Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman yielding, because the chairman has made that point several times. Does the chairman understand that future Supreme Courts may, in fact, have a completely different interpretation of that, and that my amendment does not say anything about those decisions? It just respects the system under which we are operating.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the residents of Rowan County, North Carolina, part of which is located in my congressional district, as they celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of their county. Rowan County was founded in 1753, more than 20 years before the American Revolution. Today Rowan County has around 135,000 residents and is a thriving part of North Carolina's Piedmont. Salisbury, the county seat, is known as the hometown of the Food Lion grocery store chain, Cheerwine soft drinks and my new colleague in the Senate, Senator Elizabeth Dole. I always look forward to visiting Rowan County and was planning to ride in their parade this afternoon had the House schedule allowed that to happen. I wish all the best to the Rowan County residents as they gather this weekend to celebrate the Rowan 250 Fest, with the theme of ``History's Crossroads''--looking back at Rowan County's rich history and looking forward to a bright future.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill, because it has not been properly considered through the committee process, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of drafting. This amendment is an effort to correct a real problem with the bill, because the bill purports to give an exception for suits where there are physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product when the product is used as intended. The problem is that there is no definition of ``when the product is used as intended,'' so you are left with this situation. I am sure my colleagues are going to tell you all kinds of things where lawsuits could go forward under this rubric, but I think a number of lawsuits are going to be foreclosed by this language, and I would like to just give one or two examples. First of all, I am holding in my hand 13 recall notices from manufacturers of weapons. These recall notices recall a product, a gun, a kind of gun, in a lot of cases because when it is accidentally dropped, the gun will discharge. Well, the question then becomes, if a gun is accidentally dropped, is it being used as intended? Is that gun being used as intended if a person accidentally drops the gun and it discharges? Mr. Chairman, you have heard the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) say that was the exact situation which left him paralyzed here, and we should leave no doubt that in those circumstances that there should be liability. Under this bill, this would apply even if the manufacturer had sent out a recall notice and the person had not acted on that recall notice. In fact, some of those recall notices say, do not do anything immediately on this, we are going to get to you 6 months down the road, and you can bring the gun back to the dealer, and we will correct whatever problem there is with the gun. So even if it is during that time period, there could be no potential liability here under this bill. I think this language is irresponsible; and I am sure my colleagues are going to say, well, we did not intend that. But that is what the bill says, I am reading from the language, and if we had considered this bill in the regular process in the committee, perhaps we could have done a better job. But they were so intent on getting this bill out of committee to the floor and at the National Rifle Association's convention 2 weeks down the road that they did not care about the language. Mr. Chairman, we should correct this, and this amendment allows us to do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that the effect of this amendment would be to limit the application of this bill to manufacturers only. As I said during the brief debate that we had in the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, on this bill, there are, in fact, some manufacturers who are attempting to address concerns that the public has about gun safety. Some of them are trying to develop safety locks. Some are trying to develop computerized techniques for ownership identification. If there is a rationale for this bill, which I do not believe there is, the rationale would be to reward those manufacturers who are acting responsibly. Unfortunately, the effect of this bill will be to reward them and incentivize them to act irresponsibly. I think that is a very, very unfortunate consequence of this bill. On the other hand, most of the outrageous stories that we hear about irresponsibility are not necessarily about the manufacturers of guns; they are about dealers and sellers who refuse to acknowledge anything other than their own profit motives. They want, when someone walks into their store, when somebody walks into their pawnshop, when somebody approaches them with some money, they want that money and they do not care what happens after that. We have heard example after example after example of that kind of irresponsibility on the part of dealers. Now, it is unfortunate that this bill covers not only manufacturers, it covers dealers, sellers, importers, the whole range of providers that put these guns into the stream of commerce. If there is any rationale for the bill, it is for the manufacturers. I do not think we ought to be excusing irresponsible dealers, such as the dealer who ignored the frequent disappearance of guns from his inventory. One of hundreds of missing guns, which were never reported missing despite having been prominently displayed in the store, ends up being used in the sniper attacks in Washington. This bill would immunize that dealer from liability. That is irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, let us have a debate about those manufacturers who are being responsible. I applaud their activities. Perhaps we could make a reasonable argument that they should be immunized from liability because they are making a product that is legal. I have heard that argument. I do not subscribe to it, but at least it has some credibility to it. But when we start immunizing everybody in the stream of commerce regardless of how responsible or irresponsible they are, that is where I draw the line. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage a ``yes'' vote on my amendment, which limits the impact of this bill to manufacturers only. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that if we want to protect dealers simply because they comply with the letter of the law, even though they know that they are making irresponsible decisions such as in the case of the officer, Officer Lemongello, who was shot by a gun that was sold by a dealer, they did follow all of the black letter of the law; but at the same time they knew that they were selling the guns not to the person who bought them, to the female person who bought the guns, but to the male person who was in there selecting the guns and identifying them. And they were so concerned that as soon as they walked out of the store they called ATF and said we have done something irresponsible, even though they had complied with the law. Now, all we are trying to do is make dealers and everybody throughout the process be responsible. And if we want to immunize that kind of conduct, then, I mean, I guess you are going to vote for this bill. Because that is what it does. But I am telling you we are being irresponsible when we do that. And if we really want to reward people who are trying to deal with gun violence, then we cannot keep rewarding dealers who act irresponsibly knowing that they act irresponsibly, importers, sellers. Perhaps there is a rationale for protecting manufacturers who have demonstrated a willingness to try to act responsibly. Some of them are trying to do the trigger lock thing, trying to do computerized identification. I think this bill is going to set them back because basically once we pass this bill, they do not have any incentive to even continue to do that. But if there is anybody who has a rationale, it perhaps is the manufacturers; and that is what this amendment would do, limit the effects of the bill to the manufacturers. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 1.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think, regarding the people who have made statements in support of and against this amendment, I think the problem is that we have left a substantial ambiguity in the law because we have not taken the time to deal with this in the committee, where it should have been dealt with. With all respect to the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), whom I respect and admire greatly, the fact that somebody shows up at a hearing and says that this language, ``used as intended,'' means one thing or another really is not going to be what controls that. The same judges that they have said are irresponsible are going to be making that determination. Mr. Chairman, when we write a piece of legislation, it is our responsibility to write it in a way that leaves them no discretion about what we mean. I would submit that a child who picks up a gun and drops it, and it discharges, most of us would stand here and say that that gun was not being used as intended. Therefore, the parents of that child would have no recourse; nobody would have any recourse against the manufacturer. I would submit that anybody who drops a gun and it accidentally discharges, as it did in the case of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), could reasonably argue that that was not, or that that falls within the exception. It is our responsibility to close these loopholes, not open additional ones. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the gentleman does not have other speakers.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I do insist, yes.

Mr. WATT. That is not what she said, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) be taken down.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I do not need the gentlewoman to apologize for my sensibilities. She needs to be apologizing for using words that are insulting to the entire African American race. And if that is what she is doing, then I gracefully accept her apology. But if she is saying that this is somehow because I am sensitive to those words, then I will not.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I would just encourage my colleagues to make their own judgment. If we add up all of the debate time about this bill, there will be about 3 hours. We are talking about undoing a system of law that has existed throughout our history, and we are doing it with 3 hours' worth of debate. Members should make the judgment about whether that is reasonable. Additionally, we are talking about doing it without consideration of any of the amendments, other than the five that were made in order, that were offered by people in this body who have or who represent the same number of people that the gentleman on the opposite side represents. Those amendments were not considered in committee and they will not be considered on the floor. So I do not know what this process is all about. We have made a mockery of the process in committee, and now we are about to do the same thing on the floor.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I first want to associate myself with the remarks that the gentleman made so eloquently in his statement. I am sure that both of us throughout the course of the day will be subjected to a number of phone calls saying that we are antigun. I personally do not think that is what this debate is about or should be about. The debate is about the bill that is in front of us and what it does to legal rights of people that have been recognized throughout history. I am sure that my staff in the office is prepared for the barrage of phone calls, but I hope we can keep this debate based on what is before us at this point. I am going to reserve my comments about the bill itself to the general debate on the bill, but I did want to rise in opposition to the rule reported by the Committee on Rules on this bill. Twelve Democratic amendments were timely submitted to the Committee on Rules. Of those 12, 10 were offered by members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and five of the 12 were made in order under this rule. I am the first to admit that that is a better record than the Committee on Rules has enjoyed throughout this Congress, and some people say I should be happy about that. But the process by which this bill came to the Committee on Rules and now comes to the floor leads me to be concerned that the rule does not do justice to us as Members or to the public. The bill first came before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, on which I serve as the ranking member, one day before the full committee markup. There was no markup of the bill in the subcommittee, and the hearing was conducted at a disadvantage by the fact that two of the witnesses' statements arrived late, one coming the night before the hearing and one coming the morning of the hearing. Under these circumstances, the full committee markup provided the sole opportunity for all Members, not just Democrats and not just those with concerns about the bill but all Members of the Committee on the Judiciary, to speak to the merits and concerns, or even in support of the legislation. But that never happened in the full committee, either. There was no deliberative process that brought this bill to the floor. There was no debate on what the various provisions of the bill mean. There was no opportunity to seek clarification, no opportunity to praise or explain, no opportunity to criticize or correct the bill. There was simply no process in the committee. Now, we wonder, how did that happen? Well, during the markup of the bill while one of my amendments was pending and numerous other Democratic amendments were at the desk to be considered, the majority abruptly decided that they would call a 5-minute recess in the proceeding, and they went into the back room. As soon as we got through deliberating the one amendment that was being considered, then they moved the previous question on the amendment, on the bill, and all other amendments got cut off. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I was debating when they abruptly called this recess was the only amendment that was actually offered and considered throughout the process. One other amendment had been offered and withdrawn earlier, and debate was cut off. I raise the question, if we have had no subcommittee process and we have had no full committee process, and if only five out of 12 amendments that people seek to offer on the floor will be considered, then when will this bill be considered? I raise the question, what are the supporters afraid of? Are they afraid to defend the bill? I am baffled by what this is all about. Now, I said in committee that I was concerned that we were rushing through the markup to get the bill to the floor so that the bill could be reported out in advance of the National Rifle Association's convention. Now I am wondering whether we are rushing through the process on the floor. When is this bill going to be considered? I think that is a relevant question. Now, the one amendment that I offered that was not made in order by the Committee on Rules would have had us have a debate about whether pending lawsuits, lawsuits that have already been filed by people who think that they were proceeding in good faith, maybe some of them were proceeding in good faith, but they were proceeding based on the law that existed at that time, those lawsuits would be wiped out by this bill. I think that is unconstitutional. If it is not unconstitutional as an ex post facto law, then it is certainly unfair and it is obscene. We should not be going back saying to the courts of appeals, trial courts, to dismiss cases based on a statute that we are passing at this point. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill needs to be considered, and I hope we will send it back to committee for that consideration.

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, the section that the motion to recommit would strike is section 3(b) of the bill, which reads as follows: ``A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.'' The effect of that language is to make this bill not only applicable to what happens from today forward or from the passage and enactment of the bill forward, but to make it have retrospective impact. We estimate that there are upwards of 300 pending lawsuits in various stages throughout the country. Those lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs thinking that the state of the law was as it existed prior to this bill being enacted, if in fact it is. So the effect of the bill would be to an ex post facto law, which we think would make the bill unconstitutional; but even if it did not make it unconstitutional, would certainly make it unfair to people who have filed their lawsuits in court and, in some cases, have proceeded with trial. Some of those cases are on appeal. This bill would require their dismissal, whether they are in discovery, whether they had just filed a complaint, whether they had gone through the trial process, or whether they are pending in the Court of Appeals. They may be pending in the United States Supreme Court. This bill would say those cases would have to be dismissed. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that neither the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, nor this House has done any evaluation of those pending lawsuits. There have been no hearings about what they entail. We do know that one of them that would be involved involves a police officer by the name of Lemongello who testified at the hearing that we had on this bill, and his lawsuit would be one of those that would be dismissed. The facts of his case indicate that he was the victim of a gun shot by an individual, who a dealer sold the gun to a female companion of that individual, knowing full well that the gun was not to be used by that female companion. And as soon as they got out the door with the gun, they were so suspicious of what was going on, they had immediately called the ATF about that. We think that the sniper case that is pending would be in jeopardy of being dismissed by this lawsuit by this bill if this amendment or motion to recommit is not adopted. And even my colleagues last year when this bill was being advanced through the House, upon recognizing what was going on in our community with the sniper incidents, said we are not going to consider this bill at this time. But here we are a year later saying that we are going to pass a bill that could eliminate potential civil liability on the part of the dealer, who should have known that the gun that was out there which they were not keeping accurate track of in their inventory, should have known that that gun was being distributed and sold, and that case would probably be dismissed. There are a number of other instances where cases would be dismissed if this bill goes forward in its current form. It is unseemly that this House would pass a bill that would have retroactive effect. It is one thing to say, okay, today, starting today we are putting you on notice that this is the law from this point forward. It is entirely another thing to say to people who have filed their lawsuits that the law is one thing that we are going to change and make this bill retroactive to you. I ask for my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed.