Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time remains?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes to speak on the amendment. I ask the Chair to alert me when 5 minutes have passed. I will then cede time to Senator Warner for 2 minutes and to Senator Schumer for 2 minutes.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I appreciate that. In 1999, even after the assault weapons ban had been law for almost 5 years, Dylan Klebold fired 55 shots from a TEC-DC9 at Columbine. The TEC-DC9, a gun manufactured before the ban took effect and thus grandfathered and legal, was obtained from a gun show and then used to kill his fellow students. It is my hope that over time and the way the bill is structured, the availability of these guns will dry up because what the legislation does is prohibit the manufacture and the sale of these weapons, not the possession. When they do dry up, the Dylan Klebolds of the world can no longer have access to them. The supply of these guns is not going to dry up, however, if the assault weapons ban sunsets in September. We would be giving Intratec and other such companies a renewed license to manufacture these military guns and market them elsewhere across the Nation. We specifically exempted 670 rifles and shotguns from the legislation so anybody who said, oh, my gun is going to be taken, could be reassured and we could show them we did not, in fact, take their gun. Although it may be difficult to read, this is the listing of the hunting guns and other recreational weapons protected in the legislation. It goes on and on. The Weatherby Mark V Sport Rifle, the Savage Model 111BC heavy barrel varmint rifle, and all centerfire rifles that are single shot, drillings, combination guns; shotguns-auto loaders; shotguns-slide actions; shotguns-over/unders; centerfire rifles-auto loaders; centerfire rifles-lever and slide; centerfire rifles-bolt action; shotguns-side by sides, shotguns-bolt actions and single shots. Total, 670 hunting weapons. The reason I did this is I approached some Members of the Senate and said, what do they need to support legislation? And they said they needed assurance that hunting weapons are not covered. We provided that assurance. That assurance has worked and no one has lost a single weapon on this list. The list includes every conceivable weapon: shotgun, rifle, et cetera. It is designed to protect the ability of innocent gunowners to keep their hunting weapons and to keep their guns for self-defense. The list of protected guns and the 9 years of accounting of history behind the ban show that the National Rifle Association's hysterical claims of gun confiscation are simply not true. I will speak about support for this legislation. As my colleagues can see from the list behind me, countless organizations, civic and law enforcement, are asking that this assault weapons legislation be reauthorized. At the top of the list we have the largest law enforcement organization in the Nation, the Fraternal Order of Police. We have the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Education Association the NAACP, and the list goes on. By latest poll, more than three-fourths of the American people, even two-thirds of gunowners, support reauthorizing the assault weapons legislation. So the will of the people could not be more clear. The American people know that these guns should not, once again, be manufactured and imported into the United States. We saw in the Columbine shooting, the Long Island Railroad shooting, and so many others that high-capacity assault weapons can make those who wield them temporarily invincible because it is so difficult to get close to them to disarm them. So the fate of this bill is in this Senate. In April of last year Presidential White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of the assault weapons legislation: The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law. That is what we are doing with this legislation, reauthorizing the current law, period. Now, I realize the President has expressed concern about amendments to the gun immunity bill that might delay its passage beyond this year, but the assault weapons legislation expires in less than 7 months and we cannot delay this bill beyond this year, either. I am hopeful that as people look back and they look at this terrible litany of events all across this Nation, in schoolyards, in businesses, in factories, in print shops, in law offices, wherever people congregate, they recognize that it is prudent to keep assault weapons off the streets of our American cities. As gangs move guns across State lines, they move assault weapons. So the ability to dry up this supply over time, the ability to prohibit their manufacture and their sale is what this legislation does. It has always puzzled me because the NRA says it is only cosmetic, it does not work, and I wonder, if it is only cosmetic why do they get so exercised about it? But it does work, because assault weapon gun traces to crimes have declined by two-thirds since this bill has passed. That is the proof. It has had an effect. That is why the NRA is calling offices today. That is why the NRA is asking Members not to vote for this: Because it has worked. I reserve the remainder of our time. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call the remaining time be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments and for his support. I very much appreciate it. One of the issues is that those States that have big cities see how these weapons are used, and in the big cities they are used by gangs. So the argument of the collector versus the argument of the majority who wants to be protected from these weapons is what we are talking about today. The distinguished Senator from Idaho referred to them as just semiautomatic firearms, really no different from other firearms. I do not see it that way at all. Many of these come with collapsable stocks. They come with 20-round clips. Two 30-round clips can be put together, and two banana clips, and have 60 rounds. The trigger can be adjusted so that with some of these weapons one can fire as many as, believe it or not, 30 bullets in 3 seconds. That cannot be done with a revolver and with most rifles. So these are different weapons, and those of us who support this legislation essentially believe they do not belong on our streets. No collector is stopped from collecting one of these weapons. A collector can still buy one of these weapons. What is stopped is the manufacture and sale of new weapons. The existing stock is still around. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the presence of the Senator from Ohio and cede 10 minutes of time to him.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I hope I will have an opportunity to rebut the distinguished Senator's comments. I find it very interesting that suddenly gun trace information is not acceptable information, but we can go out and do a survey of criminals, and that is an acceptable way of evaluating the success or failure of the assault weapons legislation. I don't buy it. In my view, tracing guns to crime is an appropriate way. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of a new report out on ``Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Civil Assaults Weapons Legislation.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton, and also Senators Reid and Lautenberg, to offer an amendment which is identical to S. 2109, introduced early last week. This amendment will simply reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban. It is a straight reauthorization. There is nothing added to it. The present legislation sunsets on September 13 of this year. As you and others know, the President has said he will sign a straight reauthorization. This is it. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Warner, who I hope will be here shortly to speak for himself. I very much appreciate his cosponsorship of this legislation. When the legislation came before this Senate 10 years ago, Senator Warner didn't support it. Therefore, his reconsideration of that position is all important. I won't give reasons for it. I believe that is up to him. I believe both he and Senators DeWine and Schumer will be utilizing the hour of our time. I ask that the Chair inform me when 15 minutes of the hour has passed, if I might. The issue of assault weapons is near and dear to my heart. It is not about politics or polls or interest groups. In my view, it is about real people and real lives. It is about the ability of working men and women and children to be safe from disgruntled employees or schoolmates who show up one day at a law firm or school or a place of business and fire away until the room becomes filled with dead and wounded colleagues. Unfortunately, in this society, we are always going to have some people who are prone to grievance killing. It is my belief the assault weapon, the military-style semiautomatic assault weapon, has become the weapon of choice for grievance killers. It is about the ability of children to learn, play, and grow without the fear that someone such as Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris would show up at Columbine High School with assault weapons and fire until the school is literally littered with bodies--a dozen students and a teacher murdered, more than two dozen others injured. It is about making sure our law enforcement officers can safely go about their duties and return home to their families at the end of the day, instead of finding themselves confronted, such as Officer James Guelff found himself in 1994, with assailants wearing body armor and firing from an arsenal of 2,000 rounds of ammunition and a cache of assault weapons. The officer was gunned down after 10 years of service, and it took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of a gunman clad in Kevlar carrying assault weapons. I first raised this issue in 1993, when I was a new Senator. I was determined to try to pass the assault weapons legislation as an amendment to the crime bill. Members told me: Forget it; the gun owners around here have too much authority. We would never be able to enact assault weapons legislation. I was told the NRA was simply too strong. Senator Biden, then-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said it would be a good learning experience for me, and, in fact, it was. It was the will of the American people, it turns out, that was stronger than any lobbying organization, even the National Rifle Association. And today, 77 percent of the American people and 66 percent of gun owners believe this legislation should be reauthorized. We got the bill passed, and America has been safer for it. In fact, the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes since this bill has passed has diminished by two-thirds. That is the fact. Assault weapons traced to crimes since the passage of this legislation have diminished by two-thirds. That is the good news. It is interesting, the NRA says: Oh, the ban doesn't work; it is just cosmetic; forget it. But the ban does work, and it was carefully put together. No gun owners have lost their weapon because of this legislation. No gun anywhere in America has been confiscated from a legal owner because of this ban. The sky did not fall. Life went on, but it went on with fewer grievance killings, fewer juveniles using them, fewer driveby shooters having access to the most dangerous of firearms. I want to talk about just a few of the guns we banned. The bill banned 19 specific assault weapons and then set up a physical characteristics test which, frankly, if given my way, I would toughen now. We have had more experience. We know gun manufacturers get around it. California has toughened the test and, basically, I would like to emulate that legislation. Clearly, the votes are not in this Chamber for it; certainly not in the other Chamber, and we probably would not be able to gain a Presidential signature. I probably used too optimistic a word by using ``probably.'' Let me say we would not be able to gain a Presidential signature. Let me speak for a moment about perhaps the most notorious assault weapon, the AK-47. This gun, developed in the former Soviet Union, is one of the most widely used military weapons in the world. It is not used to hunt, at least not to hunt animals. It is not well designed for home defense. Its ammunition can easily pierce walls and kill innocent bystanders. I will tell you what it is good for: the rapid killing of other people. How well I remember when an unstable drifter by the name of Patrick Purdy, with an assault weapon modeled after the AK-47, walked into a Stockton schoolyard in northern California. He lay on his belly, and he fired indiscriminately into the schoolyard. He fired 106 rounds of ammunition. By the time he was done, 5 children were dead and 29 were injured--five children dead because a of drifter who could gain one of the most powerful military weapons and use it against children. Each of these children had families. They had futures. One might have been a doctor one day, another a teacher, maybe even one a Senator, but they never got that chance. Their families did not see them grow up. Then there is the Uzi. The Uzi was designed for Israeli paratroopers in the 1950s. Again, this is not a weapon designed for hunting or self- defense. This is a weapon of war. It can spray fire rapidly and with some accuracy and is used for raids, firefights, and, to put it simply, the killing of enemy soldiers in close combat. An easily concealed weapon of war that sprays fire can also be used against civilians, and so it was when James Huberty walked into a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. He was able to kill 21 people and wound 15 others. The McDonald's customers were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had Huberty carried a revolver, who knows how many lives would have been saved. But with an Uzi, there is no ability to escape. With a big clip and a light trigger, nobody can get to you to disarm you before you have emptied the clip. The spray fire begins and the tragedy looms large. Again, a weapon of war falls into the hands of a grievance killer. The TEC-9. For me, these incidents really came to a head on July 1, 1993, when a man by the name of Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols. Let me show you what he looked like. He is dead in this picture. Look at this clip on this assault pistol. Look at the additional clips he was carrying in the bag. And look at the weapon in his hand. Ferri's gun--well, his guns--actually had special spring-loaded hellfire switches that allowed them to be fired, for all practical purposes, as fast as a machine gun. As a result, it did not take long for him to accomplish his task. Within minutes, he murdered eight people and six others were wounded. I just looked at a shot of a lovely blond woman on the floor in her office with three shots in her back and one in her shoulder. I have spoken to the survivors and families of these victims over the years, and I can tell you it is just plain heartbreaking. One such survivor was Michelle Scully. I will paraphrase what happened to her that day. Michelle and her husband John Scully--he was a lawyer in the firm--sought refuge in the nearest room, but the door did not have a lock. Michelle and John tried to block the door with a file cabinet, but they could not move it. Finally, he spread his 6- foot-4 body over his wife as a shield as the gunman wordlessly opened the door and fired this gun over and over again. John was hit six times. His wife once. ``Michelle, I'm sorry,'' John Scully said a few minutes later, ``I am dying.'' No one should have to go through this. No one should have to read about it in a newspaper. Nobody goes to work in the morning or says goodbye to their spouse expecting something like what happened at 101 California Street. These were not soldiers or law enforcement officers. These were people doing everyday jobs in an everyday place. Because a person who had a bone to pick also had two assault pistols, eight lives were ended before the day was done. Now, my colleagues can tell me guns do not kill people, that people kill people. Of course, I have to agree with that, but when there is a nut or a man so inflamed that he is going to go out and exact vengeance and a weapon of war designed to kill large numbers in close combat is made available to him, when our Government enables this to happen, we fall down on the job because we are here to see that there are laws that protect people. In 1994, a man used a TEC-9 to kill three people in the Washington, DC, police headquarters. Those killed were two FBI agents and a veteran police sergeant. The shooter walked into the crowded building with a concealed weapon, one of the key factors in how dangerous these weapons can be because they either have collapsable shoulder mounts or they are easily concealed. He then proceeded unimpeded directly into a homicide squad office and began firing. This is what the TEC-9 can do. Again, we do not hear stories of TEC-9s being used to hunt deer. We do hear about tragedy after tragedy.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Just this one.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the time that is running be equally divided between both sides.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. There is a reason for it. We were told this would be later, at 3 o'clock, and then learned it would be 1 o'clock, and then it was noon. I was here so I could come down. Senator Warner, I believe, has not yet arrived, and would like to speak, as would Senator DeWine and Senator Schumer. It is a Monday. The time has essentially changed. So I would like to leave them time to be able to speak.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I have no objection.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anjali Chaturvedi, a detailee in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the gun immunity legislation today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bipartisan bill today that gives Native American tribes a chance to protect their reservation lands from catastrophic fire. I want to thank my cosponsors, Chairman Pete Domenici of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Like other Americans, many Native American tribes are concerned about the risk of catastrophic forest fires spreading from nearby Federal lands onto their own lands. Last summer, at least 18 reservations were invaded by fire from adjacent Federal public forest lands. This bill attempts to give the tribes a chance to defend themselves and their ancestral lands by involving them in brush-clearing projects on Federal lands near their reservations. This is not just a theoretical problem, as tribes from my State know all too well. Last fall's devastating wildfires in southern California caused disproportionate suffering for Native Americans: Over 30,000 acres burned on 11 tribal reservations. Most tragically, 10 lives were lost on or near reservations. I am determined to give the tribes of my State and from around the country the opportunity to prevent this tragedy from recurring: The bill sets up a process for the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to enter into contracts with the tribes for fuel reduction purposes. If a tribe requests a brush-clearing project on federal lands near its reservation, the agencies are encouraged to respond within specific timeframes and suggest remedies for any agency concerns with the tribe's proposal. There remains free and open competition for timber contracts on Federal land. However, in determining the recipients of the contracts, the agencies are encouraged to consider such factors as tribal treaty rights or cultural and historical affiliation to the land involved. Nearly 100 Native American tribes support this legislation, including most, if not all, the tribes in the State of California. So I am pleased to introduce this bill today, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bipartisan bill today that gives Native American tribes a chance to protect their reservation lands from catastrophic fire. I want to thank my cosponsors, Chairman Pete Domenici of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Committee on Indian Affairs. Like other Americans, many Native American tribes are concerned about the risk of catastrophic forest fires spreading from nearby Federal lands onto their own lands. Last summer, at least 18 reservations were invaded by fire from adjacent Federal public forest lands. This bill attempts to give the tribes a chance to defend themselves and their ancestral lands by involving them in brush-clearing projects on Federal lands near their reservations. This is not just a theoretical problem, as tribes from my State know all too well. Last fall's devastating wildfires in southern California caused disproportionate suffering for Native Americans: Over 30,000 acres burned on 11 tribal reservations. Most tragically, 10 lives were lost on or near reservations. I am determined to give the tribes of my State and from around the country the opportunity to prevent this tragedy from recurring: The bill sets up a process for the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to enter into contracts with the tribes for fuel reduction purposes. If a tribe requests a brush-clearing project on federal lands near its reservation, the agencies are encouraged to respond within specific timeframes and suggest remedies for any agency concerns with the tribe's proposal. There remains free and open competition for timber contracts on Federal land. However, in determining the recipients of the contracts, the agencies are encouraged to consider such factors as tribal treaty rights or cultural and historical affiliation to the land involved. Nearly 100 Native American tribes support this legislation, including most, if not all, the tribes in the State of California. So I am pleased to introduce this bill today, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Cantwell's amendment to reinstate the temporary emergency unemployment compensation program. The amendment will reinstate the 13-week Federal unemployment insurance program, extend it for 6 months and ensure that ``high unemployment'' States continue to be covered. Given all of the pressures that workers face today--outsourcing, a political environment that is hostile to organized labor, and a lack of high-paying jobs--there is no more pressing issue facing our nation's workforce. And yet although Senate Democrats have asked more than a dozen times to unanimously pass the unemployment extension--each time Senate Republicans have said no. It is time that the Senate stop putting partisanship ahead of what nearly everyone agrees is smart policy. On February 4, the House of Representatives voted to reinstate unemployment benefits by a vote of 227 to 179, with 39 Republicans defying their leadership and voting in favor of the benefits. But until the Senate acts, hundreds of thousands of workers will be in the impossible position of trying to feed, clothe, and house their families with no work and no benefits. These are people who are persistently trying to re-enter the workforce, and yet must contend with an economy that has less than one job opening for every three workers. Today we can change this. This amendment provides crucial temporary assistance to those who have been hardest hit by the recent economic downturn, and provides them a chance to support themselves and their families while they look for work. Although the amendment would not provide more than 13 weeks of additional benefits to California, since my State's unemployment rate is 6.4 percent, not high enough to meet the 6.5 percent unemployment rate trigger in the amendment, it provides a meaningful extension for Californians by allowing unemployed Californians who were previously unqualified for unemployment benefits to collect 13 weeks of benefits as they look for new work. As of today, 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001. In total, nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, including discouraged and underemployed workers. Historically, job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today, nearly 80 percent of the job loss is permanent. As a result, many of the unemployed will not return to work soon. In his Annual Economic Report, President Bush said that the outsourcing of jobs was the inevitable byproduct of an improving economy. The White House says the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs ``eventually will outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy.'' How are people without jobs supposed to buy all these goods and services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export all the jobs? The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.'' As Senator Daschle pointed out, that sounds like a cruel joke. The President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal job training programs. And how do they know that the jobs they are training for will not be the next jobs targeted to be shipped overseas? It certainly will not be because the President is fighting to keep them here. It seems to me that the jury is in on the course we must take. I think it is wrong to move to a protectionist stance by raising tariffs or promoting a weak U.S. currency. Historically, such strategies have led to more problems than they have solved. U.S. companies should not be rewarded through our tax code for moving jobs offshore and then be allowed to bring foreign earned profits back into the U.S. at a tax rate that is a fraction of what they pay on their U.S. earned profits--just 5 percent, as compared to 38 percent in some cases. You and I pay more than five times that in personal income taxes. We should be encouraging firms to keep jobs here by producing the best trained, best educated workforce in the world. And, we must help those who are displaced by outsourcing by providing emergency unemployment insurance. This amendment provides just such a safety net for those who are temporarily displaced by the economic changes that are engulfing us. I ask President Bush to put his weight behind this effort to get unemployment benefits extended to those who have been looking for a job more than 13 weeks. If you are the President, you should be cheerleader number one for the American worker. And you should be supporting workers when they find themselves overcome by economic circumstances beyond their control. When the national economy was booming 4 years ago, California was particularly blessed. California's economy grew at double-digit rates, and California became the fifth-largest economy in the world. Billions of dollars of investment flowed into our State, and thousands of talented workers moved to California to take advantage of opportunities in Silicon Valley and other growth engines of the New Economy. Now that picture is dramatically different. After dropping to a decade-long low of 4.7 percent in December of 2000, the unemployment rate in California is back up to 6.4 percent as of the end of 2003. During this period of economic hardship, we have a duty to give people the chance to get back onto their feet. This is an obligation that we have met in the past, most recently when faced with an economic downturn during the first Bush Administration. The Senate voted in 1991 to extend temporary unemployment insurance on five separate occasions. Each time such extensions were approved by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and those Americans who have fallen on hard times.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 25, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management, Office of Future Liabilities, and the Office of Legacy Management, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the bill that is before this body, and I wish to begin by saying that I have great respect and have enjoyed working with the Senator from Idaho on a number of issues, including Healthy Forests. But I also must say we profoundly disagree when it comes to guns. So it is probably no surprise to him that I rise to strenuously object to what I see happening here. I think we have to recognize that guns in America are responsible for the deaths of 30,000 Americans a year. The question comes whether we should be giving the gun industry sweeping and unprecedented protection from the type of lawsuits that are available to every other victim involving every other industry in America. The simple fact is that over the years, the gun industry has managed to lessen, avoid, or prevent any prudent regulation. For example, they are exempt from Consumer Product Safety Commission laws, thanks to the National Rifle Association's efforts over the years to keep it that way. Secondly, the Federal Government cannot do much to police bad gun dealers--and we know there are some--or to enforce gun laws because the hands of the ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, are tied by limits to their authorities which have been put in place by the National Rifle Association. They can only do a once-a-year audit, for example. They only have limited options. The number of ATF agents is kept so low they cannot possibly inspect all of the gun dealerships in this country. So today only the court system offers victims of negligent manufacturers, of which there are some, and dealers, of which there are some, the ability to receive compensation for their injuries. Only the court system provides a means for changing these negligent practices through the threat of legal liability. I hope to show that the threat of legal liability has, in fact, resulted in more responsible manufacturing and selling principles by this industry. If we remove this one remaining avenue toward enforcing responsibility, victims will have no recourse. Gun owners and gun victims alike will be left virtually powerless against an industry that is already immune from so many other consumer protections. So we find ourselves today on the cusp of yet another NRA victory. Let me be clear, this is not a victory for NRA members, most of whom are law-abiding gun owners who might some day benefit from the ability to sue a manufacturer that sold them a defective or dangerous gun. No, this will be a victory for those who have turned their organization into a political powerhouse, unconcerned with the rights of the majority of Americans who want prudent controls over firearms. I do not support meritless lawsuits against the gun industry. I do not think anybody does. It is my belief gun manufacturers and dealers, though, should be held accountable for irresponsible marketing and distribution practices, just as anyone else would be, particularly when these practices may cause guns to fall into the hands of criminals, juveniles, or mentally ill people. This legislation has one simple purpose: to prevent lawsuits from those harmed by gun violence. These include: suits filed by cities and counties which face rising law enforcement and medical costs due to increased gun crimes, crimes often committed using guns that flood the illegal market with the full knowledge of the distributors that the legal market could not possibly be absorbing so many of these weapons; suits filed by organizations on behalf of their members; and victims of violent crimes and their families who are injured or killed as a result of gun violence or defective guns that malfunction due to negligent design or manufacture. This issue is not an abstract one. When people vote for this gun liability absolution today, they are going to be hurting a lot of people all across this land, and I want to point out a few because this bill affects the lives of real gun victims, victims not simply of criminal misuse by a well-designed firearm, but victims of guns that have been designed poorly or marketed in ways which quite frankly should be illegal. One of the cases that could be affected by this legislation, though this would ultimately be decided by a judge, is that of Brandon Maxfield, a 7-year-old from my State, Oakland, CA. On April 6, 1994, Brandon was shot in the chin by his babysitter. The shooting left him a quadriplegic and he will never be able to walk again. The babysitter, a friend of the family, was simply trying to remove a bullet from the chamber of a weapon that was found in the house, a .38 caliber Saturday night special, when the gun accidentally fired. Here is the key: The weapon was clearly designed in an inherently dangerous way. It can only be unloaded when the safety is in the off position and can therefore fire. Now common sense might say when you want to unload a gun you would first put the safety on. It defies common sense, on the other hand, to design a firearm so it can only be unloaded in the firing position. After all, one might expect the gun to accidentally fire as someone like Brandon's babysitter struggles to unload it. Finally last year, after 9 years of litigation, a jury found the manufacturer and distributor of Saturday night specials partially liable for Brandon's injuries. This was a tremendous victory for Brandon and his family and a victory for all people who want to see guns made safer. This bill, however, would take away Brandon's right to sue, and I will explain why a bit later. The bottom line, though, is Brandon's case was not frivolous. The jury did not think it was. Without the threat of lawsuits, companies like the one that made the gun in this case will have little incentive to change the design, but this legislation would remove the threat of that suit, depriving Brandon of compensation but, even worse, depriving the public of this key avenue to improving the habits of gun manufacturers. I will quickly go through what the bill does. I know others have and will continue to speak to this, but I think it bears repeating because I do not think everybody supporting this bill really understands its full ramifications. Essentially, this bill prohibits any civil liability lawsuit from being filed against the gun industry for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a gun, with a number of narrow exceptions. In doing so, the bill effectively rewrites traditional principles of liability law, which generally hold that persons and companies may be liable for their negligence even if others are liable as well. This bill would essentially give the gun industry blanket immunity from civil liability cases, an immunity no other industry in America has today. The bill does allow certain cases to move forward, as its supporters have pointed out, but these cases can proceed only on very narrow circumstances. Countless experts have now said this bill would stop virtually all of the suits against gun dealers and manufacturers filed to date, many of which are vital to changing industry practice and compensating victims who have been horribly injured through the clear negligence or even borderline criminal conduct of some gun dealers and manufacturers. The exemptions in the bill, even the new bill, set a very high burden of proof of negligence for plaintiffs, allow for a very slight number of cases against gun manufacturers to be filed, and only protect a limited class of cases against sellers. Under this bill, cases could only be filed in the following narrow circumstances. First, if a gun dealer transfers a firearm knowing the gun will be used to commit a violent or drug trafficking crime. In other words, a suit could go forward if a dealer gives a gun to someone who comes in and says, ``Give me a gun, I need to go kill someone.'' This provision only applies in the highly unlikely event a gun buyer clearly indicates his or her criminal intentions to the gun seller. Fat chance of that happening. I am not a gun dealer, but I imagine most criminals do not make a habit of announcing their criminal intentions to gun dealers. So this exception to the immunity created by the bill is really no exception at all. It will apply to almost no cases. Secondly, there is an exemption in the bill which applies if a dealer sells a gun to someone knowing the buyer will or is likely to misuse the firearm and that the individual buyer does indeed misuse it to commit a criminal offense. This provision is slightly more likely than the first exemption, but it still requires a very high burden of proof. Instead of common negligence, which might only require that the dealer did not take enough care in making sure that criminals did not obtain guns to commit crimes, what this provision requires is that the dealer actually know that the buyer is likely to use the gun to do harm. How can this be proven? Mr. President, you are an attorney. How can this be proven? The difficulty in proving such a claim might all but bar this exemption from ever coming into play. It would have no effect on such practices as straw purchases and large volume sales--which, incidentally, are the two most common sources of crime guns--because in a straw purchase, the dealer could always claim that he or she had no idea what the buyer would be doing with the guns. Third, the bill would allow suits to proceed where a defendant has violated a law or regulation in the sale of the specific gun that caused the damage or injury. This sets a very high burden of proof for negligence. Again, this would not affect dealers who conduct straw purchases or other dangerous distributing conduct because such conduct does not specifically violate any laws or regulations, although I must say it should. Because there are so few real laws or regulations governing how guns are sold or manufactured, this provision, too, is relatively insignificant in terms of how it affects the underlying thrust of the bill. Now I should point out that this provision is different than the provision in the original bill as passed by the House. Under the original bill, only knowing and willful violations of the law could be subject to suit, which is an even higher burden to reach. But even under this revised legislation, this standard is far higher than current law. The simple truth is, negligence does not involve a violation of the law. Requiring a plaintiff to prove that a gun store, for example, was not only negligent in letting a criminal obtain a dozen guns, but the gun store actually violated a law in doing so, of which there are few, makes it very difficult to succeed. So with any other business or product, in every other industry, a seller or manufacturer can be liable if it is negligent--but not here. Since money, rather than life or liberty is at stake in a civil case, the standard of proof is lower. There need not be a criminal violation to recover damages, and in the overwhelming majority of civil cases there is no criminal violation. So if, for instance, a crib manufacturer designs and markets a crib that results in the death of children who use the crib, we allow that manufacturer to be sued as one means of deterring such conduct and of compensating the families of the children who died from the defectively designed crib. The manufacturer need not have committed any crime. It is the negligence in making a defective and dangerous crib that is enough. Here, contrary to general negligence law covering almost every other product, this bill allows negligent gun dealers and manufacturers to get off the hook unless they violated a criminal law. That is just dreadful. You are creating a special area of law for gun manufacturers and saying unless they violate a law they can manufacture a defective weapon. The judge in Washington State presiding over the case brought against the DC area snipers has twice ruled that the dealer, Bull's Eye Shooters Supply, and the manufacturer, Bushmaster Firearms, may be liable in negligence for enabling the snipers to obtain their gun. But even with the new modifications, the sniper victims' case could very well be thrown out of court under this bill. So know what you are doing, Members who vote for it. The sniper victims' case could well be thrown out of court by this bill because there is no evidence that either the negligent dealer or manufacturer violated a criminal law. Indeed, both Lloyd Cutler and David Boies, each prominent attorneys, recently stated unequivocally that the sniper case would have to be dismissed under this bill, and countless professors have written a letter agreeing with this interpretation of the law. This is the most notorious sniper case in America. You have negligence on the part of the gun dealer who sold that gun, didn't report it until way late, allowed the snipers to get that gun, and now we are passing a law to prevent the victims from suing under civil liability. Nowhere else in the law does this exist. In another case, a Massachusetts court has ruled that gun manufacturer Kahr Arms may be liable for negligently hiring drug- addicted criminals and enabling them to stroll out the plant door with unmarked guns to be sold to criminals. But with the proposed changes, the case against Kahr Arms would be dismissed. Its conduct, though outrageous, violated no law. Negligent? Yes. Criminal? No. Members, know what you are doing when you vote for this bill. The fourth exemption in the bill is when a dealer somehow violates a sales contract. An example of this would be the dealer failing to provide the gun for which the purchaser paid. This, too, is clearly a limited exception. Victims of defectively designed or negligently sold guns would not be allowed to file cases under this provision. Furthermore, the claims of gun purchasers would be limited to what they were entitled to under the scope of the contract or warranty. The fifth exemption in the original bill allowed suits to go forward if the gun manufacturer has caused ``physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a product when used as intended.'' This provision altered generally accepted principles of products liability law which essentially state that a manufacturer must implement feasible safety features that would prevent injury caused by foreseeable use or misuse, even if that use is not ``intended.'' For instance, it might not be intended for a child to try to eat a small toy, but it is clearly foreseeable. This new modified gun immunity legislation does add language allowing suits to go forward as long as the activity was ``reasonably foreseeable'' by the manufacturer or dealer, which appears to match current law. However, the devil is in the details because the bill then takes away any benefit that language might have by stating that the exemption will not apply to lawsuits that also involve criminal acts by the defendant. The best example of how this provision would affect the case is the Brandon Maxfield babysitter shooting I mentioned earlier, where a child was accidentally shot by a babysitter because the chamber of the gun could not be checked without clicking the safety to ``off.'' In that case, the gun fired while the babysitter tried to check the chamber. The problem is the bill prohibits suits involving even foreseeable accidents, if there are criminal charges. In the babysitter case, the babysitter could easily be, and indeed was, charged with manslaughter-- which is a crime. Thus, even this suit would still be barred by this revised bill. Contrary to current law which allows judges and juries to apportion blame and damages, this bill would bar any damages against a manufacturer if another party was liable due to a criminal act. Why should firearms get special treatment? In our society, we hold manufacturers liable for the damage their products cause. This is the case with automobiles. This is the case with cribs. It is the case with children's toys, and it should be the case with guns as well. Lawsuits filed against the gun industry provide a way for those harmed to seek justice from the damages and destruction caused by firearms. Just as important, they create incentives to reform the practices proven to be dangerous. After all, this is the most dangerous consumer item found in a home. According to statistics, there is a gun in 43 percent of the households with children in America. There is a loaded gun in 1 of 10 households with children, and a gun that is left unlocked or improperly stored in 1 of every 8 family homes. More children and adult family members are killed each year by having a loaded gun at home than from incidents with criminal intruders. In fact, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to lead to an accidental injury or death to family members than used against a criminal intruder. These are senseless actions that can be prevented by simply designing guns with technologically and economically feasible safety devices. Recent cases have produced evidence from law enforcement investigations, as well as industry insiders, that the gun industry may be ignoring numerous patented safety devices for guns and intentionally flooding certain markets with guns knowingly, and also profiting from the fact that the excess weapons would make their way into the hands of criminals. We have seen gun dealers selling guns when they know these guns are being purchased to immediately resell to criminals--often to criminals who wait right outside the door or even inside the very store while the guns are being bought by someone who can pass a background check. Lawsuits filed against the gun industry provide a way for victims and municipalities to seek justice from the damages and destruction caused by firearms. Additionally, lawsuits provide this largely unregulated industry with incentives to reform irresponsible manufacturing and distributing practices proven to be dangerous. According to Tom Gresham, a writer for the magazine Guns & Ammo, lawsuits have, in fact, proven effective in encouraging manufacturers to design their guns with proper safety devices. Even though guns are not required to be made with safety features, Gresham writes in the June 2002 edition of the magazine that lawsuits have spurred manufacturers to include them to avoid liability in future actions. Don't we want this to take proven steps to improve the safety of their weapons? Gresham claims, ``No matter what you think of them, you will find built-in locks on more and more guns in the future. I predict that in ten years, no firearm will be made without one.'' What does this bill do to that? It encourages the gun companies to do exactly the opposite--to not put better safety components on their weapons. When this bill was introduced, its supporters spoke about the need to protect the industry from frivolous lawsuits and the need to protect the industry from the potential loss of jobs brought on by future lawsuits. These claims are unfounded. This bill is simply the latest attempt of the gun lobby to evade industry accountability. The suits against the gun industry come in varying forms, but they all have one goal in common--forcing the firearm industry to become more responsible. In addition to ongoing cases filed by individual victims, there have been a handful of cases filed by private associations, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. These cases have been filed on behalf of groups of individuals who claim to have been harmed by the gun industry's bad behavior. And there are government cases--at least 24 cases--that have been filed against the gun industry on behalf of nearly three dozen cities and counties and one State attorney general claiming that the reckless conduct of the gun industry has threatened public safety and hindered the ability of municipalities to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens. A majority of these municipalities' lawsuits have successfully defeated industry attempts to dismiss their cases. This bill would kill that. Last year, Dennis Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco, said that, ``Cases being pursued by my office and some 30 other jurisdictions nationwide have already achieved important milestones in exposing gun industry recklessness, with mounting evidence and an increasing number of high-level whistle blowers revealing gross misconduct by manufacturers and dealers . . . I'm convinced that the City and its fellow plaintiffs have a compelling case against the gun industry.'' This legislation would prevent them from going ahead. Let me describe a few representative cases that also could have been stopped by this bill. The case of Cincinnati v. Beretta is one example of a legitimate and successful case filed against the gun industry. In this case, officials from the city of Cincinnati, OH, contended that the gun industry's reckless marketing and distribution of guns enabled them to wind up in the hands of criminals and children leading to murders, shootings, and suicides that imperil public safety. The city also argued that gun manufacturers were negligent in failing to design safer weapons and owed the city compensation for the cost of emergency responses to acts of gun violence. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed and ruled the issue deserved exploration at trial. The court found that under generally applicable principles of law, it is the duty of gun manufacturers to use reasonable care in their design and sales of guns, and they may be liable for damages arising from their negligent conduct and failure to equip their guns with practical safety features. This is no different an analysis than would be used against the manufacturer of any product used by a consumer--whether a child's crib, a toothbrush, a chainsaw, or an automobile. The Court also found that a manufacturer could be held liable for their role in creating and facilitating the criminal gun market through their failure to use reasonable care in their sale and distribution of guns. The Court specifically rejected the argument that those who irresponsibly sell guns cannot be liable if the damage foreseeably resulting from their negligence was ultimately caused by a criminal act. Furthermore, the Court noted the socially beneficial role of lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers can play: If as a result of both private and municipal lawsuits, firearms are designed to be safer and new marketing practices make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, some firearm-related deaths and injuries may be prevented . . . Such litigation may have an important role to play, contemplating other interventions available to cities and states. This case could well be stopped in its tracks if this bill passes. In another case, Hurst v. Glock, the New Jersey Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of the plaintiff. This products liability case centers on an incident in which a teenage boy, Tyrone Hurst, was seriously injured when his friend picked up a gun she thought was unloaded and fired at Tyrone. The Hurst family argued that the shooting could have been prevented had the gun manufacturer included a safety feature known as a magazine disconnect safety. Again, the Court agreed and found that the gun manufacturer could be liable for injuries caused by the failure to include a safety feature on the firearm. Wiped out. In 1994, Griffin and Lyn Dix from Berkeley, CA, lost their youngest son Kenzo after he was accidentally shot to death at the age of 15 by his best friend, Michael. Michael was showing his father's gun to Kenzo and, believing the gun to be unloaded, pointed it at his friend and fired. Michael did not realize there was a bullet hidden in the chamber of the gun. In an interview after the incident, Michael described the situation after turning the gun on his friend: I look down and I don't even aim. I heard a pop, my eyes opened up and I was shocked. I look and saw Kenzo hunched over, kind of moaning--a creepy moan you don't want to hear. It just stays with you. The bullet went straight into Kenzo's chest. Tragically, he was pronounced dead within the hour. Kenzo's parents sued Beretta, the manufacturer of the gun that killed their son. They argued that the gun lacked adequate safety features and warnings and that is why it appeared unloaded despite the fact that a bullet lay in the chamber. The case sent a necessary wake-up call through the industry that they could rightly be held accountable in future wrongful-death cases. Faced with the threat of litigation, a number of manufacturers have changed their design standards and designs to include proper and practical safety features. That is a positive benefit all across this Nation. I ask my colleagues, how can we justify giving blanket immunity to the gun industry that manufactures and distributes products that kill 30,000 Americans a year, yet fail to provide the proper and practical safety features in their products? Under the principles of common law, all individuals and industries have a duty to act responsibly. How can we give total legal immunity to an industry that time and time again has failed to act in such a manner? This is not just about manufacturers and the design of products. It is also about gun dealers and distributors that know their guns are sold to be used in crime. This very bill was scheduled to come to the Senate for consideration during the 107th session of Congress. It was withheld in light of the sniper attacks that terrorized the Washington, DC area. I guess enough time has now passed that the bill's supporters think we will have forgotten those sniper victims. But we have not. We have already heard today that the victims of those attacks have filed one of the cases currently pending. The suit results from alleged negligent conduct of a gun dealer that has been accuse of some incredibly negligent conduct. Mildred Denise Muhammad filed three restraining orders against her husband, John Allen Muhammad, one of the convicted snipers. Those restraining orders should have prohibited John Allen Muhammad from owning a gun. However, nothing stopped him from obtaining the handgun he allegedly used to commit murder in Alabama, nor the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the sniper attacks, in all likelihood because the dealer that had the Bushmaster assault rifle was either negligent or willful in allowing it to fall into Muhammad's hands. The assault rifle used in the sniper attacks was one of 238 guns that have been reported missing from the Bull's Eye Shooters Supply store in Tacoma, WA. We learned about this dealer's dangerous inability to keep track of his guns not from the store itself but, rather, from audits performed by the ATF. The store had no record of purchase for the assault rifle used in the attacks and failed to report it stolen until after the ATF recovered the weapon from the snipers and traced it back to the store. Here is a store that has 238 guns that are missing and does not report them. That is class A evidence. Even after this blatant display of negligent conduct, the rifles manufacturer announced that the gun store remained a ``good customer'' and it would continue to sell guns to the store. The manufacturers showed clear disregard for the victims, their families, and public safety. And the store itself, in either failing to adequately account for its guns, or even worse, illegally selling the gun to a prohibited person, may well also be liable for its conduct. The alleged snipers were clearly aided and abetted by the irresponsible conduct of the owners of this gun shop that managed to simply lose hundreds of deadly weapons and the manufacturer that supplied serious combat weapons to a dealer with no questions asked. If they are not liable, they will be found not liable by a jury; but if they are liable, should we not allow a court to decide? How can we, with a clear conscience, pass a bill that would deny the right of these victims of gun violence their day in court? As I mentioned earlier, this case would almost certainly be dismissed if the bill now before the Senate becomes law. With no liability threat, few ATF enforcement tools, and a blanket exemption from consumer laws, Bull's Eye will have no incentive to clean up its act. Such disregard for public safety is identified in another case filed against the gun industry, Lemongello and McGuire v. Will's Jewelry & Loan. In this case, the argument that those who irresponsibly sell guns cannot be held liable if the guns were later used in a criminal act was again rejected, this time by West Virginia Circuit Court Judge Irene Berger. As the Presiding Officer knows, a felon, fugitive, or stalker cannot legally buy guns. So sometimes the individuals will find someone also to help them evade the current gun laws and get their hands on a gun. A straw purchase occurs when a buyer purchases guns on behalf of criminals or other individuals who are prohibited from purchasing guns. Federal law enforcement agencies estimate 46 percent of crime guns nationwide come from this type of purchase. I repeat, 46 percent of the guns used in crimes in America come from these straw purchases with gun dealers. The National Shooting Sports Federation is the gun industry's leading trade association. It is fully aware of the reality that guns from straw purchases are often ultimately found in the hands of criminals. The Foundation also recognizes that these dangerous purchases can easily be prevented so long as dealers act responsibly. To promote this policy, the Foundation provides training for gun dealers ``to help prevent and deter the illegal `strawman' purchase of firearms.'' In the brochure of its training campaign entitled ``Don't Lie for the Other Guy,'' the Foundation claims that it is the responsibility of the gun dealer to prevent these purchases from taking place by simply prohibiting any sale they suspect to be a straw purchase. Despite these warnings, a straw purchase is exactly what took place at Will's Jewelry & Loan, a West Virginia pawnshop, in the fall of 2000. James Grey, a felon and gun trafficker, came into the store accompanied by Tammi Lea Songer, a woman who had a clean background and thousands of dollars in cash. James Grey methodically selected 12 guns he wanted and Songer bought them, all in a single purchase, no questions asked. The shop's employees were suspicious of Grey and Songer's actions. They contacted the ATF to notify them of the purchase. The problem is that the call to the ATF was made after the guns were purchased, after the profits were made by the dealer and Sturm, Ruger. The warning signs were so obvious, yet proper actions were not taken until it was too late. Just months later, one of these guns, a 9 mm semiautomatic Ruger handgun, was used by a convicted felon to shoot and seriously injure two New Jersey police officers in the line of duty. Officers Dave Lemongello and Ken McGuire were shot with that handgun while responding to the scene of an attempted robbery. The shoot-out put an end to the careers of both men. The injuries they received were so debilitating they could no longer serve. Those officers filed a lawsuit against the dealer and Sturm, Ruger, who both profited from their irresponsible conduct. Their claims were recently validated, and the West Virginia Circuit Court found the gun dealer could be liable under West Virginia law of negligence and public nuisance for failing to use reasonable care in its sales. As a result, a jury could find the subsequent criminal shooting was a foreseeable result caused by that negligent act. The bill we are considering today would turn a blind eye to the reckless conduct shown by those in the industry that enabled this tragic incident to have taken place. Last year, Officer Lemongello spoke before the House Judiciary Committee to protest this bill. In his testimony he stated: The next disturbing news I heard was that some people in Congress wanted to take away my right to present my case in court and wanted to give that irresponsible dealer special protection from the legal rules that apply to all other businesses in this country. Other businesses have to use reasonable care and may be liable for the consequences if they don't. Those who sell lethal weapons that are highly valued by criminals should have at least the same duty to use reasonable care as businesses who sell BB guns or any other product . . . Gun sellers have to be more responsible when they sell guns to prevent guns from getting into criminals' hands before they do their damage. What happened to me and Ken is an example of what happens when gun sellers are irresponsible. As if the valuable lessons learned from the cases I have detailed were not convincing enough to prove that criminals are able to get guns on the black market due to the complicity of gun manufacturers and dealers, simply listen to the words of gun industry insider Robert Ricker. Former Executive Director of the American Sport Shooting Council and former Assistant General Counsel for the NRA, Robert Ricker has testified in support of lawsuits against the gun industry--a brave man. In a recent affidavit, Ricker claimed: Instead of requiring dealers to be proactive and properly trained in an effort to stop questionable sales, it has been common practice of gun manufacturers and distributors to adopt a ``see-no-evil, speak-no-evil'' approach. This type of policy encourages a culture of evasion of firearms laws and regulations. In the same affidavit, Ricker also claimed lawsuits provide a valuable tool for motivating the industry to reform and act responsibly. He stated: Until faced with a serious threat of civil liability for past conduct, leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market and have sought to silence others within the industry who have advocated reform. That says it all. They will not move to do the right thing, and they will silence others. That is according to one of their own insiders, and we go along with it and are going to give them civil liability protection. I cannot believe it. Again, I do not support meritless lawsuits against any industry, including the gun industry. But the fact of the matter is, this bill's goal of granting the gun industry blanket immunity would cause much greater harm to the American public than it could ever possibly prevent for an already under-regulated industry. The right way for the gun industry to protect itself from liability for irresponsible conduct is simply to act responsibly, by manufacturing guns with safety devices and ensuring their products are going to reputable, law-abiding dealers. Is that asking too much? Is it asking too much that dealers enforce the rules on the books and prohibit straw purchases? Straw purchases, remember, are responsible for the sale of 43 percent of the guns in this Nation that are used in crimes. I think dealers should enforce the rules on the books and prohibit these purchases. If litigation is the only way to keep the gun industry in check, we should not give the gun industry total immunity. As I have pointed out, everything else is stretched thin. This is an industry that is less accountable under law than any other in America. The only avenue of accountability left is the courtroom, and this bill attempts to slam the courtroom door in the face of those who would hold the industry responsible for its actions. We ought to hold this industry accountable for product standards so that in the event a juvenile ends up with a gun, common sense safety devices will prevent senseless accidents. We ought to hold this industry responsible for taking the proper precautions to ensure law-abiding citizens are able to obtain the guns they choose while criminals and other prohibited individuals do not. Mr. President, I beg, I plead with this body. It is incomprehensible to me that the Senate of the United States is going to provide this kind of liability protection to an industry that does what I just laid out in these remarks. It is incomprehensible. I have watched the NRA win time after time--the latest being the Federal database of gun sales being obliterated after 24 hours. If this bill passes, there will be no stay on the gun industry for responsible conduct because they can get away without doing it. I implore my colleagues, please take a second look at this bill. Talk to attorneys like Lloyd Cutler and David Boies. Ask them what this bill will do to merit cases. Mr. President, I yield the floor.