madam speaker , i thank the gentleman from georgia ( mr. gingrey ) xz4001510 for yielding me this time , and i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
madam speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation . 
my friends in the majority are again bringing to the floor a rule that blocks debate in the body before it begins . 
under this rule not one member of the house , republican or democrat , is permitted to offer an amendment . 
under this rule and under this bill , the gun lobby is rewarded while public safety is thwarted . 
a few examples : the gentleman from maryland ( mr. van hollen ) xz4004150 and the gentleman from california ( mr. waxman ) xz4004250 offered an amendment last night that prohibits suspected and known terrorists from purchasing firearms . 
that was not made in order . 
the gentlewoman from new york ( mrs. mccarthy ) xz4002570 , my good friend who will speak on this issue later , had an amendment that expands existing prohibitions on armor-piercing bullets to include those bullets capable of piercing body armor . 
and the gentlewoman from california ( ms. linda sanchez ) offered an amendment that permits courts to hear suits based on the sale of weapons to persons with domestic convictions . 
under this rule , however , not one of these amendments , or any of the five other commonsense amendments offered by democrats in the committee on rules last night , will be given any consideration by the full house . 
madam speaker , our government was built on the foundation of an open and transparent participatory process . 
yet , since 1994 , when republicans regained control of the house ; i might add , republicans that argued against closed rules , participation has been limited to only those who share their beliefs . 
the underlying legislation , which dismisses existing lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers and prohibits the filing of future suits , is not sound public policy . 
on the contrary , it is outright political grandstanding . 
during the last 3 years , more than 34 government entities have filed valid lawsuits against gun manufacturers , distributors , and trade associations . 
at the beginning of 2005 , 18 of those suits had won favorable rulings , while only a handful had been dismissed . 
the remaining cases are still in court , and i gather that this legislation contemplates eliminating those citizens ' rights to be in court . 
in fact , several state appeals and supreme courts have also ruled that gun manufacturers and dealers can be held liable for the reasonably foreseeable use of firearms for criminal purposes . 
settlements from these cases have forced gun manufacturers to make necessary safety modifications that the industry had previously refused to do . 
how many times do we have to see a baby with a gun in its hand or at its head or killing some member of the family before we get to safety modifications ? 
the ruling in the d.c . 
sniper case forced the gun manufacturer bushmaster to inform its dealers of safer sales practices that will prevent other criminals from obtaining guns , something that bushmaster had never done before . 
other rulings have resulted in major crackdowns on `` straw purchases , '' where legally purchased guns are resold to individuals unable to lawfully purchase a weapon on their own . 
in each of these instances , it is beyond fair to say that they were not frivolous lawsuits . 
yet , if the underlying legislation becomes law , when the cases are heard then none of them would have even been filed . 
perhaps my friends in the majority can help me understand what is so unreasonable in requiring an industry that produces a product with the sole purpose of killing to take the necessary precautions to protect public safety , and is it our belief that the american judicial system is incapable of properly dismissing lawsuits that are both unreasonable and overzealous ? 
they do it all the time . 
let us be honest and call this bill and this debate what they really are : legislative abuse , with closed rules and a political charade . 
republicans are using the legislative process in an attempt to penalize attorneys and trial lawyers , historically supporters of democrats , who hold the gun lobby , a major campaign contributor to my friends in the majority , accountable for its actions . 
the majority 's reckless disregard for judicial integrity mocks our constitution 's separation of powers doctrine . 
dangerously , it does so at the expense of american safety . 
i implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation , and i would say to my good friend , the gentleman from georgia ( mr. gingrey ) xz4001510 , that i know of nothing in my makeup that would cause me at any point in time to want to do anything in derogation of the rights of american citizens under the united states constitution . 
the second amendment , the right to own a gun , is everybody 's right . 
but manufacturers ought not be manufacturing guns that are not safe and are poorly manufactured , and nobody should be protecting them at all . 
madam speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
