Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop). We appreciate their contributions tonight. As members of the Western Caucus, we thank them for being here. I yield the last couple of minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) to wrap up for the evening.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, if the camera will focus, this is it.

Mr. CANNON. Reserves are a function of what we learn through science, and so reserves of oil and gas have gone up dramatically. We know that we had oil and gas in the ground at different places, and we did not have the technology to get it out, and so we did not count that as a recoverable reserve. We now have technologies that will get a lot more of that out, so our recoverable reserves have gone up on that basis, and also on the basis that we have explored more so we have found new reserves. So we have a couple of dynamics there. But those reserves are discounted by what we can reasonably legally get to. I suspect, in fact, we are at an all-time low, as reflected in the high price of oil and gas, with the reserves that we have access to today not because we have limited them or we have not discovered more, but because we have taken those reserves that we have and we have legally limited access to those reserves.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I talked to many, many people about this, and to a man or woman on either the Democratic or Republican side, to the degree they have been there, their views are radically different from what they were before they were there. I think the gentleman expressed it very well. I know the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) also had some comments for the gentleman.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), everybody I have talked to who has ever visited the area has had pretty much the same response. I have not been up there. I understand it is a phenomenal visit, and it helps to understand exactly what we are doing and why this is a reasonable bill, especially when we put it in the context of the people that are there locally.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, if I got this right from the chart there, we add ANWR to the system and bring that oil into America and prices, instead of spiking like the gentleman's red line shows there, prices tend to plummet like they have done as we have brought that oil from Alaska into the American market earlier?

Mr. CANNON. We have a chart later on that shows the various countries that produce oil that we bring into America and shows that that production in the new ANWR would actually be the second or third largest amount of oil we bring into America from any part of the world; is that not correct?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, it is a great time, as we come together to speak tonight, things are going well, thank heavens, in Iraq and I think we will actually see a time and place in modern times when a country as strong as America is willing to go in and secure the freedom for other people. And so this is a time of great faith in America but it is also a time of problems. And, in fact, in Iraq in particular we see one of the side effects of that war has been a significant increase in the cost of oil and gas and energy for the people of America. So tonight 2 or 3 of us who are members of the Western Caucus would like to talk about energy policy in America and the need to pass the energy bill later this week. A couple of things are important as we do that. In the first place, we need to protect the environment. That is essential. In the second place, we need to have a secure source of energy, and that needs to be largely domestic. And, finally, we need to have a reasonable price for ourselves and for future generations. A little bit later I am going to talk about oil or gas exploration and development in America. I would like now to introduce a couple of my colleagues. I will start with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who will take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the big ideas here.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this special order.

Mr. CANNON. Just in the last month we have been up to 19, so that reflects a lack of reserve. The gentleman said the reserves are at the lowest level ever. Reserves are a function of what we know is there.

Mr. CANNON. My understanding is that we have actually quadrupled.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), my friend, for his gracious comments. Referring back to the prior speaker, the gentleman from Washington, he made a couple points that I think are important. This is not about the right to own a gun; this is an entirely different discussion. I indicated, on his concern about seeing trigger locks on all guns, frankly, we need to research and improve safety devices over time. Hopefully, some of those improvements in safety will come from a healthy, robust manufacturing center in our country that can afford to develop the kinds of technologies that will keep the many police officers who are shot with their own guns safe from their own guns. That takes a robust industry to do that. In closing, let me just point out to the gentleman, if we enter the words ``used as intended,'' ``manufacturing defect,'' or ``design defect'' into Westlaw, a commonly used database, we come up with 1,300 State cases and 900 Federal cases. We have a great deal of understanding about the concept that is being attacked in this amendment. I encourage the Members of this body to oppose this amendment, to go with legislation that is sensible and reasonable and will improve the environment in which we have to exercise our right to keep and bear arms in America.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the author of the underlying bill.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to seek the time in opposition.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to first thank the chairman of the full committee for his expeditious movement of this bill through a hearing and through markup. I would also like to thank the ranking member of my Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), with whom I sometimes differ, but who never, never differs without grace. I appreciate his positions. There are a number of issues upon which we differ here. Let me just point out, the markup was shortened, to some degree, partly because it was treated as a joke. Nevertheless, this legislation has been considered in the past and was subject to a hearing. The gentleman from North Carolina is pointing out that a number of lawsuits will be prohibited or stopped by this legislation; and the answer to that statement is yes, that is the purpose of this legislation. It is to stop lawsuits which are frivolous and intended only to destroy the manufacturers and distributors and importers of guns in America as viable commercial activities. The gentleman also pointed out that some of these lawsuits that will be prohibited would be wrongly prohibited, and that is where we disagree. The gentleman referred to 13 recall notices. The gentleman will recall that in our hearing, we had an expert from the gun industry who said that if a weapon discharged because of a defect which was subject to a recall notice, or even if it was not subject to a recall notice, but if it discharged improperly, they would, that is the industry, the gun manufacturing industry, would still be responsible for that defect according to current law. Now, the bill before us does not change current law. It only preempts the recent rash of frivolous lawsuits that are intended and explicitly intended by the proponents of these lawsuits to destroy the industry. This amendment should be defeated because it would strip away from the bill an essential protection from frivolous lawsuits. The bill allows manufacturing and product defect cases to go forward provided that the product was used as intended. This phrase is vital to, for example, protect a gun manufacturer from a frivolous claim that the gun should have been designed to prevent someone from sticking a gun up his nose to scratch, with his finger on the trigger. That is clearly not what was intended for the use of the gun. Another example, while all manufacturers under national standards voluntarily adopted by the industry design guns to be safe from firing on impact when dropped, a person who uses a pistol as a hammer should not be able to sue for defective design, which just makes sense, when the gun discharges after its foolish abuse of the design. As one important product liability case stated, it is well settled that a manufacturer is under a duty to use reasonable care in designing his product when used in the manner for which the product was intended. The phrase ``used as intended'' is today routinely applied by courts and juries based on circumstances of the case and what the court or the jury sees as a reasonable intended use. Of course, the juries will no doubt draw extensively on, for example, the owner's manual of a firearm for guidance as to what the intended use is. It would seem clear in most circumstances to carry a gun is an intended use and that manufacturing and design defects that cause harm when a person drops the gun during the course of its intended use properly and appropriately falls within the exceptions of the bill's provision. It would also seem clear that in most, if not all, circumstances pointing a gun at an innocent person and pulling the trigger is not an intended use. These would be fact-intensive inquiries, however, best left to the discretion of judges and juries. The phrase ``used as intended'' is by no means an unfamiliar term in the case law. The amendment should be defeated so existing case law among the States can be used to appropriately apply it on a case-by- case basis. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out we have heard much characterization of the dealer who sold the gun to the person who ended up getting the gun to the criminal who shot Officer Lemongello. Let me point out that if the characterization that has been overwrought and overstated by the opposition is correct, then there is a claim under the law that is not preempted by this bill for Mr. Lemongello to seek redress. The fact is this bill does not take away the traditional common-law claims for negligent entrustment and violations of law. It only makes it clear that frivolous lawsuits cannot proceed erratically around the country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read two quotes to finish up. First of all, let me point out that the industry has been responsible. When the city of Boston voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the firearms industry, they said, ``During litigation the city has learned that the members of the firearm industry have a long-standing commitment to reducing firearm accidents and reducing criminal misuse of firearms.'' And they go on and make further points. So what is this bill all about? What is the litigation all about that we are trying to deal with in this bill. It is about what John Coale said: ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.'' What we want to do is protect the industry in America. I urge the Members to vote against this amendment and other amendments and support the underlying bill.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I have one further speaker, and then I will close. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, this is not a bill that deals with that issue, let me point out for clarifications purposes, but it is about people who would destroy an industry using the thousand cuts of litigation. Mr. John Coale, one of the personal injury lawyers suing the firearms industry, told The Washington Post: ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.'' That is what is going on that we are trying to deal with here with this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the author of the underlying bill. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), this is not about trial lawyers and their profits. That would come under the rubric maybe of asbestos where they are taking huge returns compared to the minor returns that the individuals are taking.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who calls this bill irresponsible and shameful, let me just point out that a gun dealer who does wrong things is still going to be liable under this bill. A very large majority of Members of this body have already cosponsored the bill, just in refutation. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman. We have, in fact, protected manufacturers in dozens of industries. One example is the light aircraft industry where we have set up rules so that we could actually continue, or actually re-create, our light aircraft industry in America. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)