Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have worked a long day and through what this time last night was appearing to be a very complicated unanimous consent. But I think it flowed well today. All of our colleagues worked hard, and we have been able to meet all but one vote we had on that unanimous consent. It is my understanding that it is possible Senator Bingaman will offer his amendment in the morning.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his cooperation in working with us to facilitate this bill today, to move it in a timely way and get the votes necessary throughout the day. He has worked hard, along with all of us, to get that accomplished. We have had several votes. Let me also thank, midway through this, my staff and certainly the staff of the Judiciary Committee and others who worked to make sure we had the information in a timely way to move forward. It is my understanding this is the last vote of the day.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 26 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Public Diplomacy and International Free Press.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nominations of the Hon. Alphonso R. Jackson, of Texas, to be Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Hon. Linda Mysliwy Conlin, of New Jersey, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and Ms. Rhonda Keenum, of Mississippi, to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Director General of the United States and Foreign Commercial Services.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday February 26 at 2:30 p.m. to receive testimony on the nomination of Susan Johnson Grant to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Building 226. Agenda: I. Nominations: Henry W. Saad to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Raymond W. Gruender to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Franklin S. Van Antwerpen to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Judith C. Herrera to be United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico, F. Dennis Saylor to be United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, Sandra L. Townes to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Louis Guirola, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, Virginia E. Hopkins to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, Kenneth M. Karas to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, Richard S. Martinez to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, Gene E.K. Pratter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Neil Vincent Wake to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, Michele M. Leonhart to be Deputy Administrator of Drug Enforcement, Domingo S. Herraiz to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States Department of Justice. select committee on intelligence

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 26, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this second session of the 108th Congress to Reed O'Connor, a detailee from the Department of Justice to the majority staff of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the leader has obviously taken time. We thought we were going to have an hour on each side. Is the vote still scheduled for 10:30, or does the leader's time count in that?

Mr. CRAIG. I think we can live with that.

Mr. CRAIG. I believe several of my colleagues will want to be on the floor to speak prior to the cloture vote. As the leadership has said, there is a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. We will vote on that at 10:30 this morning. I regret that a few of our colleagues are forcing us to go through this procedural step instead of simply moving to the bill. This bill is supported by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate, and I believe as we work our way through it, that kind of bipartisan relationship will clearly demonstrate itself. More than half the Senators, as I have said, both Republicans and Democrats, are cosponsors of our legislation, including the leadership of both parties. A very similar bill passed in the House nearly a year ago by a 2-to-1 vote margin, or nearly that margin. Some of our colleagues have already announced they intend to play politics with this bill instead of debating its merits. They have already announced their intention to throw a variety of nonrelated bills or amendments at this important--the legislation my guess is to attempt to divert the legislation and delay the completion of its consideration. However, I believe this morning's vote will demonstrate that a majority of the Senate is, indeed, ready to proceed to this bill and to debate it, as we should, offer legitimate amendments, debate those amendments fully, and vote them up or down if necessary. This legislation addresses a crisis in our courts and the integrity of our courts because our courts are now threatened by the kind of lawsuits that are simply not necessary but politically motivated. For a long time, the trial bar has attempted to use the court system to legislate social policy or legal activity in this country. What this bill does, and what we have worked to do and why it has gained the support it has, is craft a very narrow exception in the law so that we still hold those responsible accountable for their actions under all laws. What we have always said within the law is that someone cannot be held accountable for someone else's actions, and if someone is attempting to reach back through the law when someone is innocent and legal in their acts, then that kind of thing ought to stop. That is why we have worked hard to craft it narrowly. I think Americans clearly understand what we are attempting to do, and that is our goal. I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of cloture so that we can get into the full and robust debate of this legislation. It is important. I will turn to my colleague, Senator Reed, who will be handling the opposition, and then I believe at that time we will probably have several of our colleagues who wish to speak to it. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. I did it fairly. You are here on the floor. We will talk about this more in the hours to come. Let me yield to my colleague from the great State of Texas.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. May I inquire of the time remaining for both sides?

Mr. CRAIG. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to make his closing comments before I make mine, what time does he have left?

Mr. CRAIG. All right. It is obvious, Mr. President, by those who have already come to the floor, that this will be a very spirited debate. The great tragedy of debates such as this is that they oftentimes fail to read the bill before them, and they make the kinds of salient political statements that have nothing to do with the legislation at all. I invite my colleagues, on S. 1805, to go to section 4 of the bill and see how narrowly we have crafted this bill to go directly at civil lawsuits that involve a third party criminal act and trying to reach back through the courts and back through the law to say to a licensed, legitimate, legal firearms dealer or a licensed, legal gun manufacturer that they have to be responsible for the criminal act of another. That simply has not been the basis of law in our country ever, nor should it be allowed to be the basis of law today. But if that gun manufacturer and if that licensed gun dealer violate civil law, violate the law of the land, then this bill does not hold them harmless. That is the crux of the issue. That is what is important about this legislation. There are a lot of ways to achieve a political goal in this country. Many have found that you can file frivolous and junk lawsuits in the court, and you can slowly but surely bleed down those who you file them against because they have to come and defend themselves, even though the courts constantly throw out these lawsuits. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent by legitimate gun manufacturers that make those fine weapons for our men and women in Iraq, that make those fine weapons for our civil law enforcement officers wearing the blue uniforms on the streets of America. They would say to them: No, we are going to bust those companies. And guess where that cop is going to get his gun. From China or Yugoslavia. Or our men and women in uniform are going to have to rely on foreign gun manufacturers because we have bankrupt and thrown out of this country those acting under the law in a legitimate way. That is what S. 1805 is about. It is not about the political agenda of many. It is about what we have said in this country is a legitimate product. We even said so in the Constitution. Most other products we do not talk about in the Constitution. They were not invented. But we did speak to guns and their value in this country. Now we are saying: No, we are going to play the political game. We are going to drag them through the courts. And they are going to spend all kinds of money to do so. I am not willing to hold anybody harmless who violates the law. I am not willing to hold anybody harmless who allegedly acts in a criminal way. Let's find out if they did. The courthouse door is not locked by S. 1805. The courthouse door is still open. This law will be applied in arguments before the court. A judge will make the determination of whether S. 1805 fits or it does not fit. Was the licensed dealer or the gun manufacturer acting in a legal way or acting against current Federal law? That is how narrowly we have defined it. Even the minority leader, Senator Daschle, has joined with me to clarify and refine this bill even more--he will be to the floor to speak to that issue--as we worked to make sure we are on point directing this specifically at those who continually play the game at the legal bar of this country to file the frivolous or the junk lawsuits to drive a legitimate operating American company and industry out of business. I hope my colleagues will come now and vote on the cloture motion to allow us to proceed so we can fully debate the bill, bring the necessary amendments that others will have for or against the purpose of this legislation. We will vote them up or down and move it through the Senate. That is our job. I know there are a lot of issues that are important. But there are a lot of Americans who view this as a very important issue for our country. I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I hope now, with a vote of 75 to 22, we could move on to the bill. Certainly, it is our intent to allow this bill to be debated fully and for amendments to be offered. Time is running. Some Senators spoke this morning to the urgency of time to get on to other issues. Certainly, that is important to all of us. So I hope we would be able to do so. I hope now that Senators could come to the floor with their arguments, but most importantly I hope we could move to the bill itself. As you know, under the cloture rule there would be allowed 30 hours. I hope those in opposition would not take that 30 hours and allow us to get to the bill. What we are trying to do in S. 1805 is very narrowly go through the law and allow law-abiding gun manufacturers and law- abiding dealers to be exempt from the kind of harassment and junk lawsuits that we have now seen filed in over 30-plus different venues over the last several years. All those cases then brought to court were thrown out of the court, and the reason was quite simple. The judge looked at them and said: This lawsuit is of no value. Here you had a law-abiding manufacturer, adhering to the laws of the United States, making a legitimate product, and that person cannot be responsible for a third party action that might have been a criminal action and the trial bar trying to reach through that person to a legitimate gun manufacturer or to a licensed gun dealer. In doing so I believe these suits were intended, of course, to drive the gun industry out of business by holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the intention and the criminal acts of that third party over whom we all know they have had absolutely no control. Lawsuits have been filed in multiple States with demands of massive monetary damages on a broad and varying range of injunctive relief relating to the design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, and the sale of firearms. These demands, if granted, would create major judicially imposed restrictions on interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition. Let me, though, say with that comment, this deals with civil cases, not product liability. If a gun malfunctions and someone is damaged, or if the gun manufacturer and the gun dealer were violating civil law, then, of course, this issue that we are debating today has no value. We have clearly narrowed it and cleanly gone after the very kind of lawsuit that we have, as I mentioned, seen over the last several years. The bill does something very important to the underlying principles of our country. It reinforces centuries of legal precedent based on individual responsibility, not responsibility for actions of third parties. Law is based on the act of the individual, and that ought to be the basis of all law. Yet what these lawsuits would argue is that somehow a legitimate, legal manufacturer of a product is liable for the way the product is used. I have oftentimes said: What about an automobile? Certainly that is a legitimate product on the road. What about an automobile dealer licensed in his State to sell automobiles? If someone takes the automobile designed to give ultimate pleasure and to move people from one point to another and they get drunk and go out and get in their vehicle and kill someone, does the trial bar then say that it is the automobile dealer and the automobile manufacturer who are liable for the drunk driver who killed someone? That is what they are trying to say and that is exactly the fundamental argument here. That is why we think it is time this Congress deal with it in a forthright way. The House argued this issue over a year ago and, by a 2-to-1 vote said: No, we are not going to let this kind of lawsuit go forward. But they did something our bill also does. We didn't lock the courthouse door. Some will argue this simply locks any person out of the courthouse who might place an argument against a gun manufacturer or licensed firearm dealer. The answer to that is absolutely not. This will be a basis in the law by which lawyers will argue before a judge whether these kinds of charges can legitimately be brought based on the evidence at hand. The judge will then make the decision based on the law as to how we proceed. Many judges, as I have mentioned, have outright rejected these suits already. They literally clutter up the judicial system. Antigun activists are trying to destroy tort law by creating totally new and expansive theories of liability to win restrictions that have been rejected in the legislative process. What does that mean? If you can't win it on the floor of the U.S. Senate or in the legislatures of your States, then you get a good attorney and you go before the court and try to argue it there and establish some kind of judicial precedent. I have already suggested that we do not lock the courthouse door, that we simply allow the argument to be placed. We think that, of course, is important to all citizens, having their day in court and their right to argue it. Would this bill affect several high-profile cases such as the lawsuit against a gun dealer in Takoma, WA, a store where the DC snipers, John Muhammad and Lee Malvo, got their rifle? Well, it won't, and here is the reason it won't. In the case of that situation, Malvo himself said he stole the gun. What we are also finding is that this particular gun dealer may not have operated in the most legitimate of ways, even though the case will not be brought. There is a criminal investigation underway. The BATF has jerked the license of the gun dealer. The business is now out of business, and it is my understanding that the BATF has asked the Justice Department to file felony charges against the gun dealer. Even within that argument, you have the contradiction of the person who did the shooting saying: I stole the gun. And, of course, you have a gun dealer who may have operated illegally. Certainly that is a case in action, although what is important is this particular bill won't affect that. If that gun dealer in Takoma, WA, is found liable, if he acted in a criminal way, if he mismanaged his records that he must keep in a way that distorted what he had and guns were stolen and he never allowed that to be known, then he is at risk. I am not a lawyer. So I can't go to the next step of that argument, and I will not. But what I do know and what we have insisted on in the crafting of S. 1805 is that it be very straightforward and very clear. Senator Daschle has incorporated within this an amendment that I have accepted. He may bring some fine-tuning to the floor. He, too, believes we need to deal with this issue. But he is fine-tuning to make sure what I just said is absolutely clear in the law. There will be no arbitrary way for someone to wiggle through the law. Does the bill wipe out century-old tort law principles? The answer is quite simply, no. The bill reinforces the century-old legal tenet of personal responsibility that underlies all of our judicial system. Individuals and businesses are responsible for the harm they cause. Let me repeat that. Individuals and businesses are responsible for the harm they cause--not for the action of third parties beyond their control. The bill protects the rights of truly injured parties. The exceptions allow for legitimate and recognized causes of action. Manufacturers or sellers of firearms or ammunition could still be sued if they violated Federal or State law, manufactured defective products, violated contracts or warranties, or knowingly sold guns to irresponsible and/or dangerous individuals. The law is still out there. The law still provides recourse for an individual who would fall within those categories. But to suggest that the actions of a third party, or the criminal act of a third party, is the opportunity to reach through the court by the trial bar to go after the manufacturer of a legitimate legal, law- abiding approach or product simply should not be allowed. Most importantly, antigun activist lawyers are the ones who are trying to distort the law by fabricating new theories for imposing liability only after having repeatedly failed to cast their political agenda right here or in our State legislatures. Just a few years ago, they admitted this when their legislative allies introduced a bill that would have expressly created a new Federal cause of action against a manufacturer, a dealer, or importer who knew or reasonably should have known that its design, manufacturing, marketing, importation, sale, or distribution practices would likely result in gun violence. How can anyone suggest that any action of the sale of a gun, if it is done legally, results in violence? That is the reality of what we dealt with. There are a good many more issues that we will have an opportunity to discuss in the course of this. It looks as if Senator Kennedy is on the floor to debate the bill. I reserve my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from California is now in the Chamber to discuss this bill. We are not on the bill yet. I hope we can get there. The Senator from Massachusetts has taken ample time to discuss the bill, I guess, and other issues. I would like to talk about jobs. I think the Senator is right to talk about jobs, but what he didn't talk about were the jobs in Westfield, MA, at Savage Firearms. They used to be a total of 500 high-paying union jobs strong. They have spent over half a million dollars fighting the lawsuits that we would like to prohibit. Now there they are 160 strong. They have lost jobs in Massachusetts. I want the Senator from Massachusetts to stand with me and protect the hard-working men and women at Savage Firearms. The bill is about jobs, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts. That is what this issue is all about. Why is our bill endorsed by the United Steelworkers and by the United Auto Workers? The reason it is endorsed is because these high-paying jobs at law-abiding gun manufacturing locations are being eliminated by the glut of a thousand lawsuits--in this case over 30--where they have had to go to court, spend a lot of money, and the court threw it out because it was frivolous, but the company was less viable because these are really not big companies. If we took all of the firearms manufacturers in the United States today and brought them all into one company, they would be smaller than a Fortune 500 company. Let me read a great quote from the Colt manufacturers, Colt firearms. They are located in Connecticut: We today have 383 members from the Colt workforce. By comparison, about 5 years ago, we had over 600 Colt workers who were members of our local. Our members built the finest small arms in the world, including the M-4 carbine, the M-16 rifle, and the M-203 grenade launcher. I believe those are the firearms of our military. Many of them were shipped to the U.S. military and lawfully provided for the principles of democracy. That company is at risk today unless we pass the kind of legislation about which we are talking. I do believe the working men and women of this country are a special interest. I think the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners in our country are a special interest. So it is really a matter of how you define ``special interest.'' If it has been said once on the floor, it has been said 15 times in the last 45 minutes: special interest, special interest, special interest. Let's talk about the working men and women of the firearms industry. Let's talk about the law-abiding gun owners of America as a special interest of us, this country, all Americans. You are darn right we debate special interests on the floor of the Senate, but it really is a matter of definition. Time limit? We are not proposing a time limit. Senators can speak for up to an hour on this issue now, and if they want to, they have 30 hours postcloture before we get to the bill. I hope we don't spend all of that time doing that. I would like to get to the bill. I know the Senator from California has talked about an amendment. I think she would probably want to offer that amendment and have it amply debated. We do not want to limit time, but we do want to talk about special interests: law-abiding gun owners in our country, working men and women of the law-abiding gun manufacturers, the people who work at legal gun shops all over this country that by law are licensed and that by law carry out the law. That is what we are talking about today. Call them a special interest, if you will. I do. My job is to try, under the law, to protect them from the kinds of frivolous lawsuits the trial bar has decided to bring in court after court because they couldn't gain legislation on the floor to change the character of our country. That is the issue at hand. I am glad the Senator from Massachusetts has come to talk about special interests. I wish he would understand that the hard-working men and women in Westfield, MA, for Savage Firearms are, in fact, a special interest--a special interest of mine and, I am quite confident, a special interest of his. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from Texas, let me make a couple of comments in response to what my colleagues have been saying this morning. Let's take the gun dealer in Tacoma, WA who is alleged to have sold to the sniper who held this area hostage for a time with a gun. His license has been revoked. There is a criminal investigation, and BATF has asked the Justice Department to file felony charges against the dealer. The business is now closed and broke. In other words, what I am saying is if this licensed gun dealer violated current law, he will be shut down. What we are talking about here again is a narrow piece of legislation that deals with civil liability--not product liability--and in the case of current Federal law it does not touch it. The day in court comes. But what the Senator from Connecticut didn't say is even his own gun manufacturers and their associations in those some 30-plus lawsuits have spent millions and millions of dollars before the court system defending themselves, and to date the judges have thrown them out. This is called ``death through attrition'' by simply taking to the courts and constantly bringing to the courts these kinds of arguments. Here is the reality.

Mr. CRAIG. I can't yield at this time. My time is limited. We are going to be on this for days, as the Senator knows. We will debate it thoroughly. But what he is suggesting is running the risk of losing all of his gun manufacturers and the hundreds of jobs that are out there. He is concerned about jobs. I think he would be concerned about keeping the jobs he has in his home State. That is part of this discussion.

Mr. CRAIG. I can't yield. Time is limited.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will be brief. The Senator from Ohio has been on the floor a good long while and deserves to be heard. As you know, we are in a postcloture environment on a motion to proceed. I would hope by early afternoon we can actually get on the bill and begin to consider some amendments on this critical piece of legislation. It has been portrayed by many in many different ways. I would ask the Senators to pick up this very small document, 1805. In fact, there are exactly 11 pages of big print so all of us can clearly read it. I ask Senators to go to section 4 of the bill and read what we are doing. In a very narrow way, we are denying a third party the ability to reach through the law and say to a law-abiding gun manufacturer and a law-abiding firearms dealer: When you sold that weapon, it down the road got misused in a criminal act and, therefore, you are responsible. Shame on us for suggesting that as a basis of law today in our country. We have denied it. We have always held the individual responsible. That is clearly where we ought to go. That is why I think this ought to be a clean bill. There are some who want to offer different amendments. We can deal with them on a different day in a different way. Let's keep this bill clean. This is tort reform in the very narrowest of margins, and I hope Senators can work with us to make sure that in final passage we have a clean bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues again that we are in a postcloture environment. We are hoping we can get on the bill and hoping we can look at some amendments. I do have to respond to try to keep this debate clear and honest and the Record representing what it ought to represent. My colleague from Illinois says the reason we have this debate today is because of George W. Bush. He forgot that 10 Democrat cosponsors and his own leadership are cosponsoring this bill and are openly advocating its passage. This is not about George W. Bush. This is about the rights of Americans under existing law, and also frivolous third-party lawsuits that we ought to block. That is what the essence of this debate is about. Now, certainly the Senator from Illinois can say what he wishes to say on the floor. Will George W. Bush sign this bill if it gets to his desk? He says he will. I would think any law-abiding American U.S. President would want to preserve law in this country, the kind of law that would suggest that any President would want to reinforce centuries of legal precedents based on one premise, individual responsibility. Are we suggesting that, as the Senator from Illinois suggests, a gun manufacturer ought to be liable for a criminal act of a third party? Well, he used the word--let me see; I have written it down here-- ``establish a standard of use.'' I believe that was the term used. How many automobile dealers establish this standard of use of their product when it is manufactured in his State and sold in the marketplace, that it will be used safely and lawfully? Now, would any automobile manufacturer intentionally sell a car knowing a drunk was going to get in it and wipe out a teenager or a teenager wipe out an adult?