[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 25 (Tuesday, March 2, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1973-S1976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S1973]]
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that instead of 1
minute on each side between votes, there be 2 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2625
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinvoich). Who yields time on the Frist
amendment No. 2625? The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed
with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote. The Frist-Craig amendment
is the pending amendment. I would like to close. I ask the Senator to
proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad if Senator Craig wishes to
close on this amendment. I would like to close on the next amendment,
if that is agreeable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have seen a lot of phony amendments
around here in the 42 years I have been here, and this is about as
phony an amendment as one could possibly imagine.
We have to ask ourselves, What is the problem? The problem has been
17 law enforcement officers have been killed, according to the FBI,
from armor-piercing bullets. Deer and ducks do not wear armor vests.
Police officers wear armor vests. What do police officers do? They try
and protect the public interest.
What is out there now on the Internet? I have four different charts
that show what is out on the Internet selling this armor-piercing
ammunition. Let's just take a look at what the armor-piercing
ammunition does.
Armor-piercing projectiles contain a core of hardened steel or
tungsten carbide which allows it to penetrate metal objects. That is
what our police officers are up against.
The Craig amendment does what? It asks whether we ought to have a
study of this kind of problem. In the meantime, if we accept that and
oppose my amendment, we know there will be law enforcement officials
who will be killed, shot, with these armor-piercing bullets.
What in the world justification is there for hunters to use armor-
piercing bullets? Perhaps that can be answered. I have not heard it,
but the Senator wants to have a study.
What else will they do? They will increase the penalties. That will
be fine. Tell that to the families after these police officers have
been killed. What is going to happen after that? They will even provide
the death penalty in some instances. This does not protect law
enforcement officials, and I hope the Senate will support my amendment
later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes has expired.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Fraternal Order of Police, 311,000
police, oppose what the Senator from Massachusetts has just said. Their
official organization says this is nothing more than a smokescreen to
ban about 30 percent of ammunition that is currently in the market for
the purpose of hunting, for the purpose of using in it a law-abiding
way by sportsmen.
Can a piece of ammunition, shot in a 30.06, that will kill a deer or
an elk pierce certain types of armor? The answer is, yes, it can. The
Senator from Massachusetts is truthful in that. But do we want to now
summarily erase all of that from the market or do we want to do an
official bona fide ballistic study, directed by the Department of
Justice, to have a clear and clean understanding of what is, in fact,
armor piercing and what is, in fact, a legitimate piece of ammunition
that is used by marksmen, that is used by sportsmen, that is used in
the legitimate business of hunting that we have longtime said is a
great tradition in this country?
Anti-gunners have always said, if you can't get the gun, go after the
ammo--if you can't get the gun, go after the ammo. Clearly, the
underlying amendment that we will debate next goes after the ammo. The
Frist-Craig amendment says, whoa, wait a minute, let's make darn sure
what we are doing is the right thing before we go there.
No one is in favor of a cop-killer bullet. Shame on anybody who would
accuse any Senator on this floor for being in favor of a cop-killer
bullet. What we are in favor of is legitimate ammunition and its use,
not its misuse, and not the ability to say, well, that is a good bullet
but it was used badly; therefore, it ought to be eliminated.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the Frist-Craig amendment relating to armor piercing ammunition. The
Frist-Craig amendment restates existing law which prohibits the
manufacture, import, or sale of armor piercing ammunition except for
use by the United States Government or for export. Additionally, the
Frist-Craig amendment requires the Department of Justice to study and
report to Congress whether a uniform standard for the testing of
projectiles against body armor is feasible.
The Department would include in its study the standards which Senator
Kennedy seeks in his proposed amendment. Ideally, this report will
confirm or put to rest the issue of whether the amendment proposed by
Senator Kennedy would have the effect of banning standard hunting
information. This is a sensible approach to an issue which has so many
legitimate hunters and other gun owners concerned. Finally, and
importantly, the Frist-Craig amendment does something about Senator
Kennedy's concerns in a way that his amendment does not. Specifically,
the Frist-Craig amendment imposes serious penalties on those who use
and carry armor piercing ammunition during and in relation to crimes of
violence and drug trafficking crimes.
The Frist-Craig amendment sends a clear message that those criminals
who use this type of ammunition in their crimes that they will face
significant punishment. Additionally, if the criminals murder someone
with armor piercing ammunition in the course of a drug trafficking
crime or crime of violence, they will face the full range of
punishment, including the death penalty.
The Frist-Craig amendment would therefore punish those who use armor
piercing ammunition to carry out illegal activities while permitting
those who intend to legitimately use ammunition with common and
conventional hunting or sporting rifles to do so.
It is through the Frist-Craig amendment that we would preserve what
is the classic first deer rifle given to millions of Americans; that
is, the 30-30 Winchester deer rifle. Finally, it is important to note
that the Fraternal Order of Police, representing over 311,000 police
officers nationwide, supports the Frist-Craig amendment.
A difficulty many have with Senator Kennedy's amendment is the
definition of body armor, which is directed at the minimum standard for
protection of law enforcement officers. According to the Department of
Justice, the minimum standard is level 1 body armor which is designed
to resist bullets fired from various low caliber handguns, such as .22s
or .380s. Therefore, under this amendment common handgun ammunition for
other handguns, including .44 calibers and 9 mm, would be banned.
Additionally, neither level 1 nor level 2 body armor is designed to
prevent penetration by rifles. Therefore, to ban all ammunition that
may penetrate level 1 body armor, or level 2 body armor for that
matter, would in effect ban all rifle ammunition.
I am troubled by this issue because I remember the draft AFT report
issued in 1997 by ATF's career personnel that concluded that there was
no need for new legislation. Unfortunately, those in that
administration's political positions whose agenda was to push gun
control legislation reversed those findings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2625.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from South
[[Page S1974]]
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--12
Akaka
Cantwell
Carper
Corzine
Feingold
Hollings
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Levin
Reed
Sarbanes
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Domenici
Edwards
Johnson
The amendment (No. 2625) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2619
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 4 minutes of debate evenly
divided before the vote on the Kennedy amendment.
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe the Kennedy amendment is now up.
Both the Senator from Massachusetts and I agree, this being his
amendment, he should be able to close the debate.
Let me suggest as clearly as I can to all of our colleagues, if you
just voted yes on the immediate past amendment that passed by a very
large margin, 85 to 12, then you would vote no on Kennedy. It is quite
simple why.
He sets a new ballistic standard. He does not allow the professional
to determine what is or is not armor piercing. I don't believe a
Senator wants to ban from the marketplace potentially 30 percent of the
kind of ammunition that is now used in legitimate hunting.
That is fundamentally the issue that is at hand, to reach out into
the marketplace and arbitrarily draw a line when we all know that
hunting weapons, when misdirected, have the potential of penetrating
soft armor and other types of armor. Are they armor piercing? No. But
they have the capability of phenomenal penetration. That is why they
are hunting ammunition. That is why our sportsmen use them.
It is not the role of the Senate to draw that kind of line and
determine what is hunting and what is not in respect to this amendment.
I believe that is the underlying basis of the Kennedy amendment.
I ask that the Senate oppose it and vote no.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the current cop-killer bullets that we
have accepted now took 5 years to pass in the Senate. We heard the same
arguments. I was part of that whole effort. It took us 5 years to
provide it. We have made very marginal progress on it.
I raise this: Law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, on page
17, law enforcement officers killed by firearms while wearing body
armor. There it is, page 17: 17 law enforcement officers were killed
while wearing body armor by armor-piercing bullets.
Don't worry about this amendment. The only people who have to worry
about this amendment are people who use sniper rifles and assault
weapons and use armor-piercing bullets.
That is the record. The FBI has stated that. We have a chance to make
a difference. We have had a study. I can understand some people want a
study. You can vote for this amendment.
Let me finally say this has the support of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, City Chiefs Association, National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement, National Association of School Reserve Officers.
This applies to sniper rifles and assault weapons. Some of these
bullets can travel as far as a mile. Some of them have incendiary tips
with electronic scopes. We are talking about homeland security and we
are not even prepared to do something about armor-piercing bullets that
can go through police officers' vests. It is as simple as that.
If we care about our law enforcement officers trying to protect our
people, we will at least resist letting snipers have armor-piercing
bullets.
Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2619.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 63, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--34
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--63
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Domenici
Edwards
Johnson
The amendment (No. 2619) was rejected.
Amendment No. 2631
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes equally divided on
the Levin amendment.
The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of our
colleagues, this is a key amendment to the underlying S. 1805.
I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I went to law school and studied the concepts
of gross negligence and reckless conduct. There are thousands, in fact
probably millions, of pages of case law trying to define those legal
terms.
The reality is no judge or lawyer can tell you today what they mean.
They say it all depends. This amendment does not clear that up. In
fact, it only adds to the confusion, because it statutorily creates a
standard of care when there is no underlying cause of action, no basis
for liability against the defendant. There will still be lawsuits to
defend and lawyers to pay even if you win. I guess that may be the
whole point of the proponents--create a requirement for manufacturers
to defend themselves in court even though there is no legitimate cause
of action against them. They pay more insurance, more lawyers, so even
if they win, they lose.
This bill is all about ensuring there is no cause of action against a
manufacturer which makes a legal, nondefective product. It makes no
sense to say unless he is grossly negligent. He is already liable if he
is grossly negligent. Say the gun blows up and kills somebody; that
standard applies already if there is a legal cause of action against
[[Page S1975]]
him--in other words, a legal basis for holding him liable. It adds
nothing but confusion when there is no underlying cause of action.
Here is an example: You get yourself rear-ended by the guy behind
you, and I am not that guy. You have no right to sue me. It doesn't
change anything if we say in the law ``unless Kyl is grossly
negligent;'' Kyl wasn't even there. All we are doing is adding
confusion to this by adding this gross negligence language which,
unfortunately, will cause a lot of people to have to defend themselves
in court, pay lawyer fees, and at the end of the day we are trying to
avoid that here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is said to be that
you want to make sure you do not hold people accountable for the
actions of others. That is what we have been told the purpose of this
bill is. That is what the stated purpose of this bill is. This
amendment says we surely should hold people accountable for their own
actions. That is the difference. Are people going to be held
accountable for their own reckless and grossly negligent conduct? The
way this bill is written, the only grossly negligent conduct or
reckless conduct somebody is held accountable for is if that conduct is
also illegal.
What if the conduct is not illegal but is grossly negligent and
reckless and causes the death or injury of somebody else? Should that
manufacturer or that dealer be immunized if his own reckless or grossly
negligent conduct is a proximate cause of death or injury? It is a
simple provision. I am going to read it, if I have 20 seconds left:
None of the provisions in the act shall be construed to
prohibit a civil liability action from being brought or
continued against the person if that person's own gross
negligence or reckless conduct was a proximate cause of death
or injury.
The key word in this whole sentence is ``own.'' The key argument that
the opponents of the amendment make is that you only should be
responsible for your own actions, and I agree. The NRA has a point. You
should be responsible for your own actions. This amendment says if your
actions are reckless or grossly negligent, then you are not going to be
immunized. This is not someone else's conduct. It is your own.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table the Levin amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dole
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
NAYS--41
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Domenici
Edwards
Johnson
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I believe the order at hand is final
passage on S. 1805, as amended. I turn to my colleague, Senator Reed,
for any closing comments he would like to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, despite the passage of three very important
amendments for gun safety--one that closed the gun show loophole,
another that extended the assault weapons ban, and a third to require
child safety locks with all handguns sold in this country--the
underlying bill still represents a fundamental undermining of a
principle of law that has lasted for centuries, and that principle is
that an individual is not just responsible to follow the statutes of
this country, that individual is responsible to act reasonably. Even
the most elaborate construct of statutes will never reach all the
variations of human behavior. That is why this fundamental principle of
responsible conduct must by maintained.
This bill turns it on its head. This bill, if enacted, will be a
license to be irresponsible, and there is no more graphic example than
Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Washington State, the source of the
weapons for the snipers who terrorized Washington, DC. The individual
could not account for 238 weapons, had numerous citations by ATF, and
was unaware that a weapon was shoplifted and had fallen into the hands
of assassins. That is irresponsible conduct. That conduct would be
immunized by this legislation.
I urge all my colleagues to vote no, against this legislation. We
have made progress on important gun safety measures, but the underlying
legislation would say to gun manufacturers: You can be irresponsible
through your distribution network to whom you sell; to dealers, you can
be irresponsible to the customer to whom you sell. We don't want that.
The peace, security, and safety of all of us cannot tolerate that, and
I urge defeat of this measure.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we are about to vote on S. 1805, as
amended. The House passed a clean S. 1805 with over a 2-to-1 margin.
The President has asked for a clean bill. But in the process of the
last 5 days we have added a great deal to this bill that makes it much
less than clean.
We have added back the assault weapons ban. We have added trigger
locks. We put a new tripwire in gun shows that will allow law-abiding
citizens to be at risk.
I don't think we can go there, nor do I believe we should go there.
I, and certainly my colleagues, have worked in good will, as have all
who have come to the floor to debate this issue. There has been a real
difference of opinion.
I am now told even if we passed it, it would never get to conference.
If you can't work the process and get to conference, how can you
complete the legislative process for which the House and the Senate
have always historically been known? To simply have someone say no to
allow the difference between the House and the Senate to be worked out
is the very clear message I am hearing at this moment. That is a
message that doesn't work. If that is the strategy here, that we move
legislation by offering amendments by working in a bipartisan fashion
only to say no at the end, how can we accept the process and simply
say, well, let us vote it out, anyway?
This is a very important bill. There is no question about that. It
was a substantial move in tort reform. It enshrined once again the
historic tort belief that you as an individual are responsible for your
own actions. If
[[Page S1976]]
somebody acts criminally down the line and you have been law abiding
and you are at risk, that is what the bill said. It wasn't convoluted.
It was clear and it was clean. I worked on it a long while, as have
many others.
I am proud of our work product, and I would love to see this bill
pass. But I now believe it is so dramatically wounded that it should
not pass. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass? The yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 8, nays 90, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]
YEAS--8
Breaux
Daschle
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Pryor
Voinovich
NAYS--90
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Edwards
Johnson
The bill (S. 1805), as amended, was rejected.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
____________________