, exception one and exception two: an action brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h) of title 18, United States Code, or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferee is so convicted. . . . He is talking about criminal action. That action is deemed as a criminal act in the law. How about negligence? Well, it is the next one down. It is No. 2: an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. . . . Let me tell you what the FOP says. I think we all know what the FOP is. That is the Fraternal Order of Police, some 311,000 strong. They oppose the Corzine amendment. We have just visited with them. They called us and they said: Why? Because they do not believe it accomplishes what they would like accomplished, and they like the underlying law. I think it is fundamentally important that we try to build clean principles within the law. I would have to agree with the Senator from New Jersey that policeman is not going to file or have his attorneys file a junk lawsuit. The Senator is absolutely right. But 31 apparently have been filed, some are under appeals, and 21 of them have been thrown out of court by judges who said: Go away, because that is what this lawsuit is. Now, oftentimes the municipality and/or the individuals and/or the county will file it in the name of a fallen officer. I can understand the emotion. I think we all feel it. But the judge said the law is the law and there was no basis, and he threw them out. Yet it cost the industry--the law-abiding industry--hundreds of millions of dollars. It is beginning to weaken many of our legitimate, legal gun manufacturers, that oftentimes build the firearm that officer carries on his side to protect himself and his fellow officers in the commission of their responsibilities. We should not be doing that as a country. But clearly we must insist that the law be clear, unambiguous, and that the officer have his day in court if he is harmed by a criminal or by someone who has acted in a criminal way, someone who has violated the law, someone, through negligence, has somehow caused a firearm to get into the hands of a criminal. Then the case is brought, and S. 1805 does not block that. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the Frist-Craig amendment and the Corzine amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no objection.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are now on S. 1805. Last night, Senator Reed and I worked into the evening with our colleagues and leadership on both sides to craft a unanimous consent that now governs us through late next Tuesday. It establishes a variety of amendments that will be voted on over the course of today. Some will be offered and set aside to be voted on on Tuesday. On Tuesday, other key amendments will be voted on and then final passage. I am sure there are some Members on both sides who might have amendments that were not listed to be considered for votes today and/or Tuesday. What I would ask them to do is come to the Chamber and talk to Senator Reed and myself to see if we might work those out certainly. We are happy to take a look at them. There may be an opportunity late Tuesday and possibly Friday to offer additional amendments. The unanimous consent request does not preclude any Member from doing that. I said very early on yesterday that we wanted an open, robust debate on this issue. Clearly, 75 Members of this Senate, in a very bipartisan way, said let's get on with it, with the cloture vote yesterday. We spent the day then fashioning an agreement that brings us to where we are this morning. I believe it is possible Senator Daschle will be in the Chamber in a few moments to offer a perfecting amendment, then Senator Boxer will have an amendment on gunlocks. I believe the agreement that is in front of us gives us something that oftentimes is very hard to achieve in the Senate, and that is a procedure and a final passage locked into an agreement. While Senator Reed and I worked late into the evening, as I mentioned, to allow that to happen, and all sides gave a little in it, what I think we have in front of us is just that, an agreement that allows a variety of Senators, who have been prominent in this debate on both sides of the issue, to offer their amendments and to have a vote. The timelines are very limited. We are not going to filibuster in any of this. It is clear that when there are 20-, 30- and 60-minute time limits to be shared equally, it does shape and limit the debate in a way that many of us would like to see. Certainly on Tuesday, key votes are going to be the McCain-Reed gun show loophole and Senator Feinstein's gun ban, or assault weapon ban as it is argued. Those clearly will be the dominant issues on one side. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, conceal/carry will be another one voted on on that day, and possibly debate. I will debate that along with Senator Campbell today. It is on the list to accomplish today. Possibly we will also have another amendment to be voted on on Tuesday which deals with Washington, DC, and some of the gun laws that free and law-abiding citizens have to cope with in this city. That is the character of what we have been able to put together. Senator Reed, the manager on the other side, is now in the Chamber. I yield the floor for any comments he would wish to make. Timewise, we hope Senator Daschle can make it to the Chamber to offer his amendment, but if he cannot, at this moment I see no reason Senator Boxer could not proceed with her amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we expect a second-degree amendment to be here to modify and perfect the Boxer amendment. I want to speak about the Boxer amendment because I in no way discredit--I guess the best way to say it--fail to recognize the same kind of concerns Senator Boxer has expressed. She is correct. The Senate has expressed its will on this issue in the past. But let me bring you up to date about what the gun industry is doing now. Clearly, the gun industry is responding very quickly to new technologies and what is available to make sure firearms are safe, if you will, from the curiosity of a child and a child who might misuse it. Tragically enough, when children find a firearm, there is great curiosity. There are organizations out there that have worked awfully hard to educate firearms owners and parents about the reality of a gun placed in a home in an unsafe environment, or not locked behind a door, or in a situation where a child can't gain access to it. That is simply critical in the responsible ownership and handling of a gun. Ninety percent of new guns in the United States are already sold with a safe storage device. The Senator from California is right, the devices vary, but so do guns and so do the conformation and structure of guns. It will be very difficult to suggest that one size fits all. The industry, with its engineers and its technology and its computers, is devising trigger locks and safety devices that fit the particular firearm. This is done through a voluntary program with the firearms industry. Tremendous numbers of gunshops today--responsible, federally registered gunshops--are providing free of charge a trigger lock or a safety device as the weapon is sold. Many States and locales, such as Texas, have distributed safety devices free of charge, either in cooperation with the firearms industry or on their own initiative. Trigger locks are mechanical devices. Like all mechanical devices they can fail if they are not well designed, and if their owners are not instructed on how to use them properly. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently tested 32 types of gunlocks and found 30 could be opened without a key. That is why, clearly, uniformity is necessary. The Senator spoke to that uniformity. But quality gun manufacturers in this country are already providing safety devices which are critical and necessary. What I am trying to suggest is these devices are not a panacea that reduces all accidents. Clearly, if we can get most handguns in America in safe and responsible hands and in homes with safety devices or locked in a safe or locked in a device where a child cannot gain access, that is going to reduce the kinds of tragic accidents that occur when a small child in a curious way finds the gun that may not have been placed in a safe place by a parent. Gunlocks are designed to address what I believe is a narrow range of threats. At the same time, when a child's life is lost, how tragic it is, and all of us understand that. Of course, then it makes tremendous news and the world wonders why this is happening. The reason it happens is because in many instances there was a parent who was less than responsible, who really didn't lock that gun up. At the same time, let's also recognize the phenomenal complication involved. Sometimes guns are placed in locations in homes for security and for safety, and easy access is critically important if that gun is to be used for the purpose of personal and property safety depending on the area in which a family lives or an individual lives. At the same time, that does not deny the responsibility that is important. Gunlocks address that narrow range of threats. Clearly, they will deter the casual curiosity of a small child far more readily than it will deter what I say is the committed thief or the person bent on murder and mayhem. Some suggest a gunlock means a thief in the house will not steal the gun. Wrong. That simply is not the case. It simply means the thief will take the gun, take it out, knock the gunlock off, have it cut off, take it away so they can have access to a stolen firearm. That is the reality of thieves stealing guns. This narrow range we are talking about and that we want to make sure stays is to deter that casual curiosity of the small child. The firearms industry is already trying to develop standards to improve these devices. The industry has sought the creation of an industry standard for gun safety locks through the American National Standards Institute. The ANSI review process is well underway. In other words, because the gun industry is a responsible industry, they are well out in front of us already on legislation. No, there aren't absolute mandatory requirements across the Nation. But recognizing the reality and the tragedy that occurs on occasion, we want to make sure, and the industry certainly wants to make sure, that they are well out in front of it. In a few moments we will have a second-degree perfecting amendment to deal with this issue. I will reserve the remainder of my time until that amendment is here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we are on the Daschle amendment which I support. The minority leader has expressed the value of that amendment to the underlying bill, S. 1805. I will be very brief about it. We can have a vote on it and immediately move back to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to.

Mr. CRAIG. I do not see that need.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, when Senator Daschle and I began to visit about the issue of liability to gun manufacturers and responsible licensed gun dealers, we wanted to make sure it was as narrow as I expressed yesterday that it would be. Senator Daschle came up with some ideas that would strike the ``knowing and willing'' in the preceding sentences, potentially increasing the likelihood that this exception in the general immunity afforded under the law would be applicable in any given case. That is what we did. They are two very distinct provisions. I discussed them last night. I will not go into them today for the record. But we handed that work over to the Congressional Research Service. What they have said is this: Applying these changes to the scenarios at issue--and those relate both to manufacturers and gun sales--it appears the amendment could have the effect of making it more likely that this exception to immunity would be applicable in certain facts, as established. In other words, we truly have clarified the immunity provision. It is every bit as narrow as we said it was, that all current Federal laws pertaining to the mismanagement, mishandling, the criminal actions that are in violation of a Federal firearm license or that are in violation of a manufacturers responsibility are adhered to. I believe the amendment is a good one. It perfects and improves S. 1805. I encourage its passage.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. I do not object to that request, Madam President.