[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18940-18943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, within several minutes, we will start 20 
minutes of debate on CAFTA, equally divided. We will have a rollcall 
vote. We will go to energy after that. We will complete debate on 
energy tonight. We will not have a further rollcall vote tonight after 
the CAFTA vote.
  We will begin--and we will announce the time a little bit later as to 
the two votes on energy tomorrow, one on the point of order and one on 
the bill. Following that, we will be going to the amendments that have 
been outlined with the time agreements on guns. The highway bill we 
will expect at some point. I don't know when the House will finish with 
that, but we will deal appropriately with that after it arrives. Since 
energy arrived, we are going to energy first. That is the general 
outline. We have the unanimous consent agreements. I would recommend 
very soon we go to the CAFTA bill.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority 
leader: We are going to finish the debate on energy tonight?
  Mr. FRIST. Right.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic 
time be allocated as follows: Senator Schumer, 10 minutes; Senator 
Kerry, 30 minutes; Senator Wyden, 15 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 20 
minutes; and whatever time is left over will be allocated to Senator 
Bingaman.

[[Page 18941]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my leader for yielding.
  So the two votes required on the energy conference report will occur 
after the leader's time tomorrow morning in morning business. 
Approximately at what time would those votes occur?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response, let me work 
out with the Democratic leader what time those votes will be.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am assuming, then, immediately following 
those votes, we would be back on the gun liability bill, to complete 
the work under the UC of that legislation?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, or we could even be before. We could 
actually come on those amendments before as well.
  Mr. CRAIG. So that is yet to be determined?
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct. We will determine that before we close 
down tonight.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the leader.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise on behalf of my 
constituents to oppose the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 
It should be called the Special Interest Protection Act because it puts 
one industry's bottomline ahead of the families and victims of gun 
violence. It also slams closed the courthouse door to those seeking 
justice for victims of gun violence.
  Remember when--not to long ago--the citizens of Maryland, Virginia 
and the District of Columbia were terrorized by a sniper. Remember when 
10 innocent people were killed while they were going about their daily 
routines, mowing the lawn or getting gas, shopping, and getting ready 
to drive a bus. Their families have experienced tremendous loss and the 
Nation mourned with them.
  Now, Congress is considering legislation that inflict further pain on 
families like those of the sniper victims. This legislation will 
literally slam the courthouse door on the families of gun violence 
victims and on all Americans who believe they were harmed by negligent 
actions related to guns. It gives gun dealers and manufacturers a free 
pass. And it will prevent families and survivors from holding 
irresponsible gun stores accountable, if they are negligent. It 
actually would prohibit families from going to court, from letting a 
jury of their peers decide if the gun store or manufacturer was 
negligent.
  If this legislation passes you could still go to court over a toy gun 
but not a real gun. That is wrong.
  Let me tell you about one of these families who have been victimized 
by gun violence. Conrad Johnson was the sniper's last victim. Do you 
remember hearing the news that he was shot at a bus stop in Montgomery 
County? Killed by the sniper getting ready for his route.
  He was beloved by his family, friends and community. Two thousand 
people attended his funeral.
  He worked hard as a bus driver. He drove 35 miles before dawn every 
day for work. He was known for his friendly smile and can-do attitude.
  And he loved his family--his Jamaican immigrant parents, his wife 
Denise--his high school sweetheart, his two sons and his big extended 
family. Over 30 members gathered at the hospital after he was shot. He 
was full of life. He was always finding ways to take care of his family 
and help his community. He was a volunteer coach for the boys and girls 
clubs of Fort Washington. He loved being a DJ for functions thrown by 
family and friends, and he was always washing the family car on the 
weekends.
  Conrad Johnson was the snipers last victim. Conrad's family is one of 
many Maryland families still grieving because of the snipers' reign of 
terror. Five Maryland families lost loved ones in the sniper's first 24 
hours.
  Today, I stand here for the rights of families like those of the 
sniper victims to have their day in court, the rights of families like 
James Martin's. James was shot when he stopped to buy groceries for his 
church program. Or James ``Sonny'' Buchanan's family. Sonny, a 
landscape architect, who was engaged to be married, was shot with one 
bullet as he worked early one morning. Or the wife, son, and daughter 
of Premkumar Walekar. He was a taxicab driver, shot that same morning 
as he went about his normal fill up routine at a local gas station on 
Aspen Hill Road. Or the husband and 7 year old son of Sarah Ramos, who 
was shot just 25 minutes later, as she sat on a bench waiting for a 
ride to her babysitting job. And the family of Lori Ann Lewis Ramos, 
shot just a short time later, as she stopped at a gas station to clean 
her car.
  Today, I also stand here to protect all the victims who were and are 
severely injured by gun violence. They also deserve their day in court. 
There is the young boy who was a victim of the DC area sniper--Iran 
Brown, who was shot in the chest as he was dropped off at Benjamin 
Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Iran spent over a month in intensive 
care because of the gunshot to his chest or Rupinder ``Benny'' Oberoi, 
a young man who was shot in the back as he closed the store he worked 
at for the night. Benny needed 26 staples in his chest and extensive 
surgery to repair the damage caused by the bullet that pierced his 
back.
  These families have been through so much. They can never recover that 
tremendous loss. We owe it to them to make sure families all over 
American who are like them can have their day in court.
  That is why we need to oppose this legislation today.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about language was added to S. 397 
to protect this case or that case. The U.S. Congress should not be in 
the business of deciding which negligence actions should be allowed 
into a court. That is up to the courts to decide. That is what our 
civil justice system is all about. It gives these families the right to 
offer evidence to prove the gun shop was negligent.
  We need to reject this legislation and protect that right.
  We need to ensure that the families of victims and the victims 
themselves, who have faced such unprecedented tragedy, are not 
victimized again by having the courthouse doors slammed on them.
  We stood with law enforcement during the dark and dangerous days of 
the snipe; now today they stand with us. People feared for their lives. 
Thanks to the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and local 
law enforcement they found the snipers. Thanks to brilliant forensic 
work they traced the weapon. This legislation makes a mockery of 
everything law enforcement tried to do.
  If this legislation passes, irresponsible dealers get off scot-free 
and victims of gun violence are left without the protection of our 
justice system. I believe families of victims of gun violence deserve 
their day in court, like the sniper victims' families had--like Conrad 
Johnson's family, and Sarah Ramos' family, and all the families.
  They may not win their case, but they have the right to make their 
case. The courts should decide based on the facts and the evidence.
  Let me be clear, I do not believe Congress should stand in the way by 
offering special protection, by offering blanket protections for the 
negligent actions of the gun dealers, sellers and manufacturers. It is 
my duty to my constituents to fight with them and to fight against 
passage of this bill. It would be irresponsible for the Congress not to 
allow these victims of terror to seek redress in the courts. Gun 
violence terrorizes our citizens and we owe them nothing less.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to express my support of S. 397, 
the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act introduced my colleague Senator 
Craig of Idaho.
  The number of frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers has 
significantly increased in recent years. Since 1998, dozens of 
municipalities and cities have filed suit against America's firearm 
industry, falsely alleging that

[[Page 18942]]

manufacturers are responsible for the unforeseen acts of criminals. 
Firearms manufacturers have already spent more than $200 million in 
legal fees yet have not been found liable by a single court for the 
criminal misuse of their highly regulated products. Unfortunately, 
these lawsuits appear to be designed to impose a political agenda that 
33 State legislatures have already rejected. Lawsuits against 
manufacturers who have nothing to do with the crime at hand thwart the 
will of the people by bypassing their elected representatives and 
attempting to impose novel legal theories by judicial fiat. Worse, 
these suits--even while unsuccessful--drain significant resources from 
these companies that are the backbone of supplying our military and 
police officers with the weapons to protect themselves on the job. We 
cannot allow this trend to continue.
  S. 397 is a narrowly crafted bill that stops the lawsuit abuse, while 
continuing to hold those individuals and companies that knowingly 
violate the law liable for their actions. Specifically, the bill 
provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and 
sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or 
unlawful use of the product by a third party. This bill provides 
carefully tailored protections that continue to allow legitimate suits 
based on knowing violations of Federal or State law related to gun 
sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment, such 
as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of 
contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual 
injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm, as opposed to 
cases of intentional misuse.
  Many of my constituents have raised concerns about frivolous lawsuits 
in the gun industry. Pennsylvania leads the Nation in the number of 
licensed deer hunters and ranks among the leaders in firearm hunters. 
There are nearly three million hunting licenses sold in Pennsylvania 
each year. Over one million hunters go out in the field each fall. 
These suits, by threatening the survival of firearms makers, threaten 
to end that outdoor tradition and the family time that often 
accompanies it.
  The hard-working men and women in Pennsylvania who make up our labor 
unions also support S. 397. This should be no surprise, however, as 
working men and women recognize a threat to their jobs and their way of 
life when they see one. The numbers are telling. Pennsylvania has 227 
companies involved in firearms manufacture. There are over 3,000 
federally licensed firearms dealers. According to the National Shooting 
Sports Foundation, there are approximately 34,000 jobs and $909 million 
in salaries and wages supported by those businesses and sportsmen in 
Pennsylvania. Additionally, these Pennsylvania sportsmen spend about $2 
billion in the State, generating approximately $119 million in 
Pennsylvania State tax revenue.
  Many families' lives are negatively impacted by these reckless 
lawsuits. While many of the personal tragedies behind these lawsuits 
are horrific, the individual responsible is--as it has always been in 
our system of justice--the criminal not the lawfully operating company. 
If a lawsuit is based on a defective firearm, a knowing violation of 
the law or the breach of a contract, that suit should proceed--and S. 
397 would allow it to proceed. However, the frivolous suits with novel 
legal theories and invented liability have already cost jobs, including 
here in Pennsylvania, and they will cost more jobs if they continue. 
They will force company closures and they will close family businesses. 
Suing law-abiding gun makers and dealers for the acts of criminals is 
like suing automobile makers for the damage caused by reckless drivers. 
It is wrong and goes against the entrepreneurial and industrial spirit 
of this country.
  I agree there is a need to reduce violent crime, and I share the 
concerns of gun control advocates with the number and severity of 
violent acts occurring within our Nation. During a June 13th field 
hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Philadelphia, we learned 
about the many factors that contribute to the problem of youth violence 
including poverty, broken families, a lack of mentors, and loose 
enforcement of current gun laws. I believe it is necessary to focus on 
the root causes of these problems rather than develop a policy that 
appears helpful on the surface. I have worked and continue to work on 
the issues of poverty, broken families and mentoring, however I believe 
that greater enforcement of existing gun laws is a key part of the 
solution to eradicating gun violence.
  The program ``Project Exile'' is an example of how stricter 
enforcement of current laws can make a difference. For this reason, I 
have been involved in implementing Project Exile in Philadelphia. This 
program began in Richmond, VA, and has proven to be extremely 
successful in reducing gun crime by simply enforcing existing Federal 
gun laws. The program adopts a zero-tolerance policy for Federal gun 
crimes. Federal, State and local law enforcement and prosecutors work 
hand-in-hand to expedite prosecution of each and every Federal firearms 
violation under Project Exile. Thanks to Project Safe Neighborhoods and 
Project Exile, Federal prosecutions of firearms offenses have gone up 
91 percent since 2000. Nationally, those prosecutions have jumped 76 
percent in the same time period. That means that more criminals are 
serving hard time for breaking Federal gun laws. More criminals off the 
street means our citizens are safer. That is a much more effective way 
to fight crime than punishing innocent manufacturers through frivolous 
lawsuits.
  I encourage my colleagues to support S. 397. Doing so will help an 
industry that is being unfairly targeted for violent crimes, and allow 
us to continue to focus on the real causes of violent crimes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 397, the 
protection of lawful commerce in arms bill, also known as the gun 
liability immunity bill. Regardless of whether you support this bill or 
oppose this bill, I can certainly understand that the issue of gun 
liability is an important one.
  But let me ask my colleagues: Is this really more important than all 
the other important issues before the Senate right now? With only a few 
days left before the August recess, is giving liability protection to 
gun manufacturers really more important than passing the Department of 
Defense authorization bill during a time of war? Even this bill's most 
vocal supporters could not make this argument with a straight face.
  As I travel around my State of Illinois talking to constituents, I 
hear many concerns from them. They tell me about the lack of affordable 
health care, the quality of our Nation's schools, the rising cost of 
gasoline, and the war in Iraq. Parents worry about how the budget 
deficit will affect their children's future. Veterans complain about 
the long delays in applying for and receiving disability benefits and 
about the amount of those benefits.
  My constituents have no shortage of suggestions and ideas for what 
Congress should be doing, but I can honestly say that none of them are 
saying, ``Senator, please go back to Washington and make sure that gun 
companies aren't being sued by victims of gun violence.'' I haven't 
heard that one yet.
  And that is why I have chosen to speak on the floor today to--
highlight the misplaced priorities of the Senate's leadership. Even 
though we have 139,000 troops fighting for our freedom in Iraq and a 
$440 billion Defense bill that could help these troops, we are here 
debating gun liability instead of talking about how to strengthen our 
national defense.
  That is regrettable, and that is one of the reasons why so many 
Americans are disillusioned with their Government. Because we are not 
focusing on the problems that truly matter to them. Because some are 
more interested in scoring political points, or catering to a special 
interest.
  I believe--as do my Democratic colleagues--that the first priority of 
the Senate should be to provide for our men and women who are in harm's 
way. And that means spending the necessary time to debate the Defense 
bill.

[[Page 18943]]

If that takes us the rest of the week--or even next week--then that is 
what we should do.
  How can we go home to our constituents in August and tell them that 
we left Washington, DC without finishing a bill to help our military 
because we spent too much time protecting gun manufacturers? That is 
shameful.
  I have talked to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and many 
of them were planning to offer good, commonsense, bipartisan amendments 
to the DOD bill--amendments that would have helped our military and 
strengthened our national defense. I also have filed several amendments 
that I would have offered, and I believe that many of my colleagues 
would have supported them as well.
  One of my amendments would have protected members of the National 
Guard and Reserve against employment discrimination. This amendment is 
supported by the Reserve Officers Association and is cosponsored by 
Senator Salazar.
  I have heard that there have been instances where prospective 
employers are reluctant to hire guard and reservists because of fears 
that these employees could be called up for extended tours of duty. 
These citizen-soldiers are getting through initial stages of interviews 
only to be summarily dropped from the process upon disclosing the fact 
that they are members of the Guard and Reserve.
  My amendment would have gotten to the heart of this problem by 
preventing employers from forcing members of the Guard and Reserve to 
disclose their military service during the interview process. However, 
my amendment would not have prohibited them from disclosing their 
military status if they thought it would be beneficial during an 
interview process.
  But instead of helping members of the Guard and Reserve, we are 
talking about gun manufacturer liability. That is wrong.
  Another amendment I would have offered relates to the medical records 
of our servicemembers.
  For years, the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs have attempted to modernize their medical records to create a 
two-way exchange of patient health data to better care for our Nation's 
service members. This would decrease costs and improve the flow of 
information when active members of the military leave the DOD system 
and move to the VA system. Greater use of technology would also reduce 
medical errors, which kill up to 98,000 people a year.
  Unfortunately, the DOD has not managed to create a fully functional 
electronic medical records system. Last year, a GAO report found that 
one of the primary reasons for the delay in developing this system is 
the lack of congressional oversight.
  My amendment would have helped provide some of that oversight. I 
wanted to get some answers from DOD on why this project is being 
delayed and how the Department is proceeding with this important 
project.
  But debate over these amendments, and many others, is being silenced 
in favor of the one we are having now--about helping gun manufacturers.
  This is why the American people are tired of what goes on in this 
town. Because there are real issues they sent us here to debate--real 
problems they expect us to solve. But even when we have a chance to do 
this--even when we have a defense bill where we could add amendments 
that could help our troops and care for our veterans--the Senate passes 
on that chance and heads directly into another fight singed with more 
politics and more ideology.
  We can do better than that. We owe ourselves better--and we certainly 
owe the American people better.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from Army Times, criticizing 
the Senate leadership's decision to stop consideration of the DOD bill, 
be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Army Times, July 26, 2005]

                  Senate Delays Action on Defense Bill

                             (By Rick Maze)

       Senate Republican leaders decided Tuesday that a gun 
     manufacturers' liability bill is more important than next 
     year's $441.6 billion defense authorization bill.
       With Democrats expressing amazement that there could be any 
     higher legislative priority in a time of war than the annual 
     defense bill that includes money for pay and benefits, 
     operations and maintenance, and weapons' purchases and 
     research, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Republican 
     leader, decided Tuesday that a bill protecting gun 
     manufacturers from lawsuits over the illegal use of firearms 
     was a higher priority.
       The decision came after Republican leaders failed to muster 
     the 60 votes needed to prevent amendments not strictly 
     related to the defense budget from being offered to the 
     defense bill.
       In a count of 50-48, seven Republicans joined Democrats in 
     voting not to restrict debate, a move that Democratic leaders 
     said would have prevented consideration of amendments to help 
     veterans and survivors of deceased service members, along 
     with other issues.
       With Congress planning to leave town Friday for one-month 
     break, debate on S. 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
     Arms Act, is expected to last two or three days, and then 
     Senate leaders plan to take up an energy bill, an estate tax 
     reform bill and an Interior Department funding bill that has 
     a $1.5 billion bailout attached for veterans' health care 
     programs, leaving no time until September to get back to the 
     defense bill.
       The House approved its version of the defense bill in May 
     and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up to begin 
     negotiations with the Bush administration on a final version.
       Delay in the Senate is partly a result of senators spending 
     three weeks this spring debating federal judicial nominations 
     before reaching a compromise on President Bush's nominees.
       It all points toward a difficult autumn. When the Senate 
     returns in September from its month-long summer recess, it 
     will need to consider recommendations of the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Commission, due to finish its work by 
     Sept. 8, and begin deliberations on the nomination of John 
     Roberts to the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor.

                          ____________________