Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of small businesses, owners and employees, in this time of economic downturn. The key to President Bush's economic package is to provide jobs to Americans who desire to work. The plan will provide a great boost to small businesses, which create 70 percent of the jobs, or two out of every three jobs. One of the most significant weaknesses in the present economy is the low level of business investment. The President's plan will triple write-offs for business equipment from $25,000 to $75,000, will reduce the cost of capital, and help these enterprises grow. There is a current phase-in schedule that will reduce the income tax paid by small businesses. This plan will speed these reductions up and make them immediately. All of the components of the President's package put together are projected to return an average of over $2,000 to 23 million small business owners this year. The Council of Economic Advisors projects that the President's plan will create 10,000 new jobs in the second half of 2003, 890,000 jobs in 2004, and an increase of 1.4 million jobs in just 18 months. Private sector analyses reach similar conclusions. The sooner Congress acts, the better it is for small businesses.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about a program called cash and counseling which allows flexibility for Medicaid, people who are poor, people who are disabled, gives them an opportunity to be involved and get more resources, and it is good for the Federal Government, too. In February of this year, I spoke on the floor about this Cash and Counseling program. It was demonstrated in Florida, Arkansas and New Jersey. In these demonstrations, disabled and elderly beneficiaries were given great latitude to direct their own support services; that is, they were involved themselves, and it was not just the government giving them a check or services. The national project has conducted its first evaluation of this program in Arkansas, and the results are in. It was reported favorably through the Journal of Health Affairs on March 26, 2003. In summary, the author concluded that, our survey of roughly 1,800 elderly and non-elderly adults showed that relative to agency-directed services, as a government directing it, State directing it, Cash and Counseling greatly improves satisfaction and reduced most unmet needs. Moreover, contrary to some concerns, it did not adversely affect participants' health and safety, always a complaint that these elderly people will not get served. Dr. Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, says, ``The Cash and Counseling program offers Medicaid consumers flexibility and a sense of control over their care.'' In The Robert Wood Foundation's recently released Annual Report 2002, they said, ``Cash and Counseling enables Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and disabilities to purchase needed personal assistance services with cash allowances in lieu of receiving traditional agency- delivered services. The result,'' of course, ``is greater choice and autonomy in obtaining the required help. Early evaluation results show increased access and improved satisfaction for Cash and Counseling clients.'' Secretary Thompson of Health and Human Services shared, ``This approach gives people with disabilities more freedom and responsibility, in the same way that all of us want to be in charge of our lives and'' of course, ``our choices. It lets the individuals themselves decide how best to use the Medicaid dollars they are already entitled to. The study confirms that these Medicaid recipients make good choices that maintain their health and safety, even as they improve their convenience, satisfaction and quality of life.'' So think about it. This program, Cash and Counseling, is part of an experiment that has proved successful, bringing in the actual beneficiaries and opportunities for choice and participation. We now have Consumer Directed Care which is a larger demonstration program. What does this mean? According to the National Association of State Units on Aging and the National Council on Aging, ``Consumer direction describes programs and services where people are given maximum choice and control over their care. Consumer direction may also be called self-determination or independent living. When people say they want to be independent or they want to have autonomy or self- direction, they are talking about consumer direction. In consumer- directed programs, consumers can choose to select, manage and dismiss their workers. They can decide which services to use, which workers to hire, and what time of day they will come. Consumer direction assumes that informed consumers are able to make decisions about the services they receive.'' Sounds good. Consumer-directed care has already taken off among the aging populations. Last Friday, the Senate's Special Committee on Aging had a briefing on Consumer Direction in Aging Services. State elder affairs leaders from Vermont and Pennsylvania and Dr. Kevin Mahoney of Boston College, the national director of Cash and Counseling, championed its success in providing an infusion of choice and freedom and independence to the disabled and elderly nationwide. Most States report waiting lists of individuals waiting to enroll in this demonstration. Besides in public health, many private plans are beginning to offer consumer-directed products. For example, in our Federal employee health benefit program, one group of Federal workers, the American Postal Workers Union, is the first to offer a consumer-directed option this year. On their Web site describing the option, the American Postal Workers Union say, We believe that people who have more control over how their health care dollars are spent are more satisfied customers, and their health plan's consumer-directed option plan is designed to give our employees that control. Besides the now-documented satisfaction, Consumer-Directed Care is serving to reduce costs and fraud. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a very clear case where giving choice and independence for the consumer, whether it is Medicaid for the poor or we should do for Medicare for the elderly or even in the private sector, it works much better. I look forward to the continued evaluation of these programs, and of course, I continue to see on the Federal and State level the championing of the Consumer-Directed Care.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a problem that has been below the Federal radar screen for far too long. Every year tens of billions of dollars are lost to cargo theft. This epidemic has plagued the United States for over 30 years, with little being done to stem its spread. With the prevalence of cargo theft today, insurance companies have placed a heavy burden on the trucking industry. The costs associated with investigation and insurance payments are only exacerbating what is already an industry crisis. Typical targets for cargo theft often include shipments of clothing, prescription drugs, computers and jewelry. A truckload of computer and microprocessors can be worth millions. A truckload of cigarettes, another common target, can be worth up to $2 million. The high value to volume ratio of high-tech goods has encouraged criminals previously involved in drug dealing to move into this area of activity where they run less risk of detection and suffer less severe penalties if caught. The National Cargo Security Council wants to see an increase in criminal penalties for cargo theft as well as employment of more trained cargo theft task forces. The Council reported that cargo worth $12 billion is stolen in the United States every year, and yet the penalties for cargo theft are lower than that for selling drugs. Cargo thieves employ creative means to prey upon cargo carriers and have managed to stay one step ahead of the authorities. Thieves know what they want and where they can find it. Striking cargo containers at ports, at trains and 18-wheelers, hijackers pry open the doors, remove the goods and replace them with bags of sand so that there is no change in weight. They will then proceed to put new pins in the hinges so the crime is not noticed until the containers are opened upon arrival. This manner of theft is known as ``leakage,'' in that thieves attack intermodal containers by defeating the integrity of the security seal. This practice often confounds investigators, since they have no idea at what point the cargo was stolen. Eighteen-wheeler cargo carriers now experience approximately 85 percent of theft. Thieves will either roll the dice, stealing containers with unknown contents, or they will go as far as camping outside of distribution centers. This method, called ``full-load truck theft,'' involves monitoring shipments out of distribution centers that are known for putting out expensive goods. The thieves will then follow the trucks in rental cars, waiting for the right time to pounce. This will often occur at truck rest stops where the driver leaves the vehicle. The process can amazingly take but a few minutes. These professional criminals are usually licensed truck drivers who can hotwire a truck quickly and efficiently. Once goods are successfully stolen, they will be moved to port warehouses where they will wait to be exported. Depending upon where the goods are to be shipped, they will most likely be shipped to ports in Miami, Los Angeles or New York. The stolen cargo changes hands several times in what is a form of cargo laundering. By the time the cargo is ready for export, it is most likely to be seen as a legal shipment. Authorities have found it difficult to track outgoing cargo since outbound shipments are not checked, due to the fact that they are not subject to U.S. tariff laws. Mr. Speaker, Members in this Chamber need to be aware of this problem. It is time that we got aggressive and made our highways again safe for commerce. This country is in dire need of harsher criminal penalties, and this need can be proven by the fact that criminals are turning to cargo theft in hordes. Many criminals are abandoning the drug trade for a crime just as lucrative but with lenient penalties. This body must make an example out of cargo thieves. We must let them know that they will not get away with just merely a slap on the hand. As sheriff's departments begin integrating special cargo theft task forces, we must arm them with the ability to prosecute criminals with stiffer penalties. Until we strengthen these laws, this 30-year-old crime wave will persist, threatening our ports, our roads and raping our economy of billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the accomplishments of a man from my hometown in Marion County, Florida, the Sixth Congressional District, because Tony Everard has been training horses in Marion County for over 35 years. He purchased a remarkable horse, a gelding, in 2001 in Saratoga, New York, and he trained it, but on May 3, this horse became champion at the pinnacle of horse racing, the Kentucky Derby. His horse, Funny Cide, beat the odds with a stunning victory over favored Empire Maker and Peace Rules before more than 140,000 people at Churchill Downs, and none could be cheering louder than Tony and Beth, who named the champion gelding. Funny Cide became the fourth Derby winner since 1997 to emerge from the Marion County breeding and training industry. I am proud of the long-standing heritage of horse training in my district. Tony and his wife Beth deserve many accolades for their work with Funny Cide and many champions to come.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to commend my colleagues' attention to a resolution that I will introduce today honoring Pregnancy Resource Centers. According to surveys of women who have had abortions, 90 percent indicate they would have preferred other options had they simply known about them. The tragedy and irony in many situations is that most women are flooded with the pro-abortion message, but are rarely offered any other message of choice. Rather, unknowing clients are led to believe that abortion is the only solution to their problem. Through costly advertising, young women go into abortion clinics and are assured that help is only a few hundred dollars away. Harmful consequences of abortions are minimized or simply ignored. Alternatives like parenting or adoption are not encouraged. In fact, they are rarely mentioned. Sadly, it is only later that they learn there are alternatives. Desperately trying to spread this message to young women are the 2,500 Pregnancy Resource Centers across America. Through education and support, Pregnancy Resource Centers meet women's emotional and physical needs. They provide one-on-one counseling regarding the facts about adoption, abortion, and parenting so that the client may make a wise and informed decision about her pregnancy. Centers are dedicated to helping each woman resolve her situation in a way that equips her with better life skills for her future. Practical help like parenting classes, support groups, education, and job skills classes are offered through many Pregnancy Resource Centers as well. Maternity clothes, baby needs, and even temporary housing is offered. Some Crisis Pregnancy Centers have full medical services on the premises, and unlike abortion clinics, these centers offer support for women suffering from postabortion syndrome. For those women who have undergone an abortion, the devastation can be real and ongoing if she does not receive help. Most centers are commited to the healing, body and soul, of women who have suffered from an abortion. They offer medical and counseling services and stand alongside these women in their healing process. Life-affirming pregnancy centers provide an example of love and compassion to women and their unborn babies. These centers have been upholding the value of all human life, born and unborn, for several decades. Women are increasingly turning to these centers for physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual help. They are always treated with the utmost dignity and respect and are provided with accurate, up- to-date information in order to make informed decisions about their pregnancy, sexual health, and relationships. Because everyone should have access to this information, all services are free of charge. I am honored to represent one such center in my hometown of Ocala, Florida. The Women's Pregnancy Center has been serving the people faithfully of Marion County for 22 years. This center serves nearly 1,500 women a year of all ages and backgrounds. They serve these women and men faithfully and discreetly. In today's culture, abortion is too often the first thought for women facing unplanned pregnancy, but there are alternatives, and Pregnancy Resource Centers can provide them. These centers are not only the most strategic and effective, but often the most needed of the forces engaged in the defense of the unborn. It is fitting that we recognize these courageous and struggling agencies that seek to bring purpose to the surprises of life. Never are these needs greatest than in the smallest of families, a mother and her growing baby. I invite Members to join in providing support for more than 2,500 Crisis Pregnancy Centers around the United States of America. The good work of these centers merits our recognition, and the compassionate staff deserve our admiration. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to become an original cosponsor of this resolution to demonstrate their support for Pregnancy Resource Centers and their tens of thousands of volunteer staff who are encouraging the protection and value of all human life in America.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today is World Asthma Day, and tomorrow is Asthma Awareness Day on Capitol Hill. I am co-chair along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). Tomorrow I will be introducing legislation with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) called ASTHMA 2003. We intend to offer this legislation, and we think my colleagues should take a look at it and I hope they will cosponsor it. But today I want all of us to think about this disease which is increasing astonishingly rapidly and it is affecting 20 million Americans, over 5 million of which are children who are in school. Asthma is the most common cause of missed schooldays. That is 14 million annually. It costs us tremendously in lost time learning, lost productivity and earnings and medical expenses, including of course costly emergency room visits. While scientists work to understand asthma's prevalence and pharmaceutical makers discover new treatments, caring doctors, nurses and respiratory therapists dutifully diagnose and educate patients and parents and children with asthma soldier along, one different aspect I would like to talk about is the importance of remembering asthma medication in the role of self-preparation for emergencies. The events of this past year have heightened our collective consciousness to planning ahead and being ready for the unexpected and symptom- relieving, lifesaving asthma and allergy medication should be a part of every diagnosed individual or their family's ``go-kit.'' Did anyone see the movie ``Signs'' last summer when the family hid out in the basement but the father in his haste forgot to grab his asthmatic son's inhaler, the bronchodilator? By the time of escape, the son had to be revived out of his throat-closing reaction with an injection of epinephrine. That is a scary, sobering image. So remember critical medications to treat asthma and severe allergy reactions in the plans. Good resources to follow are the Federal Government's website, www.ready.gov, or ones operated by the American Red Cross or numerous other organizations. Take us here in the Capitol. It is possible that rather than evacuation, we may be sheltered in place if there is a biological, chemical, or radiological event in the local area. If my colleagues or their families or anybody in the Capitol have allergies or asthma, do they have an extra inhaler in their desk drawer? I ask the Members to please remember this: To encourage their staff and our House employees to plan for such a contingency. I would like to end with a heartening asthma story which I think comes to the point. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, our Army medical personnel provided a very touching story of treating injured, sick and pregnant civilians, perhaps more than a season of ``M*A*S*H'' episodes, but I found one especially inspiring. The Washington Post reported this on April 2, reported that Rashed Mohammad, his wife, Sikara, and their son approached U.S. soldiers with their 3-year-old daughter, Rajwa. She was breathing laboredly in rapid gasps. The family could not afford the medical fees at the Iraqi hospital, and the parents feared their daughter would die. A team led by Captain Eric Schobitz, 30, an Army doctor from Fairfax, administered oxygen and intravenous drip and antibiotics. ``She has pneumonia and is also suffering from an asthma attack,'' he said. Equally important to arresting her acute episode, the Captain Schobitz showed her mother how to administer the inhaler and instructed the family to return if she showed no improvement in 2 days. And at this point, God willing, we are assuming she had a good outcome. This underscores what I always promote and what my bill tomorrow addresses: Asthma management involves a committed team of the provider, the parents, and the child. I pray for this little girl's good health. I salute Captain Schobitz and urge us to remember asthma and allergy medication in our emergency preparedness efforts and wish all asthmatic children well on the eve of Asthma Awareness Day, which is going to be here in the Capitol. Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, please join us tomorrow in the Cannon Caucus Room from 1 o'clock to 2 p.m. for a press conference, followed by a free asthma screening for all House Members, staff and all employees.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, today in the Washington Times it was reported that France supplied Iraqi officials passports as they fled U.S. forces, this allegation coming on the heels of another report that French companies sold military spare parts to Iraq shortly before the war. These passports gave the Iraqis who originally fled into Syria the ability to move freely among 12 European Union countries. This means that France gave Hussein's regime officials a get-out-of-jail-free card to escape. I would like to remind my colleagues that these officials were part of a regime that is responsible for an estimated over 200,000 Iraqis having disappeared over the years, with many of them likely ending up in the secret mass graves that we continue to discover. In reality, this allegation should come as no surprise. Rather than joining in promoting a free Iraq, the sheer magnitude of France's opposition to coalition actions demonstrates an affinity for this despotic regime. As France seeks to repair its friendship with the United States, we should ask the question: With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just will conclude by saying we all want this bill to save lives. That is why we are here. But I think we must have some kind of strict accountability with this organization sanctioned by the world to meet this dire need, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), distinguished chairman and ranking member. I appreciate their support. We must have confidence that these organizations are using American taxpayers' dollars wisely. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this simple amendment. It will ensure that the money that the United States spends, which is taxpayers' money, to address the AIDS crisis will be spent treating patients rather than spent in bureaucratic, administrative costs. It requires that at the Global Fund, individual salaries may not exceed the salary of the Vice President of the United States. The criteria that I came up with, being the Vice President's salary, is because in the Homeland Security Act, we specified that no Federal employee may earn a salary in excess of the vice presidential salary. So that is the criteria I used. I think it is pretty simple, and back in our districts, $192,000 is a lot of money. Given that the Global Fund's mission is to help people dying from AIDS and prevent others from getting and eventually dying from AIDS, it would seem reasonable that administrative costs should be held to a minimum so that every dollar that taxpayers spend overseas will move to the patients and to the people who need it. As long as the U.S. Government is the largest single contributor to the fund, it is appropriate that we place this modest restriction on the salaries. We do it for our Federal employees here in the United States, why not do it in the Global Fund. With hundreds of millions of dollars at risk, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that dollars are spent wisely. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is pretty simple. I could point out a lot more.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear perhaps from the people on this side that we could have done more. Let me just say to my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, had 35 hearings on this bill. We had an energy conference in the 107th Congress in which we tried for so many hours, so many days, to try and bring this bill together. We could not in the 107th. Here we are in the 108th, and now, nearly after 2 full days of markup by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, we went almost all night for 2 days we passed this bill. There is nobody in this Congress who is more bipartisan and willing to work the extra mile to get results. In fact, I call the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the Energizer Bunny. On this bill he has gone way over the top, he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), to accommodate and to help Members bring their ideas into this bill, and they have been willing to also when necessary compromise. So there is no reason to think, as we come to mark up this bill on the floor, that we do not have the best product possible in this Congress. I think this product is good, and that is why I think it represents a balance of sensible production initiatives with conservation. It provides incentives for renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, and provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets and increased domestic production. So I urge support for the bill. Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. We have worked to develop legislation that balances sensible production initiatives with conservation. This bill provides incentives for renewable energy production, clean coal technology, low-income energy assistance, provides for certainty and reliable operation of our energy markets, and increased domestic production. Regarding electricity, I am pleased that this bill addresses a number of arcane federal laws and mandates that have no place in the electricity markets today. The compromise we have regarding the prospective repeal of the mandatory purchase obligation under PURPA is the best approach to allow for legitimate Combined Heat and Power development, while allowing relief for electric utilities from a federal mandate that has not served its intended purpose and has resulted in billions in excess costs to consumers. The bill also increases penalties for sabotage or attempted sabotage of nuclear facilities. And authorizes a hydrogen fuel cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel cell cars into the market by Model year 2020. H.R. 6 will have far reaching implications from the industry to the family room. It will allow our country to continue its path of prosperity and leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to congratulate General Tommy Franks, Chief of Military Operations, and our brave military forces. Of course, I also congratulate Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Myers, and of course, President Bush and the administration. I think everyone will remember where he or she was when the statue of Saddam Hussein came tumbling down. His atrocious regime is over, done. And Mr. Speaker, there are many others I wish to congratulate today, but I want to remind everyone in the House that we should also congratulate everyone in this House of Representatives who voted for the Iraq resolution. It was the right thing to do.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the Watt amendment is attacking the words ``used as intended'', and he has sort of indicated that those words are vague and perhaps they should be deleted because the courts could not quite understand them. I have Black's Law Dictionary back in my office, Mr. Chairman. I went up and looked up the words. It is defined as ``the intended use doctrine,'' defined as ``The rule imposing a duty on a manufacturer to develop a product so that it is reasonably safe for its intended or foreseeable users.'' In fact, if we look up the words ``used as intended,'' for example, the words ``manufacturing defects'' or ``design defects,'' any of these terms which, at first glance, would connote some nebulous concept. Indeed, it is not a nebulous concept; there is a strict interpretation of these words in tort law. In Westlaw, which is a commonly used legal database, if we go into that and put in the words ``used as intended,'' we come up with that it has been cited in 1,300 State cases and over 900 Federal cases come up. That is ample guidance for courts to use regarding what ``used as intended'' means in a case alleging defective design or manufacture. The treatise American Law of Products Liability states that ``Courts have consistently refused to impose liability on manufacturers of firearms that function exactly as intended.'' Mr. Chairman, I think what I am saying is, there is ample evidence in the law, both in the Federal and in the State, where the term ``used as intended'' is clearly understood in tort law, so there is no ambiguity here. Mr. Chairman, I would urge defeat of the Watt amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his help in bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for their support. H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as we pointed out earlier, addresses the growing concerns of junk lawsuits filed with the intention of driving the firearms industry out of business by simply attempting to hold manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who are totally beyond their control. These suits are different from other lawsuits that affect other industries. The cities and counties are not representing specific victims nor are they claiming specific damage against city property. No, instead, they are simply suing because they happen to dislike a product, its appearance, its distribution and how it markets its product. Yet, under the Constitution, these companies have the constitutional right to manufacture these products. Now, the previous speaker mentioned that this has been a very quick process and he thought it was extreme. That is the word he used, extreme, unprecedented. I have on this chart here 31 States which have already passed legislation that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry. So I would say to my colleagues, perhaps your State, when you come on the House floor, you should look at this chart to make sure before you vote whether your State has already passed a bill that has recognized the absurdity of these lawsuits. As such these States have acted to prohibit these types of suits, and H.R. 1036 is designed to simply mirror what the States have done. The goal is to seize the attempts at regulation through lawsuits that achieve nothing except the blatant interference in a company's constitutional right to sell and market a legal product and the constitutional duty of the Congress to regulate the commerce of such product. As I stated, creative legal theory does not make good public policy. We have seen through the course of these 30-plus suits that have come to the courts that the courts are not buying the theory either. Many of these suits have been dismissed. If my colleagues will bear with me, I will show my colleagues another chart. I have just taken a sample of the municipal lawsuits that have been dismissed, but I particularly want to highlight the city of Boston's case. Twenty-nine manufacturers and distributors and three associations were defendants. The alleged claim: negligent distribution. Very simply, negligent distribution was the claim against them, and 29 manufacturers were sued, distributors and associations. Defective design, deceptive advertising, nuisance, unjust enrichment. It was dismissed. The city dropped its own suit saying it was too expensive for the city to do and acknowledging that, through its vigorous prosecution, the suit would need hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, would go on forever and ever, and would not be realistic and concrete in its steps to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms, and need to reduce the incidence of firearm accidents and increasing public awareness concerning the safe handling and storage of firearms. So the city of Boston voluntarily decided this is wrong. Not the courts' decision, but the city of Boston, after spending all this money. We can go from New Orleans to Miami-Dade County. Twenty-six manufacturers, distributors, three associations, and two dealers were all sued simply because of their design, their distribution, and what they said was negligent deceptive advertising. It was dismissed at trial court and dismissed at appellate court. The Florida Supreme Court denied this petition. So it went through every one. The trial court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court; and they all denied. So, my colleagues, this bill we have here is simply mirroring what has been done in the other 31 States. Now, the question comes up, this bill is just a carve-out for the firearms industry. The previous speaker mentioned that, so I would like to bring to his attention other Federal legislation that protects specific industries and other cases where these industries or groups have found themselves uniquely threatened by bizarre or novel legal situations. For example, in 1994, we passed legislation, the General Aviation Revitalization Act, which generally protects manufacturers of small planes more than 18 years old against personal injury lawsuits in both Federal and State courts. Let us take another act, the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995, which declared certain community, migrant and homeless health care center employees to be employees of the Public Health Service, thus protecting them under the Federal Tort Claims Act from malpractice lawsuits in State courts. Another example: the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act of 1996, which protects nonprofit organizations from State or Federal lawsuits arising from the nature, age, packaging or condition of apparently wholesome food received in good-faith donation to benefit the needy. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 provides limited immunity from liability for volunteers acting on behalf of a nonprofit organization and preempts inconsistent State law unless such law provides additional protection. The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1998, which supersedes State law to create an exclusion from liability for manufacturers of raw materials or components of medical implants. And let us not forget the Y2K Act of 1999, which limits punitive damages and establishes special procedures for liability in Y2K cases. The Public Health Improvement Act of 2000, which provides Good Samaritan liability protection for users of cardiac defibrillators. So, my colleagues, there are literally dozens and dozens of such pieces of legislation, major pieces of legislation, very similar, very like this bill that have been passed by Congress to protect and to enforce protection against nuisance lawsuits. Basically, what we have is a bill that has been cosponsored by 250 colleagues here in the House. And the bill did not just happen to appear recently for anything like a convention of the NRA. This bill has gone through Congress. In the 107th Congress, we had almost 240 sponsors. It went through the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and then the full committee and passed. It went through the appropriate subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary in the 107th Congress. And we now have even more support for it, so the time is right for passage on the House floor. My colleagues will hear a lot about victims' rights from opponents to this bill. I want to emphatically state that this bill protects victims' rights. Their right to sue is protected in this bill, relying on product defect, negligent entrustment, and industry compliance with Federal and State law. What is not protected is the use of creative legal theory to sue the deepest pockets. My colleagues, we have a good bill here, one that 250 Members of Congress agree with. It is bipartisan, both sides. They agree that using the courts to circumvent the constitutional authority of this body to make public policy is an improper use of our judicial system. I will close in a moment, but want to leave my colleagues with several quotes. Dave Kopel, a professor at New York University Law School, has stated that the cities do not have to win in court with these nuisance suits. All they have to do is keep suing and suing. They will kill the industry with the cost of defending the lawsuits. He has got it right. And then I would like to give another quote here. This is from a former labor secretary in which he pointed out that if I had my way, we would have laws restricting hand guns, and we are launching here an effort to succeed where legislation has failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of making our frail democracy even weaker. You might approve the outcome in these cases, but they establish a precedent for other cases that you might find wildly unjust. My point is that most nuisance lawsuits are taking to the courts an attempt to bankrupt these manufacturers. It is clear the courts agree, it is clear my colleagues agree, it is clear the State legislatures agree; and so I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding to me. I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas that I understand her feelings when she mentions she finds this bill an insult, and she sort of indicates it is perhaps because of what happened in the Committee on the Judiciary. She has mentioned that perhaps the rule, and she mentioned the NRA convention, but I still do not think that those kinds of statements necessarily apply and convince Members not to vote for this bill because, basically, H.R. 1036 already incorporates what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is providing under her amendment. I have to be honest. I think what she is saying is praiseworthy, but the amendment is not necessary because we already have in the bill the language that is needed. We have used the words ``negligent entrustment,'' and this is a legal term, and that term is used in the bill. Because of the way it is used in the bill, it automatically covers what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) wants to put in her amendment as part of the bill, and I might read ``negligent entrustment'' just to clarify what the actual legal definition is, as defined. It is ``supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows or should know the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to use the product and, in fact, does use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person and others.'' The bill already allows suits for negligent entrustment or negligence per se or where a manufacturer or seller knowingly and willfully violates a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product and the violation has a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. In a nutshell, we have in H.R. 1036 all the necessary language to cover what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is talking about. So I urge my colleagues not to support the Sanchez amendment. It is unnecessary because H.R. 1036 already holds liable anyone who violates any State or Federal statute. The Sanchez amendment also eliminates a requirement that a violation of a Federal statute must actually cause an injury before liability can attach. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. But the consensus is, when we read the gentlewoman's amendment, in fact everything she has asked for is already included in our bill. So we think the amendment, as praiseworthy as it might be, in effect it is already being spoken to and clarified in our bill, so we just do not think the gentlewoman's amendment is necessary. Can the gentlewoman define very clearly why the term ``negligent entrustment'' does not cover all that is necessary in tort law and why the gentlewoman's amendment would be needed with that already in existence?

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for yielding me time. Let me say to my colleagues that the grievances that you have perhaps with the way the rule was developed or the procedure is really not a reason to vote against this bill. And I rise against the Watt amendment. Local dealers or distributors are often sued simply to prevent removal of a case to a Federal court. Should trade associations be sued under conspiracy theories of industry behavior? I mean, that would create a chilling effect on advocacy of their membership, their interests, their activity, which is clearly protected by the first amendment. The Watt amendment would allow them to be sued, local dealers, trade association. So I think it is clear, the Watt amendment would actually hurt the bill. Let me call your attention as we conclude this debate to my chart here which shows that 31 States have recognized the absurdity of these lawsuits which are no different from the ridiculous lawsuits we saw filed against many other cases including the food industry. The goal is to cease this attempt at regulation through lawsuits, and that is why these 31 State passed pretty much the same bill that we have here on the floor today. The second chart I will show you examples where cases are dismissed. This is just one of many charts I could have up here, 30 or 40 cases. For example, in Bridgeport where 21 manufacturers and distributors and 12 dealers and three were sued for negligent distribution, deceptive advertising, defective design, nuisance, conspiracy and unjust enrichment, unjust enrichment. Now, they proceeded but when they got not too far along, they were dismissed. And the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed that. So I would say to all my colleagues that the States have recognized this, and that is why there are 31 States that have supported the language in this bill. Let me just read what the judge in the lawsuit against the firearm industry in the City of Bridgeport said. What has happened here, the people who are suing ``have envisioned the dawning of a new age of litigation.'' A new age of litigation, during which the gun industry, the liquor industry, the purveyors of junk food would follow the tobacco industry in reimbursing government expenditures. So taxpayers would have to pay at the local level, at the municipal level, at the State level to sue gun dealers, associations, gun manufacturers, all on the basis of unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising. So I conclude, I believe this bill is responsible. Attempting to bankrupt a legal American industry through junk lawsuits is not. This bill protects legal actors while allowing suits to continue against those who break the law. It is a good balance, a fair bill; and I urge its passage.

Mr. STEARNS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I disagree. Negligent entrustment, as I read the definition earlier, it is all laid out.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just have a colloquy with the gentlewoman on her amendment. Would my colleague not agree that the language dealing with negligent entrustment is not part of the bill, H.R. 1036?

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding me this time. Let me just see if we can discuss this bill without sort of inflaming the emotions of people. It has been said on the floor that it is not good policy. This is a policy that has been passed by 31 States. Thirty-one States have adopted this almost similar language. So I think if the people on this side or if there is anybody on the Republican side who decides they do not want to vote for this bill, please go back to your State legislatures and see if they passed this language. I will have a graph when we move to the debate on this bill, and I will show my colleagues that 31 States have already passed this same type of legislation. So it is good policy, so good that the majority of the States in the United States have passed it. In fact, I say to my good colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the State of Florida has also passed this bill. So in his comments, I appreciate what he says, that he is not for gun control, that he has a gun himself, so he could appreciate the fact that this Bill is good policy. The second point I want to make is there is going to be a lot of attacks on the NRA this morning and this afternoon. I authored this bill in the Committee on Commerce; and it passed out of the subcommittee, out of the full committee, and also passed out of the subcommittee of the Committee on Judiciary and out of the full Committee on the Judiciary. That was in the 107th Congress. There is nothing about timing for bringing this Bill up on the floor because the NRA is having a convention at the end of this month. We have been trying to get this bill to the floor; and as many Members know, when we try and get a bill passed, we have to go around to our colleagues day after day and ask them to cosponsor it. I had about 235 cosponsors in the last Congress, and we were ready to vote on it. So it is not a case of timing for the NRA. It is just good policy, and I think the 31 States that have passed it have shown that it is good policy. The other thing I would point out to my colleagues is the public is now aware how important it is to pass this type of legislation. I want to mention a couple of surveys taken recently of almost 1,100 adults by DecisionQuest, a jury-consulting firm. They found that 66.2 percent of American adults oppose these types of lawsuits. These are simply lawsuits that State and local municipalities are forcing on gun manufacturers simply because they do not like the product. They do not like the distribution of the weapon. So I say to my colleagues, we cannot start attacking a company because we do not like their distribution system or their design, because under the Constitution, one has the right under the commerce clause to manufacture and distribute. So when people say this bill is unconstitutional, no, on the contrary, it is constitutional in the sense it is saying, allow people to legally manufacture and distribute products. So only 19 percent of Americans oppose this type of legislation that protects manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits. Then in April 1999, an ICR/Associated Press poll found that 70 percent of the respondents thought manufacturers should not be held liable to recoup hospital and police costs. In 1999, a Gallup poll found 61 percent of Americans are opposed to lawsuits to cover costs incurred because of gun violence. A May 1999 poll by Zogby International found 71 percent of Americans opposed allowing cities to sue gun manufacturers. I can just take my colleagues up to the current day that the public is behind us on this. They want to say that there is too much litigation. These third-party cases where violence occurs is because of the third party and one cannot go after the manufacturer with deep pockets only because he is distributing the weapons or because of the person who sells it to him because there is negligence. Still, in fact, based upon that information, I can tell my colleagues this. The question is, does this bill protect unlicensed dealers, and the answer is simply no. The bill defines manufacturers and sellers only as licensed manufacturers, dealers, or importers of firearms or trade associations representing those persons. The only exception is for ammunition sellers who are not required to be licensed by the Federal Government. The second question: Does the bill protect those who commit State crimes or engage in negligent conduct? Under the bill, manufacturers or sellers must operate entirely within Federal and State laws. So the bill is not giving any exemption to them if they perform criminal or negligent acts. So basically, it is just saying, we are trying to prevent these nuisance suits. Now, I will just conclude by giving my colleagues one example of a nuisance suit and that took place in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeney threw out the City of Bridgeport's suit. ``The plaintiffs have no statutory common law basis to recoup their expenditures,'' he said. ``They lack any statutory authorization to initiate such claims.'' Those were his exact words. Yet, Bridgeport was using taxpayers' money to sue this gun manufacturer with frivolous lawsuits. Basically, the judge said they seek to regulate firearms in a manner that is preempted by State law. In other words, they are taking the mere fact that they are involved with commerce, manufacturing a product and distributing it as a way to sue. I can give case after case of examples where the judge has thrown out these nuisance lawsuits. So between what the judges have said, what the States have said by passing legislation in 31 States, and what the public says, I think we have a very credible bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.