[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8958-8965]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1036, PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE 
                              IN ARMS ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 181 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 181

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1036) to prohibit civil liability actions from 
     being brought or continued against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition 
     for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by 
     others. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentlemen from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I am exceedingly pleased today that we will consider 
legislation protecting interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition 
under the direction of a structured rule that allows for a total of 
five minority party amendments to be made in order.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I call up H. Res. 181 to do my part to ensure 
that businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and 
foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, 
distribution, importation, and sale to the public of firearms or 
ammunition are not and should not be negligent through lawsuit for the 
harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm 
products or ammunition products that function as they are designed and 
intended. The people who choose to bring these lawsuits want to hold 
manufacturers negligent for the criminal abuse of their products, but 
it is like suing the Louisville Slugger for harm caused by criminals 
using one of their famous products to unlawfully threaten or harm a 
third party and not for hitting baseballs, for which that product was 
intended.
  It is my intention today to provide Members with information about 
this fair and balanced rule and also the underlying legislation that 
will be on the floor today. This underlying bill must be passed today 
if we are to beat back the forces who believe that responsible gun 
ownership is an oxymoron and those who are bent on destroying a 
citizen's right to firearms for lawful purposes. Lawsuits have been 
filed nationwide and are pending in our courts today that seek to hold 
these businesses responsible on a negligence theory for the harm caused 
by criminals or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by others, when 
the product functioned and was designed and was intended to perform and 
it did, once again, a dangerous and slippery proposition which the 
underlying bill will prevent.
  Guns can be dangerous and deadly when criminals and others who 
unlawfully use them do so. But then again, so can automobiles, 
especially when they are used illegally, which I will never condone, 
and which the underlying bill does not condone or seek to excuse from 
negligent causes of action. In fact, under the provisions underlined in 
this bill, H.R. 1036, plaintiffs may still bring negligence causes of 
action for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of guns or 
ammunition.
  The forces arrayed against this bill today believe that guns have no 
constructive purpose in American society and believe that all firearms 
are so inherently dangerous that no level of responsible caution and 
education could ever render them useful or enjoyable to a law-abiding 
citizen. It is on this most tenuous, dangerous, and shaky logic that 
the gun haters have mounted their present flank maneuvering on the 
second amendment in both our State and Federal courts through these 
negligence lawsuits. These hostile forces to the second amendment can 
only be repelled when every single American who believes in the right 
to keep and bear arms shall be firmly entrenched by passage of this 
underlying legislation.

                              {time}  1030

  I believe today that the House of Representatives is rightly and 
correctly again invoking its right to regulate interstate commerce in 
the name of protecting our citizens' constitutional rights, in this 
case, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Without it, the 
myriad lawsuits nationwide advancing a negligence theory for the harm 
caused by the criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition by 
others, when the product is functioning as it was designed and intended 
to do, will form a very real threat, completely halting the movement of 
these lawful products in interstate commerce. In fact, this is the very 
intent, what this bill is all about. It is to stop the chilling effect 
that would stop the design, production, trade and ownership of legal 
firearms and ammunition in the United States by lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to wrap up what I have said today by stating that 
the interstate commerce clause thankfully gives us the power and the 
right to be here in the House today to protect the Second Amendment 
from these dangerous attempts by others who would twist the common law 
to meet their goal of eroding its protections by flanking maneuvers in 
State and Federal courts.
  I am proud of this legislation that we are on the floor to pass 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), for yielding me this time.

[[Page 8959]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the base bill, H.R. 
1036. In my view, this is a cynical, political bill that like other so-
called tort reform bills that the majority has brought to the floor 
this year, would protect and favor wealthy businesses and campaign 
contributors at the expense of those victimized by irresponsible 
conduct.
  I advocate a decent society. My strong opposition to H.R. 1036 does 
not reflect a broad opposition to gun ownership. I own a gun. I am for 
sensible gun laws that do not take away the legal rights of individuals 
to have guns for recreational purposes and personal protection. Gun 
ownership can further American values, but H.R. 1036, instead, usurps 
them.
  I said to someone earlier today that since I was a child I have had, 
family and others, BB guns to single shot .22 rifles, that are sports 
persons and are involved at some degree in having owned a gun. I have 
no family member that has ever caused a criminal problem because of a 
gun. That does not mean that my family is any better than anyone 
else's, and I believe that I would go to my grave fighting for the 
right of Americans' values, which include owning a gun.
  But I cannot have anyone make sense for me how AK-47s can be sold on 
the open market at a gun show. Nobody can make that make sense to me, 
that anyone other than the military and law enforcement should be 
endowed to hold those guns in their possession. I see no reason for 
them.
  The majority, encouraged by a forceful and wealthy industry, is 
pushing Congress to enact a disastrous bill to give gun makers and 
dealers extraordinary shelter from liability suits. I do not wish to 
prey on the misery of one family that has suffered immensely at the 
hands of a gun, but several Members in this body represent the area of 
Palm Beach County, four of us do, and in our constituency are people 
who suffered a few years ago, none more than Ms. Pamela Grunow, the 
widow of a schoolteacher killed by gun violence.
  Pamela Grunow deserves to have her day in court, and I am appalled 
that some representatives of the people have the contempt to propose 
legislation that would deny her this right.
  On May 26, 2000, a 13-year-old student, a young man named Nathaniel 
Brazil, shot and killed his language arts teacher, Barry Grunow, at 
Lake Worth Middle School, that is in my district and the district of 
three other Members, two Republican and two Democrat.
  The gun used to kill Mr. Grunow was a .25 caliber semiautomatic 
pistol, which is commonly known as a junk gun, or ``Saturday night 
special.'' Such handguns have little or no sporting or self-defense 
use, and are disproportionately used by criminals and juveniles to 
commit murder and other violent offenses. Pamela Grunow is seeking to 
hold the distributor of this gun responsible for selling an 
unreasonably dangerous and defective product.
  Under Florida law, a distributor or dealer who sells a defectively 
designed product can be held liable, just as the manufacturer can be 
held liable. But some congressional colleagues of mine have the 
audacity to challenge the federalist and legal systems of the United 
States. Their hubris is infinite. You do not know better than the State 
governments legislating on this issue or the judges listening to these 
lawsuits.
  Pamela Grunow deserves her day in court. She may not win, but, under 
Florida law, she should have that opportunity to lose or win.
  An identical bill was reported out of committee last October, but the 
majority leaders decided not to put the measure on the floor after a 
series of sniper attacks in the metropolitan Washington area. Those 
sniper attacks made even the bill's sponsors squeamish. But less than a 
year later, even before the suspects in that particular atrocious crime 
are prosecuted, the majority is pushing an identical antivictim bill to 
be enacted. Less than a year later, H.R. 1036 would bar legal action 
filed by victims of the sniper shootings against the gun dealer, where 
the sniper suspects, two federally prohibited purchasers, allegedly 
obtained their Bushmaster assault rifle.
  At a time when America needs more corporate responsibility, Congress 
should not give one industry a free pass. Gun makers and dealers act as 
though their industry was being treated unfairly. That is absurd. The 
gun industry wants to receive special legal protection that no other 
industry in America enjoys. Gun makers and dealers want to be free from 
the accountability of their negligent or dangerous conduct, regardless 
of how many people they injure or cause to be killed.
  I want to make this clear: Absent legal immunity, gun makers would 
simply be treated like any other industry. Pharmaceutical companies 
must design medicine bottles that are childproof. Car manufacturers 
must design automobiles that withstand crashes. But those in the 
majority party are prepared to exempt gun makers from the 
responsibility of designing their products to protect against misuse 
that is reasonably foreseeable.
  Robert A. Ricker, former Executive Director and Director of 
Government Affairs of the American Shooting Sports Council and former 
Assistant General Counsel for the NRA, recently revealed that the gun 
industry has long known its practices aid criminal access to guns, yet 
has done very little about it. In light of Mr. Ricker's declarations, 
it would be the height of irresponsibility for Congress to pass H.R. 
1036.
  America cannot afford for Congress to act irresponsibly on this 
issue. In 1999, firearm homicide was the number one cause of death for 
black men ages 15 to 34, as well as the leading cause of death for all 
black 15- to 24-year-olds. Former Surgeon General Satcher even saw fit 
to declare this an epidemic.
  As a representative of the American people, I am sickened that those 
culpable of causing pain and devastation may be immunized from 
liability due to their political clout.
  My dear colleagues, blood money is guiding this bill. Those 
supporting H.R. 1036 are pushing ill-conceived and reckless legislation 
through Congress, motivated by the wrong priorities.
  This bill is not only a gift to the gun lobby, its timing, with floor 
consideration coming just a few weeks before the April 24, 2003, 
National Rifle Association's annual meeting, is particularly suspect. 
In my view, some politicians are more concerned about satisfying the 
priorities of contributors than in seeking justice under our American 
values.
  The cold barrel of the gun industry is pushing on its victims' 
throats. The majority is proposing that Congress pull the trigger. H.R. 
1036 will shoot down the fundamental right to a day in court, even 
retroactively. It is scandalous that this anti-American, antivictim, 
anti-American values, prointerest group bill is being brought to the 
People's House.
  I oppose the bill.
  I wish to end, Mr. Speaker, by saying what I said when I began: Let 
the NRA and all people who own guns know that one Congressperson stands 
here for their right to own their gun, so do not misunderstand my 
opposition to this scandalous bill that will do detriment to the 
fundamental premise of a person's right to sue someone that has caused 
foreseeable harm.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the debate today on the floor after we 
had an opportunity yesterday in the Committee on Rules to talk about 
this, and the bill is pretty straightforward. It says that a 
manufacturer of a gun, ammunition or other product that might be used, 
with the gun working as it was intended, we would hold them harmless; 
but if a person was illegally or unlawfully using these guns or 
obtaining these guns under some measure, that they would be held 
responsible.
  The interesting part about this, and there are so many analogies that 
could be used, but it would be like an automobile, which kills millions 
of Americans every year. It would be like an automobile that was 
properly designed, properly structured, properly placed upon the 
roadway, and there is not one parent or one person that I know of that 
has years of experience in using an automobile that would not say to an

[[Page 8960]]

occupant or to someone who was going to use their car that this could 
be a dangerous product.
  But if we use it properly, then we have no worry about it. But if the 
manufacturer of that product, the car, manufactured it, designed it or 
did something that they know they should not have done, and it has 
happened in the automobile industry, it has happened with side fuel 
tanks, it has happened with any other number of defective parts of that 
product, then they would be held liable.
  Such is true today also if gun manufacturers do something that is 
inherently wrong with their product.

                              {time}  1045

  But what this bill says is, once that gun or ammunition, just like a 
car is designed properly, is sold legally and properly under the laws 
of this country, and if it is utilized properly, that they could not be 
held liable. Such is true with guns.
  The bottom line is that what is true is that the Democrat Party 
chooses to take this up as an issue because they are antigun. That is 
what this is about. We see these forces every day. We see them on the 
street. We see them with the things that they do. This is another way 
to get in the way of the second amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  So the reasonable legislation that we propose today is one that says 
that if someone has a legally manufactured product that they obtained 
legally, and it is used properly within the laws of this country, that 
a gun manufacturer will be held harmless. It is as simple as it is. I 
think it makes sense. We support what we are doing here with this 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want my friend from Texas to catch my voice as it thunders in his 
direction. I am not antigun. I am prosensible gun legislation, and I am 
in favor of American values that allow for people to own guns legally. 
And I do not believe any of my colleagues that are opposed to this 
legislation would argue that under the Constitution a person has a 
right to bear arms. But under that same aegis that gives us a system 
that has served us well these number of years, a person has a right to 
sue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who serves on the Committee on Rules with 
distinction.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I guess the most I can say about the 
rule is that it is not as bad as it might have been, but it is not as 
good as it should have been. Five amendments were made in order. Eight 
Members were denied the opportunity to come to this floor and be able 
to speak their mind and offer their amendments. In the Committee on 
Rules yesterday many people who testified who had good amendments were 
denied the opportunity to come here today to be able to debate them. 
For the life of me, I cannot quite understand why. But having said 
that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the underlying bill, 
because I think this is an awful bill.
  This House is not considering this bill today because it is good 
policy, because it is not. And this House is not considering this bill 
today because it is the right thing to do, because it is not. No, Mr. 
Speaker, this body is considering this bill today, as my colleague from 
Florida pointed out, because the National Rifle Association is holding 
their annual convention at the end of April and the majority leadership 
in this Chamber feels compelled to prove to the progun special 
interests that they will do whatever it takes, pass whatever 
legislation that they can come up with, no matter how bad it is, so 
they get an applause line at that convention. That includes bringing a 
bill like this to the floor, a bill that, in my opinion, is 
unconstitutional.
  This bill not only absolves any gun manufacturer from any claim of 
negligence; it prevents any lawsuit, current or future, from being 
filed against any gun manufacturer. In other words, any lawsuit against 
any gun manufacturer currently being considered by the courts will be 
thrown out.
  Mr. Speaker, on Christmas Eve, 1999, in my hometown of Worcester, 
Massachusetts, 26-year-old Danny Guzman was shot and killed. A week 
later, police recovered the 9 millimeter Kahr Arms handgun used to kill 
young Danny. Through ballistics, the police determined that the gun was 
one of several stolen from Kahr Arms by Kahr employees with criminal 
records, and Kahr Arms is in my district. According to the police, one 
of the employees had been hired by Kahr to work in its Worcester 
manufacturing facility, despite the fact that he had a long history of 
drug addiction, theft to support that addiction, alcohol abuse, and 
violence, including several assault and battery charges.
  Police determined that the guns were stolen from Kahr even before the 
weapons had serial numbers stamped on them and then resold to criminals 
in exchange for money and drugs. In March 2000, police arrested Mark 
Cronin, who pled guilty to the gun thefts. The investigation also led 
to the arrest of Kahr employee Scott Anderson, a man with a criminal 
history who pled guilty to stealing from Kahr a pistol and a slide for 
another weapon.
  Now, the company did not conduct any criminal or general background 
checks on employees. Kahr did not even have any metal detectors or x-
ray machines or security cameras or other similar devices to monitor 
the facility or to determine if employees were stealing; nor did they 
check employees at the end of their shifts. At the time, the company 
did not have security guards.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, unlike diamonds stolen from a jewelry store or 
funds embezzled by an accountant, a gun stolen from the manufacturer 
can have lethal and deadly results, and the Guzman family found out the 
hard way.
  Now, if this bill becomes law, gun manufacturers would be shielded 
from being held accountable for their own negligence, and the Guzman 
family's suit that they have filed would be dismissed.
  Now, the NRA has dubbed this bill the Reckless Lawsuit Protection 
Act. I disagree. Reckless is hiring an employee with a rap sheet to 
work in a gun factory. Reckless is not locking up and keeping track of 
every single gun produced in that factory, and reckless is bringing 
this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The previous speaker just hijacked the intent of this law, and he 
misled people who are listening in this body today. The fact of the 
matter is that any gun manufacturer who is negligent for their product 
by what they produce would be held responsible under this bill, and for 
any person to assume otherwise means they have not read the bill. They 
would be incapable of understanding, and they choose not to, they 
choose not to.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was allowed his opportunity 
to speak, and I am sure that the minority has lots of time left.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is mischaracterizing the 
bill and my statement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's help. Regular 
order, please.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that anyone who chooses to mislead 
those people that are in this body today, that they would not be held 
liable, is simply not true. That is not what this bill is about. The 
bill that we know and the underlying legislation makes perfect sense, 
and that is why we are here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original author of this bill. I, as an 
original cosponsor, am pleased to have him.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just see if we can discuss this bill without sort of inflaming 
the emotions of people. It has been said on the

[[Page 8961]]

 floor that it is not good policy. This is a policy that has been 
passed by 31 States. Thirty-one States have adopted this almost similar 
language. So I think if the people on this side or if there is anybody 
on the Republican side who decides they do not want to vote for this 
bill, please go back to your State legislatures and see if they passed 
this language. I will have a graph when we move to the debate on this 
bill, and I will show my colleagues that 31 States have already passed 
this same type of legislation.
  So it is good policy, so good that the majority of the States in the 
United States have passed it. In fact, I say to my good colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the State of Florida has also 
passed this bill. So in his comments, I appreciate what he says, that 
he is not for gun control, that he has a gun himself, so he could 
appreciate the fact that this Bill is good policy.
  The second point I want to make is there is going to be a lot of 
attacks on the NRA this morning and this afternoon. I authored this 
bill in the Committee on Commerce; and it passed out of the 
subcommittee, out of the full committee, and also passed out of the 
subcommittee of the Committee on Judiciary and out of the full 
Committee on the Judiciary. That was in the 107th Congress. There is 
nothing about timing for bringing this Bill up on the floor because the 
NRA is having a convention at the end of this month. We have been 
trying to get this bill to the floor; and as many Members know, when we 
try and get a bill passed, we have to go around to our colleagues day 
after day and ask them to cosponsor it. I had about 235 cosponsors in 
the last Congress, and we were ready to vote on it. So it is not a case 
of timing for the NRA. It is just good policy, and I think the 31 
States that have passed it have shown that it is good policy.
  The other thing I would point out to my colleagues is the public is 
now aware how important it is to pass this type of legislation. I want 
to mention a couple of surveys taken recently of almost 1,100 adults by 
DecisionQuest, a jury-consulting firm. They found that 66.2 percent of 
American adults oppose these types of lawsuits. These are simply 
lawsuits that State and local municipalities are forcing on gun 
manufacturers simply because they do not like the product. They do not 
like the distribution of the weapon. So I say to my colleagues, we 
cannot start attacking a company because we do not like their 
distribution system or their design, because under the Constitution, 
one has the right under the commerce clause to manufacture and 
distribute.
  So when people say this bill is unconstitutional, no, on the 
contrary, it is constitutional in the sense it is saying, allow people 
to legally manufacture and distribute products.
  So only 19 percent of Americans oppose this type of legislation that 
protects manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits.
  Then in April 1999, an ICR/Associated Press poll found that 70 
percent of the respondents thought manufacturers should not be held 
liable to recoup hospital and police costs. In 1999, a Gallup poll 
found 61 percent of Americans are opposed to lawsuits to cover costs 
incurred because of gun violence. A May 1999 poll by Zogby 
International found 71 percent of Americans opposed allowing cities to 
sue gun manufacturers.
  I can just take my colleagues up to the current day that the public 
is behind us on this. They want to say that there is too much 
litigation. These third-party cases where violence occurs is because of 
the third party and one cannot go after the manufacturer with deep 
pockets only because he is distributing the weapons or because of the 
person who sells it to him because there is negligence. Still, in fact, 
based upon that information, I can tell my colleagues this. The 
question is, does this bill protect unlicensed dealers, and the answer 
is simply no. The bill defines manufacturers and sellers only as 
licensed manufacturers, dealers, or importers of firearms or trade 
associations representing those persons. The only exception is for 
ammunition sellers who are not required to be licensed by the Federal 
Government.
  The second question: Does the bill protect those who commit State 
crimes or engage in negligent conduct? Under the bill, manufacturers or 
sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State laws.
  So the bill is not giving any exemption to them if they perform 
criminal or negligent acts. So basically, it is just saying, we are 
trying to prevent these nuisance suits.
  Now, I will just conclude by giving my colleagues one example of a 
nuisance suit and that took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Superior 
Court Judge Robert McWeeney threw out the City of Bridgeport's suit. 
``The plaintiffs have no statutory common law basis to recoup their 
expenditures,'' he said. ``They lack any statutory authorization to 
initiate such claims.''

                              {time}  1100

  Those were his exact words. Yet, Bridgeport was using taxpayers' 
money to sue this gun manufacturer with frivolous lawsuits.
  Basically, the judge said they seek to regulate firearms in a manner 
that is preempted by State law. In other words, they are taking the 
mere fact that they are involved with commerce, manufacturing a product 
and distributing it as a way to sue.
  I can give case after case of examples where the judge has thrown out 
these nuisance lawsuits.
  So between what the judges have said, what the States have said by 
passing legislation in 31 States, and what the public says, I think we 
have a very credible bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) to respond to our 
colleague.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I just want to make clear that under this bill, if any victim files a 
lawsuit based on the common law principle of negligence, it would be 
barred. So I would urge my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) to read the bill to understand what the bill is doing. This 
bill is designed to protect gun manufacturers at any cost for whatever 
is filed against them, and I think this bill should be defeated.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes 
to my very good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), 
the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  I first want to associate myself with the remarks that the gentleman 
made so eloquently in his statement. I am sure that both of us 
throughout the course of the day will be subjected to a number of phone 
calls saying that we are antigun. I personally do not think that is 
what this debate is about or should be about. The debate is about the 
bill that is in front of us and what it does to legal rights of people 
that have been recognized throughout history.
  I am sure that my staff in the office is prepared for the barrage of 
phone calls, but I hope we can keep this debate based on what is before 
us at this point.
  I am going to reserve my comments about the bill itself to the 
general debate on the bill, but I did want to rise in opposition to the 
rule reported by the Committee on Rules on this bill.
  Twelve Democratic amendments were timely submitted to the Committee 
on Rules. Of those 12, 10 were offered by members of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and five of the 12 were made in order under this rule. I 
am the first to admit that that is a better record than the Committee 
on Rules has enjoyed throughout this Congress, and some people say I 
should be happy about that. But the process by which this bill came to 
the Committee on Rules and now comes to the floor leads me to be 
concerned that the rule does not do justice to us as Members or to the 
public.
  The bill first came before the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law, on which I serve as the

[[Page 8962]]

ranking member, one day before the full committee markup. There was no 
markup of the bill in the subcommittee, and the hearing was conducted 
at a disadvantage by the fact that two of the witnesses' statements 
arrived late, one coming the night before the hearing and one coming 
the morning of the hearing.
  Under these circumstances, the full committee markup provided the 
sole opportunity for all Members, not just Democrats and not just those 
with concerns about the bill but all Members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, to speak to the merits and concerns, or even in support of 
the legislation.
  But that never happened in the full committee, either. There was no 
deliberative process that brought this bill to the floor. There was no 
debate on what the various provisions of the bill mean. There was no 
opportunity to seek clarification, no opportunity to praise or explain, 
no opportunity to criticize or correct the bill. There was simply no 
process in the committee.
  Now, we wonder, how did that happen? Well, during the markup of the 
bill while one of my amendments was pending and numerous other 
Democratic amendments were at the desk to be considered, the majority 
abruptly decided that they would call a 5-minute recess in the 
proceeding, and they went into the back room. As soon as we got through 
deliberating the one amendment that was being considered, then they 
moved the previous question on the amendment, on the bill, and all 
other amendments got cut off.
  Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I was debating when they abruptly 
called this recess was the only amendment that was actually offered and 
considered throughout the process. One other amendment had been offered 
and withdrawn earlier, and debate was cut off.
  I raise the question, if we have had no subcommittee process and we 
have had no full committee process, and if only five out of 12 
amendments that people seek to offer on the floor will be considered, 
then when will this bill be considered? I raise the question, what are 
the supporters afraid of? Are they afraid to defend the bill? I am 
baffled by what this is all about.
  Now, I said in committee that I was concerned that we were rushing 
through the markup to get the bill to the floor so that the bill could 
be reported out in advance of the National Rifle Association's 
convention. Now I am wondering whether we are rushing through the 
process on the floor. When is this bill going to be considered? I think 
that is a relevant question.
  Now, the one amendment that I offered that was not made in order by 
the Committee on Rules would have had us have a debate about whether 
pending lawsuits, lawsuits that have already been filed by people who 
think that they were proceeding in good faith, maybe some of them were 
proceeding in good faith, but they were proceeding based on the law 
that existed at that time, those lawsuits would be wiped out by this 
bill.
  I think that is unconstitutional. If it is not unconstitutional as an 
ex post facto law, then it is certainly unfair and it is obscene. We 
should not be going back saying to the courts of appeals, trial courts, 
to dismiss cases based on a statute that we are passing at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this bill needs to be considered, and I hope we 
will send it back to committee for that consideration.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules took a lot of time yesterday. We 
heard a lot of testimony. The gentleman is correct, he did come and 
approach the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of this great 
body.
  I think the Committee on Rules, through the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), heard the testimony and, in 
fact, Mr. Speaker, made in order several amendments, five, and two from 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). That gives him the 
ability today to have two amendments for a total of 40 minutes. Three 
others are allowed for a total of 60 minutes, 20 minutes each. I think 
that is pretty good. I think that does allow debate on the floor of 
this House, more than almost 2 hours of debate, to talk about these 
issues.
  Best of all, they are going to get their own vote. They are going to 
get their vote that they asked for up on the board, and every single 
Member will be here, so they have a chance to tell their story. I think 
that this process, while it may not always work the way every single 
Member wants, the Committee on Rules did the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 181 providing for 
the consideration of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 
2003. This is a fair but structured rule that provides for the 
consideration of a number of Democrat amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon. We have made in order two 
amendments submitted by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). 
We have made one each by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  The committee heard persuasive testimony and has worked to create an 
amendment process that is fair and as evenhanded as possible. It is 
unfortunate that this bill is on the floor at this time. It is 
unfortunate that this Congress has to sit down and construct a law to 
protect a legal industry from acting legally in every State in the 
Nation.
  For those who want to just get rid of guns, do it the right way: 
Propose to put a repeal of the second amendment on the floor and vote 
it up or down. There was a reason that our Founding Fathers fashioned 
the second amendment. It was for people to be able to protect 
themselves, in some instances, from their government.
  But instead of doing it the honest way, we pick around the edges. We 
have lawyers willing to sue gun manufacturers who acted legally because 
a crime was committed with a stolen gun, and we have friendly juries 
willing to hand over that money. This is nothing more or less than a 
ripping-off of the system by a bunch of greedy people, and I want to 
see us have this debate in the honest way: Put their repeal of the 
second amendment on the floor and let us vote it up or down.
  We should not have to come here every time and defend legal 
industries. Fifteen percent of the crimes are committed with knives. 
Are we going to be forced to defend the cutlery industry? Eighty 
percent of the crimes involve alcohol. Will we be suing distillers 
next? We have a tort system, a court system that has run amok. It is 
unfortunate that we have to sit here on the floor and protect it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an 
additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage my colleagues to make 
their own judgment. If we add up all of the debate time about this 
bill, there will be about 3 hours. We are talking about undoing a 
system of law that has existed throughout our history, and we are doing 
it with 3 hours' worth of debate. Members should make the judgment 
about whether that is reasonable.
  Additionally, we are talking about doing it without consideration of 
any of the amendments, other than the five that were made in order, 
that were offered by people in this body who have or who represent the 
same number of people that the gentleman on the opposite side 
represents. Those amendments were not considered in committee and they 
will not be considered on the floor.
  So I do not know what this process is all about. We have made a 
mockery of the process in committee, and now we are about to do the 
same thing on the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes some points. They are that he felt 
that

[[Page 8963]]

these amendments were denied through the process. But the way we 
operate here is that the Committee on Rules operates in the daylight. 
We come and tell people when they may file amendments. Either those 
amendments may or may not have ever seen the light of day in another 
committee.
  This Speaker and this Committee on Rules chairman want to make sure 
that we are open for business, that we tell people when we will be 
there; that we have, in my opinion, an appropriate number of people who 
sit through the hearings, as I have done, as I did in this case again; 
and responsible people listen to the arguments and the debates about 
the merits of those things which they wish to have placed in order.
  We then hear the deliberation, we hear the debate, and then we go 
back and make a decision about it. Then there is a vote. The votes are 
in the open where everybody can see them happen.
  Mr. Speaker, my chairman allows many times more debate than what I 
probably would think would be reasonable, but he does it. It is a fair 
and open process. We know what this bill is about. We know where there 
is disagreement. We know why we are doing this. It is the right thing 
to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. 
Does my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) have additional speakers?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker. Mr. 
Speaker, what is the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back 
after closing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will close after this speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me time. I probable will not take 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. It seems to me, it seems very 
basic to me that an industry that manufacturers, distributes, imports 
and/or sells a legal product lawfully should not be held liable for 
criminal acts of a third party. If an individual sells a firearm 
following all the rules and regulations of firearms, sales including 
conducting backgrounds checks to ensure that the purchaser is eligible 
to own a firearm, and the purchaser who buys the firearm violates the 
law by surrendering that firearm to an individual who subsequently uses 
the gun to commit a crime, why should the law-abiding dealer be liable?
  Laws are violated in that hypothetical, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, 
when the purchaser shared his firearm or surrendered his firearm to a 
third party, not at the point of sale. In my opinion, that means that 
the liability should lie with those who violated the law and not with a 
manufacturer who made the firearm to standard, maybe 6 months earlier, 
or even with the dealer who sold the gun complying with existing law.
  H.R. 1036 which, by the way, came out of our House Committee on the 
Judiciary, does nothing to exempt the firearm industry from liability 
if the industry acts negligently, if the industry produces or sells a 
defective product, or if a firearm is sold in violation of any State or 
Federal law. The bill simply protects the industry from unwarranted and 
frivolous lawsuits. Once again, it is important to note that the 
firearm industry is heavily regulated, and I am not averse to that. I 
think it ought to be heavily regulated at both State and Federal 
levels.
  This is not an industry that is operating willy-nilly, unchecked and 
unmonitored. Licensed firearm dealers are required to meet various 
regulations prior to the sale of a firearm. Furthermore, the industry 
itself is very actively involved in ensuring that dealers know and are 
enforcing current firearm laws. Firearm trade groups, Mr. Speaker, to 
my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) I would say, are responsible for 
publishing literature on gun safety, responding to questions about 
firearms, and the proper manner in which to store firearms, for 
example. The firearm industry also, I am told, sponsors seminars across 
the country for gun dealers and distributors to certify that all gun 
sales adhere to strict transaction requirements.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, is that firearms are 
legal products that are heavily regulated at the State and Federal 
level. It is my belief that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and/or 
importer of firearms who follows all laws of sale and marketing and 
does not act in any way negligently should not be held responsible for 
the criminal behavior of a third party.
  I think this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker; and I urge 
my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) again for yielding me time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have had one additional 
speaker show up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen), my friend, who was a leader in the State senate in 
Maryland on this particular issue.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this body very long, but I have 
quickly learned that the titles we give bills often come out of ``Alice 
in Wonderland.'' The title of this bill is ``Protecting Commerce.'' The 
way I read this bill, it is protecting those gun dealers who are 
engaged in wrong-doing.
  I am very disappointed that this bill is even on the floor. I had an 
amendment proposed that I took to the Committee on Rules the other day; 
and unfortunately, they did not approve it. I represent an area that 
was recently ravaged just last fall by a sniper. This body at that time 
was taking up this legislation and, in deference to the victims' 
families, took this legislation off the floor. But by taking this up 
today, we are adding insult to injury to the victims and the families 
of those victims. We are rubbing salt in their wounds because many of 
the families of those victims decided to go to court. They went to 
court. They took their case to court against a gun dealer whose 
activities over many years had shown a pattern of negligence that could 
very well have contributed to the suffering in their families. And this 
legislation which was taken off the floor in deference to those victims 
will now deny them their fair day in court. They are not going to get a 
fair hearing. And I find this decision of this body to proceed on this 
to be an insult, not just to those families, but really to decency and 
justice in the United States.
  I had an amendment that would have addressed an issue that was 
adopted in the middle of the night a couple of months ago as part of 
the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill. At that time we exempted the ATF 
from requirements that all other Federal agencies are subject to under 
the Freedom of Information Act to get the information collected with 
the ATF with respect to those gun dealers who are engaged actively in 
selling to the criminal market. Why do we want to hide that information 
from the American people? But we did this in the middle of the night.
  And so I had an amendment proposed to reinstate the ability of the 
American people to have access to that information. The committee 
denied us that opportunity. I think we should have had a fair debate on 
that question. This bill protects gun dealers who are engaged in wrong 
doing. It is unfair to all those gun dealers and manufacturers out 
there who are playing by the rules. It is unfair to them because it 
taints them with the wrong-doing of a few. And what this bill does is 
give protection, not to those who are engaged in the fair dealing in 
guns. What this does is protect those who are engaged in wrong-doing, 
those who are engaged

[[Page 8964]]

in selling mostly to the criminal market, and we have already provided 
them some additional protection by denying the American people access 
about who they are. And now they are further shielding them from the 
justice that American families and the victims are due in this great 
country. I am sorry we are carving out a special exception for these 
wrong-doers, and I urge the body to reject this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is prepared to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and I also 
thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns), who is still here, for 
reminding me that Florida has a law that is similar to this that I do 
not think ought to be preempted. But at the very same time, Florida 
under the aegis of a previous Attorney General did in fact sue gun 
manufacturers too. So we have been a leader on both fronts.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this in closing. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) and I live very close to Orlando. I was born and raised 
in Alta Mont Springs that is 10 miles north of Orlando. I will not be 
in Orlando when the National Rifle Association meets there 3 weeks from 
now. I will not be receiving contributions from some of their members, 
interestingly. I am sure that there are some of their members who agree 
with me.
  Gun dealers and owners who illegally sell or use guns are subject to 
prosecution under Federal laws, as my friend from Texas pointed out at 
the Committee on Rules yesterday, such as Brady. That is not what we 
are talking about here today. Today we are talking about the civil 
damages these actions cause, the innocent victims of gun violence. This 
bill, in my opinion, would eviscerate this possibility; and I think in 
that regard that it is wrong.
  Let me says that with my warm live hands I will protect the right of 
American citizens and American values to legally own guns. In that 
place where I was born in the halcyon days of segregation, be assured 
that almost every family member and everybody there had a gun, and I 
can assure you they needed them. And, therefore, when we talk about the 
right to bear arms, know that there were many of us that believe in 
that right. So the National Rifle Association should know that with 
these warm live hands I will defend their right to own a gun, but none 
of them can make sense of AK-47s being sold in the street. None of them 
can make sense of Saturday night specials that have caused devastating 
damage to this overall society, such that one Surgeon General declared 
an epidemic because of gun violence against our children and their 
community.
  None of them can make sense for the gun manufacturers and gun 
dealers, who may be few, of being exempted from legislation that 
rightly ought be considered if it were not exempting certain people and 
giving them special conditions that so many on the majority side rail 
about all the time saying others are seeking special conditions. If car 
manufacturers have to meet standards that avoid liabilities, if drug 
manufacturers, and I can go on and on and on through the product 
liability phase of this discussion, then be assured gun manufacturers, 
if they do something that is foreseeably wrong, should be held to the 
same standards as everybody else.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote against this bill and for each 
one of them to use their warm live hands to protect American values.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the very end of the debate about a very, very 
important commonsense piece of legislation.
  The amendments that were before the Committee on Rules would have 
done a lot of things. I disagree with us having the Federal Government 
print a list of all the people who have a gun in this country. I think 
that is dangerous. I think that is dangerous precedent for us as 
consumers to think that we would purchase a product and then someone 
would print our name about a product that we buy. But that is what we 
were asked to do yesterday, and we denied them. We did allow the 
minority the chance to have its debate on five amendments. That is what 
is going to take place today.
  This legislation is common sense. The process has been open and fair. 
The Committee on Rules was available yesterday. The Speaker, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, intentionally went out of their 
way to make sure that we would have a vigorous debate today because we 
think the light of day is the best disinfectant there is to fairness.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the original sponsor of 
this bill, the author of this bill, showed up on the floor and offered 
a hardy debate. We have had others that have done the same. So I think 
America is free. I think we are using this body for what it was 
intended, as a sharing of issues and ideas. And most of all I would 
like to applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who 
is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman has 
been to the Committee on Rules, placed himself available before each 
and every Member to answer questions. I think that the commonsense 
legislation that he brings forward at this time with respect to what we 
are going to do on floor debate is important and good.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that Members would support this bill, this 
rule, and of course, all the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Rule to H.R. 
1036, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
  My opposition to the Rule to H.R. 1036, is based largely on my 
outrage at the disgrace that has occurred in the Mark-up and Amendment 
of this Bill.
  The Amendment process at the Judiciary Committee Mark-up of H.R. 1036 
was unfair, discourteous, and a complete departure from the accepted 
Committee procedures of debate. The Amendments offered by myself and my 
Democratic colleagues were never given the opportunity to be fully 
debated. The Mark-up was simply shut down by the Chairman while 
Amendments were at the table. The actions of the Chairman are not in 
the spirit of comity that both parties try to maintain in this Chamber. 
Every Amendment that is offered is entitled to the full consideration 
of the committee. Our Amendments to H.R. 1036 were not given that 
consideration.
  Likewise, the Rules Committee has not given the Democratic Amendments 
full and fair consideration. The Rules Committee has picked and chosen 
a select few Amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues and myself. 
The Democrats proposed a total of thirteen Amendments to H.R. 1036. The 
Rules Committee concluded that only five Amendments would be made in 
order. Neither of the two Amendments that I offered were made in order.
  One of the Amendments that I offered exempted from the scope of the 
bill those lawsuits brought by or on behalf of minors who were injured 
or killed by negligently transferred guns. This is an Amendment to the 
bill designed to protect America's children from the unlawful transfers 
of firearms. As the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
believe that provisions that protect America's children should be 
included in every bill that shapes gun rights. However, my Amendment to 
H.R. 1036 protecting minor's rights to sue negligent gun sellers was 
shut out of the Judiciary Committee, and not made in order by the Rules 
Committee.
  A second Amendment that I offered exempted from the scope of the bill 
lawsuits against the sellers of machine guns, semi-automatic assault 
weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Congress has 
banned all of these weapons because they are inherently dangerous. 
Assault weapons are even more dangerous in the hands of criminals. 
However, under H.R. 1036, if a gun merchant negligently sells a banned 
gun and that gun is used to injure or kill, the plaintiff will have no 
cause of action against the seller.
  All of the Amendments proposed by my Democratic colleagues and myself 
are provisions that protect American lives. They deserved more sincere 
consideration by both the

[[Page 8965]]

Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee. That consideration was not 
provided.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is why I oppose the Rule to H.R. 1036 bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________