Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5013, the so-called Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. There is really only one word to describe this bill: Insane. The proper title of this bill should be The Right to Sue Cops and National Guardsmen Act of 2006.

The premise of the bill is that following Hurricane Katrina, and possibility other disasters, law enforcement personnel illegally seized guns from people who had legal permits to own a gun.

In some cases, they may have been seized because law enforcement did not want guns inside a public shelter. In other cases, people evacuated and left guns behind, and the police collected these guns so they would not fall into the hands of looters.

The NRA claimed this was illegal and sued the New Orleans Police Department. The New Orleans Police Department stated it had to determine who were the rightful owners of the guns before they could return them. I believe the lawsuit has since been settled, and the guns are being returned to their rightful owners.

Yet, today, we are considering a bill that would ostensibly solve this so-called problem of guns being illegally seized following a disaster. Since the lawsuit arises from this issue that has been resolved, I do not see why the legislation is necessary.

But how does this bill solve the supposed problem? It actually creates a private right of action for gun owners to sue personally cops, National Guardsmen, FBI officers, and other law enforcement personnel who are simply carrying out their jobs following a disaster or emergency situation.

The bill says that no Federal employer officer, including the military, National Guardsmen, or any person connected to the Federal Government, such as members of police departments, local police departments, that receive Federal funding, or anyone acting in support of relief to a major disaster or emergency, may seize any firearm which is allowed under Federal or local law. If they do seize such a gun, it would allow a gun owner to sue a cop or National Guardsman personally, not the government, sue the cop personally, even if the officer was carrying out his official duties. And the gun owner can even recover attorneys fees.

Aside from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is ridiculous, there are a number of serious problems with the legislation.

First, the presumption is all in favor of the gun owner and not the cop. There is no requirement that the gun owner prove the gun is legal at the time it is seized. So, if a cop sees someone with a gun, he has no evidence of his right to have a gun, maybe the cop suspects he was a looter, if the cop takes the gun, he is personally liable if it turns out he had a legal right to it later. Also, if a cop finds a gun on the floor or in a store or in a home and takes it to prevent it from getting into the hands of looters, that cop can now be sued. So let us leave the guns lying around for the looters to pick up and shoot people with.

Second, if this bill passes, Federal response officials and aid workers, such as the Red Cross, would have no say where guns are carried. They could not prohibit guns in public shelters where kids are present, nor could they prevent armed gangs and vigilantes from showing up and wandering the streets with guns. Private volunteers with guns can show up in any disaster situation, and law enforcement would have no say.

Third, the bill applies to a ``major disaster or emergency,'' which includes a terrorist attack. So if the New York Police Department responds at the World Trade Center, or the military responds to an attack at the Pentagon, and there is a group of guys with guns, law enforcement cannot disarm them without risking being sued. Why would we want to tie the hands of the military responding to a terrorist attack?

This bill has a chilling effect on law enforcement responding to a major disaster or to a terrorist attack. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, or seizes firearms that turn out to be legally owned, even though they have no reason to believe they are at the time, aggrieved parties already have the right to sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the NOPD. I should restate that. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, aggrieved parties today can sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the New Orleans Police Department. The only reason for this bill, to give an additional right, seems to be vindictive, to force some poor police officer or National Guardsman doing his job into bankruptcy.

If there really is a problem, this legislation is not the way to fix it. It is too broad, it is poorly drafted, and it will create more dangers in times of major disasters.

That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Violence Policy Center have expressed opposition to this bill. I also have a letter in opposition from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represent 57 major law enforcement organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Major Cities Chiefs,

Office of the President,

June 19, 2006.

Re H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal

Protection Act of 2006.''

United States Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Legislator: The Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Association

represents fifty-seven (57) major law enforcement

organizations in the United States and Canada who are located

in a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million population

and employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers. All our

officers are actively engaged in providing law enforcement,

public safety and homeland security to the citizens of our

communities every day. We are writing in opposition to H.R.

5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection

Act of 2006.''

As law enforcement professionals, we understand and

acknowledge the Constitutional limitations on police power to

confiscate personal property. These limitations, however,

must be balanced with the need to maintain public safety and

security during emergency situations. We are concerned that

the bill would void local laws that guide police actions

regarding firearms in emergency situations. We also feel that

police should be allowed to take into safekeeping any

dangerous weapons and/or explosives they find abandoned in a

building or home.

Additionally, as law enforcement executives, we feel if the

President, a governor and/or mayor declares a state of

emergency for a devastated area after a disaster, these

officials should also be allowed to temporarily include

provisions for a weapon-free zone during the area's recovery.

For example, law enforcement may need to ensure that

evacuation sites are free of weapons. Sister law enforcement

agencies responding to a disaster must also be free to carry

their firearms into another jurisdiction and help maintain

law and order until the devastated area recovers.

Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a new right

to file lawsuits against police who take abandoned guns for

safekeeping in an emergency or create emergency secure areas

free from weapons. The bill should not create a new right to

file lawsuits against law enforcement seeking to safeguard

the public in emergency situations.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to

contact MCC's General Counsel Craig Ferrell for further

clarification of our position.

Sincerely,

Harold L. Hurtt,

MCC President.

If the gentleman will yield for a question, under this bill, if a law enforcement officer had completed evacuating people from someplace and saw a few guns lying around in a house, and didn't know who they belonged to but wanted to take them up so that looters who might come by later couldn't take them and present a menace to the public, would this prevent him from doing that?

Would this subject him to a lawsuit later personally if it turned out that the owner of the house came back and said, why did he take my legally owned guns?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Answer the question, please.

Reclaiming my time, I am not talking about after arresting looters. Law enforcement people see guns lying around in a house. They don't know who they belong to.

Let me say this. There are lots of reasons why law enforcement may be going by: to check on the safety of people, to look into a house to see if anybody is there lying wounded or whatever. They see guns lying around. No one is there, thank God. They are all out, but they see guns lying around. Under this bill, if they pick up those guns, lest looters come and find them later and it later turns out that those guns legally belonged to the homeowner, when that homeowner returned, he could sue the individual privately. And, therefore, no cop in his right mind would pick up those guns. He would have to leave it for the looters.

This bill, as I said before, is insane.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This bill does not create nor does it delete any existing rights or State laws. So for example if there are existing State laws prohibiting guns in State shelters, this bill would do nothing to remove that prohibition. For example, many States already have existing laws prohibiting guns or firearms in schools, in sports arenas, or in other areas commonly used as shelters. Nothing in this bill would override that prohibition.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding.

Again, if there is existing law allowing the Governor in a state of emergency or other circumstances to take extraordinary measures, nothing in this legislation would prohibit that Governor from doing so, or in Louisiana's case, it may by the primary law enforcement officer of the parish, we call them parishes, not counties, nothing in this bill would override, supercede existing State laws that allow the Governor or chief executive officer from doing so.

Madam Speaker, again, let us be clear. I know there has been a lot of confusion and a lot of rhetoric about the private right of action contained in this bill.

In Louisiana's case, going back to what happened specifically after Katrina, our State has already passed a State law prohibiting anybody in State or local law agencies from confiscating legally owned guns. The intent of this law is to apply to those agencies receiving Federal funds. The intent of the right of action was to counteract what happened last year when, even despite a court judgment, despite a ruling from a judge, there was still not compliance with that court ruling to return the firearms.

So the intent is to be able to allow the individuals to recover, for example, attorneys fees, court costs to put some teeth into this bill to make sure that if a judge does indeed rule in favor of a plaintiff that action will be taken. That did not always happen last year in Louisiana after Katrina.

I thank my colleague from New York for handling this bill and for supporting this in committee.

Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police endorsing H.R. 5013, which I am pleased to submit for the Record.

Grand Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.

Hon. Bobby Jindal,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Jindal, I am writing to you on behalf

of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you

of our support for H.R 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal

Protection Act,'' which is scheduled to be considered by the

House tomorrow

This legislation would prohibit the use of any Federal

funds from being used to seize firearms during a major

disaster or emergency, except under circumstances currently

applicable under Federal or State law. As we witnessed in the

communities along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina, large scale critical incidents demanded the full

attention of law enforcement officers and other first

responders. During this time, the preservation of life--

search and rescue missions--is the chief priority of every

first responder. Further, breakdowns in communications

systems and disaster-related transportation or other

infrastructure failures will lengthen a law enforcement

agency's response times, increasing the degree to which

citizens may have to protect themselves against criminals. A

law-abiding citizen who possess a firearm lawfully represents

no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first

responder.

On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this

bill and look forward to working with you to getting it

passed. If I can be of any further assistance on this issue,

please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director

Jim Pasco in my Washington office,

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Madam Speaker, a lot has been made and said about this bill, H.R. 5013, and I want to take people back into the days, the hours right after Hurricane Katrina that devastated my home State. I want to remind people my constituents, many of them, were sitting in their homes without power, without water, and without communication. It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 9/11. For many, there was no recourse or ability to call for the police.

Now, the first responders, the local and State law enforcement agents, many did a heroic job; however, they couldn't physically be at every place at every time. Indeed, many law enforcement officials advised residents to only return if they had firearms. Members of my staff were advised only to return if they were in possession of a firearm. It was a very different time than what we are normally accustomed to in our cities.

H.R. 5013 makes sure that those that are obeying the law, lawful residents, are able to keep their legally owned

firearms, whether it be in their home, in their cars, in their businesses. There were instances where people were deprived of this right. Now, let me repeat this. At the same time that we had looters, at the same time we had other problems in our State and in our city, we absolutely had bureaucrats depriving people of their legal constitutional rights to possess a legally owned firearm.

Now, contrast that with the situation in our neighboring State of Mississippi where the Governor famously said, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' There were literally signs put up saying, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' This bill is intended to make sure that, God forbid, if there is another hurricane, another natural disaster, another calamity in my home State, that my constituents aren't left defenseless, they aren't left without the ability to call 9/11, they are not left without the ability to defend their homes, defend their properties, or defend their families.

Now, indeed, Ronald Reagan once famously said, and I will paraphrase, at the very least, we want any potential looters to have to think twice before they go through that front door. We want them to at least think twice that maybe those potential victims are armed and maybe that can serve as a useful deterrence.

There are many things this bill does not do. It does not create any new rights or any other limitations under Federal, State, or local law. Now, I was pleased to answer the questions of my colleague from New York. This bill, further, does not prevent, does not prevent confiscating guns from felons. It has no effect on law enforcement operations outside of the disaster relief situation.

It does not have any impact on law enforcement's ability, for example, to go after criminals and looters, to stop suspect behavior. It has no impact on law enforcement's ability to secure weapons, for example, that may be lying outside of somebody's possession. States are able, under this bill, to regulate their own shelters. States are able to adopt their own laws.

For example, in Minnesota, a firearm cannot be brought on private property when the owner has posted a notice of that prohibition. My bill does not change this. This bill specifically allows the Coast Guard and others who are evacuating individuals to have their own regulations, to have their own requirements for getting on those boats, or getting on those helicopters.

For example, it allows the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition of entry. If a State, and many do, if a State does give express authority to ban possession of a firearm to the government, to others, my bill does nothing to supersede that.

In conclusion, I am proud that my bill has the support of over 150 Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, and it has the support of the national Fraternal Order of Police. A similar bill has been adopted in my home State of Louisiana. It does one simple thing: it merely protects residents' legal right to own firearms.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

What happened actually in New Orleans, let's actually go back to what happened.

I will, but let me actually tell you what happened in New Orleans. I would like to offer a few facts for the record as well.

There was looting, for example, of stores, where guns were potentially going to fall into the wrong hands. Nothing in this bill would prohibit law enforcement, after arresting those looters, from securing those firearms.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am talking about the instance of firearms lying around this store that has been looted. In the situation the gentleman describes, there is no reason for law enforcement officers to be in somebody's home that has been abandoned.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the principal problem with this bill is that it didn't have any hearings. The bill was introduced and moved through the committee without deliberation, without consideration. Many of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon on the floor were issues that could and should have been raised in the course of hearings, and that would have been resolved, as they have been resolved in the bill now under consideration, but not in the bill introduced nor in the bill reported from committee.

Now, the appropriate order of business in our committee is we, unless there is overwhelming consensus, we have a hearing on a bill. And even on bills in which there is overwhelming consensus on both sides, we have hearings on the legislation, because there is always something that may come up that we hadn't thought about. And there were things that came up in this bill that the drafters hadn't thought about, and those were issues of law enforcement, public safety officials, specifically the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is mobilized to deal with a disaster when it has to evacuate persons stricken by disaster, hurricanes, floods, at sea under tempestuous circumstances, as we see on the Weather Channel the Coast Guard nobly rescuing people under extraordinary adverse circumstances. The bill, as introduced, would have prohibited a Coast Guard officer from requiring a person boarding a rescue helicopter, boarding a rescue vessel, a search and rescue ship, would have prohibited those persons from surrendering their firearm. Not to seize the firearm, not to take it away permanently, but to say we will keep this for you until you are safely onshore. There is no law that gives the Coast Guard the authority to do that.

Now, we should have had the bill under consideration in the committee, and we should have provided that authority to the Coast Guard, and that authority would be perfectly acceptable to advocates of firearm ownership. I have been, for 32 years, an advocate for firearm ownership. I have supported the right to keep and bear arms for all my service in the Congress and long before that, as a young lad growing up in northern Minnesota going out hunting before school and after school and on the weekends. But this is a different situation, and we needed that authority for the Coast Guard.

So now we have it in this language that is on page 5, line 19 of the bill before us. Subsection (b) Limitation: nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used to rescue or evacuate during a major disaster or emergency.

That is sensible. That is reasonable. It is not confiscation. The Coast Guard in this case, the agency that we have in mind, will hold the firearm and, after the rescue is completed, the person gets the firearm back. Now, we should have had that in the bill before it even came to the House floor.

The other problem was that, on the face of it, it would prohibit operators of shelters from requiring the surrender of a weapon as a condition for entry into the shelter. Now, this same, similar language, operates to protect those who operate shelters, such as the Super Dome or the Convention Center.

Now, the principal author of the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana, spoke with accuracy about the circumstances in New Orleans and with some detail. I know of circumstances myself. My brother-in-law, who still lives in New Orleans, in fact, both my brother-in-laws live in New Orleans were affected by the flood.

I have a very close friend whose home was broken into. They were on the second floor. They heard the people looting the place. His gun was on the first floor. He had no access to the gun. He couldn't protect the house, so to save themselves, they fled into the attic while the looters were stripping their house. They might have been able to do something if they had had the gun on the second floor and had more access to it.

There are many circumstances of this kind, where the person, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, should be able to protect him or herself in their own home. But you don't need a gun to go into the Superdome. You don't need a gun when you are in the Convention Center. If you have one and you are there, this legislation permits, under and in accordance with State and local law, the surrender of that firearm for the time of keeping or refuge in the center. That is what it does. So we have a good balance between the second amendment rights of our fellow citizens, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard, protection of the Coast Guard against frivolous actions, and protection of fellow citizens who operate in all good faith, shelters for victims of disaster. In that spirit, this legislation ought to be enacted, and we ought to support the bill and it ought to pass handily in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5013) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5013, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, State and local enforcement and public safety service organizations were overwhelmed, and many citizens felt threatened. Many of these citizens lawfully kept firearms for the safety of themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property as guaranteed to them by the second amendment, and used their firearms for protection against crime.

Following the hurricane, certain agencies confiscated the firearms of these law-abiding citizens, rendering them helpless against criminal activity. H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, was introduced by Representative Jindal on March 28, 2006. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill which amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by an individual operating under the color of Federal law while acting in support of a major disaster or emergency declaration, unless the confiscation is otherwise permitted by law.

This bill ensures that law-abiding citizens can continue to protect themselves, their loved ones, their businesses, and their property as guaranteed by the second amendment during disasters when law enforcement is most likely to be overwhelmed and unable to fulfill the safety needs of the citizens they serve. It prevents agencies from arbitrarily depriving law-abiding citizens of their private property and means of protecting themselves during a disaster.

Additionally, this bill clarifies that an individual may require the temporary surrender of firearms as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a disaster or emergency. For example, rescuers such as the Coast Guard can require the surrender of guns before an individual enters their vessel.

In short, this bill provides some commonsense limitation on the wholesale confiscation of guns during disasters without limiting the enforcement of local, state, or Federal laws.

Madam Speaker, I support this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Thank you for yielding the time, but I would yield to the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Jindal from Jefferson Parish. He can tell you exactly what the bill deals with and the detail. I am simply the manager.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Emergency Management Subcommittee, Mr. Shuster.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply thank the subcommittee chairman of Emergency Management, Mr. Shuster, for bringing this bill through the subcommittee, and certainly Chairman Young for moving the bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and most importantly, I think we owe a great deal of thanks to Mr. Jindal for recognizing a situation which was very, very, I am sure, difficult for some of the residents of his district and the people of New Orleans to face.

It is one thing to face a tragedy, but then also to be thrown into a situation where, in fact, you are not only

stripped of your guns, your means of protection, but you are stripped of your constitutional rights. And that was what was done to the people of New Orleans whose guns and protection for their family was actually occurring in front of their very eyes. So, you know, this body is all about adopting laws that are meant to face situations that we haven't faced before, and certainly Katrina was one of those instances we did not face before, a storm of this magnitude.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I think it is a terrific bill to insure the second amendments rights to the people of not only New Orleans and future disasters, but certainly the people of this country. And I would urge all my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, once again, number one, I want to say that I stand by the remarks of my colleague from New York (Mr. Nadler), but once again, this Congress is waging a war on common sense.

House leadership accuses the New Orleans Police Department of going door to door confiscating guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but the superintendent of the department states that this was not the case at all. Does anybody really think that after a disaster of that magnitude a police department's first priority is to go door to door and harass gun owners? Of course not.

Police merely arrested people who were breaking the law on the streets of

New Orleans. They were doing what they could to stop the looting and the sniper fire that slowed down the rescue workers. They never entered homes with the intent of collecting law-abiding citizens' guns, and by the way, we do not believe in that. We do not believe in going into someone's home without due cause on getting someone's gun.

This latest scheme to appease the gun lobby will tie the hands of our police officers during times of crisis. The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense, and this bill does not do it, not even for the future.

This bill allows guns in emergency shelters, provided the guns are legal. What if the gun owner does not have his license with him? Is the Red Cross official supposed to conduct background checks on gun owners to make sure they are legal? Can you imagine the chaos if loaded guns were allowed in the Superdome during Katrina? Again, it defies common sense.

Everyone agrees that the government failed when responding to Hurricane Katrina; but instead of addressing the real shortcomings revealed by Katrina, the House chooses to make our first responders' jobs more difficult in the critical hours following a natural disaster or even a terrorist attack.

This Congress has already cut funding to police officers and firefighters. Congress refused to make sure that the most at-risk communities received their fair share of homeland security funding, and now Congress is giving looters and criminals the upper hand in the aftermath of disaster.

It is time for common sense. Vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill.

Madam Speaker, I now want to address some questions to the manager of H.R. 5013. To my colleague from New York (Mr. Kuhl) may I ask, Would this bill permit a person to bring a gun into a rescue shelter?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Taking back my time, I understand that, but I know there are 17 States that already do not have any laws on the books. So the Federal law would not supercede what you are trying to do.

May I ask another question. If a State law gives a Governor or mayor broad powers under a state of emergency, may that official order temporary confiscation in the name of public safety? Or must the State law be specific? I yield again to the gentleman from New Orleans.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, and one more question. Who is liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it the officer who confiscates a gun or the city or the State? The language, even though I know you worked to change the language, is still a little bit confusing. I will state my question again: Who is liable in any lawsuit authorized by this bill? Is it the officer who confiscates a gun or the city or the State? Can the Federal Government be sued if the confiscation is made by a Federal officer? Can a person seek monetary damages in addition to the return of the gun?

I yield again to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, and let me follow up with what you had just said. Because the language in the bill, as it stands right now, there is not really a clarification on that, and I hope that we can work on that.