Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Reserving my right once more to object again, the understanding, of course, is that all of these amendments are withdrawn tomorrow morning.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I make a parliamentary inquiry and ask how much time is remaining for the various parties.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. I understand that under the controlling unanimous consent that all amendments are withdrawn tomorrow morning. So if your amendment was in order after Senator Levin, I think both amendments technically at this point would be withdrawn tomorrow morning.

Mr. REED. May I make a point? All of this would be subject to the underlying unanimous consent that all amendments also are withdrawn tomorrow morning.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, an extraordinary resident of Newport, RI celebrated a monumental achievement, her 100th birthday. Rita Dolan Sellar has led a full and exceptional life. She was born February 24, 1904, to Clarence Dolan and Rosalie Brown Dolan. She had two sisters, Rose and Alexandra. As a young lady, Rita attended Foxcroft School in Virginia, where she is now the oldest living alumna. Later she married Norrie Sellar, and they traveled extensively throughout the world. Rita and Norrie had five children: Daphne, Norrie, Rosalie, Owen, and Alexandra. Rita was an accomplished and bold horsewoman, who in the 1930s founded and played on the first women's polo team, in Aiken, SC, and rode in fox hunts, steeplechase races, and jumping contests. She was also an active sailor, who kept sailboats in Newport Harbor, and often sailed with her sister--one of America's first and most capable women sailors. Her home in Newport, ``Seaweed,'' has hosted five generations of the family, innumerable cheerful parties and dinners, and an extensive array of friends, cousins, in-laws, and visitors. She is the oldest member of Newport's Spouting Rock Beach Association. In addition to her 5 children, she has 15 grandchildren and 13 great- grandchildren, as well as 3 step-grandchildren and 6 step-great- grandchildren, of which she is the beloved, affectionate, and patient matriarch. Rita Dolan Sellar has led a successful and remarkable life as evident by her many achievements and, more importantly, her large, loving and successful family which includes former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. I would like to congratulate Rita on her 100th birthday. This extraordinary moment is not about the number of years she has lived but the accomplishments she has made during those years and the excitement, pride, love, and joy she has brought to her many family and friends through her life. I wish Rita a happy birthday and many more.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, the legislation before us can't be all things. It can't be an effective barrier against litigation to protect the gun industry and yet a way to protect the legitimate rights of citizens who have been harmed by guns. In fact, it is not both; it is one of them. It is carefully, cleverly worded legislation to immunize the gun industry--dealers, manufacturers, and the National Rifle Association--from any type of liability with respect to guns, virtually. There are perhaps minor exceptions, but the cases we see before us today--the case of the DC snipers, the case of two police officers in New Jersey--would be barred. These cases have already been filed. In fact, one of the sweeping aspects of this legislation is, it doesn't attempt to set the rules prospectively, to say as we go forward these cases would not be heard by the courts. It literally walks in and tells people who have filed cases, cases that have survived summary judgment motions already by State court judges: You are out of court. This is sweeping, and it is unprecedented. It deals a serious blow to citizens throughout this country while enhancing dramatically the legal protections for the gun industry. Consistently the proponents say: You can't hold someone responsible for the criminal actions of another. That is not what these cases are about. These cases suggest, declare, allege that an individual failed in his or her duties, his or her responsibility to do what is necessary, responsibility in the conduct of their activity--in the case of gun dealers, to take sensible, reasonable precautions, the standard of care that a business person would use, the standard of care that any business person must use in the United States. The allegation is they fail to do that. The evidence is overwhelming there was no standard of adequate care. Here is a gun dealer who could not account for 238 weapons, who claims a teenager--he didn't realize it at the time--must have walked in and shoplifted an automatic weapon, a sniper weapon, and carried it away undetected. In fact, this weapon was missing without his knowledge for weeks and months, undetermined. Is that the standard of care we would expect a businessperson to exercise, particularly one who deals in products that can kill? I don't think so. That is what this is about. This is not about punishing people for the criminal activity of others. It is about holding individuals up to a standard of conduct we expect from anyone. There are various examples. Some say, my God, if the hardware store sells a knife to somebody and it is used in a crime, they are not responsible. If you have a car dealer who leaves the keys in the cars and has no security, and a teenager takes that car and gets into an accident and harms someone, certainly I think the parents of the individuals harmed or that individual could legitimately go to court and say this dealer didn't meet the rational standard of care of anybody in the automobile industry. They have to secure these cars. You cannot make them available to people and teenagers who might steal them. That is common sense. That would apply to the automobile dealer, but if this legislation passes, common sense doesn't apply to the gun industry in this country. In fact, this is really a license for irresponsibility we are considering today. As I said before, when they get the Federal firearms license, if this bill passes, you can get another license. You are being irresponsible. That is not to suggest all dealers are irresponsible, but many are. We talk about junk lawsuits. It is not a junk lawsuit when your husband has been shot while sitting in the bus waiting to go to work. I don't think the Johnson family volunteered to be part of this social experiment. I think any suggestion to that effect is offensive. They have been harmed grievously. A wife has lost her husband; children have lost their father. Their livelihoods are in question. They seek redress, as anyone would. That is not a junk suit. That is someone who says I have been harmed by the negligence of someone and that person should pay. The suggestion that this suit is in response to some avalanche of lawsuits that is devastating the firearm manufacturers is without any foundation. The industry is so stressed they have raised $100 million to protect themselves, not just legally, but also in terms of controlling the documents and communications between themselves and their attorneys. This is not an industry that seems to be without resources. But I can tell you many of the families of victims of the Washington snipers are looking forward to a lifetime where they might have the resources to send children to college and do the things they would have been able to do if their spouse was still alive. The industry, it has been suggested, is being pushed into bankruptcy because of these frivolous junk lawsuits. Well, Savage Arms was mentioned. It is a company that was founded in 1894. It has provided firearms for now over a century. It went bankrupt in 1988 because, according to the CEO, Ron Coburn: ``We had too many products, each of them in dire need of re- engineering.'' There is no suggestion they were being intimidated by these fancy political science lawsuits. Under the bankruptcy plan, Coburn reduced the product line and fired 400 employees. There has been contraction in this industry, as in every manufacturing industry, but it is not as a result of these suits. Since that time, Savage has done remarkably well. They have taken the lead in many different aspects. They are a responsible company. They were honored as manufacturer of the year and in many other aspects. It has been suggested this company, in effect, is overwhelmed by these lawsuits. I don't think that is the case. I think they make business judgments as any business--based upon products, demand, and all these things. We are not facing a situation where we would be without the benefit of gun manufacturers in the United States because of these lawsuits. The suggestion that this somehow would interfere with our national security is outlandish. The suggestion we would then have to turn to foreign suppliers for our military is rather odd. Indeed, today, many of the suppliers for our national defense are the subsidiaries of foreign companies. Browning, Winchester and Fabrique Nationale, which supplies M-16 A-4 assault rifles and the M-2 49G squad automatic weapon, are subsidiaries of Herstal, a Belgium firm. The Pentagon contracted with Heckler and Koch, a German firm, to help develop the next generation of industry weapons. Clearly, the Pentagon doesn't feel American manufacturers are so distressed that they have to go overseas. They are going overseas because they are looking for superior weapons. They are dealing with American subsidiaries of foreign companies. This is not about preserving the defense and the ability to access weapons. This is about protecting one industry from the legal responsibility to exercise caution any individual must exercise--one industry, when all industries must do that, or indeed the vast majority. This is not about protecting the integrity of the courts. What does it say to the integrity of the courts of West Virginia when a judge already found that a suit involving these two New Jersey police officers should proceed, when we say, no, you are wrong, this case is out the door? This is not about protecting courts. It is about protecting an industry. We have been asked to look closely at the law. We have to look closely at the law in terms of the cases we know are pending because, frankly, we could hypothesize about cases in the future. This is the law: A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. That is not a particularly narrow excerpt. It is not a listing of those exemptions the gun industry made available themselves. This is broad and sweeping, barring the doors of these types of suits. In addition to that--talking about overreaching, dismissal of pending actions--it is rare indeed that this Congress could go in and tell plaintiffs who have a case in progress you are out the door, you cannot proceed. This is extraordinary, to me. A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of enactment of this act shall be immediately dismissed by the court. Not reviewed but dismissed. I think, again, that is extraordinarily broad and sweeping. The real aspect of this legislation goes to the definition on the next chart. A qualified civil liability action means a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or a seller of a qualified product or trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include-- So it is any action, again not narrowly constrained, carefully worded legislation. Then there are several exemptions. Let me point out, if this were a narrowly crafted piece of legislation, the exemption I think should apply to the gun industry, not to the litigants. It should be those safe harbors where if they do certain things, they are protected, if they exercise due care. That is the way we want to draft narrowly worded legislation. And this is quite to the contrary. The burden is now on the individual to show that they qualify to bring their case to court, not on the companies to show that their case is somehow outside the normal range of negligent actions. The key provision, in terms of the sniper case--and I will talk about the sniper case in a moment--is sections ii and iii. Madam President, ii is ``actions brought against a seller for ``negligent entrustment'' or ``negligence per se.'' Negligent entrustment is a defined term in the legislation. It means: . . . the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or should know, the person to whom the product is supplied to is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others. The key element is ``know.'' For example, in the sniper case, the dealer claims he did not know that the weapon was missing. It has been acknowledged by the sniper that the weapon was shoplifted. This theory will not provide that case to go forward. ``Negligence per se,'' again, is an element of knowledge which does not seem to exist within the facts as we know them about the Bull's Eye situation. By the way, it has been abrogated as a theory of law in Washington State which would be an appropriate forum for the trial, or at least for consideration. That doesn't work. The next section is actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product who violated a State or Federal statute and, quite importantly, that violation was a proximate cause of the harm. In the case of the sniper shootings, literally it would have to be shown that the individual gun dealer at Bull's Eye knew the particular weapon was missing more than 48 hours before he was confronted by the ATF and that he failed to report it and, as a result, the sniper using that weapon inflicted the harm. But, of course, the facts suggest otherwise. The weapon was shoplifted. The individual claimed he did not know it was missing at all. All of these carefully worded exceptions do not provide relief for individual plaintiffs. They do not provide it for the plaintiffs in the case of the snipers. They do not provide relief in the case of the two police officers in New Jersey. Yesterday, we had an opportunity to correct that, just a small correction that would allow for these situations, and we failed to do that. This legislation is designed with one purpose: to immunize the gun industry. I think it is unfortunate, it is unprecedented, and it leads to the conclusion that we are essentially encouraging the kind of reckless behavior, the kind of irresponsible behavior which is not the norm, but it is certainly present and, indeed, it is present in the context that firearms pose a particular danger to the community. We talked about Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, WA, over 238 weapons missing. You are not supposed to have any weapons missing. Then there are the situations, for example, of Buckner Enterprises, Pro Guns and Sporting Goods, D&D Discount, Hock Shop, Julie's Pawn, Kent Arms, Northwest Shooters, Woodstove Supply, and Steve's Guns and Archery, all in Michigan. Over a 4-month period, an undercover State trooper and a 20-year-old convicted felon traveled to 14 firearms retailers and attempted to make a straw purchase. The eight stores I mentioned above agreed to make the straw deal--irresponsible and reckless and, under this legislation, perhaps invulnerable to a suit by someone who might have been hurt as a result of the potential straw sales. Bob's Gunshop, Bristol, PA, repeatedly sold firearms to convicted felons and out-of-State residents, including a 9 mm Taurus sold to a New Jersey convicted felon. The owners of the store counseled criminals and out-of-State residents to find a local resident to complete the background check. Is that irresponsible? Yes. Is that against the law? Perhaps not. It goes on and on. One gun store with which I am intrigued is Illinois Gun Works in Chicago, IL. John ``No Nose'' DiFronzo, a reputed mobster, owns the property where Illinois Gun works is located. Illinois Gun Works is one of the leading suppliers of crime guns to local criminals. This is from the Chicago Sun Times. There are gun dealers out there who are acting irresponsibly and negligently. They will escape liability if this legislation passes. There are manufacturers that are not policing the ranks of their dealers effectively enough who continue to sell to dealers such as these, who continue to report, as Bushmaster, the company that manufactured the sniper weapon, reported in regard to Bull's Eye. They are a good company. Even after all of this, they will escape liability. We are in an extraordinarily important moment. Will we extend this unprecedented protection to an industry, will we signal to an industry that they can be irresponsible, they can be negligent? That is what we are talking about today. I know my colleague, Senator Levin, is here to offer an amendment. Let me ask that he be allowed to do that. I retain my time for additional comments later.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. How much time do we have?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me make two or three quick points and then yield to Senator Lautenberg and then to Senator Corzine. First, a neutral assessment of this legislation suggests strongly that it is not just frivolous lawsuits that are going to be barred by this legislation; there are going to be many meritorious lawsuits. We already know about these suits. We know about Officer McGuire; we know about the victims of the Washington snipers. Those individuals will be barred from courts. Those are not frivolous suits. Again, there has been discussion about junk cases. I believe there will be a lot of junk guns on the streets because essentially what this legislation does is this. When a Federal firearms dealer gets his license, he also gets a license to be negligent. He can follow the rules but he can be negligent. There is no Federal legislation or State legislation, in many cases, that requires the storage at a facility of weapons, so you can leave them lying around. That is what they apparently did at Bull's Eye. That is negligence, and that negligence harmed several individuals. And this particular law, if adopted, will prevent people from exercising their rights for compensation based upon that activity. All this discussion leads to the inescapable belief on my part that the proponents want it both ways. They stand here and decry the attack on the industry, the gun industry besieged by lawsuits, and then turn and say: Of course, Officer Lemongello will get to court and Officer McGuire will get to court and the sniper victims will get to court. They cannot have it both ways. The law is not impartial. The law is what we make it. We are making a law today that favors, in an unprecedented fashion, the gun industry, gun dealers, and the National Rifle Association. That is our making. It is not some cosmic event taking place and suddenly we have the law. We are telling them, be negligent, be irresponsible, be reckless, do not worry about it, we have taken care of you. What do we say to the victims of the crimes? Tough luck. You were in the wrong place, officer. You were in the wrong place, Conrad Johnson, starting your bus up early in the morning. Your family will never get a nickel from the companies or individuals who were negligent. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before giving all the remaining time to Senator Mikulski, I would like to make one point. In the CRS report to which the Senator referred, essentially he failed to note a footnote that says essentially that it does not appear that any evidence has been produced of actual violations of these provisions by Bull's Eye in the case at hand. If you assume they violated the law, then, of course, the exemption applies. The facts we know now suggest they knew nothing about the disappearance of the weapons, and this legislation will bar the individuals from court. I add one simple point. Even if we are slightly in doubt debating this issue, we should support Senator Mikulski's amendment which puts them in court. I yield the remaining time to Senator Mikulski.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Mikulski is here, doing something that is, unfortunately, necessary because the underlying legislation would cause currently pending suits on behalf of the families and the estates of these victims of the snipers to be thrown out of court. That is not only unfortunate but it is unconscionable. There are arguments that this legislation is crafted so these suits go forward. But that is not the case at all. The two salient facts in the sniper shootings with respect to this legislation are, first, the sniper, Malvo, claims he shoplifted the gun. The storeowner claims that he was unaware of these weapons being missing until he was contacted after the shooting by the ATF. As a result, none of the appropriate exemptions from the preemption to sue would be applicable in this particular situation. There are two particular exemptions that are often pointed to. One talks about the negligent entrustment, which is a theory of law, and negligence per se. None would apply because it requires the defendant to have knowledge of a violation of the statute or knowledge that something untoward would happen. Under the facts as we know them, the defendant alleges he was unaware of the missing weapons. In addition, the other exemption would be if there was a violation of Federal and State statute and that violation was the proximate cause, almost direct or substantial cause of the harm caused to the plaintiff. That, too, can be substantiated. We have a situation where this statute not only does not cover this situation and would require these cases be thrown out of court, but it raises the extraordinary question about what other cases there might be in the future that would cry out for justice, to bring a suit and demand some type of compensation because of negligence caused by a gun dealer or manufacturer or trade association. They, too, would fall. That would be as compelling as these cases of the Washington area sniper victims. I commend Senator Mikulski for standing up for these families. They are good people. This is a cutout of these cases from law and allowing them to go forward. But it just begs the question of how many other worthy cases will be frustrated by this legislation, if we pass it. I, of course, urge that we do not pass the legislation. But I certainly urge the amendment proposed by Senator Mikulski be agreed to. I yield my time.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield to the Democratic whip.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has indicated we worked late last evening to craft a unanimous consent that will allow several important amendments to be debated today, and continuing on through Tuesday. It represents a recognition that there are serious issues to discuss. Now we are at the stage of not only discussing those issues but also taking amendments up and voting on them. I know Senator Daschle will be here in a moment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho points to every exception because he can't point to one exception that will clearly establish the right of these plaintiffs to go forward to make their case. The way this legislation is structured, first, the qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. You are thrown out of court unless you can get yourself back in by an exemption. In these cases, you are dismissed. You are already in court but you are out the door. The intent is very clear. It is to stop individuals from suing dealers, manufacturers, and trade associations. What about these exemptions? The first exemption deals with the transferor or convicted. There have been no charges in Bull's Eye, no conviction. What happens? The case is already dismissed. Is there language the Senator from Idaho will apply reinstating the case automatically? The second is a possibility that is negligent entrustment or negligence per se. All of these require knowledge on the part of the defendant. The facts of Bull's Eye clearly suggest there is no evidence or none so far proven that the owner knew the gun was shoplifted and, in fact, he alleges he was not aware of any missing weapons until he was confronted by the ATF after the crime. This does not apply. Finally, there is the violation of a Federal or State statute. The Senator from Idaho often talks about, well, if there is a violation of Federal and State statute, that, of course, allows a person to go forward with this case. But there are two parts of this test. State or Federal statute violated, and that violation causes proximately, substantially the injury. In effect, what would have to be shown for any type of liability to adhere to the Bull's Eye case under this arrangement is that he was aware of the missing weapons more than 48 hours before he was confronted by the ATF, and he consciously disregarded his obligation to report not just a missing weapon but the particular weapon that was taken by Malvo. None of these exceptions apply to Bull's Eye or, if they apply, it is a very tortured reach to make the application. Then this amendment simply says: Well, if you fall under the statute, you get to use the statute. This is a circular, is a kind way to describe what this is. You could substitute anybody's name in the United States. It doesn't have to be John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo. It could be the victim of any criminal today walking around the streets of America with a handgun. Because if you are injured by that individual with a handgun and you fall into these categories, you get to go to court. But this is an easy amendment because very few people, if any, will qualify under these criteria. That is the whole point of this carefully worded, excruciatingly arcane approach to shutting people out of court. That is what this is about. Essentially you can't have it both ways. You can't stand up here and claim you are protecting the industry from frivolous suits but every suit we bring up is a possible worthy and meritorious suit. Well, of course, that will get into court. Of course, it is one of the exceptions. You don't get it both ways. You get it one way in this bill. Innocent people injured by the negligence of dealers, of manufacturers lose. And they win. We are not just giving out Federal firearms licenses, if this legislation passes. We are giving a license to be negligent and reckless--grossly negligent and grossly reckless. That is what a Federal firearms license means, if this legislation passes. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. REED. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I think it is important to clarify that because it has been a matter of factual dispute. The other issue which has to be clarified is the applicability of this legislation to that original owner-operator who had been accused of a laundry list of inappropriate actions. I had the opportunity to review some of them today. With respect to the owner of the Bull's Eye Shooting Gallery at the time the Malvo gun was obtained, under his ownership and under his license, 238 guns were missing. Many guns between 1997 and 2001 found their way into crime scenes. A remarkable record of guns found their way from a licensed dealer to crime scenes. Many found themselves to crime scenes in a rapid period of time. The nomenclature is ``time to crime.'' Time to crime was remarkably narrow. The time to crime was less than 3 years in more than 70 percent of Bull's Eye cases between 1997 and 2001, suggesting this organization was a conduit for obtaining weapons for crimes. There were large numbers of multiple firearms sales. Sometimes he would sell as many as 10 guns at a time. There were numerous ATF citations, at least 15 times between 1997 and 2001. That is the record of the individual whose license was suspended, finally, by the ATF. But the issue is, with respect to this individual, if we pass this legislation, will he be immunized after this record of negligence, recklessness, irrational responsibility? Most people would say that is the record. The exemption provided by paragraph (5)(A)(iii) says, in effect, the action would be preserved in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product and the violation was a proximate cause of harm for which relief is sought. Two elements: You have to violate Federal and State statutes; and that violation was the proximate cause of the damage to the individual. According to the well-settled tort law principle, proximate cause requires that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Remember, two elements: State and Federal statutes violated, and that violation being a proximate cause. Here is the difficulty with respect to the situation at the Bull's Eye Shooting Gallery. Despite the evidence we have that there were certain violations, many of them record keeping, it is going to be virtually impossible that the plaintiffs in the sniper case will be able to show that Bull's Eye violated any State or Federal statute with respect to the particular gun that was used by the snipers or that any such statutory violation was a proximate cause of the sniper attacks. The evidence concerning the acquisition of the snipers' weapon supports Bull's Eye's claim that Lee Boyd Malvo shoplifted the gun. That is not in dispute. Indeed, after his arrest, I believe Malvo admitted he shoplifted the gun from Bull's Eye. Although the plaintiffs or the family of the plaintiffs claim that Bull's Eye's lax security practice permitted Malvo to get the weapon, that would not establish a violation of any Federal or State statute. Again, a reading of this exception would say that you have to show, first, a Federal or State statute was violated, and the violation of that statute was the proximate cause was reading to injury. It is virtually impossible in this case. What is happening in all of these exceptions that are built into the bill is, this is a trapdoor, if you will. We have a general prohibition against any type of suit against these individuals, these dealers, these manufacturers, or trade associations; and then we have exceptions. And they point out within the exceptions, artfully constructed by very good lawyers, provisions for an escape clause for the potential defendants. Here it is, the combination of proximate cause and violation of Federal-State statute. Again, close analysis of the evidence--and I don't think any of this evidence is in dispute; Malvo admitted he shoplifted the weapon-- suggests strongly this exception would not apply in the case of the Bull's Eye shooter. These sniper victims will be without relief. That is not just my view but the view of attorneys who have looked at it very carefully. Now, this is a very detailed legal analysis. But, again, we so often--all of us--appeal to rather common, homely--in a literal sense-- illustrations, something with which we are comfortable. I was struck when the Senator from Idaho talked about, Goodness gracious, if someone stole a car off a lot and drove into another car and caused damage, that you could not hold that dealer responsible. Well, I can conceive of a situation. For example, if a dealer ordinarily left the keys in all of the cars on his lot, and they were cited 15 or 20 times before for doing that, and people knew that the dealer's cars were available, and young kids came in and jumped into a car and drove off at 60 miles an hour careening into another car and killing someone, I will tell you what I think. You have a pretty good suit against that automobile dealer for negligence, for abandoning the care that any other dealer in the country would adopt. They would not be protected from a suit as we propose to protect the gun industry. Again, this legislation is very troubling to me. I do not think it provides adequate protections for people who have legitimate claims, the most graphic example of which is the sniper victims in the Washington, DC, area. But they are not alone. Danny Guzman was killed in Worcester, MA, as a result of what I think is gross negligence. A gun manufacturer employed, without background checks, ex-convicts, drug addicts, allowing them to steal weapons from the production inventory of the company, and to sell them to criminals in exchange for cash and drugs. This involved a multiple of weapons. They got the weapons out of the factory before they could stamp the serial numbers on them. Again, common sense would say: My goodness gracious, somebody has to be able to go in and require that employer to be conscious of their weapons, their security procedures. I also understand--and again it is an understanding that is not shaped by a footnote at the moment--there are really no effective State or Federal laws about the security of weapons. I do not think there is any requirement specifying you have to have triple locks or double locks, et cetera. I think that is left to the reasonable business standards of an individual dealer. Again, if we do not have those rules and regulations or they are not effective, how do we then insist we cannot have a negligence action, as this legislation proposes? For these reasons and many others I reiterate my opposition to the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I agree entirely with the Senator from Connecticut. Rhode Island, like Connecticut, is seeing its manufacturing base evaporate. These are real problems. These are problems that affect families throughout this country. This is truly in the public interest, finding an answer to disappearing jobs throughout the country. Yet today we want to protect one very special interest. Let me add, too, as the Senator points out, not only are we trying to give an unprecedented immunity to one industry, this industry is virtually unregulated in the sense of other industries. It is not controlled by the Product Safety Commission, which would look at the product design. So one of the only recourses an individual has with respect to negligence claims is through the courts. Here we are eroding that avenue.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. At a time when this country is faced with extraordinary problems--with economic problems, international problems--we are devoting very precious time to legislation that is in behalf of a special interest rather than dealing with the broader public interest, the economy of this country and the international position and status of this country. This is not legislation that is designed to protect the courts. This is legislation that is designed to protect gun dealers, the gun industry, manufacturers, and trade associations such as the National Rifle Association. To suggest this is simply a response to politically motivated cases flies in the face of cases that have been filed, like the cases of the victims of the sniper shootings here in Washington, DC; people like Bernice Johnson, whose husband was sitting on a bus reading his paper waiting to go on and run his route that day and was killed. It subsequently turns out the weapon that was used in this crime came from a dealer in Washington State who apparently couldn't account for 238 weapons. Mrs. Johnson is not suing to make a political point. She is suing simply because she lost her husband, the father of her children, and she would like to hold responsible those people who were negligent. The suggestion that this is a minor exception to the law when people are acting legally, following a statute, flies in the face of our concept of civil liability. It is not a question of just following the law. It is also a question of being responsible for your actions, of not being negligent, of taking due care in the performance of your legal duties. This whole approach is something I think flies in the face of basic common sense and the basic law of this country. We are struggling with huge problems across this Nation. Yet we are spending precious time here to try to deal with the interests of a special group of people, a very influential group of people. We are not out protecting the rights of Mrs. Johnson and others bringing this suit. We are protecting the rights, frankly, of the gun industry to be negligent and harm people through their negligence. This legislation is not a minor, carefully crafted exception. It would wipe out virtually every opportunity to assess whether a gun dealer, a gun manufacturer, or a trade association was negligent in their activities. It would bar virtually all negligence for product liability in State and Federal courts and throw out all pending cases, cases that have already been filed prior to this date, prior to the potential enactment of this legislation. It is a sweeping immunity to gun dealers, gun manufacturers, and even trade associations such as the National Rifle Association. It is no wonder the gun lobby dropped this legislation in the 107th Congress, because we were paralyzed here in Washington by a sniper--two snipers, it turns out--who killed people with weapons that were obtained through the apparent negligence of a gun dealer. Yet these individuals, these victims and their families, would be denied the right to go to court because of this legislation. It is also ironic that this would be the first gun bill to be enacted since Columbine, a situation in which, again, young people, disturbed young people, were able to go to a gun show using a straw purchaser, using the loophole that exists in buying weapons without a background check, and then went into a high school in Colorado and wreaked havoc. Instead of closing the gun show loophole, we are now trying to open up a huge highway for the negligence of gun dealers, negligence of the gun industry. Talking about the procedural correctness of this approach, this legislation did not go through the Senate Judiciary Committee. There were no hearings, no committee markups were ever scheduled. This very complicated issue of balancing the rights of plaintiffs versus the rights of defendants in the context of civil litigation was never fully assessed through hearings. Now we are here and now we must have a vigorous debate on this legislation. We must not only look to the specifics of this legislation but also to its impact across the country and address some larger issues of gun violence in the United States. Two years ago or so, it was the Washington area snipers who paralyzed this country, certainly paralyzed this area of the country. Today there is apparently one or perhaps more gunmen who are stalking innocent people on the highways of Ohio. Gun violence exists and we should do more to stop it. We should use this opportunity to pass provisions that will close the gun show loophole, that would reauthorize the ban on assault weapons that has operated in the last few years at least to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of some very dangerous people. We should require effective safety locks on handguns. We should improve the national instant criminal background check system so there is a more accurate and more effective system of checking. These are the things we should be doing and I hope we can have an opportunity to offer amendments in this regard. Every day there are hundreds of thousands, millions of families who struggle to do all they can to protect their children and themselves. Here we are telling the gun industry: Don't join that effort to make people safer. You can ignore reasonable, responsible actions. You can be negligent and you will not be brought to justice. I think that is wrong. I think that is bad law, bad public policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, to oppose this motion to go forward. There are much more pressing demands in this country we should address today: the unemployed, those who are struggling to find jobs in a jobless economy; funding fully our national defense. We have a budget that was presented to us that does not include any money for Iraq and Afghanistan. That is something we should be focused on today.