Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - 2
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT -- (Senate - July 28, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.
Mr. DURBIN. I first commend the Senator from Massachusetts for explaining what is before the Senate, not only today but yesterday and the day before. Would the Senator be kind enough to tell those who are observing and following this debate which bill we took off the calendar, which bill we were considering, to move this bill on the calendar, this special interest bill to protect gun manufacturers and gun dealers from being held personally responsible for their wrongdoing? Would the Senator from Massachusetts tell us what bill we pushed off the calendar to bring on this special interest bill?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Illinois knows that one of the most important bills that we consider at any time of the year is the Defense authorization legislation. That is the legislation which provides basic resources and support for our armed services, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but all over the world. It is the basic document which is the expression of our national priority in terms of national security and national defense.
As one who has been here for some years, having been a member of the Armed Services Committee, we met in the day and in the evening to report that bill out in a timely way so that it could be considered before the August recess. That is what we heard, as members of the Armed Services Committee, and we were in the process of doing that at the end of last week. As a matter of fact, there was one amendment offered by the chairman of the committee to restore money for up-armoring humvees, which I welcomed the opportunity to support. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee had opposed that up-armoring at the time we had the supplemental. That is very important, making sure our men and women serving in Iraq are going to have the body armor and have the best in terms of their protection. That is what is in that legislation. That is what we were considering. That is what we hoped to deal with.
All of a sudden, out of the blue, the Republican leadership says, No, we are going to pull that bill down and we will put it back on the calendar and consider this special interest legislation, which they have called up. They now use parliamentary procedures in order to even deny those of us who want to amend that legislation the opportunity to do so.
I don't know whether the Senator was here a few moments ago when our majority leader was talking about stem cell research, which we wanted to take up, which offered such hope and opportunity to conquer diseases. The majority leader said: We want everyone's views on our side of the aisle to be considered.
It is interesting. They want that on the stem cell research, but not on this special interest legislation.
It is deplorable. I know of at least 20 amendments from Members of our side and the other side, amendments that would provide additional help and support for the National Guard, for our reservists in the armed services of this country, that would have provided additional strengthening for our fighting men and women. To deflect that to consider this special interest legislation that is just going to serve the gun manufacturers makes no sense.
I know this is an extended answer. As the Senator remembers, we spent 2 weeks on the credit card industry legislation and bankruptcy. We spent 2 weeks in order to protect the credit card industry. We spent 2 weeks after that on class action legislation. We spent more than a week debating highways. We have spent 3 days on the Defense authorization bill. And then we have the Republican leadership pull that down? It makes no sense to me.
I wonder what the service men and women think about our priorities when an action like that is taken.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield for a question, I would say to the Senator, through the Chair, that the Army Times, the publication for our U.S. Army and its soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq, ran a headline story that the Senate pushed off the Department of Defense authorization bill, which included amendments which were being offered to provide additional financial assistance to the widows and orphans of those soldiers who lost their lives in combat, took away the bill which included an amendment to allow additional payment for totally disabled veterans, and instead moved on the floor this bill for one special interest group, the gun lobby.
The Senator has made it clear the Republican leadership considers this bill, a National Rifle Association sponsored bill, more important than the Department of Defense authorization bill.
I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he could tell me if he knows of any other industry, any business in America which enjoys the same kind of immunity from liability for their wrongdoing-any other business with immunity from liability that the gun industry and gun dealers are asking for in this legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator knows the answer to that; that is, there is none. This will be special, unique to a single industry that prides itself, as the spokesman for the NRA said-you better support this or else; basically saying that to the Congress of the United States.
Just to complete the thought about the sense of priorities, as legislators we basically express the priorities for the people of our State and the Nation. We express those priorities in our budget, on what we ought to be expending resources, and we express priorities by what we address on the floor of the Senate.
One of those amendments that was going to be offered to the Defense authorization bill-I know the Senator from Michigan was going to provide assurance that there was going to be mandatory spending to protect the veterans who are coming back from Iraq so they are guaranteed the kind of health care they are guaranteed before they go over there and fight and become wounded and need those kinds of services. That is offered in light of the fact that we are not providing the resources to serve our veterans.
That is something worthy of debate on the floor of the Senate. It seems to me that has a lot more priority for debate and discussion and decision by this body than the special interest legislation that we are considering with the National Rifle Association.
I ask whether the Senator would not agree with me on that?
Mr. DURBIN. I agree. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts another question about this bill. The Senator raises an important point. If a gun dealer in the United States sells a gun to someone----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Illinois will suspend, the Senator from Massachusetts wanted to be informed when he had 3 minutes left. He has 3 minutes 10 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. DURBIN. If a gun dealer in the United States has a history of selling guns to criminals-in other words, someone comes in and buys 100 Saturday night specials, "fill up my trunk with guns"-obviously, not a sportsman or hunter or someone interested in personal defense, but someone who comes in and buys clearly for guns to be sold through straw purchasers to others-if the gun dealer has not even taken the time to check the FBI's Most Wanted list when making a sale across the counter, is this legislation saying that dealer, so negligent in his conduct, cannot be held personally responsible, or responsible as a business, in court for the victims of the gun violence that follows from that negligent act?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes an absolutely accurate point. We have here a list from the FBI of the Most Wanted fugitives. There is an amendment to say at least they have to look at the FBI's Most Wanted fugitives. Under this legislation, if the gun dealer sells it to one of the Most Wanted, they still get a free pass.
Under the current legislation, we are not even asking them to look on the Internet for those who are going to be listed on the Internet as members of terrorist organizations. We are not even asking them to do that. If they do, and they sell it, as we saw from the al-Qaida book over in Afghanistan saying go on in there and purchase it because you are not going to be bothered-we are not even holding them accountable to do that. Is that what we want to do, when we have seen what has happened in London, and what is happening, and we appropriate more and more resources for homeland security, not even to require that the gun dealer is going to check the Most Wanted list of the FBI?
We can't even offer that amendment so it will be voted on. We are being blocked by the power interests on the other side from even having the Senate consider that amendment. That is the power of the NRA. They are not letting any of these kinds of amendments dealing with the Most Wanted list or the terrorist list-we can't even get it before the Senate. That is the lock, the hold that the NRA has. It is disgraceful.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to conclude the morning business.
I think the Senator from Massachusetts has laid out the case. Can you imagine? We took the bill off the floor for the Department of Defense, for our soldiers and their families, and said we didn't have time to finish it this week because we had to go to this bill, the National Rifle Association's most important bill, which says that gun manufacturers and gun dealers selling their firearms to those on the FBI Most Wanted list, or to those in terrorist organizations, would not be held accountable for their misconduct? Where are the priorities of this Senate?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov