Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous and misguided bill that would exempt gun dealers from liability even when they negligently sell weapons to criminals.

It is particularly distressing that we are taking up this bill at this particular time. It was just 3 years ago this month, in October, when the community that I represent right outside here of Washington, DC was terrorized by two snipers, who left 10 people dead and three people injured. The snipers obtained their weapons from a negligent gun dealer in Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by how some people in this institution and other places believe that the name given to a bill will somehow fool the American people as to what the bill actually does. This bill has the title on it Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, what the bill does is to make lawful many negligent actions that today are unlawful. What it actually does is protect those gun dealers who are engaged in wrongful, negligent sales of weapons to criminals. How does it do it? Very simple. It lowers the legal standard of care that gun dealers must today exercise to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

As a result, the passage of this bill will make it easier, easier, for criminals to get weapons and it will ensure that those gun dealers who negligently, negligently, put guns in the hands of criminals will not be held responsible for their wrongful actions. And it is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, in this body when special interests and the gun industry exert such influence that they are able to convince the Congress to strip innocent victims of crimes of their rights and instead extend protections to those unscrupulous dealers who put guns into the hands of criminals.

Now, proponents of this legislation will tell us that most gun dealers in our Nation are honest and law abiding. I agree. That is true. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco has found that about 1 percent, about 1 percent, of gun dealers are responsible for nearly 60 percent of the guns that are traced to crimes. So if most gun dealers are honorable and responsible citizens, why do they need protection? They do not. The real beneficiaries of this legislation are those small handful of dealers who are negligently putting guns in the hands of criminals. It is protecting the bad apples. It is giving them a green light to go ahead and say I see nothing when they are engaged in sales to wrongdoers.

The proponents of this bill, as we have heard, will tell us it is only intended to stop so-called ``frivolous lawsuits.'' That notion has been soundly rejected by victim advocates across this country, and it is an insult to the victims who seek redress against those dealers who profit from negligently selling to violent predators.

Let us focus for a minute on the victims of gun crimes in our country. Should we not be protecting them? Why do we not have a bill entitled the ``Protection of Gun Violence Victims'' on the floor today? Let us look at some cases. We have talked about the sniper case. I differ strongly with the chairman of the committee, and the bill, as the testimony has made clear, would not have allowed that suit to go forward. I represent that area where so many people lost their lives 3 years ago this month. On many sunny days when the snipers gunned down people who were going about their ordinary business, filling up their gas at gas stations, shopping at grocery stores, cutting their grass, a child who was going to school. Before those snipers were caught, they killed 10 people and wounded three. The snipers have been caught, convicted, and they are behind bars.

The snipers carried out those attacks with a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle. The rifle came from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington, which had an extensive history of firearms violations and had not reported the rifle as missing as required by Federal law because they said they did not know the rifle was missing. According to the ATF, this store and its owner had a long history of firearms sales and records violations.

On January 16, 2003, the families of many of the victims of the sniper attacks who were killed brought a lawsuit against that gun store for their losses and injuries. The victims of that heinous crime spree received a $2.5 million settlement. Let us be clear. If this law had been in effect at that time, those victims and their families would have received nothing. In fact, this bill was being debated on the floor of this House 3 years ago this month when those killings were going on, and this House realized how bad it would look to victimize those people twice, to have them victimized once by the snipers and again by the United States Congress by denying their day in court, and that is why this House decided to withdraw the bill at that time from consideration from the floor of the House. Here we are 3 years later coming back and passing legislation that would have denied them their right. Shame on us.

Let us talk about another case. In New Jersey, June, 2004, two former New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun that had been negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. Those two officers received a $1 million settlement for the negligence of this dealer. The dealer had sold the gun along with 11 other handguns in a cash sale to a straw buyer, a trafficker, someone who got the guns because he could legally obtain them but then turned around and sold them to a criminal who committed the crimes. If this bill had been in effect then, that case would have been dismissed and justice for those police officers would have been denied. And because of that, many law enforcement officers and organizations have written a letter opposing this bill, a copy, Mr. Speaker, which I will insert in the Record.

Should we not be trying to create additional incentives to improve the business practices of these gun dealers, not give them a green light to be negligent? What happened to protecting the victims? This bill does just the opposite. It provides a shield to an industry that should be providing a standard of care at least equal to other industries and businesses. Why do we want to make the gun industry the most protected industry in America?

It is inconceivable that we are here today at the behest of the gun industry to provide immunity that no other industry enjoys and at the expense of the victims of gun violence. This bill will shut the courthouse doors on many victims who have legitimate claims.

In the interest of truth in advertising, the real name of this bill should be the ``Protection of Negligent Gun Dealers Act.''

I urge my colleagues to oppose this.

October 19, 2005.

Re: Law Enforcement Opposition to S. 397.

U.S. Congress,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: As active and retired law enforcement

officers, we are writing to urge your strong opposition to

any legislation granting the gun industry special legal

immunity. S. 397 would strip away the legal rights of gun

violence victims, including law enforcement officers and

their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun

dealers and manufacturers.

The impact of this bill on the law enforcement community is

well illustrated by the lawsuit brought by former Orange, New

Jersey police officers Ken McGuire and David Lemongello. On

January 12, 2001, McGuire and Lemongello were shot in the

line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West

Virginia dealer. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11

other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun

trafficker. In June 2004, the officers obtained a $1 million

settlement from the dealer. The dealer, as well as two other

area pawnshops, also have implemented safer practices to

prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of

ending large-volume sales of handguns. These reforms go

beyond the requirements of current law and are not imposed by

any manufacturers or distributors.

If immunity for the gun industry had been enacted, the

officers' case would have been thrown out of court and

justice would have been denied. Police officers like Ken

McGuire and Dave Lemongello put their lives on the line every

day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their

service, legislation granting immunity to the gun industry

would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens

to prove their case in a court of law. We stand with officers

McGuire and Lemongello in urging you to oppose such

legislation.

Sincerely,

International Brotherhood of Police Officers (AFL-CIO

Police union).

Major Cities Chiefs Association (Represents our nation's

largest police departments).

National Black Police Association (Nationwide organization

with more than 35,000 members).

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association

(Serving command level staff and federal agents).

National Latino Peace Officers Association.

The Police Foundation (A private, nonprofit research

institution).

Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.

Rhode Island State Association of Chiefs of Police.

Maine Chiefs of Police Association.

Departments listed for identification purposes only:

Sergeant Moises Agosto, Pompton Lakes Police Dept. (NJ);

Sheriff Drew Alexander, Summit County Sheriff's Office (OH);

Sheriff Thomas L. Altiere, Trumbull County Sheriff's Office

(OH); Director Anthony F. Ambrose III, Newark Police Dept.

(NJ); Chief Jon J. Arcaro, Conneaut Police Dept. (OH);

Officer Robert C. Arnold, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ); Chief

Ron Atstupenas, Blackstone Police Dept. (MA); Sheriff Kevin

A. Beck, Williams County Sheriff's Office (OH); Detective

Sean Burke, Lawrence Police Dept. (MA); Chief William

Bratton, Los Angeles Police Dept. (CA); Special Agent (Ret)

Ronald J. Brogan, Drug Enforcement Agency; and Chief Thomas

V. Brownell, Amsterdam Police Dept. (NY).

Chief (Ret) John H. Cease, Wilmington Police Dept. (NC);

Chief Michael Chitwood, Portland Police Dept. (ME); Chief

William Citty, Oklahoma Police Dept. (OK); Chief Kenneth V.

Collins, Maplewood Police Dept. (MN); Chief Daniel G.

Davidson, New Franklin Police Dept. (OH); Asst. Director Jim

Deal, US Dept. Homeland Security, Reno/Lake Tahoe Airport

(NV); Chief Gregory A. Duber, Bedford Police Dept. (OH);

Captain George Egbert, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ); Sterling

Epps, President, Association of Former Customs Agents,

Northwest Chapter (WA); Chief Dean Esserman, Providence

Police Dept. (RI); and Captain Mark Folsom, Kansas City

Police Dept. (MO).

Chief Charles J. Glorioso, Trinidad Police Dept. (CO);

Superintendent Jerry G. Gregory (ret), Radnor Township Police

Dept. (PA); Chief Jack F. Harris, Phoenix Police Dept. (AZ);

Chief (Ret.) Thomas K. Hayselden, Shawnee Police Dept. (KS);

Terry G. Hillard, Retired Superintendent, Chicago Police

Dept. (IL); Steven Higgins, Director (Ret.) ATF; Chief Ken

James, Emeryville Police Dept. (CA); Chief Calvin Johnson,

Dumfries Police Dept. (VA); Chief Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle

Police Dept. (WA); Deputy Chief Jeffrey A. Kumorek, Gary

Police Dept. (IN); Detective John Kotnour, Overland Park

Police Dept. (KS); Detective Curt Lavarello, Sarasota County

Sheriffs Office (FL); Chief Michael T. Lazor, Willowick

Police Dept. (OH); Sheriff Simon L. Leis, Jr., Hamilton

County Sheriffs Dept. (OH); and Sheriff Ralph Lopez, Bexar

County Sheriff (TX).

Chief Cory Lyman, Ketchum Police Dept. (ID); Chief David A.

Maine, Euclid Police Dept. (OH); Chief J. Thomas Manger,

Montgomery County Police Dept. (MD); Chief Burnham E.

Matthews, Alameda Police Dept. (CA); Chief Michael T.

Matulavich, Akron Police Dept. (OH); Chief Randall C. McCoy,

Ravenna Police Dept. (OH); Sergeant Michael McGuire, Essex

County Sheriff's Dept. (NJ); Chief William P. McManus,

Minneapolis Police Dept. (MN); Chief Roy Meisner, Berkley

Police Dept. (CA); Sheriff Al Myers; Delaware County

Sheriff's Office (OH); Chief Albert Najera, Sacramento Police

Dept. (CA); Chief Mark S. Paresi, North Las Vegas Police

Dept. (NV); Sheriff Charles C. Plummer, Alameda County

Sheriffs Department (CA); Chief Edward Reines, Yavapat-

Prescott Tribal Police Dept. (AZ); Chief Cel Rivera, Lorain

Police Dept. (OH).

Officer Kevin J. Scanell, Rutherford Police Dept. (NJ);

Robert M. Schwartz, Executive Director, Maine Police Dept.

(ME); Chief Ronald C. Sloan, Arvada Police Dept. (CO); Chief

William Taylor, Rice University Police Dept. (TX); Asst.

Chief Lee Roy Villareal, Bexar County Sheriffs Dept. (TX);

Chief (Ret) Joseph J. Vince, Jr., Crime Gun Analysis Branch,

ATF (VA); Chief Garnett F. Watson, Jr., Gary Police Dept.

(IN); and Hubert Williams, President, The Police Foundation

(DC).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague from Virginia would come meet with 10 families from the Washington area who had victims killed during the sniper attacks 3 years ago, as well as the police officers from New Jersey, and tell them that those lawsuits were frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the charts that my colleague showed listing all the lawsuits actually make the case for how the system is working because, as he knows, many of those cases have been dismissed by the court. The court looked at them; and those cases that were frivolous, it decided to dismiss.

So why are we trying to change the rules? It is because there are some cases that have merit, like the sniper cases and others, that would continue to go through, and under this legislation, they will not. Why change the rules to deny legitimate victims their day in court?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who has been such a leader on this important issue in protecting the victims of gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

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

I want to address an issue we have not covered this morning, which deals with the question of terrorists trying to get their hands on guns in this country. We know from our reports and records that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists have said to their terrorist network that they can easily obtain weapons in the United States, and we know from a government accountability study from January of this year that between February 3 and June 20 of 2004, 35 known or suspected terrorists, those are people who are on the terrorist watch list, purchased guns in the United States, and that from July 1 through October 31 of last year 12 additional people on the terrorist watch list purchased guns in the United States.

Now, I think many Americans would be surprised to know that you can be on the terrorist watch list and you can go to the airport and try and board an airplane, and because you are on the terrorist watch list, we say no, we want to protect the public, we are not going to let you board this airplane and compromise the safety of other passengers on that plane. But that person can then get in their car at the airport, go to their local gun store and buy as many semiautomatic weapons as that terrorist wants. What is more, that person can walk into that gun store and say, hey, guess what? I am on the terrorist watch list, and I want 12 semiautomatic assault weapons, and under this bill, if we pass it today, we could not hold that gun store owner liable in any way for a wrongful sale.

How do I know that? We offered an amendment in committee. Very simple. Let me read the language of the amendment. We said, we do not want to except from lawsuits and liability a seller who knows that the name of the person appears in the violent gang and terrorist organization file maintained by the Attorney General and the person subsequently used the qualified product, the weapon, in the commission of a crime.

We had a vote in committee on this amendment. Every Republican member of the committee voted no, every Democratic member of the committee voted yes. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I tried to get through the Committee on Rules an amendment so the whole House could consider this proposition. What did the Committee on Rules say? No.

It seems to me outrageous that we would pass a bill that would allow someone to walk into that gun store, the gun store owner knows that person is on the terrorist watch list, they sell the person a gun, the person goes out and murders people and, under this legislation, guess what? You can no longer hold them liable. That is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record the following letters in opposition to S. 397. Letters from the ABA, letters from two former directors of the ATF, a letter from a number of nationally recognized organizations, and letters from a number of law professors.

Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I raised the scenario of a terrorist getting denied access to an airplane because they are on the terrorist watch list going down to a local gun shop and saying, You know, I am on that watch list, can I get some guns? And under this legislation, that individual would be allowed to purchase those guns.

I have read the bill, and that is why I offered the amendment in committee. And what the bill says very clearly under negligent entrustment is essentially if the gun dealer knows or should know that the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury.

Now, we all might say common sense tells us that that would cover a person on the terrorist watch list. But you know what, that is not what the explanation was in committee. In fact, I have the committee transcript here, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) stated that the reason that

they did not want to adopt the amendment was not because the bill already covered that scenario. The real reason was they have questions about the reliability of the terrorist watch list and whether or not someone who is on the terrorist watch list is legitimately put there.

Well, here is the question. If the terrorist watch list is good enough to deny someone access to an airplane because that will put the public safety at risk, why is it not good enough to deny someone a firearm who goes down to the local gun store?

We have tried to make it a condition that people who are on the terrorist watch list cannot purchase weapons at gun stores. The Attorney General in testimony before our committee said maybe we should think about that. We have not passed that as a Congress.

And so for the chairman of the committee to say that the gun store owner will be assumed to know that person is a danger, when the United States Congress and the Judiciary Committee have refused to make that decision, it is just plain wrong. The Congress has not gone on record saying that someone on the terrorist watch list should not get a gun. Why should we expect a gun dealer and seller to do that?

So this does open a loophole that would allow exactly the scenario I talked about.

It would close the door on lawsuits by the victims of the snipers in this area. The letters I submitted for the Record from law professors and others make it absolutely clear that that is what this does.

Look, we have got a system for bringing lawsuits. We heard from the author of the bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a number of cases that were filed that he said were frivolous. Most of those cases were in fact dismissed from the courts.

The system is working. Frivolous lawsuits were dismissed. But what this legislation would do is to change the rules. It does not have to change the rules to protect the ones that were dismissed; they have been dismissed under the existing rules. So why are we changing them? Because we want to deny people who bring legitimate suits today, people like the families of the sniper victims, people like the officers from New Jersey, the police officers, who I must point out, again, and emphasize obtained settlements in those lawsuits.

We want to close the courthouse door on them. I would just ask a very simple question, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. We have a bill here saying we are going to protect the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which in fact changes the rules to make what is today unlawful, lawful.

Why do we not go about the business of passing legislation to protect the victims of gun violence rather than that small handful of bad-apple gun dealers who wrongfully and negligently help put the guns in the hands of killers in this country and allow them to go on the kind of rampage that leads to the death of so many people.

The killers are in jail. Thank God for that. But why should someone who is known to be negligent, who the ATF found to be negligent and later closed the gun shop, why should that person not be liable for their contribution to the negligence and to the deaths and sufferings that were faced by those families? Let us get about protecting the victims.

Mr. Speaker, the material I previously referred to is as follows:

American Bar Association,

Governmental Affairs Office,

Washington, DC, April 4, 2005.

Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the American Bar

Association to express our strong opposition to S.397, the

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and to similar

legislation to enact special tort laws for the firearms

industry. The ABA opposes S.397, and has opposed similar

legislation in the past two Congresses, because we believe

the proposed legislation is overbroad and would unwisely and

unnecessarily intrude into an area of traditional state

responsibility.

The responsibility for setting substantive legal standards

for tort actions in each state's courts, including standards

for negligence and product liability actions, has been the

province of state legislatures and an integral function of

state common law since our nation was founded. S.397 would

preempt state substantive law standards for most negligence

and product liability actions for this one industry,

abrogating state law in cases in which the defendant is a gun

manufacturer, gun seller or gun trade association, and would

insulate this new class of protected defendants from almost

all ordinary civil liability actions. In our view, the

legitimate concerns of some about the reach of a number of

suits filed by cities and state governmental units several

years ago have since been answered by the deliberative,

competent action of state courts and within the traditions of

state responsibility for administering tort law.

There is no evidence that federal legislation is needed or

justified. There is no hearing record in Congress or other

evidence to contradict the fact that the state courts are

handling their responsibilities competently in this area of

law. There is no data of any kind to support claims made by

the industry that it is incurring extraordinary costs due to

litigation, that it faces a significant number of suits, or

that current state law is in any way inadequate. The Senate

has not examined the underlying claims of the industry about

state tort cases, choosing not to hold a single hearing on

S.397 or its predecessor bills in the two previous

Congresses. Proponents of this legislation cannot, in fact,

point to a single court decision, final judgment or award

that has been paid out that supports their claims of a

``crisis''. All evidence points to the conclusion that state

legislatures and state courts have been and are actively

exercising their responsibilities in this area of law with

little apparent difficulty.

S. 397 proposes to exempt his one industry from state

negligence law. The proposed federal negligence law standard

will unfairly exempt firearms industry defendants from the

oldest principle of civil liability law: that persons, or

companies who act negligently should be accountable to

victims harmed by this failure of responsibility. Negligence

laws in all 50 states traditionally impose civil liability

when individuals or businesses fail to use reasonable care to

minimize the foreseeable risk that others will be injured and

injury results. But this proposed legislation would preempt

the laws of the 50 states to create a special, higher

standard for negligence actions for this one protected class,

different than for any other industry, protecting them from

liability for their own negligence in all but extremely

narrow specified exceptions. The ABA believes that state law

standards for negligence and its legal bedrock duty of

reasonable care should remain the standard for gun industry

accountability in state civil courts, as these state

standards for the rest of our nation's individuals,

businesses and industries.

The proposed federal product liability standards will

unfairly insulate firearm industry defendants from

accountability in state courts for design defects in their

products. The proposed new federal standard would preempt the

product liability laws in all 50 states with a new, higher

standard that would protect this industry even for failing to

implement safety devices that would prevent common,

foreseeable injuries, so long as any injury or death suffered

by victims resulted when the gun was not ``used as

intended''.

Under existing product liability laws in most states,

manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would

prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably

misused, regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by

the manufacturer, or whether the product ``fails'' or

``improperly'' functions. Thus automakers have been held

civilly liable for not making cars crashworthy, even though

the ``intended use'' is not to crash the car. Manufacturers

of cigarette lighters must make them childproof, even though

children are not ``intended'' to use them. Under this

proposed legislation, however, state laws would be preempted

so that gun manufacturers would enjoy a special immunity.

Enactment of S. 397 would also undermine responsible

federal oversight of consumer safety. The broad and, we

believe, unprecedented immunity from civil liability that

would result from enactment of S. 397 must be viewed against

the existing legal backdrop of the present, unparalleled

immunity the firearms industry enjoys from any federal safety

regulation. Unlike other consumer products, there is no

federal law or regulatory authority that sets minimum safety

standards for domestically manufactured firearms. This is

because the firearms industry was able to gain an exemption

for firearms from the 1972-enacted Consumer Product Safety

Act, the primary federal law that protects consumers from

products that present unreasonable risk of injury. Over the

last 30 years, an average of 200 children under the age of 14

and over a thousand adults each year have died in gun

accidents which might have been prevented by existing but

unused safety technologies. A 1991 Government Accounting

Office report estimated that 31 percent of U.S. children's

accidental firearm deaths could have been prevented by the

addition of two simple existing devices to firearms: trigger

locks and load-indicator devices. Sadly, these minimal safety

features are still not required.

This bill, if enacted, would insulate the firearms industry

from almost all civil actions, in addition to its existing

protection from any consumer product safety regulations. Such

special status for this single industry raises serious

concerns about its constitutionality; victims of gun violence

have the right--as do persons injured through negligence of

any party--to the equal protection of the law.

The risk that states may at some future date fail to

appropriately resolve their tort

responsibilities in an area of law--where there is no

evidence of any failure to date--cannot justify the

unprecedented federal preemption of state responsibilities

proposed in this legislation. The ABA believes that the

states will continue to sort out these issues capably without

a federal rewriting of state substantive tort law standards.

The wiser course for Congress, we believe, is to respect the

ability of states to continue to administer their historic

responsibility to define the negligence and product liability

standards to be used in their state courts. For these

reasons, we urge you to reject S. 397.

Sincerely,

Robert D. Evans.

Mr. Speaker, I really wish that today we could exercise our conscience and vote without the interference of the National Rifle Association.

I do believe in the second amendment, the Bill of Rights, that indicates that you are allowed to bear arms; but this legislation has nothing to do with the first or the second amendments, freedom of expression or the right to bear arms.

More than 10 years ago, as a member of the Houston City Council, I passed the first gun safety legislation that held parents responsible for guns in their homes, that children were then able to take and cause a tragedy. I remember the physician of the Texas Medical Center, Texas Children's Hospital Emergency Room, coming and testifying. I remember a parent coming and holding a very limp child, a paraplegic. They stood before us and they said this is the result of a shooting by a gun by a child who got the gun because of an irresponsible parent. That has not stopped the State of Texas and hunters from going to hunt. In fact, it has been noted that it saved lives and saved dollars.

Here we now have legislation with a blocked rule that suggests that no one can sue, no one can bring a suit of liability against gun manufacturers, and we are now suggesting that this is embedded in the likes and the hearts of the second amendment.

Is it the second amendment that says to a Philadelphia mother who won a settlement of only $850,000 from a gun dealer who negligently sold multiple guns to a gun trafficker, a child found one of the guns on a street in Philadelphia and accidently shot the mother's 7-year-old son, is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, we should not have these kinds of lawsuits? Is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, that this now putting forward only a negligence per se exception will, in fact, disallow States like Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, the citizens in those particular States cannot sue at all because they cannot meet the standard because there is no such standard as negligence per se?

It is unfortunate that the amendments that we were prepared to offer were not accepted; and as presently written, H.R. 800 makes individuals who sell machine guns, semiautomatic weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from that lawsuit, the same kind of bill that we have here before us.

In my own State of Texas, a San Antonio police officer named Hector Garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call. His assailant was armed with a MAC-10 semiautomatic pistol and AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al Phillips said that with the fire power the shooter possessed, the incident might have turned into a bloodbath and he could have killed multiple officers.

This is wrong-headed and misdirected. It is time now for us to vote this legislation down. What a shame for the NRA to buy this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, just as I did with my colleagues in the case of H.R. 800 in the Judiciary Committee and H.R. 1036 during the 108th Congress. Just as in the case of the malignant Bankruptcy legislation, S. 256, that finessed itself to the House floor for consideration and then to passage into law, H.R. 1036 passed in Committee body last Congress without having given many members the opportunity to have very substantive amendments considered--shielded by ``parliamentary inquiry.''

So too did Members have very important proposals to improve this very troubled piece of legislation. S. 397, like its predecessor and House companion in the 108th Congress, seeks to shield irresponsible gun manufacturers, vendors, dealers, distributors, and importers from liability under the guise of protection from ``frivolous lawsuits.''

As the Democrats of this Committee stated quite eloquently in its ``Dissenting Views'' (108-59), courts around the country have recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including negligence, products liability, and public nuisance. These courts have held that those who make and sell guns--like all others in society--are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their product, and that they may be liable for the foreseeable injurious consequences of their failure to do so even if those foreseeable consequences include unlawful conduct by third parties. This bill, if enacted, would nullify these decisions, rewriting and subverting the common law of those States, and then, only with respect to a particular industry.

In the past iteration of this legislation, I offered an amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as the result of an unlawful transfer of a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device.

The U.S. Code, in Section 922 of Title 18, makes it unlawful for a person from transfer or possess a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device.

In addition, before the Committee on Rules earlier this week, I joined my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren in offering an amendment captioned ``Lofgre_044,'' that proposes an additional exception to the definition of ``qualified civil liability action'' for law enforcement officers acting in that capacity. This legislation creates very overbroad prohibitions for civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms, and this amendment seeks to protect one of many classes of parties that might be aggrieved as a result of firearm use.

While I do sit on the Committee on Homeland Security, one does not have to sit on this body to know that our first responders need and deserve protection from unintended situations. These men and women sit at the front line and are the first to act when our Nation is threatened. The de minimis effort that we as legislators can give is to protect legitimate claims filed by them in connection with the use of firearms.

The amendment did not say that gun dealers should be liable simply because they sold a gun that was used in a crime, nor does it say that the families of all 297 officers shot to death between 1997 and 2001 should be able to recover. It simply stated that when a gun dealer sells 12 or 50 or 100 guns to a person who is clearly going to turn around and sell those guns on the street, that dealer should be held accountable. Now, the proponents of this bill may argue that the negligence per se exception protects police officers because it allows suits against dealers who violate other statutes, like the Brady Act. But that is simply not true. It would not have protected Mr. Lemongello, who brought his suit in a State that does not recognize the doctrine of negligence per se. I would also point out that this bill steps all over States' rights. As we've seen, with the Schiavo case and other tort reform efforts, the leadership of the House is all too eager to ignore principles of federalism when it suits their ideological needs. I believe that this bill is just another example of that principle.

More than 30,000 gun deaths occur each year, so the almost blanket immunization from suit proposed in this legislation represents nothing more than an unwarranted and unjust special interest giveaway to the powerful gun lobby and a shameful attack on the legal rights of countless innocent victims of gun violence. Never before has a class of persons harmed by the dangerous conduct of others been wholly deprived of the right to legal recourse.

The Lofgren-Jackson Lee amendment would have protected the right to sue for members of the law enforcement community along with

their spouses or next of kin in the event of their wrongful death. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

As presently written, H.R. 800 makes those individuals who sell machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from suit. It makes no sense that the sellers of weapons that have been banned by Congress can avoid civil liability when the guns they sell are used in crimes.

Congress has enacted this ban on machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for an obvious reason--these assault weapons are dangerous.

The deadly characteristics of semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles was tragically illustrated in my home state of Texas. A San Antonio police officer named Hector Garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call. His assailant was armed with a Mac--10 semi-automatic pistol and an AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al Phillipus said that with the firepower the shooter possessed the incident ``might have turned into a bloodbath'' and he ``could have killed multiple officers.''

I will offer this amendment because the exceptions to the general ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and merchants is too narrow. One such narrow exception allows the victims of gun violence to sue a gun seller only if the gun purchaser is subsequently convicted of the gun- related crime.

This exception is insulting to the victims of gun violence. It prioritizes the rights of negligent gun sellers and criminals before the rights of the victims of gun violence.

H.R. 800 should be amended to allow the victims of gun violence to seek civil damages when there are allegations of wrongdoing. Under this amendment, the victims of gun violence will not have to wait for a criminal conviction in order to seek justice.

To make those individuals who sell Congressionally banned machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices liable for their negligent acts. I also offer this amendment so that the victims of gun violence can seek civil damages prior to the conviction of the gun purchaser.

In addition, I will offer an amendment that will exempt from the scope of the bill those lawsuits involving injury or death to minors under the age of 16.

As presently written, S. 397 prohibits all civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and trade associations for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful gun use by the injured person or a third party.

There are a few limited exceptions to the overall ban. However, none of the exceptions in the bill protects the rights of minors, or the parents of minors, to sue for civil damages when a minor is injured or killed by a gun that is negligently or recklessly manufactured or distributed.

As it is presently written, a gun merchant could negligently or recklessly sell a gun to a criminal. That gun could then be used to seriously injure or kill a minor. Under S. 397, the negligent gun seller would be immune from any civil liability.

It is absurd to deny the families of children killed or injured by the negligence or recklessness of gun distributors an opportunity to sue. At the very least, the victims of gun violence and their families deserve an opportunity to have their claims heard by a judge and jury.

It is certainly foreseeable that some guns will accidentally fall into the hands of children and serious injuries or tragic deaths may result. Those gun distributors and sellers who fail to conduct adequate background checks, or fail to take other measures to ensure that guns to do not fall into criminal hands should not be free from liability. Gun merchants have a responsibility to conduct their business safely and protect the lives of children. When they fail to do so they should be held accountable in a court of law.

Gun manufacturers and merchants should be liable in courts of law when their negligent acts result in the death or injury to a minor.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and the amendments that strive to make some improvements that will provide relief to parties that need protection were closed out without consideration. For the reasons above stated, I reject this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, let me mention that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has a long and prominent history in knowing the laws of this Nation in his earlier life, and as well rendering them in the proper manner.

And I want to follow the comments that you made about the amendments offered in the committee, and as well make mention of the fact of the kind of complete reckless, if you will, lacking of sensitivity, to putting forward real balanced legislation.

In our dissenting views, the Democrats of this committee mentioned courts around the country, and by the way, there are views about gun safety across the aisle. But courts around the country have recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including negligence, products liability and public nuisance.

These courts have held that those who make and sell guns, like all others in society, are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their products and that they may be liable for foreseeable injurious consequences.

The courts have answered this question. They have rejected frivolous lawsuits. And those that have merit they have accepted. I offered an amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as a result of an unlawful transfer of a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large- capacity ammunition feeding device.

These particular arms, illegal. And therefore the manufacturer does have some liability in it. And this latest offering of the bill, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and myself offered a bill that would exempt law enforcement officers.

This bill does not even exempt law enforcement officers. And even in this climate of homeland security, it is well known that our first responders need to be protected by the reckless use of machine guns and AK-47s. And this legislation turns a blind eye to reality. It turns a blind eye to the shooting of children. It turns a blind eye to the sniper in Washington, to the Philadelphia mother.

I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is not the second amendment. This is the NRA free legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 493, I call up the Senate bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 397, the bill currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation passed the Senate by more than a two-thirds vote this summer and contains the same legal reform provisions of H.R. 800 sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). The Committee on the Judiciary considered and favorably reported H.R. 800 in May of this year.

Just like H.R. 800 and similar legislation that passed the House by more than a two-thirds majority during the last Congress, S. 397 will stop frivolous and abusive lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition by prohibiting lawsuits resulting from the criminal and unlawful misuse of their products from being filed in Federal and State courts.

It is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does not do. First, the legislation does not preclude lawsuits against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime.

Second, it does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.

Third, the bill includes several additional exceptions, including an exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violates any State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

Finally, the bill contains additional exceptions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.

Recent trends in abusive litigation have inspired lawsuits against the firearms industry on the theory of liability that would hold it financially responsible for the actions of those who use their products in a criminal or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort law from its moorings in personal responsibility and may force firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy.

While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed and some States have acted to address them, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to be aggressively pursued. The intended consequences of these frivolous lawsuits could not be more clear: the financial ruin of the firearms industry. As one of the personal injury lawyers suing American firearms companies told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.''

Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal judge, ``the plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.''

Personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the court's jurisdictional boundaries. A New York appeals court stated recently that ``courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.''

Law enforcement, military personnel rely on the domestic firearms industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns will not be those designed under the requirements personal injury attorneys seek to impose through firearms lawsuits. Rather, these lawsuits threaten to injure the domestic firearms industry, endanger the jobs of thousands of hard-working Americans, and provide to foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage.

One abusive lawsuit filed in a single county could destroy a national industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, by prohibiting abusive lawsuits against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles articulated by the United States Supreme Court, which has made it clear that ``one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market . . . is not only subordinate to the Federal power over interstate commerce but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States . . . ''

Before closing, I think it is important to set the record straight on one item. Some news outlets have claimed that this legislation would have barred a lawsuit involving the D.C. sniper and the gun the sniper obtained after it was stolen from a Washington State gun shop that did not keep track of its inventory and did not realize that the guns were stolen.

Anyone who actually reads this bill will immediately realize that that claim is patently false, and it is important to note that some of the editorial pundits apparently do not believe in reading the bills before they write and publish. Under S. 397 a plaintiff would be permitted to conduct discovery to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding what happened to the firearm while in the possession, custody, and control of the dealer and how it came into the possession of the criminal shooters. A plaintiff would be permitted to have his or her day in court to try to establish whether the dealer knowingly violated or made any false entry in, or failed to make an appropriate entry in, his records, which he is required to keep pursuant to Federal law.

I have here a report of violations filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regarding the Washington State gun dealer. It contains a record of dozens of violations of Federal law and quoting the following: ``The licensee's,'' that is, the dealer's, ``bound books were examined and compared to the physical inventory. It was initially determined that there were approximately 300 unaccounted for firearms. These initial 300-plus unaccounted for firearms are considered instances of failure to timely record disposition information in the bound record book.''

So under S. 397 a lawsuit against that dealer could go forward, and I include this report in the Record at this point.

Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation is long overdue. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty, then exercise its authority under the commerce clause to deny a few State courts the power to bankrupt the national firearms industry and deny all Americans their fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. I urge the passage of this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my Democratic colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the principal author of the bill.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) who is always welcome on this side of the aisle.

(Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the plain language of the bill says that the hypothetical the gentleman from Maryland just talked about falls under the negligent entrustment exemption from the bill, so a lawsuit could proceed. Read the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. Speaker, a gun by its very nature must be dangerous. So may an automobile or a knife, or a piece of machinery that does not work properly. There are a lot of dangerous things that we as human beings utilize; and if they work properly, they can be utilized for something that is good and something that is lawful.

Tort law, however, rests upon a foundation of individual responsibility, in which the product may not be defined as defective unless there is something wrong with the product, rather than with the product's user.

And what this bill attempts to do is to get tort law back to its original moorings where the manufacturer of the product that is not defective in its nature is not legally liable for the criminal misuse of that product by its user.

That is what the issue is before the House today in consideration of S. 397. Now, S. 397 while preventing frivolous and abusive lawsuits also ensures that bad actors can continue to be sued.

The bill allows the following types of lawsuits to be filed: first, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug- trafficking crime or a comparable or identical State felony law;

Second, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se;

Third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to the sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which the relief is sought. And this exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers and those who fail to maintain the required inventory lists necessary to ensure they are alerted to any firearms theft;

Fourth, actions for breach of contact or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.

This is a carefully crafted bill. It provides immunity for people who have not done anything wrong, even thought their products may be used in a criminal nature; but it does allow lawsuits to proceed against the bad actors.

It ought to be passed. I am sure it will be passed, and finally we can lay this issue to rest after 6 years of debate. I urge the Members to support this legislation, to send it to the President for his signature, and then we can move on.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. My friends in the majority are again bringing to the floor a rule that blocks debate in the body before it begins. Under this rule not one Member of the House, Republican or Democrat, is permitted to offer an amendment. Under this rule and under this bill, the gun lobby is rewarded while public safety is thwarted.

A few examples: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered an amendment last night that prohibits suspected and known terrorists from purchasing firearms. That was not made in order. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), my good friend who will speak on this issue later, had an amendment that expands existing prohibitions on armor-piercing bullets to include those bullets capable of piercing body armor. And the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez) offered an amendment that permits courts to hear suits based on the sale of weapons to persons with domestic convictions.

Under this rule, however, not one of these amendments, or any of the five other commonsense amendments offered by Democrats in the Committee on Rules last night, will be given any consideration by the full House.

Madam Speaker, our government was built on the foundation of an open and transparent participatory process. Yet, since 1994, when Republicans regained control of the House; I might add, Republicans that argued against closed rules, participation has been limited to only those who share their beliefs.

The underlying legislation, which dismisses existing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers and prohibits the filing of future suits, is not sound public policy. On the contrary, it is outright political grandstanding.

During the last 3 years, more than 34 government entities have filed valid lawsuits against gun manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations. At the beginning of 2005, 18 of those suits had won favorable rulings, while only a handful had been dismissed. The remaining cases are still in court, and I gather that this legislation contemplates eliminating those citizens' rights to be in court.

In fact, several State appeals and supreme courts have also ruled that gun manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for the reasonably foreseeable use of firearms for criminal purposes. Settlements from these cases have forced gun manufacturers to make necessary safety modifications that the industry had previously refused to do. How many times do we have to see a baby with a gun in its hand or at its head or killing some member of the family before we get to safety modifications?

The ruling in the D.C. sniper case forced the gun manufacturer Bushmaster to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that will prevent other criminals from obtaining guns, something that Bushmaster had never done before. Other rulings have resulted in major crackdowns on ``straw purchases,'' where legally purchased guns are resold to individuals unable to lawfully purchase a weapon on their own. In each of these instances, it is beyond fair to say that they were not frivolous lawsuits. Yet, if the underlying legislation becomes law, when the cases are heard then none of them would have even been filed.

Perhaps my friends in the majority can help me understand what is so unreasonable in requiring an industry that produces a product with the sole purpose of killing to take the necessary precautions to protect public safety, and is it our belief that the American judicial system is incapable of properly dismissing lawsuits that are both unreasonable and overzealous? They do it all the time.

Let us be honest and call this bill and this debate what they really are: legislative abuse, with closed rules and a political charade. Republicans are using the legislative process in an attempt to penalize attorneys and trial lawyers, historically supporters of Democrats, who hold the gun lobby, a major campaign contributor to my friends in the majority, accountable for its actions.

The majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Dangerously, it does so at the expense of American safety.

I implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation, and I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), that I know of nothing in my makeup that would cause me at any point in time to want to do anything in derogation of the rights of American citizens under the United States Constitution. The second amendment, the right to own a gun, is everybody's right. But manufacturers ought not be manufacturing guns that are not safe and are poorly manufactured, and nobody should be protecting them at all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleague that just spoke that the many people that I know, and they are numerous in my State and elsewhere that were killed by guns and are advocates against guns, are not fanatics. They are people who are victims of murder.

Additionally, I thought I made it clear, I wish to make it clear again, that insofar as the second amendment is concerned, everyone that I know in this body is protective of a person's right to own a gun.

The fact of the matter is that manufacturers who act irresponsibly should be sued by persons if they so choose when that harm comes to them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, just in case people think that it is only those of us who believe in our legal system that are opposed to this particular measure, I have in hand a letter from law enforcement's opposition to H.R. 800, and here is what it says:

``Dear Representative: As active and retired law enforcement officers, we are writing to urge your strong opposition to any legislation granting the gun industry special legal immunity. The bill would strip away the legal rights of gun violence victims, including law enforcement officers and their families, to seek redress against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers. The impact of this bill on the law enforcement community is well illustrated by the lawsuit brought by former Orange New Jersey police officers Ken McGuire and David Lemongello.''

I gather that their lawsuit would be dismissed as frivolous.

``On January 12, 2001, Officers McGuire and Lemongello were shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other guns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker. In June of 2004, the officers obtained a $1 million settlement from the dealer. The dealer, as well as two other area pawn shops also, have implemented safer practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of ending large volume sales of handguns. These reforms go beyond the requirement of current law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors.

``If immunity,'' this is what the law enforcement community, some of them say, ``if immunity for the gun industry had been enacted, the officers' case would have been thrown out of court and justice would have been denied. Police officers like Officers McGuire and Lemongello put their lives on the line every day to protect the public. Instead of honoring them for their service, legislation granting immunity to the gun industry would deprive them of their basic rights as American citizens to prove their case in a court of law. We stand with Officers McGuire and Lemongello in urging you to oppose this legislation.''

It is signed by the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, The Police Foundation, the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, chiefs of police from New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Kansas and Virginia and countless others that time will not permit me to add.

If police officers who are out there protecting us cannot find the protection in this House of Representatives from bullets or armor- piercing bullets, and we are going to protect people who manufacture that stuff from having legal suits brought against them, some

that may be dismissed, some that may be won, some that may be lost but it is an American right, just like that second amendment is an American right that I will go to my grave believing in, but I will go with these police officers in believing that it is wrong to deny people an opportunity to take their matter to court and have it decided appropriately by a court of law and juries of their peers who are all 435 of our constituents.

In addition to what is wrong is this system is wrong. When you close out amendments that would allow people to have an opportunity to come down here on the floor of the House of Representatives and represent their constituents, this is a closed rule; and I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 493 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 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 the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 493 is a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, before we open debate on the rule for S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, I would like to say that our Nation's judicial system is out of control. If a group or a person does not like what someone else does or believes, they try to sue them out of existence. This seems to be the case for the firearms industry.

Our Founding Fathers designed our second amendment rights to be absolute rights that shall not be infringed. However, those who find the second amendment offensive have made a concerted effort to sue out of existence those who lawfully and legally facilitate a constitutionally guaranteed right. America's firearm companies are directly connected to and span our national history, but they are currently threatened by a lawsuit-friendly culture.

Addressing the burden of frivolous lawsuits has become a necessity for free enterprise. It seems that for some individuals lawsuits have become the latest get-rich scheme. Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of goods and services, and they put law-abiding companies out of business.

The passage of this legislation is time-sensitive. Every day without this legislation puts more stress on firearm manufacturers, their customers, and their employees. Indeed, some lawsuits are motivated by ideology and a distaste for the firearm industry and guns in general. They will simply keep suing until either the firearm companies are out of business or the guns are too expensive to purchase.

This form of gun control will not only compromise one of our constitutional rights but, Madam Speaker, it threatens the jobs of many Americans.

So it is important to note that S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, does allow the following types of lawsuits to be filed: number 1, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition, knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence, or drug trafficking crime or comparable or identical State felony law; secondly, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment; third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.

This exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers who failed to maintain a required inventory list necessary to ensure that they are alerted to any firearm thefts.

Fourth, actions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition; and fifth, actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition.

So, under this legislation, manufacturers and sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State law. More than half our States have passed similar legislation, and I encourage passage of this rule and consideration of the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before calling on the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

I want to point out, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, regarding this particular legislation, S. 397, we have in this body, not just in the 109th this year, passed very, very similar, almost identical legislation, and there were some 11 amendments I think offered during the markup in the Committee on the Judiciary. Those were defeated. In fact, at least one member of the committee from the other party, from the minority party, voted against most of those amendments and voted in favor of favorably reporting this bill. This bill also was passed in the 108th Congress, H.R. 1036. I think the vote on that particular bill was 285 to 140.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) I want to point out that this bill prohibits lawsuits against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition or not-for-profit trade association for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition.

But it provides, as I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, five exceptions to this liability protection, including, and I will just mention one in response to my good friend from Massachusetts. An exception would be for an action against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se, for example supplying a gun or ammunition to a person when the seller knows or reasonably should know that the buyer possesses an unacceptable risk of physical injury to himself or others.

As an example again, the D.C. snipers were successful in court on these grounds.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would again point out to the gentleman that it also would be an exception if a vendor knowingly did not keep an inventory so that they would have knowledge that dangerous weapons or firearms were actually stolen from their place of business. And that also is one of the exceptions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this bill on the House side, H.R. 800, which was passed, as I mentioned earlier by the House Judiciary Committee, this bill actually had 257 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker. So this is certainly not a Republican bill.

You can do the math. My colleagues certainly can do the math on the other side of the aisle. But clearly, this bill had strong, strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a member of the Energy and Commerce and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite their best arguments against free enterprise, personal responsibility and the protection of lawful commerce, critics fail to provide an alternative solution to the problem without compromising our liberties and second amendment rights.

Just as a car is a tool for transportation, an ax is a tool for cutting trees and shrubs, prescription drugs are tools for better health, a firearm is a tool for hunting and self-defense and protection of our citizens. Any of these tools used in an irresponsible manner and used contrary to their attending purpose can hurt and, yes, even kill others. But a gun by itself, Mr. Speaker, cannot commit a crime. It takes an individual to use the product illegally and irresponsibly.

The protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a bill to curb our lawsuit-friendly and, yes, sometimes abusive society and to protect law-abiding citizens from individuals who avoid responsibility and undermine the good faith of our legal system.

Frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers threaten the survival of the gun industry, the jobs it creates, and our constitutional right to purchase, keep and bear arms. While many cases are dismissed, it only takes one bad ruling to sink a company and to send ripple effects across an entire industry. Although America's first gun manufacturer, Springfield Armory, went out of business in 1968, we still have to protect America's remaining law-abiding companies who conduct business in a responsible and in a lawful manner.

It would be a tragedy for a Nation with such a rich and innovative history in manufacturing to have our police and military carry over foreign-engineered firearms. We need to protect the American firearm industry. We need to restore responsibility and end these frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this rule and passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.