Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am alarmed and worried about recent reports coming out of Sudan describing deteriorating political conditions and an increase of violence. The world's governments, including the United States have moved too slowly to resolve the conflict in Sudan. And now, despite a negotiated ceasefire, we have received numerous reports of renewed killings and abductions, including attacks on aid workers and African Union peacekeepers. The escalating violence is threatening humanitarian support for millions of people as international aid workers, increasingly find themselves the target of violence. Last month, a squad supported by Sudanese government helicopters attacked a camp for displaced civilians in Darfur, killing 35. Days later, in West Darfur, an Arab rebel group abducted 18 African peacekeepers. Last week, two African Union peacekeeping soldiers were killed in an ambush along with two civilian contractors. Three other African peacekeepers were wounded during the same raid. The Bush Administration's slow response offers little hope for success and sets no deadline for resolution. We must adopt a new approach that recognizes the urgency of the situation on the ground. If the ceasefire is to successfully progress toward a fully implemented peace agreement, the U.S. will need to play a more active role in increasing the influence and capabilities of the African Union troops. Currently there are 6,000 peacekeepers working to secure an area the size of Texas and containing a population approaching two million. By honoring its pledge to provide $50 million as part of the FY06 Foreign Operations bill for equipment and supplies, the Administration would do much to assist the efforts of the African Union. The U.S. should also work aggressively with the AU on expanding the mandate of the African Union peacekeepers. After more than a year, peacekeeping troops are still confused about their role in the region and about their enforcement powers. While AU troops have been able to protect civilians in some instances, their mandate does not expressly include this important responsibility. As a result, their ability to protect civilians from violence has been extremely limited and varies from one contingent to the next. Finally, the Bush Administration should pressure the Sudanese government to fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. That means the commissions and boards mandated by the peace agreement to oversee such contentious, but essential issues as petroleum production and military operations must be established. Sudan has been the focus of organized armed conflict for 20 of the last 21 years. Given that the Administration in Khartoum has demonstrated only token commitment to the goal of establishing a lasting peace, only the active, aggressive engagement of the United States will make it possible for the Sudanese people to one day be able to return safely to their homes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rosa Parks, a woman who dedicated her life to changing our Nation so that all Americans would have the opportunity to experience true freedom and justice. It was her courage and steadfast resolve that launched the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott and sparked the civil rights movement. As we mourn her loss, we should recommit ourselves to stamping out injustice wherever it exists. We can best pay tribute to this remarkable woman by speaking out boldly against inequality and oppression and refusing to accept, ignore, or submit to it. I extend my deepest sympathies to the members of Mrs. Parks' family. I hope that they can find solace in knowing that all Americans are grieving the loss of this courageous woman, who inspired generations of civil rights activists and changed the course of our Nation's history forever.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

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

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Montgomery County for its outstanding efforts in the digital Government program. The Montgomery County website recently received two awards and an honorable mention at the Best of the Awards Ceremony held by the Center for Digital Government in Las Vegas, Nevada. The digital government program has been tremendously successful, and it continues to provide County residents with easier and more convenient ways to take care of County business. Mr. Speaker, Montgomery County's website provides a valuable service to our community and I would like to thank the website team for their service and dedication to the residents of our community.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend Dr. John Hall, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. Dr. Hall is a scientist emeritus in the Quantum Physics division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and a Fellow at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics. Dr. Hall has been recognized for his contributions to the development of a laser based precision spectroscopy and optical frequency comb technique. His innovative techniques have made it possible to carry out studies in the stability of the constants of nature over time and to develop extremely accurate clocks and improved GPS technology. This is the third time a NIST researcher has been awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, and I am proud to be a strong supporter of that important agency. I applaud Dr. Hall for his outstanding achievements in physics and I wish him continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3893, which in many ways is little more than a hastily assembled--and opportunistically revived--retread of discarded ideas from past energy debates. Mr. Speaker, our constituents are asking for transparency in markets and price relief at the pump. So what does this bill do? Rather than empowering the FTC to launch an aggressive investigation into recent reports of market manipulation, this legislation actually reduces the maximum penalty for price gouging from $11,000 per incident to $11,000 per day. So much for strengthening transparency and deterrence. Instead of ensuring additional refining capacity, this bill blames and then proposes to eliminate key provisions of the Clean Air Act--as if public health protections are the barrier to additional refining capacity. They are not. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded--and industry representatives concede--that the decisive factor is economics. Indeed, far from cheering this legislation, Attorneys General from across the nation are sounding the alarm that H.R. 3893 will cripple states' ability to meet basic clean air standards for our citizens. Finally, not content to relieve industry of its environmental obligations, H.R. 3893 extends the gravy train begun several months ago by lavishing oil companies with an additional $1.5 billion over and above the $4 billion they just received under the last energy bill. This--during a time of record deficits and industry profits. Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have an energy crisis in this country--one that cannot begin to be solved by the kind of special interest wish list being passed off as legislation today. In the near term, we need to restore confidence and transparency to the marketplace by taking decisive steps to punish and deter market manipulation where necessary. Next, it is imperative we make long overdue improvements in automobile fuel economy while diversifying our fuel mix to include alternatives like cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel. Finally, we need to invest in the next generation of 21st century technologies that create jobs, protect the environment and move us towards energy independence. I ask my colleagues to embrace that vision and to oppose this bill.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rockville, Maryland's Communications Team for its recent award in recognition of excellence in government programming. The Rockville Channel, TRC 11, was recognized in 5 different categories at the awards banquet of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. The Rockville Channel consistently produces outstanding programming for the Rockville area and has often been recognized for excellence over the last 11 years. I am also pleased that the City's Divisions of Graphics and Printing and Public Information recently combined to win two national awards at the City-County Communications and Marketing Association Conference in Atlanta. The Rockville Communications Teams provide a valuable public service and play a key role in my congressional district in keeping the public informed. I applaud all members of the Rockville Communications Team for their outstanding efforts.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker it is with great pleasure that I rise to commend the founders of Project Backpack for their inventive and inspiring efforts to help the children affected by Hurricane Katrina. Project Backpack was begun by Jacqueline, Melissa, and Jenna Kantor, three young sisters from Bethesda, Maryland. These sisters came up with an idea to collect donations of backpacks, toys and school supplies to be sent out to the thousands of children who were left homeless in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Inspired by the concept of ``kids helping kids,'' Project Backpack has been tremendously successful. Joined by Sodexho USA and other charitable organizations, Project Backpack has set a local goal of 10,000 backpacks and a national goal of 100,000. I encourage people throughout the United States to participate in this worthy project. I applaud Jacqueline, Melissa, and Jenna in their continued efforts to help the children affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in solidarity with the National Head Start Association, the Children's Defense Fund and countless other lifelong advocates of the Head Start program, it is with a heavy heart that I must oppose this final, amended version of the Head Start reauthorization on the floor today. It did not have to be this way. I sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, which reported a genuinely bipartisan Head Start bill to this House. It wasn't perfect, and it did not reflect in every respect the Head Start reauthorization I would have written. For example, an amendment I offered to fully fund the program so that every eligible child could reap its benefits was defeated on a party line vote. Moreover, a second amendment I proposed to offset the significant costs faced by Head Start grantees working to comply with the Department of Health and Human Services' transportation safety requirements so that program dollars weren't diverted from serving kids was similarly not included. But, unlike failed initiatives in the recent past, the committee reported bill did not walk down the misguided path of block granting the Head Start program. Additionally, it took very positive steps towards establishing high standards for teacher quality and strengthening accountability for underperforming programs. It even included an amendment I offered on a bipartisan basis with Representatives Platts and Biggert to provide grantees new flexibility to serve additional needy children when program slots became available. That is why I am so disappointed to vote against this bill today. With the inclusion of the Boustany amendment, this bill for the first time seeks to legitimize publicly funded religious discrimination in the Head Start program. It takes money from taxpayers and then turns around and tells those same taxpayers they can be excluded from federally funded jobs in a Head Start center solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. In effect, it is a green light for religious bigotry. It has no place in the Head Start program, and it is precisely the wrong message to be sending to our nation's children. I will continue to support Head Start. But I must forcefully oppose this legislation.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly supported this bill as it came out of the committee. I was proud of the product the committee passed out. I was pleased to join with many of my colleagues on the other side in offering amendments that were supported on a bipartisan basis that I think strengthen the Head Start program. I am very sorry that that bipartisan consensus may be shattered, and it will be shattered if we later adopt the Boustany amendment because, make no mistake about it, the Boustany amendment is, in fact, an attack on religious liberty in this country. It takes us down a very dangerous road of taxpayer-financed religious bigotry. It is important to understand what the Boustany amendment does and does not do. This is not a debate about whether or not faith-based institutions play a valuable role. Of course they do. We have seen it in response to Hurricane Katrina. We have seen it elsewhere. Nor is it about whether faith-based Head Start programs should receive Federal funds. They are receiving those today. The issue is very simple. The question is whether we should eliminate the protections in current law against discrimination based upon religion or whether we should preserve those protections. The Boustany amendment would give a green light to religious discrimination. Just imagine if you are a highly qualified early education teacher, who is applying for a Head Start program that is expanding to take care of children who are victims of Hurricane Katrina. You go down and they say, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. Only Catholics need apply, only Jews need apply, only Baptists need apply. That is a terrible message to be sending to our children. And does it not violate someone's religious liberty to take someone's tax dollars, give them to an organization and then say to that person, you cannot have a job with this organization? In all of the hearings that we have held in our committee on this issue, no faith-based organization has ever come up and said, gee, we could do a better job of teaching children if only we were allowed to discriminate in hiring teachers. I must say, one of the puzzling things, they concede that you cannot proselytize, yet they say you can discriminate.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support this very important piece of legislation that extends the existing authorities and again congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). I do want to underscore the fact that I thought we should use the opportunity right now to improve this legislation in the way I described. We are, of course, hostage to our own congressional calendar, but I do not think we should be holding our troops overseas hostage to that same calendar. The higher education bill, whenever it comes before the House, still has to go through a long process. It has to get through the House, as we know; it has to get through the Senate; and then it must be signed by the President. That could be months. It could be years, as we know, for this process. I do not think we should be asking the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan to be waiting years while their interest payments on these Federal student loans are accumulating. It seems to me we should get it done now. We have an opportunity to get it done now, and I hope we will move quickly to deal with that situation. Especially if the Higher Education Act gets bogged down, it seems to me we should move quickly to address that discrete issue that we can handle by itself without all the other issues that are tangled up as part of the higher education bill. So, again, a good bill. I wish we had used the opportunity to make it a little better, but I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the HEROS Act introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, and I want to commend him on this legislation. It is a good bill and it is an important bill. However, I must say that I am disappointed that we are not using this opportunity today to further strengthen the support we are providing to our men and women fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. We can and should be doing better. As you heard, the bill before us allows the Secretary of Education the opportunity, the authority to ensure that those men and women serving in Iraq who have Federal student loans not have to make payments on those loans while they are serving overseas, while they are in combat, and while they are on active duty. But the problem is this: while they are on active duty, while they do not have to make payments, the interest payments on those loans continues to accrue and accumulate. So, then, that man or woman, the soldier, comes back to the United States owing a larger bill than when he or she was deployed. For example, if you left for Iraq or Afghanistan owing $20,000 in Federal student loans and you were there for a period of time, and your loan interest payments accumulated $2,000, you would return home owing $22,000 instead of the $20,000 payment you faced when you left. That is why the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I have introduced legislation to allow those men and women to defer any interest payments during that period. So when you were deployed, you would truly have a time out on your loan. For example, if you left owing $20,000, you would return owing $20,000. It is our belief that while our men and women are serving our Nation overseas, they should not actually be at the same time accumulating greater interest on those Federal student loans during that period of time. Our bill would make it mandatory that the Secretary of Education make sure they did not come back owing more than when they left. Moreover, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and myself introduced an amendment to the Higher Education Act that would do exactly what I just described. It was taken up by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the committee adopted that amendment that said not only should we say you do not have to make your scheduled payments but during that period of time that you are deployed, interest will not accrue. I was very pleased that on a bipartisan basis the Committee on Education and the Workforce adopted that amendment. The problem is this: that amendment is sitting in a queue. It is sitting in a line here waiting for the air traffic controllers to move it to the front of the line. And who knows what will happen to the higher education bill in the Senate. They are way behind the House in that area. So there is no reason for us to wait. This was an opportunity to make that change and make it today. It is especially important for those who are in the Reserves and National Guard, who, when they are deployed, are often making a much larger income here in the United States than the salary they are receiving as soldiers overseas. So they had the income while they were here at work to make these payments, and now they are deployed overseas at lower income, yet those interest payments continue to accrue. For that reason, I would have thought this was a terrific opportunity to address that shortcoming in this bill. This is a good bill, but a bill that we can certainly make better; and there is no reason we could not do it today. The only reason we cannot do it today is this bill has been brought up under a procedure that does not allow the gentleman from Ohio and myself and others to offer that amendment, an amendment which, as I say, received bipartisan support in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. So, Madam Speaker, I had hoped we would have addressed that now, and I am disappointed we did not. I will support this bill, because I think it is a good bill. I just think we could have used this opportunity to make it even better. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Clara Barton National Historic Site in my Congressional District for being awarded accreditation by the American Association of Museums. This honor is a national recognition of the museum's dedication to excellence in education and its high standards for public service and accountability. Out of the nearly 16,000 museums in the United States, only about 750, or 5 percent, are accredited. Clara Barton is a responsible steward of public and private resources--cultural, physical, and financial--and is fulfilling its public trust responsibilities. It also plays a critical civic role as a center of learning and an educational resource for school children, teachers, and individuals of all ages. Accredited status will increase Clara Barton's visibility--at the local and national levels--adding to the vibrancy of our community and improving our quality of life. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating the Clara Barton National Historic Site's noteworthy achievement.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Simon Wiesenthal, a man who survived the atrocities of the Holocaust and dedicated his life to ensuring that the world never forgets the more than six million Jews who perished during one of the darkest periods in human history. Mr. Wiesenthal brought to justice more than 1,000 Nazi war criminals. He will be remembered for his fight against ignorance and anti-Semitism through a dedication to teaching others about the origins and realities of the Holocaust. He spent his life working to ensure that the unfathomable savagery of the Holocaust would not be repeated. Today as we mourn the loss of Mr. Wiesenthal, we celebrate his spirit and honor his life and work by vowing to carry on his mission of eradicating intolerance and injustice.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month and pay tribute to the extraordinary contributions that Hispanics make to America year-round. This month-long celebration begins on September 15, the anniversary of the independence of 5 Latin American countries--Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This anniversary commemorates the day these countries declared their independence from colonial rule, and continues to represent unity for all Latinos in the U.S. and in Latin America. Throughout the month we celebrate the Hispanic community and pause to reflect on Hispanic values--faith, family, and patriotism. These values are American values. The Hispanic dream--the hope of a better future-- is the American dream. There are more than 41 million Hispanic- Americans, and their hard work, deep faith and closely-knit families have made America a better and stronger country. As a Nation, we must advance initiatives that support empowerment and opportunity for all. During this month, I am pleased to recognize the efforts of groups in Maryland's Eighth Congressional District that work to enrich the lives of Hispanic-Americans. An example of one such group is CASA de Maryland. The Ford Foundation and the National Council of La Raza, NCLR named CASA de Maryland ``Affiliate of the Year'' in recognition of its hard work and dedication to providing services that improve the lives of Latinos and others in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. As we honor the achievements of Hispanics, we know that celebrating the Hispanic community for one month a year is not enough. All Latinos deserve a real opportunity to achieve the American dream, whether they have been here for generations or have just arrived on our shores.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Addiction Recovery Month this September, I would be honored to have Congress join me in celebrating those who commit their time and effort to addiction recovery. Last year, over 19 million Americans used illicit drugs. Fifty-five million had engaged in binge drinking, and over 16 million are considered heavy drinkers. These numbers are more than just statistics. If you take the time to examine them, they are in fact quite staggering. Imagine if the entire populations of New York and Los Angeles combined were all illicit drug users. Imagine if the entire population of Florida were heavy drinkers. That's how prevalent the problem is. The impact is felt not only by individuals and their families, but by society as well. Addiction costs our society and economy billions of dollars each year, in health care costs, property damage, and lost productivity. It also costs lives, and causes immense amounts of grief and pain. Each one of those millions of Americans has a story, and we should ensure that each one of them has the chance to tell their story to an addiction counselor, in hopes that they will receive the necessary treatment and care. Addiction is a disease, as serious and as deadly as many others. Alcohol and drug addiction are very serious, and very destructive. No one is immune from addiction, as it afflicts people of all ages, all races, all classes, and all professions. As with any serious disease, the treatment for addiction relies on great amounts of research and advances in health sciences. The National Institutes of Health is a leader in this regard, and many of its 27 institutes have committed funds to research on addiction, including research on how addiction takes over the brain, the body, and the central nervous system. Two institutes in particular at NIH focus only on this issue of critical importance: The National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. For many decades, these two institutes have been making tremendous strides in the fight against addiction. Congress spends billions of dollars each year on addiction research, and these institutes have justified our faith and commitment to this issue. Too often, problems in our society carry with them a certain stigma. Addiction is one such problem. Thousands, if not millions, of people do not seek treatment for addiction because of a misunderstanding of their condition, both on their behalf and on society's behalf. NIDA and NIAAA have both sought to understand this stigma, and bring it to an end. Led by Dr. Nora Volkow and Dr. T.K. Li, respectively, NIDA and NIAAA are constantly making progress to improve our understanding and treatment of addiction. Addiction is a disease, and must be attacked as such. Our fight against it must be aggressive and unyielding. Both NIDA and NIAAA fund scientists all over the country, who in turn will one day unlock the mysteries of addiction and its impact on individuals and society. NIDA and NIAAA provide the ammunition for the troops on the front lines battling this disease. I am referring of course to the addiction counselors, who must daily encounter the difficult task of prevention, intervention, and treatment. These foot-soldiers in our war against addiction need all of the support we can give them. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we can show our support for them through our strong support for NIDA, NIAAA, and the other NIH institutes committed to solving the enigma of addiction. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the priceless contributions of NIDA, NIAAA, and addiction counselors, and giving them our gratitude. Congress has shown strong support for this issue in the past in several ways--through legislation, through funding for the National Institutes of Health and the CDC, and through displaying a constant awareness of the gravity of this issue. Yet we are far from victory, and must continue our steadfast fight against drug and alcohol addiction. We look forward to the day when addiction to drugs and alcohol are eradicated, and these wonderful professionals can take their final bow. Until then, their hard work should be recognized and, more importantly, honored and appreciated.